Philippa Kaur

Forster D, Bittner L, Karkar S, Dunthorn M, Romac S, Audic S, et al. Testing ecological theories with sequence similarity networks: marine ciliates exhibit similar geographic dispersal patterns as multicellular organisms. BMC Biol. 2015;13:16. http://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-015-0125-5.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Galperin MY, Koonin EV. From complete genome sequence to ‘complete’ understanding? Trends Biotechnol. 2010;28:398–406. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0167779910000892.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Modha S, Robertson DL, Hughes J, Orton RJ. Quantifying and cataloguing unknown sequences within human microbiomes. mSystems. 2022;7:e01468–21. https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/msystems.01468-21.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wyman SK, Avila-Herrera A, Nayfach S, Pollard KS. A most wanted list of conserved microbial protein families with no known domains. PLoS One. 2018;13:e0205749. https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205749.Bernard G, Pathmanathan JS, Lannes R, Lopez P, Bapteste E. Microbial dark matter investigations: how microbial studies transform biological knowledge and empirically sketch a logic of scientific discovery. Genome Biol Evol. 2018;10:707–15. https://academic.oup.com/gbe/article/10/3/707/4840377.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Vanni C, Schechter MS, Acinas SG, Barberán A, Buttigieg PL, Casamayor EO, et al. Unifying the known and unknown microbial coding sequence space. eLife. 2022;11:e67667. https://elifesciences.org/articles/67667.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Jaroszewski L, Li Z, Krishna SS, Bakolitsa C, Wooley J, Deacon AM, et al. Exploration of uncharted regions of the protein universe. PLoS Biol. 2009;7:e1000205. https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000205.Meng A, Corre E, Probert I, Gutierrez-Rodriguez A, Siano R, Annamale A, et al. Analysis of the genomic basis of functional diversity in dinoflagellates using a transcriptome-based sequence similarity network. Mol Ecol. 2018;27:2365–80. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mec.14579.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Meng A, Marchet C, Corre E, Peterlongo P, Alberti A, Da Silva C, et al. A de novo approach to disentangle partner identity and function in holobiont systems. Microbiome. 2018;6:105. https://microbiomejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40168-018-0481-9.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Carradec Q, Pelletier E, Da Silva C, Alberti A, Seeleuthner Y, Tara Oceans Coordinators et al. A global ocean atlas of eukaryotic genes. Nat Commun. 2018;9:373. http://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02342-1.Ramond P, Sourisseau M, Simon N, Romac S, Schmitt S, Rigaut-Jalabert F, et al. Coupling between taxonomic and functional diversity in protistan coastal communities: functional diversity of marine protists. Environ Microbiol. 2019;21:730–49. http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/1462-2920.14537.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Zamkovaya T, Foster JS, de Crécy-Lagard V, Conesa A. A network approach to elucidate and prioritize microbial dark matter in microbial communities. ISME J. 2021;15:228–44. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41396-020-00777-x.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Sunagawa S, Coelho LP, Chaffron S, Kultima JR, Labadie K, Salazar G, et al. Structure and function of the global ocean microbiome. Science. 2015;348:1261359–1261359. https://www.sciencemag.org/lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1261359.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
de Vargas C, Audic S, Henry N, Decelle J, Mahe F, Logares R, et al. Eukaryotic plankton diversity in the sunlit ocean. Science. 2015;348:1261605–1261605. https://www.sciencemag.org/lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1261605.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Strassert JFH, Karnkowska A, Hehenberger E, del Campo J, Kolisko M, Okamoto N, et al. Single cell genomics of uncultured marine alveolates shows paraphyly of basal dinoflagellates. ISME J. 2018;12:304–8. http://www.nature.com/articles/ismej2017167.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Burki F, Sandin MM, Jamy M. Diversity and ecology of protists revealed by metabarcoding. Curr Biol. 2021;31:R1267–80. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0960982221010563.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Cai R, Kayal E, Alves-de-Souza C, Bigeard E, Corre E, Jeanthon C, et al. Cryptic species in the parasitic Amoebophrya species complex revealed by a polyphasic approach. Sci Rep. 2020;10:2531. http://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-59524-z.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Singer D, Seppey CVW, Lentendu G, Dunthorn M, Bass D, Belbahri L, et al. Protist taxonomic and functional diversity in soil, freshwater and marine ecosystems. Environ Int. 2021;146:106262. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0160412020322170.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Guillou L, Viprey M, Chambouvet A, Welsh RM, Kirkham AR, Massana R, et al. Widespread occurrence and genetic diversity of marine parasitoids belonging to Syndiniales (Alveolata). Environ Microbiol. 2008;10:3349–65. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1462-2920.2008.01731.x.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Clarke LJ, Bestley S, Bissett A, Deagle BE. A globally distributed Syndiniales parasite dominates the Southern Ocean micro-eukaryote community near the sea-ice edge. ISME J. 2019;13:734–7. http://www.nature.com/articles/s41396-018-0306-7.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Cleary AC, Durbin EG. Unexpected prevalence of parasite 18S rDNA sequences in winter among Antarctic marine protists. J Plankton Res. 2016;38:401–17. https://academic.oup.com/plankt/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/plankt/fbw005.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Anderson SR, Harvey EL. Temporal variability and ecological interactions of parasitic marine syndiniales in coastal protist communities. mSphere. 2020;5. https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mSphere.00209-20.Käse L, Metfies K, Neuhaus S, Boersma M, Wiltshire KH, Kraberg AC. Host-parasitoid associations in marine planktonic time series: can metabarcoding help reveal them? Amato A, editor. PLoS One. 2021;16:e0244817. https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244817.Jephcott TG, Alves-de-Souza C, Gleason FH, van Ogtrop FF, Sime-Ngando T, Karpov SA, et al. Ecological impacts of parasitic chytrids, syndiniales and perkinsids on populations of marine photosynthetic dinoflagellates. Fungal Ecology. 2016; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S175450481500032X.Siano R, Alves-de-Souza C, Foulon E, Bendif EM, Simon N, Guillou L, et al. Distribution and host diversity of Amoebophryidae parasites across oligotrophic waters of the Mediterranean Sea. Biogeosciences. 2011;8:267–78. https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/8/267/2011/.Article 

Google Scholar 
Moran MA, Ferrer‐González FX, Fu H, Nowinski B, Olofsson M, Powers MA, et al. The Ocean’s labile DOCsupply chain. Limnol Oceanogr. 2022;lno.12053. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/lno.12053.Chambouvet A, Morin P, Marie D, Guillou L. Control of toxic marine dinoflagellate blooms by serial parasitic killers. Science. 2008;322:1254–7. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1164387.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Shadrin AM, Kholodova MV, Pavlov DS. Geographic distribution and molecular genetic identification of the parasite of the genus Ichthyodinium causing mass mortality of fish eggs and larvae in coastal waters of Vietnam. Dokl Biol Sci. 2010;432:220–3. http://link.springer.com/10.1134/S0012496610030154.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Farhat S, Le P, Kayal E, Noel B, Bigeard E, Corre E, et al. Rapid protein evolution, organellar reductions, and invasive intronic elements in the marine aerobic parasite dinoflagellate Amoebophrya spp. BMC Biol. 2021;19:1. https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-020-00927-9.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Chambouvet A, Alves-de-Souza C, Cueff V, Marie D, Karpov S, Guillou L. Interplay between the parasite Amoebophrya sp. (Alveolata) and the cyst formation of the red tide Dinoflagellate Scrippsiella trochoidea. Protist. 2011;162:637–49. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1434461011000022.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Okamura B, Hartigan A, Naldoni J. Extensive uncharted biodiversity: the parasite dimension. integrative and comparative biology. 2018. https://academic.oup.com/icb/advance-article/doi/10.1093/icb/icy039/5026008.Rohde K. Ecology and Biogeography, Future Perspectives: Example Marine Parasites. Geoinfor Geostat Overview. 2016;4; http://www.scitechnol.com/peer-review/ecology-and-biogeography-future-perspectives-example-marine-parasites-wRny.php?article_id=4869.Pawlowski J, Audic S, Adl S, Bass D, Belbahri L, Berney C, et al. CBOL Protist Working Group: barcoding eukaryotic richness beyond the animal, plant, and fungal kingdoms. PLoS Biol. 2012;10:e1001419. https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001419.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
del Campo J, Sieracki ME, Molestina R, Keeling P, Massana R, Ruiz-Trillo I. The others: our biased perspective of eukaryotic genomes. Trends Ecol Evol. 2014;29:252–9. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0169534714000640.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Sibbald SJ, Archibald JM. More protist genomes needed. Nat Ecol Evol. 2017;1:0145. http://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-017-0145.Article 

Google Scholar 
Egge E, Elferink S, Vaulot D, John U, Bratbak G, Larsen A, et al. An 18S V4 rRNA metabarcoding dataset of protist diversity in the Atlantic inflow to the Arctic Ocean, through the year and down to 1000 m depth. Earth Syst Sci Data. 2021;13:4913–28. https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/13/4913/2021/.Article 

Google Scholar 
Mugnai F, Meglécz E, Abbiati M, Bavestrello G, Bertasi F, Bo M, et al. Are well-studied marine biodiversity hotspots still blackspots for animal barcoding? Global Ecol Conserv. 2021;32:e01909. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2351989421004595.Article 

Google Scholar 
Bittner L, Gobet A, Audic S, Romac S, Egge ES, Santini S, et al. Diversity patterns of uncultured Haptophytes unravelled by pyrosequencing in Naples Bay. Mol Ecol. 2013;22:87–101. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mec.12108.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Malviya S, Scalco E, Audic S, Vincent F, Veluchamy A, Poulain J, et al. Insights into global diatom distribution and diversity in the world’s ocean. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2016;113. https://pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1509523113.Kochin BF, Bull JJ, Antia R. Parasite evolution and life history theory. PLoS Biol. 2010;8:e1000524. https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000524.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Sheath DJ, Dick JTA, Dickey JWE, Guo Z, Andreou D, Britton JR. Winning the arms race: host–parasite shared evolutionary history reduces infection risks in fish final hosts. Biol Lett. 2018;14:20180363. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsbl.2018.0363.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Mahé F, de Vargas C, Bass D, Czech L, Stamatakis A, Lara E, et al. Parasites dominate hyperdiverse soil protist communities in Neotropical rainforests. Nat Ecol Evol. 2017;1:0091. http://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-017-0091.Article 

Google Scholar 
Blanco-Bercial L, Parsons R, Bolaños L, Johnson R, Giovannoni S, Curry R. The protist community mirrors seasonality and mesoscale hydrographic features in the oligotrophic Sargasso Sea. 2022. https://www.authorea.com/users/453879/articles/551657-the-protist-community-mirrors-seasonality-and-mesoscale-hydrographic-features-in-the-oligotrophic-sargasso-sea?commit=ba32b47ec0dffb4865eb448dd0b5dd27d5f8cd15.Lepère C, Domaizon I, Debroas D. Unexpected importance of potential parasites in the composition of the freshwater small-eukaryote community. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2008;74:2940–9. https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/AEM.01156-07.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Decelle J, Martin P, Paborstava K, Pond DW, Tarling G, Mahé F, et al. Diversity, ecology and biogeochemistry of cyst-forming acantharia (radiolaria) in the Oceans. PLoS One. 2013;8:e53598. https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0053598.Stern RF, Horak A, Andrew RL, Coffroth MA, Andersen RA, Küpper FC, et al. Environmental barcoding reveals massive dinoflagellate diversity in marine environments. PLoS One. 2010;5:e13991. https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0013991.Stoeck T, Bass D, Nebel M, Christen R, Jones MDM, Breiner HW, et al. Multiple marker parallel tag environmental DNA sequencing reveals a highly complex eukaryotic community in marine anoxic water. Mol Eco. 2010;19:21–31. http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04480.x.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chambouvet A, Gower DJ, Jirků M, Yabsley MJ, Davis AK, Leonard G, et al. Cryptic infection of a broad taxonomic and geographic diversity of tadpoles by Perkinsea protists. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2015;112. https://pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1500163112.Chauvet M, Debroas D, Moné A, Dubuffet A, Lepère C. Temporal variations of Microsporidia diversity and discovery of new host–parasite interactions in a lake ecosystem. Environ Microbiol. 2022;1462-2920.15950. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1462-2920.15950.Bjorbækmo MFM, Evenstad A, Røsæg LL, Krabberød AK, Logares R. The planktonic protist interactome: where do we stand after a century of research? ISME J. 2020;14:544–59. http://www.nature.com/articles/s41396-019-0542-5.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Dallas TA, Han BA, Nunn CL, Park AW, Stephens PR, Drake JM. Host traits associated with species roles in parasite sharing networks. Oikos. 2019;128:23–32. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/oik.05602.Article 

Google Scholar 
Lima-Mendez G, Faust K, Henry N, Decelle J, Colin S, Carcillo F, et al. Determinants of community structure in the global plankton interactome. Science. 2015;348:1262073. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1262073.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hayashi A, Crombie A, Lacey E, Richardson A, Vuong D, Piggott A, et al. Aspergillus Sydowii marine fungal bloom in Australian coastal waters, its metabolites and potential impact on symbiodinium dinoflagellates. Marine Drugs. 2016;14:59. http://www.mdpi.com/1660-3397/14/3/59.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Drew GC, Stevens EJ, King KC. Microbial evolution and transitions along the parasite–mutualist continuum. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2021;19:623–38. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-021-00550-7.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hehenberger E, Tikhonenkov D, Cooney E, Jacko-Reynolds V, Irwin N, Keeling P. Free-living relatives of highly abundant unicellular marine parasites elucidate plastid loss. 2022. https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1472581/v1.Sures B, Nachev M, Selbach C, Marcogliese DJ. Parasite responses to pollution: what we know and where we go in ‘Environmental Parasitology’. Parasites Vectors. 2017;10:65. http://parasitesandvectors.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13071-017-2001-3.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Payne RJ. Seven reasons why protists make useful bioindicators. Acta Protozoologica. 2013;52:105–13. https://doi.org/10.4467/16890027AP.13.0011.1108Article 

Google Scholar 
Vaulot D, Sim CWH, Ong D, Teo B, Biwer C, Jamy M, et al. metaPR 2: a database of eukaryotic 18S rRNAmetabarcodes with an emphasis on protists. Mol Ecol Resour. 2022;1755-0998.13674. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1755-0998.13674.Vernette C, Henry N, Lecubin J, Vargas C, Hingamp P, Lescot M. The Ocean barcode atlas: a web service to explore the biodiversity and biogeography of marine organisms. Mol Ecol Resour. 2021;21:1347–58. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1755-0998.13322.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Chust G, Vogt M, Benedetti F, Nakov T, Villéger S, Aubert A, et al. Mare incognitum: a glimpse into future plankton diversity and ecology research. Front Mar Sci. 2017;4. http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fmars.2017.00068/full.Guillou L, Bachar D, Audic S, Bass D, Berney C, Bittner L, et al. The Protist Ribosomal Reference database (PR2): a catalog of unicellular eukaryote Small Sub-Unit rRNA sequences with curated taxonomy. Nucl Acids Res. 2012;41:D597–604. http://academic.oup.com/nar/article/41/D1/D597/1064851/The-Protist-Ribosomal-Reference-database-PR2-a.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Coppola L, Raimbault P, Mortier L, Testor P. Monitoring the Environment in the Northwestern Mediterranean Sea. Eos 2019;100. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019EO125951.Callahan BJ, McMurdie PJ, Holmes SP. Exact sequence variants should replace operational taxonomic units in marker-gene data analysis. ISME J. 2017;11:2639–43;. http://www.nature.com/articles/ismej2017119.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
RStudio Team. RStudio: integrated development for R. Boston, MA: RStudio, PBC; 2020. http://www.rstudio.com/.Caracciolo M, Rigaut‐Jalabert F, Romac S, Mahé F, Forsans S, Gac J, et al. Seasonal dynamics of marine protist communities in tidally mixed coastal waters. Mol Ecol. 2022;31:3761–83. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mec.16539.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Giner CR, Balagué V, Krabberød AK, Ferrera I, Reñé A, Garcés E, et al. Quantifying long‐term recurrence in planktonic microbial eukaryotes. Mol Ecol. 2019;28:923–35. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mec.14929.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Giner CR, Pernice MC, Balagué V, Duarte CM, Gasol JM, Logares R, et al. Marked changes in diversity and relative activity of picoeukaryotes with depth in the world ocean. ISME J. 2020;14:437–49. http://www.nature.com/articles/s41396-019-0506-9.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lambert S, Tragin M, Lozano JC, Ghiglione JF, Vaulot D, Bouget FY, et al. Rhythmicity of coastal marine picoeukaryotes, bacteria and archaea despite irregular environmental perturbations. ISME J. 2019;13:388–401. http://www.nature.com/articles/s41396-018-0281-z.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Logares R, Deutschmann IM, Junger PC, Giner CR, Krabberød AK, Schmidt TSB, et al. Disentangling the mechanisms shaping the surface ocean microbiota. Microbiome. 2020;8:55. https://microbiomejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40168-020-00827-8.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Pernice MC, Giner CR, Logares R, Perera-Bel J, Acinas SG, Duarte CM, et al. Large variability of bathypelagic microbial eukaryotic communities across the world’s oceans. ISME J. 2016;10:945–58. http://www.nature.com/articles/ismej2015170.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Massana R, Gobet A, Audic S, Bass D, Bittner L, Boutte C, et al. Marine protist diversity in European coastal waters and sediments as revealed by high-throughput sequencing: protist diversity in European coastal areas. Environ Microbiol. 2015;17:4035–49. http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/1462-2920.12955.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Csardi G, Nepusz T. The igraph software package for complex network research. InterJ Complex Syst. 2006;1695:1–9.
Google Scholar 
Bray JR, Curtis JT. An ordination of the upland forest communities of Southern Wisconsin. Ecol Monographs. 1957;27:325–49. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2307/1942268.Article 

Google Scholar 
Robert P, Escoufier Y. A unifying tool for linear multivariate statistical methods: the RV- coefficient. J R Stat Soc Ser C Appl Stat. 1976;25:257–65. https://doi.org/10.2307/2347233Article 

Google Scholar 
Ruf T. The lomb-scargle periodogram in biological rhythm research: analysis of incomplete and unequally spaced time-series. Biol Rhythm Res. 1999;30:178–201. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1076/brhm.30.2.178.1422.Article 

Google Scholar  More

In co-culture with the bacterivorous flagellate Poteriospumella lacustris, the prey bacterium Pseudomonas putida exhibited a characteristic succession of predation defenses. The initial and the final defense differed substantially from one another with regard to their mechanism and their population-level benefits to the bacteria.Our results strongly indicate that the initial bacterial defense falls into the category of chemical defense, and is regulated by phenotypic plasticity. This would require P. putida to be able to sense predator density and to regulate the excretion of inhibitory substances accordingly. Because a considerable proportion of the P. putida genome is known to be involved in regulation and signal transduction allowing for very flexible responses to environmental triggers [41] both conditions are likely to be met. The filtrate exposure tests (Fig. 3) provide specific evidence for the ability of P. putida KT2440 to up- and downregulate the excretion of compounds inhibiting flagellate growth in response to grazing pressure. Previous research [25] corroborated the ability of P. putida to escape grazing from bacterivorous flagellates through induced responses like aggregation or biofilm formation.To provide a possible characterization for the apparent bacterial toxin, the whole-genome sequences of P. putida KT2440 obtained here were aligned against the antiSMASH [42] database. The output suggests the existence of non-ribosomal peptide synthetase clusters mediating the production of pyoverdines, a particular class of siderophores. The latter are molecules released by bacteria into the environment, which enhance the uptake of essential metals like, e.g., iron under deficient conditions. Specific pyoverdines associated with P. putida KT2440 have previously been identified [43]. Recent findings have shown that the benefits from siderophore production are not limited to competitive advantages gained from enhanced resource exploitation [44]. Pyoverdines were also demonstrated to determine the virulence of Pseudomonads via the damage of mitochondria in colonized hosts [45]. Moreover, pyoverdines were shown to be involved in the inducible defense of P. putida against predatory myxobacteria [46]. Such multiple functions have been reported for a number of bacterial metabolites, especially in Pseudomonads [47], and the particular combination of pyoverdin effects would explain the observed simultaneous flagellate inhibition and promoted bacterial growth.In contrast to the initial chemical defense of P. putida, the subsequent filamentation clearly provides an example of rapid evolution. Although the responsible mutation(s) could only be pinpointed in a few isolates so far (Table S1), there is no doubt about the genetic manifestation and heritability of the filamentous phenotype due to its demonstrated non-reversible nature.Only recently, similar observations were made by long-term co-cultivation of Pseudomonas fluorescence with the amoeboid predator Neaglena grubei [48]. In that system, protective adaptations like enhanced biofilm formation and altered motility were traced down to mutations in two particular genes (wspF, amrZ).From the perspective of the bacterial population, filamentation appears to be a much less efficient defense mechanism than toxin production. This is clearly reflected by the ratio of prey to predator biomass, which differed by two orders of magnitude between the initial and final defense (Table 6). It raises the question of why bacteria would abandon a highly effective form of defense in favor of a much less effective one. As demonstrated experimentally, adaptation of predators to the toxin can be excluded as a cause (Fig. 4). Moreover, it was not instantly evident how the small-sized flagellate was ultimately able to persist in large numbers given a very high proportion of completely inedible prey individuals (Fig. 1D and Fig. S2).Table 6 Average abundance of predator and prey during the temporary steady state following the initial bacterial defense (day 13–16) and during the final steady state (beyond day 30).Full size tableTo develop a comprehensive understanding of the system addressing the questions raised above, we set up a semi-continuous differential equation model to simulate the dynamics of predator and prey phenotypes. The model considers seven state variables (carbon, densities of four bacterial phenotypes, flagellate density, and toxin concentration) whose dynamics are controlled by nine processes (Table 3, Fig. 2). In addition to microbial growth and grazing, the model implements a phenotypically plastic predation defense (toxin production) as well as a genetic defense (filamentation) which arises via mutation. The particular assumptions implemented in the model are as follows:Dual effect of bacterial metabolitesIn line with the above discussion on siderophore-like compounds, secondary metabolites excreted by P. putida were assumed to exhibit a dual function, both inhibiting the growth of flagellates and allowing for a more efficient exploitation of the resources by bacteria. The inhibition of predators was demonstrated directly (Figs. 3 and 4) while enhanced resource exploitation was inferred from bacterial abundances in co-cultures exceeding the carrying capacity observed in predator-free controls (Fig. 1A, day 11–18).Metabolite production is costlyThe production of bacterial metabolites was assumed to be associated with a slight fitness cost [49] since resources are diverted from reproduction, thus resulting in a lowered growth rate of toxin-producing bacteria. The assumed fitness cost of 11% (parameter cBx in Table 5) allowed for the best agreement between simulated and observed data and is in agreement with data on the cost of pyoverdine production by P. aeruginosa [50]. The cost only manifests when toxin production is upregulated.Predator recognition and quorum sensing interactIn the model, the production of bacterial metabolites is upregulated when the two conditions of high flagellate abundance and high bacterial abundance coincide. That is, the expression of the toxin-based bacterial defense is assumed to be jointly controlled by predator recognition and quorum sensing (QS). Examples for such joint control of bacterial defenses have been reported previously [8, 26, 51]. The involvement of QS in chemical defense strategies is particularly likely as effective toxin concentrations can only be reached when producers are highly abundant. While multiple QS systems have been described for other Pseudomonads, only a single system has been identified in P. putida KT2440 so far [52, 53].Mutation rates are conditional on stressThe emergence of mutations resulting in the filamentation of P. putida was assumed to be conditional on a high ambient concentration of bacterial metabolites. The latter was considered as a proxy for bacterial stress which can affect mutagenesis either directly or indirectly by a variety of mechanisms [54,55,56]. Without this assumption, the almost synchronous appearance of filaments in all replicates at a late point in time would be very difficult to explain. Specifically, if mutation frequencies were high, filaments would become the predominant phenotype early (Fig. S3) which contradicts observations. On the other hand, if frequencies were low but unconditional, the timing of filament appearance should vary between replicates, which is in contrast to observations either (Fig. 1B).Filamentation is associated with a fitness costMeasurements of growth rate constants revealed a significant fitness disadvantage of filamentous isolates in comparison to single-celled, undefended isolates (p  More

An, Z., Guo, F., Chen, Y., Bai, G. & Chen, Z. Rhizosphere bacterial and fungal communities during the growth of Angelica sinensis seedlings cultivated in an Alpine uncultivated meadow soil. PeerJ 8, e8541. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8541 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Munkholm, L. J., Heck, R. J. & Deen, B. Long-term rotation and tillage effects on soil structure and crop yield. Soil Tillage Res. 127, 85–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2012.02.007 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jiao, X. L. et al. Effects of maize rotation on the physicochemical properties and microbial communities of American ginseng cultivated soil. Sci. Rep. 9, 8615. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-44530-7 (2019).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wang, X., Chen, Y., Guo, F., Yuan, H. & Guo, Y. Effects of medicinal crop stubbles on physiological and biochemical characteristics of Angelica sinensis seedings. J. Chin. Med. Mater. 40, 2002–2006 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Jin, Y. et al. Effect of various crop residues on growth and disease resisitance of Angelica sinensis seedlings in Min County. Acta Pratacul. Sin. 27, 69–78 (2018).MathSciNet 

Google Scholar 
Bai, G., Guo, F., Chen, Y., Yuan, H. & Xiao, W. Differences in physiological resistance traits of Angelica sinensis seedlings from uncultivated and cultivated fields in Min County. Acta Pratacul. Sin. 28, 86–95 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Bai, G. et al. Regulated effects of preceding crop on soil property and cultivating seedlings for Angelica sinensis on cultivated farmland. Chin. J. Eco-Agric. 28, 701–712. https://doi.org/10.13930/j.cnki.cjea.190719 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mendes, R., Garbeva, P. & Raaijmakers, J. M. The rhizosphere microbiome: Significance of plant beneficial, plant pathogenic, and human pathogenic microorganisms. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 37, 634–663 (2013).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Tkacz, A., Cheema, J., Chandra, G., Grant, A. & Poole, P. S. Stability and succession of the rhizosphere microbiota depends upon plant type and soil composition. Int. Soc. Microb. Ecol. 9, 2349–2359. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2015.41 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Berg, G. et al. Microbiome definition re-visited: Old concepts and new challenges. Microbiome 8, 103. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-020-00875-0 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Chaparro, J. M., Badri, D. V. & Vivanco, J. M. Rhizosphere microbiome assemblage is affected by plant development. ISME J. 8, 790–803. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2013.196 (2014).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Uroz, S. et al. Specific impacts of beech and Norway spruce on the structure and diversity of the rhizosphere and soil microbial communities. Sci. Rep. 6, 27756. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep27756 (2016).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Chamberlain, L. A. et al. Crop rotation, but not cover crops, influenced soil bacterial community composition in a corn-soybean system in southern Wisconsin. Appl. Soil Ecol. 154, 103603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2020.103603 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Classen, A. T. et al. Direct and indirect effects of climate change on soil microbial and soil microbial-plant interactions: What lies ahead?. Ecosphere 6, 130. https://doi.org/10.1890/es15-00217.1 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tiemann, L. K. et al. Crop rotational diversity enhances belowground communities and functions in an agroecosystem. Ecol. Lett. 18, 761–771. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12453 (2015).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Maldonado, S. et al. Enhanced crop productivity and sustainability by using native phosphate solubilizing rhizobacteria in the agriculture of arid zones. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 4, 607355. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.607355 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gómez Expósito, R., de Bruijn, I., Postma, J. & Raaijmakers, J. M. Current insights into the role of rhizosphere bacteria in disease suppressive soils. Front. Microbiol.y 8, 2529. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.02529 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, X., Rui, J., Mao, Y., Yannarell, A. & Mackie, R. Dynamics of the bacterial community structure in the rhizosphere of a maize cultivar. Soil Biol. Biochem. 68, 392–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.10.017 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Fierer, N. et al. Comparative metagenomic, phylogenetic and physiological analyses of soil microbial communities across nitrogen gradients. Int. Soc. Microb. Ecol. 6, 1007–1017. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2011.159 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kuffner, M. et al. Culturable bacteria from Zn- and Cd-accumulating Salix caprea with differential effects on plant growth and heavy metal availability. J. Appl. Microbiol. 108, 1471–1484. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2010.04670.x (2010).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
De Corato, U. Disease-suppressive compost enhances natural soil suppressiveness against soil-borne plant pathogens: A critical review. Rhizosphere 13, 100192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rhisph.2020.100192 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brookes, P. C., Landman, A., Pruden, G. & Jenkinson, D. S. Chloroform fumigation chloroform fumigation and the release of soil nitrogen: a rapid direct extraction method to measure microbial biomass nitrogen in soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 17, 837–842 (1985).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Arnebrant, K. & Schnürer, J. Changes in atp content during and after chloroform fumigation. Soil Biol. Biochem. 22, 875–877 (1990).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Toju, H. et al. Community composition of root-associated fungi in a Quercus-dominated temperate forest: “codominance” of mycorrhizal and root-endophytic fungi. Ecol. Evol. 3, 1281–1293. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.546 (2013).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

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

Google Scholar 
Bokulich, N. A. et al. Quality-filtering vastly improves diversity estimates from Illumina amplicon sequencing. Nat. Methods 10, 57–59. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2276 (2013).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Edgar, R. C., Haas, B. J., Clemente, J. C., Quince, C. & Knight, R. UCHIME improves sensitivity and speed of chimera detection. Bioinformatics 27, 2194–2200 (2011).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Haas, B. J. et al. Chimeric 16S rRNA sequence formation and detection in Sanger and 454-pyrosequenced PCR amplicons. Genome Res. 21, 494–504. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.112730.110 (2011).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Edgar, R. C. UPARSE: Highly accurate OTU sequences from microbial amplicon reads. Nat. Methods 10, 996–998. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2604 (2013).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wang, Q., Garrity, G. M., Tiedje, J. M. & Cole, J. R. Naive Bayesian classifier for rapid assignment of rRNA sequences into the new bacterial taxonomy. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 73, 5261–5267. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00062-07 (2007).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
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. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gks1219 (2013).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

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

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

Google Scholar 
Nguyen, N. H. et al. FUNGuild: An open annotation tool for parsing fungal community datasets by ecological guild. Fungal Ecol. 20, 241–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.funeco.2015.06.006 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sisk-Hackworth, L., Ortiz-Velez, A., Reed, M. B. & Kelley, S. T. Compositional data analysis of periodontal disease microbial communities. Front. Microbiol. 12, 617949. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2021.617949 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Khan, M. A. W. et al. Deforestation impacts network co-occurrence patterns of microbial communities in Amazon soils. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 95, fiy230. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiy230 (2019).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, B., Zhang, J., Liu, Y., Shi, P. & Wei, G. Co-occurrence patterns of soybean rhizosphere microbiome at a continental scale. Soil Biol. Biochem. 118, 178–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2017.12.011 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Huang, M., Jiang, L., Zou, Y., Xu, S. & Deng, G. Changes in soil microbial properties with no-tillage in Chinese cropping systems. Biol. Fertil. Soils 49, 373–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-013-0778-6 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Unger, P. W. & Cassel, D. K. Tillage implement disturbance effects on soil properties related to soil and water conservation: A literature review. Soil Tillage Res. 19, 363–382 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
Alvarez, R. & Steinbach, H. S. A review of the effects of tillage systems on some soil physical properties, water content, nitrate availability and crops yield in the Argentine Pampas. Soil Tillage Res. 104, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2009.02.005 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Essel, E. et al. Bacterial and fungal diversity in rhizosphere and bulk soil under different long-term tillage and cereal/legume rotation. Soil Tillage Res. 194, 104302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2019.104302 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhu, Q., Wang, N., Duan, B., Wang, Q. & Wang, Y. Rhizosphere bacterial and fungal communities succession patterns related to growth of poplar fine roots. Sci. Total Environ. 756, 143839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143839 (2021).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Guseva, K. et al. From diversity to complexity: Microbial networks in soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 169, 108604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2022.108604 (2022).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Jiang, B. et al. Analysis of microbial community structure and diversity in surrounding rock soil of different waste dump sites in fushun western opencast mine. Chemosphere 269, 128777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.128777 (2020).Article 
ADS 
MathSciNet 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Liu, J. et al. Pecan plantation age influences the structures, ecological networks, and functions of soil microbial communities. Land Degrad. Dev. 33, 3294–3309. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.4389 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lv, X. et al. Strengthening insights in microbial ecological networks from theory to applications. mSystems 4, e00124-19. https://doi.org/10.1128/mSystems.00124-19 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Toju, H., Kishida, O., Katayama, N. & Takagi, K. Networks depicting the fine-scale co-occurrences of fungi in soil Horizons. PLoS ONE 11, e0165987. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165987 (2016).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Chun, S. J., Cui, Y., Baek, S. H., Ahn, C. Y. & Oh, H. M. Seasonal succession of microbes in different size-fractions and their modular structures determined by both macro- and micro-environmental filtering in dynamic coastal waters. Sci. Total Environ. 784, 147046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147046 (2021).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Cardinale, M., Grube, M., Erlacher, A., Quehenberger, J. & Berg, G. Bacterial networks and co-occurrence relationships in the lettuce root microbiota. Environ. Microbiol. 17, 239–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.12686 (2015).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Zhou, Z. et al. Increases in bacterial community network complexity induced by biochar-based fertilizer amendments to karst calcareous soil. Geoderma 337, 691–700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.10.013 (2019).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Olesen, J. M., Bascompte, J., Dupont, Y. L. & Jordano, P. The modularity of pollination networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104, 19891–19896. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0706375104 (2007).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Eisenhauer, N. et al. Root biomass and exudates link plant diversity with soil bacterial and fungal biomass. Sci. Rep. 7, 44641. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep44641 (2017).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hassan, M. K., McInroy, J. A. & Kloepper, J. W. The interactions of rhizodeposits with plant growth-promoting Rhizobacteria in the rhizosphere: A review. Agriculture 9, 142. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture9070142 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sasse, J., Martinoia, E. & Northen, T. Feed your friends: Do plant exudates shape the root microbiome?. Trends Plant Sci. 23, 25–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2017.09.003 (2018).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, F., Xu, X., Wang, G., Wu, B. & Xiao, Y. Medicago sativa and soil microbiome responses to Trichoderma as a biofertilizer in alkaline-saline soils. Appl. Soil Ecol. 153, 103573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2020.103573 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Woźniak, A. Chemical properties and enzyme activity of soil as affected by tillage system and previous crop. Agriculture 9, 262. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture9120262 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Choudhary, M. et al. Changes in soil biology under conservation agriculture based sustainable intensification of cereal systems in Indo-Gangetic Plains. Geoderma 313, 193–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.10.041 (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ai, C. et al. Distinct responses of soil bacterial and fungal communities to changes in fertilization regime and crop rotation. Geoderma 319, 156–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.01.010 (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gałązka, A., Gawyjołek, K., Perzyński, A., Gałązka, R. & Jerzy, K. Changes in enzymatic activities and microbial communities in soil under long-term maize monoculture and crop rotation. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 26, 39–46. https://doi.org/10.15244/pjoes/64745 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Tremblay, C., Deslauriers, A., Lafond, J., Lajeunesse, J. & Paré, M. Effects of soil pH and fertilizers on haskap (Lonicera caerulea L) vegetative growth. Agriculture 9, 56. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture9030056 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sirisuntornlak, N. et al. Interactive effects of silicon and soil pH on growth, yield and nutrient uptake of maize. SILICON 13, 289–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12633-020-00427-z (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Xu, Y., Ge, Y., Song, J. & Rensing, C. Assembly of root-associated microbial community of typical rice cultivars in different soil types. Biol. Fertil. Soils 56, 249–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-019-01406-2 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Putranta, H., Permatasari, A. K., Sukma, T. A. & Dwandaru, W. S. B. The effect of pH, electrical conductivity, and nitrogen (N) in the soil at yogyakarta special region on tomato plant growth. TEM J.-Technol. Educ. Manag. Inform. 8, 860–865. https://doi.org/10.18421/TEM83-24 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, J. et al. Effects of alternate partial root-zone irrigation on soil microorganism and maize growth. Plant Soil 302, 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-007-9453-8 (2007).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yang, X., Zhu, K., Loik, M. E. & Sun, W. Differential responses of soil bacteria and fungi to altered precipitation in a meadow steppe. Geoderma 384, 114812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114812 (2021).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Balota, E. L., Colozzi Filho, A., Andrade, D. S. & Dick, R. P. Long-term tillage and crop rotation effects on microbial biomass and C and N mineralization in a Brazilian Oxisol. Soil Tillage Res. 77, 137–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2003.12.003 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Franchini, J., Crispino, C., Souza, R., Torres, E. & Hungria, M. Microbiological parameters as indicators of soil quality under various soil management and crop rotation systems in southern Brazil. Soil Tillage Res. 92, 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2005.12.010 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, X., Wang, T., Chang, S. X., Jiang, X. & Song, Y. Biochar increases soil microbial biomass but has variable effects on microbial diversity: A meta-analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 749, 141593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141593 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lynch, J. M. & Panting, L. M. Effects of season, cultivation and nitrogen fertiliser on the size of the soil microbial biomass. J. Sci. Food Agric. 33, 249–252 (1982).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Tan, G. et al. Effects of biochar application with fertilizer on soil microbial biomass and greenhouse gas emissions in a peanut cropping system. Environ. Technol. 42, 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2019.1620344 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Liu, C. et al. Linkages between nutrient ratio and the microbial community in rhizosphere soil following fertilizer management. Environ. Res. 184, 109261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109261 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Li, H. et al. Film mulching, residue retention and N fertilization affect ammonia volatilization through soil labile N and C pools. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 308, 107272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2020.107272 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jiao, P. et al. Bacteria are more sensitive than fungi to moisture in eroded soil by natural grass vegetation restoration on the Loess Plateau. Sci. Total Environ. 756, 143899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143899 (2021).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Sommer, J. et al. The tree species matters: Belowground carbon input and utilization in the myco-rhizosphere. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 81, 100–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejsobi.2017.07.001 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yu, K., Pieterse, C. M. J., Bakker, P. A. H. M. & Berendsen, R. L. Beneficial microbes going underground of root immunity. Plant Cell Environ. 42, 2860–2870. https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.13632 (2019).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
de Varennes, A. & Goss, M. J. The tripartite symbiosis between legumes, rhizobia and indigenous mycorrhizal fungi is more efficient in undisturbed soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 39, 2603–2607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.05.007 (2007).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wang, X. et al. Mycorrhizal symbiosis modulates the rhizosphere microbiota to promote rhizobia-legume symbiosis. Mol. Plant 14, 503–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molp.2020.12.002 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, R., Vivanco, J. M. & Shen, Q. The unseen rhizosphere root-soil-microbe interactions for crop production. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 37, 8–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mib.2017.03.008 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Berendsen, R. L., Pieterse, C. M. & Bakker, P. A. The rhizosphere microbiome and plant health. Trends Plant Sci. 17, 478–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2012.04.001 (2012).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar  More

Breed differences in animal feed conversion and economic trait performanceThroughout the feed intake measurement period, summary statistics shows animals on test had an average DMI of 1.11 kg/d (SD = 0.18), ADG of 0.27 kg/d (SD = 0.1), FCR of 4.04 kg of DMI/ Kg of ADG (SD = 0.1), start weight of 29.60 kg (SD = 3.7), final live weight of 46.00 kg (SD = 2.9), carcass weight of 20.20 kg (SD = 1.6), and a KO% of 44.1% (SD = 2.3). Average daily gain (P = 0.005), FCR (P = 0.035), CW (P  More

Finkelman, S., Navarro, S., Rindner, M. & Dias, R. Effect of low pressure on the survival of Trogoderma granarium Everts, Lasioderma serricorne (F.) and Oryzaephilus surinamensis (L.) at 30°C. J. Stored. Prod. Res. 42, 23–30 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hosseininaveh, V., Bandani, A., Azmayeshfard, P., Hosseinkhani, S. & Kazzazi, M. Digestive proteolytic and amylolytic activities in Trogoderma granarium Everts (Dermestidae: Coleoptera). J. Stored. Prod. Res. 43, 515–522 (2007).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Burges, H. D. Development of the khapra beetle, Trogoderma granarium, in the lower part of its temperature range. J. Stored. Prod. Res. 44, 32–35 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hagstrum, D. W. & Subramanyam, B. Stored-Product Insect Resource 1–518 (AACC International Inc, 2009).Book 

Google Scholar 
Beal, R. S. Synopsis of the economic species of Trogoderma occurring in the United States with description of a new species (Coleoptera: Dermestidae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 49, 559–566 (1956).Article 

Google Scholar 
Day, C. & White, B. Khapra beetle, Trogoderma granarium interceptions and eradications in Australia and around the world. Crawley, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia, SARE Working paper 1609, (2016).Kerr, J. A. Khapra beetle returns. Pest Control 49, 24–25 (1981).
Google Scholar 
Stibick, J.N. New pest response guidelines: khapra beetle. US Department of Agriculture, Marketing and Regulatory Programs, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Riverdale, pp. 114 (2009).Myers, S. W. & Hagstrum, D. W. Quarantine. In Stored Product Protection (eds Hagstrum, D. W. et al.) 297–304 (Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service, 2012).
Google Scholar 
Athanassiou, C. G., Phillips, T. W. & Wakil, W. Biology and control of the khapra beetle, Trogoderma granarium, a major quarantine threat to global food security. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 64, 131–148 (2019).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Barak, A. V. Development of a new trap to detect and monitor khapra beetle (Coleoptera: Dermestidae). J. Econ. Entom. 82, 1470–1477 (1989).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gerken, A. R. & Campbell, J. F. Life history changes in Trogoderma variabile and T. inclusum due to mating delay with implications for mating disruption as a management tactic. Ecol. Evol. 8, 2428–2439 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Partida, G. J. & Strong, R. G. Comparative studies on the biologies of six species of Trogoderma: T variabile. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 68, 115–125 (1975).Article 

Google Scholar 
Strong, R. G. Comparative studies on the biologies of six species of Trogoderma: T inclusum. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 68, 91–104 (1975).Article 

Google Scholar 
Phillips, T. W., Pfannenstiel, L. & Hagstrum, D. Survey of Trogoderma species (Coleoptera: Dermestidae) associated with international trade of dried distiller’s grains and solubles in the USA. Julius Kühn Archiv. 463, 233–238 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Hadaway, A. The biology of the beetles, Trogoderma granarium Everts and Trogoderma versicolor (Creutz). Bull. Entomol. Res. 46, 781–796 (1956).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Phillips, T.W., Pfannenstiel, L. & Hagstrum, D. Survey of Trogoderma species (Coleoptera: Dermestidae) associated with international trade of dried distiller’s grains and solubles in the USA. In: Adler CS, Opit G, Fürstenau B, Müller-Blenkle C, Kern P, Arthur FH et al., editors. Proceedings of the 12th International Working Conference on Stored Product Protection; Vol. 1, Quedlinburg, Julius-Kühn-Archiv, pp. 233–238 (2018).Gorham, J.R. Insect and Mite Pests in Food: An Illustrated Key. Vol. 1 and 2. US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (1991).Olson, R. L. O., Farris, R. E., Barr, N. B. & Cognato, A. I. Molecular identification of Trogoderma granarium (Coleoptera: Dermestidae) using the 16S gene. J. Pest Sci. 87, 701–710 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Furui, S., Miyanoshita, A., Imamura, T., Minegishi, Y. & Kokutani, R. Qualitative real-time PCR identification of the khapra beetle, Trogoderma granarium (Coleoptera: Dermestidae). Appl. Entomol. Zool. 54, 101–107 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rako, L. et al. A LAMP (loop-mediated isothermal amplification) test for rapid identification of Khapra beetle (Trogoderma granarium). Pest Manag. Sci. 77, 5509–5521 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Castañé, C., Agustí, N., del Estal, P. & Riudavets, J. Survey of Trogoderma spp. in Spanish mills and warehouses. J. Stored. Prod. Res. 88, 101661 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Trujillo-González, et al. Detection of khapra beetle environmental DNA using portable technologies in Australian biosecurity. Front. Insect Sci. 2, e795379 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Svec, D., Tichopad, A., Novosadova, V., Pfaffl, M. W. & Kubista, M. How good is a PCR efficiency estimate: Recommendations for precise and robust qPCR efficiency assessments. Biomol. Detect. Quantif. 3, 9–16 (2015).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Taylor, S. C. et al. The Ultimate qPCR experiment: Producing publication quality, reproducible data the first time. Trends Biotechnol. 37, 761–774 (2019).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Van Holm, W. et al. A viability quantitative PCR dilemma: Are longer amplicons better?. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 87, e0265320 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

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

Google Scholar 
Wittwer, C. T. & Kusakawa, N. Real-time PCR. In Molecular microbiology: Diagnostic principles and practice (eds Persing, D. H. et al.) 71–84 (ASM Press, 2004).
Google Scholar 
Stewart, D. et al. A needle in a haystack: A multigene TaqMan assay for the detection of Asian gypsy moths in bulk pheromone trap samples. Biol. Invasions 21, 1843–1856 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Butterwort, V. et al. A DNA extraction method for insects from sticky traps: Targeting a low abundance pest, Phthorimaea absoluta (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae), in mixed species communities. J. Econ. Entom. 115, 844–851 (2022).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Carew, M. E., Coleman, R. A. & Hoffmann, A. A. Can non-destructive DNA extraction of bulk invertebrate samples be used for metabarcoding?. PeerJ 6, e4980 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Domingue, M.J. et al. Outcome of direct competition between Trogoderma granarium and Trogoderma inclusum over varying commodities, temperatures, and experimental duration. In Submission to Scientific Reports.Zieritz, A. et al. Development and evaluation of hotshot protocols for cost- and time-effective extraction of PCR-ready DNA from single freshwater mussel larvae (Bivalvia: Unionida). J. Molluscan Stud. 84, 198–201 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Djoumad, A. et al. Development of a qPCR-based method for counting overwintering spruce budworm (Choristoneura fumiferana) larvae collected during fall surveys and for assessing their natural enemy load: A proof-of-concept study. Pest Manag. Sci. 78, 336–343 (2022).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Chen, H., Rangasamy, M., Tan, S. Y., Wang, H. & Siegfried, B. D. Evaluation of five methods for total DNA extraction from western corn rootworm beetles. PLoS ONE 5, e11963 (2010).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Beckmann, J. S. & Soller, M. Restriction fragment length polymorphisms in genetic improvement: Methodologies, mapping and costs. Theor. Appl. Genet. 67, 35–43 (1983).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Arimoto, M., Satoh, M., Uesugi, R. & Osakabe, M. PCR-RFLP analysis for identification of Tetranychus spider mite species (Acari: Tetranychidae). J. Econ. Entom. 106, 661–668 (2013).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Vezenegho, S. B. et al. Discrimination of 15 Amazonian anopheline mosquito species by polymerase chain reaction—Restriction fragment length polymorphism. J. Med. Entomol. 59, 1060–1064 (2022).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Beal, R. S. Annotated checklist of Nearctic Dermestidae with revised key to the genera. Coleopt. Bull. 57, 391–404 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Folmer, O., Black, M., Hoeh, W., Lutz, R. & Vrijenhoek, R. DNA primers for amplification of mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I from diverse metazoan invertebrates. Mol. Mar. Biol. Biotechnol. 3, 294–299 (1994).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Liu, H. & Mottern, J. An old remedy for a new problem? Identification of Ooencyrtus kuvanae (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae), an egg parasitoid of Lycorma delicatula (Hemiptera: Fulgoridae) in North America. J. Insect Sci. 17, 18 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Simon, C. et al. Evolution, weighing, and phylogenetic utility of mitochondrial gene sequences and a compilation of conserved polymerase chain reaction primers. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 87, 651–701 (1994).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dowton, M. & Austin, A. D. Evidence for AT-transversion bias in wasp (Hymenoptera: Symphyta) mitochondrial genes and its implications for the origin of parasitism. J. Mol. Evol. 44, 398–405 (1997).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Untergasser, A. et al. Primer3—New capabilities and interfaces. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, e115 (2012).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ye, J. et al. Primer-BLAST: A tool to design target-specific primers for polymerase chain reaction. BMC Bioinform. 13, 134 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Süss, B., Flekna, G., Wagner, M. & Hein, I. Studying the effect of single mismatches in primer and probe binding regions on amplification curves and quantification in real-time PCR. J. Microbiol. Methods 76, 316–319 (2009).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Stadhouders, R. et al. The effect of primer-template mismatches on the detection and quantification of nucleic acids using the 5’ nuclease assay. J. Mol. Diagn. 12, 109–117 (2010).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Stewart, D. et al. A multi-species TaqMan PCR assay for the identification of Asian gypsy moths (Lymantria spp.) and other invasive Lymantriines of biosecurity concern to North America. PLoS ONE 11, e0160878 (2016).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bustin, S. A. et al. The MIQE guidelines: minimum information for publication of quantitative real-time PCR experiments. Clin. Chem. 55, 1–12 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar  More

A large-scale field study finds that different bee species experience different levels of risk from pesticides, depending on how much land is farmed within their foraging range. For bumblebees and solitary bees, more seminatural habitat means less risk from pesticides, but this is not true for honeybees.In the discussion of how to protect bees from pesticides, bees are often treated as a monolith. It is assumed that what is good for one species is good for all, and that pesticides or changes to agricultural landscapes would affect all bee species equally. This is often taken one step further, with the western honeybee (Apis mellifera) being used as a surrogate species for all bees. Yet despite this simplification there are around 2,000 species of bee in Europe1 and 20,000 worldwide2 with a dazzling diversity of niches and life histories. With this in mind, the question arises of how valid the assumption is that honeybees represent a good surrogate species. In this issue of Nature Ecology & Evolution, Knapp et al.3 investigate this question by measuring how three species of bee with differing life histories respond to different agricultural land-use intensities, and find that a species’ foraging range plays a big part in pesticide exposure risk. More

Tilman, D., Cassman, K. G., Matson, P. A., Naylor, R. & Polasky, S. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418, 671–677 (2002).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Tilman, D. et al. Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental change. Science 292, 281–284 (2001).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
IPBES: Summary for Policymakers. In The Assessment Report on Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production (eds Potts, S. G. et al.) (IPBES, 2016).Potts, S. G. et al. Safeguarding pollinators and their values to human well-being. Nature 540, 220–229 (2016).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Sgolastra, F. et al. Synergistic mortality between a neonicotinoid insecticide and an ergosterol-biosynthesis-inhibiting fungicide in three bee species. Pest Manag Sci. 73, 1236–1243 (2016).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Whitehorn, P. R., O’Connor, S., Wackers, F. L. & Goulson, D. Neonicotinoid pesticide reduces bumble bee colony growth and queen production. Science 336, 351–352 (2012).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Rundlöf, M. et al. Seed coating with a neonicotinoid insecticide negatively affects wild bees. Nature 521, 77–80 (2015).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Woodcock, B. et al. Impacts of neonicotinoid use on long-term population changes in wild bees in England. Nat. Commun. 7, 12459 (2016).Stuligross, C. & Williams, N. Past insecticide exposure reduces bee reproduction and population growth rate. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2109909118 (2021).Stanley, D. A. et al. Neonicotinoid pesticide exposure impairs crop pollination services provided by bumblebees. Nature 528, 548–550 (2015).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Tamburini, G. et al. Fungicide and insecticide exposure adversely impacts bumblebees and pollination services under semi-field conditions. Environ. Int. 157, 106813 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Sponsler, D. B. et al. Pesticides and pollinators: a socioecological synthesis. Sci. Total Environ. 662, 1012–1027 (2019).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Meehan, T. D., Werling, B. P., Landis, D. A. & Gratton, C. Agricultural landscape simplification and insecticide use in the Midwestern United States. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 11500–11505 (2011).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Nicholson, C. C. & Williams, N. M. Cropland heterogeneity drives frequency and intensity of pesticide use. Environ. Res. 16, 074008 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Böhme, F., Bischoff, G., Zebitz, C. P. W., Rosenkranz, P. & Wallner, K. Pesticide residue survey of pollen loads collected by honeybees (Apis mellifera) in daily intervals at three agricultural sites in South Germany. PLoS ONE 13, e0199995 (2018).Larsen, A. E. & Noack, F. Impact of local and landscape complexity on the stability of field-level pest control. Nat. Sustain. 4, 120–128 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Botías, C. et al. Neonicotinoid residues in wildflowers, a potential route of chronic exposure for bees. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 12731–12740 (2015).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Krupke, C. H., Holland, J. D., Long, E. Y. & Eitzer, B. D. Planting of neonicotinoid-treated maize poses risks for honey bees and other non-target organisms over a wide area without consistent crop yield benefit. J. Appl. Ecol. 54, 1449–1458 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wintermantel, D. et al. Neonicotinoid-induced mortality risk for bees foraging on oilseed rape nectar persists despite EU moratorium. Sci. Total Environ. 704, 135400 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Krupke, C. H., Hunt, G. J., Eitzer, B. D., Andino, G. & Given, K. Multiple routes of pesticide exposure for honey bees living near agricultural fields. PLoS ONE 7, e29268 (2012).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Long, E. Y. & Krupke, C. H. Non-cultivated plants present a season-long route of pesticide exposure for honey bees. Nat. Commun. 7, 11629 (2016).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
David, A. et al. Widespread contamination of wildflower and bee-collected pollen with complex mixtures of neonicotinoids and fungicides commonly applied to crops. Environ. Int. 88, 169–178 (2016).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Heinrich, B. The foraging specializations of individual bumblebees. Ecol. Monogr. 46, 105–128 (1976).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bolin, A., Smith, H. G., Lonsdorf, E. V. & Olsson, O. Scale-dependent foraging tradeoff allows competitive coexistence. Oikos 127, 1575–1585 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cresswell, J. E., Osborne, J. L. & Goulson, D. An economic model of the limits to foraging range in central place foragers with numerical solutions for bumblebees. Ecol. Entomol. 25, 249–255 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rundlöf, M. et al. Flower plantings support wild bee reproduction and may also mitigate pesticide exposure effects. J. Appl. Ecol. 59, 2117–2127 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Graham, K. K. et al. Identities, concentrations, and sources of pesticide exposure in pollen collected by managed bees during blueberry pollination. Sci. Rep. 11, 16857 (2021).Centrella, M. et al. Diet diversity and pesticide risk mediate the negative effects of land use change on solitary bee offspring production. J. Appl. Ecol. 57, 1031–1042 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
De Palma, A. et al. Ecological traits affect the sensitivity of bees to land-use pressures in European agricultural landscapes. J. Appl. Ecol. 52, 1567–1577 (2015).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Sponsler, D. B. & Johnson, R. M. Mechanistic modeling of pesticide exposure: the missing keystone of honey bee toxicology. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 36, 871–881 (2017).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Holzschuh, A., Dormann, C. F., Tscharntke, T. & Steffan-Dewenter, I. Mass-flowering crops enhance wild bee abundance. Oecologia 172, 477–484 (2013).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
McArt, S. H., Fersch, A. A., Milano, N. J., Truitt, L. L. & Böröczky, K. High pesticide risk to honey bees despite low focal crop pollen collection during pollination of a mass blooming crop. Sci. Rep. 7, 46554 (2017).Sanchez-Bayo, F. & Goka, K. Pesticide residues and bees—a risk assessment. PLoS ONE 9, e94482 (2014).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Zioga, E., Kelly, R., White, B. & Stout, J. C. Plant protection product residues in plant pollen and nectar: a review of current knowledge. Environ. Res. 189, 109873 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
The European Green Deal (European Commission, 2019).More, S. J., Auteri, D., Rortais, A. & Pagani, S. EFSA is working to protect bees and shape the future of environmental risk assessment. EFSA J. 19, e190101 (2021).Schmolke, A. et al. Assessment of the vulnerability to pesticide exposures across bee species. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 40, 2640–2651 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Rollin, O. et al. Differences of floral resource use between honey bees and wild bees in an intensive farming system. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 179, 78–86 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Persson, A. S. & Smith, H. G. Seasonal persistence of bumblebee populations is affected by landscape context. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 165, 201–209 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Samuelson, A. E., Schürch, R. & Leadbeater, E. Dancing bees evaluate central urban forage resources as superior to agricultural land. J. Appl. Ecol. 59, 79–88 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Milner, A. M. & Boyd, I. L. Toward pesticidovigilance. Science 357, 1232–1234 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan2683 (2017).Nowell, L. H., Norman, J. E., Moran, P. W., Martin, J. D. & Stone, W. W. Pesticide toxicity index—a tool for assessing potential toxicity of pesticide mixtures to freshwater aquatic organisms. Sci. Total Environ. 476–477, 144–157 (2014).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Mullin, C. A., Frazier, M., Frazier, J. L., Ashcraft, S. & Simonds, R. High levels of miticides and agrochemicals in North American apiaries: implications for honey bee health. PLoS ONE 5, 9754 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pettis, J. S. et al. Crop pollination exposes honey bees to pesticides which alters their susceptibility to the gut pathogen Nosema ceranae. PLoS ONE 8, e70182 (2013).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Végh, R., Sörös, C., Majercsik, N. & Sipos, L. Determination of pesticides in bee pollen: validation of a multiresidue high-performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry/mass spectrometry method and testing pollen samples of selected botanical origin. J. Agric. Food Chem. 70, 1507–1515 (2022).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Park, M. G., Blitzer, E. J., Gibbs, J., Losey, J. E. & Danforth, B. N. Negative effects of pesticides on wild bee communities can be buffered by landscape context. Proc. R. Soc. B 282, 20150299 (2015).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Graham, K. K. et al. Pesticide risk to managed bees during blueberry pollination is primarily driven by off-farm exposures. Sci. Rep. 12, 7189 (2022).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Yourstone, J., Karlsson, M., Klatt, B. K., Olsson, O. & Smith, H. G. Effects of crop and non-crop resources and competition: high importance of trees and oilseed rape for solitary bee reproduction. Biol. Conserv. 261, 109249 (2021).Persson, A. S., Mazier, F. & Smith, H. G. When beggars are choosers—how nesting of a solitary bee is affected by temporal dynamics of pollen plants in the landscape. Ecol. Evol. 8, 5777–5791 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wood, T. J., Holland, J. M. & Goulson, D. Providing foraging resources for solitary bees on farmland: current schemes for pollinators benefit a limited suite of species. J. Appl. Ecol. 54, 323–333 (2016).Garthwaite, D. et al. Collection of Pesticide Application Data in View of Performing Environmental Risk Assessments for Pesticides (EFSA, 2017).de Oliveira, R. C., Nascimento Queiroz, S. C., Pinto da Luz, C. F., Silveira Porto, R. & Rath, S. Bee pollen as a bioindicator of environmental pesticide contamination. Chemosphere 163, 525–534 (2016).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Arena, M. & Sgolastra, F. A meta-analysis comparing the sensitivity of bees to pesticides. Ecotoxicology 23, 324–334 (2014).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Douglas, M. R., Sponsler, D. B., Lonsdorf, E. V. & Grozinger, C. M. County-level analysis reveals a rapidly shifting landscape of insecticide hazard to honey bees (Apis mellifera) on US farmland. Sci. Rep. 10, 797 (2020).Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2081 of 26 November 2021 concerning the non-renewal of approval of the active substance indoxacarb, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (EUR-Lex, 2021); http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2021/2081/ojCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/23 of 13 January 2020 concerning the non-renewal of the approval of the active substance thiacloprid, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (EUR-Lex, 2020); http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2020/23/ojCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/783 of 29 May 2018 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 as regards the conditions of approval of the active substance imidacloprid (EUR-Lex, 2018); http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2018/783/ojHerbertsson, L., Jonsson, O., Kreuger, J., Smith, H. G. & Rundlöf, M. Scientific note: imidacloprid found in wild plants downstream permanent greenhouses in Sweden. Apidologie 52, 946–949 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tosi, S. et al. Long-term field-realistic exposure to a next-generation pesticide, flupyradifurone, impairs honey bee behaviour and survival. Commun. Biol. 4, 805 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Siviter, H. & Muth, F. Do novel insecticides pose a threat to beneficial insects?: novel insecticides harm insects. Proc. R. Soc. B 287, 20201265 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
EFSA. Guidance on the risk assessment of plant protection products on bees (Apis mellifera, Bombus spp. and solitary bees). EFSA J. 11, 3295 (2013).Guidance for Assessing Pesticide Risks to Bees (US EPA, 2014).Boyle, N. K. et al. Workshop on pesticide exposure assessment paradigm for non-apis bees: foundation and summaries. Environ. Entomol. 48, 4–11 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
EFSA. Analysis of the evidence to support the definition of specific protection goals for bumble bees and solitary bees. EFSA J. 19, EN-7125 (2022).Garibaldi, L. A. et al. Wild pollinators enhance fruit set of crops regardless of honey bee abundance. Science 339, 1608–1611 (2013).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Tscharntke, T., Grass, I., Wanger, T. C. & Westphal, C. Restoring biodiversity needs more than reducing pesticides. Trends Ecol. Evol. 37, 115–116 (2022).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Topping, C. J. et al. Holistic environmental risk assessment for bees. Science 37, 897 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tsvetkov, N. et al. Chronic exposure to neonicotinoids reduces honey bee health near corn crops. Science 356, 1395–1397 (2017).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Jonsson, O., Fries, I. & Kreuger, J. Utveckling av Analysmetoder och Screening av Växtskyddsmedel i bin och Pollen (CKB, 2013).Sawyer, R. Pollen Identification for Beekeepers (Univ. Cardiff Press, 1981).IUPAC Pesticide Properties Data Base (Univ. of Hertfordshire, 2022).EFSA Scientific Committee & More, S.J. et al. Guidance on harmonised methodologies for human health, animal health and ecological risk assessment of combined exposure to multiple chemicals. EFSA J. 17, e05634 (2019).Martin, O. et al. Ten years of research on synergisms and antagonisms in chemical mixtures: a systematic review and quantitative reappraisal of mixture studies. Environ. Int. 146, 106206 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
DiBartolomeis, M., Kegley, S., Mineau, P., Radford, R. & Klein, K. An assessment of acute insecticide toxicity loading (AITL) of chemical pesticides used on agricultural land in the United States. PLoS ONE 14, e0220029 (2019).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Test No. 213: Honeybees, Acute Oral Toxicity Test (OECD, 1998); https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264070165-enPrice, P. S. & Han, X. Maximum cumulative ratio (MCR) as a tool for assessing the value of performing a cumulative risk assessment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 8, 2212–2225 (2011).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).Oksanen, J. et al. vegan community ecology package version 2.6-2 (2022).Lenth, R. emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means (2022).Lüdecke, D., Ben-shachar, M. S., Patil, I. & Makowski, D. performance: an R package for assessment, comparison and testing of statistical models statement of need. J. Open Source Softw. 6, 3139 (2021).Nakagawa, S. & Schielzeth, H. A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4, 133–142 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kendall, L. K. et al. The potential and realized foraging movements of bees are differentially determined by body size and sociality. Ecology 103, e3809 (2022).Parreño, M. A. et al. Critical links between biodiversity and health in wild bee conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 37, 309–321 (2022).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar  More

Bergmann’s ruleVariation in avian body size has arisen through millions of years of evolution43, and our data reflects this by showing that log body mass is strongly predicted by phylogeny (Supplementary Table 1). Yet, avian body size also shows large geographical variation (Fig. 1a), and our analysis provides strong support for Bergmann’s rule across the global community of birds. Phylogenetic linear mixed models indicated that the temperature variables explain from 9.0% to 11.8% of the variance in log-transformed body size (estimated with r-squared; Fig. 1b). These models are substantially better supported than the null model and the model with latitude alone (Fig. 1b), suggesting that the observed geographical pattern is linked to thermoregulation. All of these temperature models indicate that temperature negatively correlates with body size (Fig. 1c and Supplementary Fig. 1), as predicted by Bergmann’s rule.Fig. 1: Global test of Bergmann’s rule across 9962 (99.7%) avian species.Distribution of log-transformed body mass across species geographic ranges, shown as their geometric centroids (a). Model selection procedure for predicting log body mass (b), with six temperature measures assessed within species geographic ranges, as sole fixed effects; AIC—Akaike Information Criterion, r2—coefficient of determination. An exemplar Bergmann’s model (c), showing decreasing body size with max temperature of all months; see Supplementary Fig. 1 for surrogate models based on the other temperature measures (evaluated in b). The shaded area around the trend line is simple shading to facilitate reading. The p values refer to the significance of temperature effect and whether it differs from zero as derived from a two-tailed test. The results were obtained with phylogenetic linear regression by phylolm models on a single maximum clade credibility phylogenetic tree.Full size imageAllometry of appendagesAllen’s hypothesis3 implies that the length of animal’s appendages varies with temperature in relative (not absolute) terms, thus when asking how the appendage length vary across temperature gradient, we always need to control for body size. Phylogenetic log-log regression models revealed that body mass explains 72.7% and 72.5% of variance in beak and tarsus length (estimated with r-squared of models shown in Fig. 2a and Supplementary Fig. 3a), respectively, confirming that the evolution of absolute avian appendage size is substantially constrained by body size. These null allometric models predict that log-transformed beak length (Fig. 2a) and tarsus length (Fig. 3a) scale with log-transformed body mass in a linear manner:$${{{{rm{log }}}}}_{e}left({{{{rm{Beak}}}}},{{{{rm{Length}}}}}right)=1.4345+0.3362,{{{{rm{log }}}}}_{e}{{{{rm{Body}}}}},{{{{rm{Mass}}}}}$$
(1)
$${{{{rm{log }}}}}_{e}left({{{{rm{Tarsus}}}}},{{{{rm{Length}}}}}right)=2.1141+0.2883,{{{{rm{log }}}}}_{e}{Body},{{{{rm{Mass}}}}}$$
(2)
Fig. 2: Global test of Allen’s rule on avian beak length across 9962 (99.7%) bird species.The null allometric model (a) used to scale the absolute (log-transformed) beak length with log body size, the residuals from which were used as the relative beak length. Distribution of relative beak length across species geographic ranges (b). Model selection procedure for predicting log beak length (c), involving models with log body mass and either of six temperature measures within species geographic ranges included as fixed and interaction terms; AIC—Akaike Information Criterion, r2—coefficient of determination. An exemplar Allen’s model (d) showing increasing beak length with max temperature of all months, while controlling for body size as fixed term. An exemplar model with interaction of body size and max temperature of all months (e) illustrating how Allen’s rule operates across steeping quantiles of body size (left) and how allometry varies across quantiles of temperature (right). See Supplementary Fig. 2 for surrogate models based on the other temperature measures (evaluated in c). The p values refer to the significance of model’s fixed (d) or interaction terms (e) derived from two-tailed tests. The shaded area around the trend line is simple shading to facilitate reading. The results were obtained with phylogenetic linear regression by phylolm models on a single maximum clade credibility phylogenetic tree.Full size imageFig. 3: Global test of Allen’s rule on avian tarsus length across 9962 (99.7%) bird species.The null allometric model (a) used to scale the absolute (log-transformed) tarsus length with log body size, the residuals from which were used as the relative tarsus length. Distribution of relative tarsus length across species geographic ranges (b). Model selection procedure for predicting log tarsus length (c), involving models with log body mass and either of six temperature measures within species geographic ranges included as fixed and interaction terms; AIC—Akaike Information Criterion, r2—coefficient of determination. An exemplar Allen’s model (d) showing decreasing tarsus length with max temperature of all months, while controlling for body size as fixed term. An exemplar model with interaction of body size and max temperature of all months (e) illustrates how Allen’s rule operates across steeping quantiles of body size (left) and how allometry varies across steeping quantiles of temperature (right). See Supplementary Fig. 3 for surrogate models based on the other temperature measures (evaluated in c). The p values refer to the significance of model’s fixed (d) or interaction terms (e) derived from two-tailed tests. The shaded area around the trend line is simple shading to facilitate reading. The results were obtained with phylogenetic linear regression by phylolm models on a single maximum clade credibility phylogenetic tree.Full size imagethe normalized formulas of which give us the logarithmic equations:$${{{{rm{Beak}}}}},{{{{rm{Length}}}}}={4.1975,{{{{rm{Body}}}}},{{{{rm{Mass}}}}}}^{0.3362}$$
(3)
$${{{{rm{Tarsus}}}}},{{{{rm{Length}}}}}={8.2821,{{{{rm{Body}}}}},{{{{rm{Mass}}}}}}^{0.2883}$$
(4)
Because these allometric plots (Figs. 2a and 3a) relate the length of the appendage (one dimensional linear measure) to the body mass (three-dimensional volumetric measure) it means that the size of appendages would scale isometrically (proportionally) with the body size if the allometric coefficient was 0.3333. Thus, beak length equals to body mass to a power of 0.3362 means that the beak elongates almost exactly proportionally with body size. However, tarsus length equals to body mass to a power of 0.2883 means that the extent to which tarsus elongates with body size is slightly more pronounced in smaller species and weaker in larger species.These allometric relationships have implications for how we interpret subsequent patterns. For example, consider a species that experience a temporal increase in temperature, or invades a warmer climate. Then, if only Bergmann’s rule is operating (and in the absence of other confounds), a gradual decrease in body size should result in a proportional decrease in absolute beak length, and a gradually larger decrease in absolute tarsus length. Conversely, if species follow only Allen’s rule (and not follow Bergmann’s rule), then the increase in beak length should be similar between larger and smaller species, while the increase in tarsus length should be weaker in larger species and stronger in smaller species. Thus, Allen’s assumption that the increase in the ratio of body width to body length is steeper in larger species3, should not be a direct effect of the allometric rules, as appendages tend to increase proportionally with body size (beak) or increase milder at larger body sizes (tarsus).Allen’s ruleAfter excluding the effect of allometry, relative beak length is still tightly associated with phylogeny (Supplementary Table 1), while showing an impressive geographic variation (Fig. 2b). Our phylogenetic analysis concurs with an array of existing studies12,16,17,44,45 that found that the length of avian beak follows Allen’s rule, and is a general pattern across birds as a whole. Among our models predicting beak length, those with temperature variables among fixed terms are more informative than the null allometric model, where log body mass (allometry) is put as sole predictor (Fig. 2c). Most of the temperature variables also predict beak length better than latitude (Fig. 2c), again confirming the thermoregulatory basis of the observed pattern. Each of the temperature variables are positively associated with longer beaks (Fig. 2d and Supplementary Fig. 2a), which remains in agreement with Allen’s rule.Some studies have reported the ambiguous46 or very weak16 Allen’s pattern for avian legs. While relative tarsus length is also well conserved in avian phylogeny (Supplementary Table 1) and shows a high geographic variation (Fig. 3b), surprisingly, our global phylogenetic analysis indicates that avian tarsus length follows the inverse of Allen’s rule. Among models explaining tarsus length, those with temperature variables are better than the null allometric model (Fig. 3c). However, these models indicate a negative correlation—thereby shorter tarsi are associated with warmer temperatures (Fig. 3d).Allen’s vs Bergmann’s rule in allometryOur analyses support the hypothesis that the way in which avian appendages size varies across temperature regimes, depends on body size and vice versa. First, among models of beak length, those with an interaction of body size and the temperature consistently perform better than models without that interaction (Fig. 2c). The interaction of temperature and body size loads positively on beak length, indicating that larger-bodied species show stronger increases in beak size with temperature (Fig. 2e, left plot). Notably, beak length does not co-vary with temperature in the smallest birds (Fig. 2e, left plot), which is in agreement with Allen’s speculations3 that being smaller reduces the need to develop elongated appendages in hot climates, as effective heat exchange is already enabled through small body size (according to Bergmann’s rule). The positive interaction between body size and temperature also indicates that the higher the temperature, the steeper the allometric relationship between beak size and body size (Fig. 2e, right plot), meaning that in warmer climates beak size increases more strongly with body size than in colder climates, exactly as Allen hypothesized.An interaction between body size and temperature is also consistently supported in models of tarsus length (Fig. 3c). This interaction has strong positive effect on tarsus length, thereby reversing the trend by which tarsus shortens with temperature (Fig. 3e, left plot). This means that despite the overall decrease of tarsus size with temperature in smaller birds (the inverse of Allen’s rule), the opposite is true for larger birds that show increasing tarsus size with temperature (Fig. 3e, left plot). The interaction holds regardless of the temperature measure examined (Supplementary Fig. 3b, upper row), even if those previously did not co-vary with tarsus length when included as simple independent term with body size (Supplementary Fig. 3a). The case of larger birds thus fits Allen’s rule, and agrees with Allen’s further speculations3 that appendages are more likely to increase in larger- than in smaller-bodied animals. However, Allen did not predict the possibility of shortening appendages toward hot temperatures as seen in small birds. Given the extent of our sampling, the effect of shortening tarsi toward the equator in small-bodied species is presumably not an artefact, but relies on yet unknown mechanisms (possibly unrelated to thermoregulation). Nevertheless, if there is an evolutionary pressure to develop a smaller tarsus in hot climates, the increased thermoregulatory needs of larger-bodied species possibly overwhelm this selective process. This may be because large species acquire higher heat loads when the ambient temperature is hot, hence necessitating the development of longer legs as cooling organs. As with beak size, the interaction also indicates substantial changes in allometry, with much more millimeters of tarsus per each gram of body in warm conditions compared to cold conditions (Fig. 3e, right plot).Our analyses also support the mirror scenario, that the extent to which body size decreases with temperature (Bergmann’s rule) depends on the length of appendage. In models predicting body size, the temperature does not interact with relative beak length (Supplementary Fig. 4a), but interacts with tarsus length (Supplementary Fig. 4b). This interaction indicates that the strongest shrinkage in body size with temperature occurs in shorter-legged birds, while in longer-legged birds body size increases with temperature (inverse Bergmann’s rule). This again supports Allen’s speculations that variation in body shape allows birds to evolve body sizes less restricted (or even unrestricted) to environmental temperature. Thus, the results support the theory that Bergmann’s and Allen’s rules are two distinct, albeit analogous strategies to deal with thermoregulation.Allen’s vs Bergmann’s rule in climatic adaptationsOur analysis shows that the interactions of body size (Bergmann’s rule), beak length and tarsus length (Allen’s rule) predict the thermal environment across birds (e.g. the max temperatures of all months across species ranges, Fig. 4a). As with body size and shape, the temperatures experienced by species within their geographic ranges are finely conserved in the avian phylogeny (Supplementary Table 1), suggesting that thermal preferences of avian species have been established through evolutionary history. Evolution of these preferences then occurred when temperature changes affected their native environments (thus causing extinctions or adaptations), or when birds invaded novel environments (thus adapting to newly-encountered climates). Log-transformed body mass, relative beak length and tarsus length clearly predict the species ambient temperature (Fig. 4b), suggesting that the phenotype changes as animals adapt to suit different climates. However, of particular note is that the addition of an interaction between body size and relative beak length substantially improves model performance (Fig. 4b). This interaction shows that for longer-beaked birds, temperature associations are unrelated to body size, but the shorter the beak, the more pronounced is the shrinking in body size in warmer temperatures (Fig. 4c, left plot). In the case of smaller-bodied birds, the adaptation to different temperatures is independent of beak length, but with larger birds, the adaptation to warmer temperatures is more likely associated with elongated beaks (Fig. 4c, right plot). These results indicate that living in warmer temperatures tends to be associated either with smaller body size (Bergmann’s rule) or longer beak (Allen’s rule), rather than both rules simultaneously, thus again supporting the hypothesis of an evolutionary compromise between shifts in body size and shape as alternative adaptations to thermal environment.Fig. 4: Global test for avian adaptation to maximum temperature across all months by shifts in body size (Bergmann’s rule) and appendage size (Allen’s rule) across 9962 (99.7%) avian species.Distribution of environmental temperature across species geographic ranges (a). Model selection procedure for predicting max temperature all months (b), involving models with different combinations of log body mass, relative beak and tarsus length as fixed and interaction terms; AIC—Akaike Information Criterion, r2—coefficient of determination. Exemplar models with two-way interaction of body size and relative beak length (c) or tarsus length (d) illustrate how Bergmann’s rule operate across steeping quantiles of relative appendage length (left plots) and how Allen’s rule operate across steeping quantiles of body size (right plots). An exemplar model with two-way interaction of relative beak length and tarsus length (e) illustrates how Allen’s rule based on the relative length of one appendage operates across steeping quantiles of the relative length of second appendage. An exemplar model with three-way interaction of log body mass, relative beak and tarsus length (f) illustrates how shifts in body size and two measures of body shape depend on each other when animals adapt to novel climates; the trend lines indicate relationships between y and x1 (axes) across combinations of min and max values of x2 and x3 (colors); see also Supplementary Fig. 5 for more detailed visualization of the model f. The p values refer to significance of two-way (c–e) and three-way (f) interaction terms derived from two-tailed tests. The shaded area around the trend line is simple shading to facilitate reading. Obtained with phylogenetic linear regression by phylolm models on a single maximum clade credibility phylogenetic tree.Full size imageThe interaction of body size and relative tarsus length also substantially improves the model predicting ambient temperature of the species (Fig. 4b). This interaction indicates that living in warmer climates is associated with smaller body size (Bergmann’s rule) only in shorter-legged birds, while in longer-legged birds the environmental temperature increases with body size (inverse Bergmann’s rule; Fig. 4d, left plot). Simultaneously, the avian environmental temperature increases with tarsus length (Allen’s rule) only in larger species, while the opposite is true for smaller species (Fig. 4d, right plot). This suggests that larger-legged avian lineages may be resistant to Bergmann’s rule and become larger when habituating to warm climates, while shorter- and average-legged birds become smaller with temperature, as predicted by Bergmann’s rule. These findings again converge with Allen’s speculations on trade-off in the evolution of body size and appendage length in relation to temperature.We found that the length of the two different appendages—beak and tarsus—show independent evolutionary patterns (Fig. 4e). The environmental temperature of a species increases with beak length independently from tarsus length, and decreases with tarsus length independently from beak length (Fig. 4e). These outcomes reject the possibility of an evolutionary compromise in climatic adaptation of two types of appendages, at least when we do not control for body size (Bergmann’s rule) as additional type of climatic adaptation.Finally, the model with a three-way interaction between body size, relative beak and tarsus length predicting temperature performs the best among all considered candidate models (Fig. 4b) and this interaction is statistically significant (Fig. 4f), suggesting that evolutionary adaptation to novel climates depends on various configurations of body size, beak, and tarsus length. This model indicates various Bergmann’s rule slopes across different settings of body shape (Fig. 4f, top-left). Namely, the steepest decrease in environmental temperature with body size (i.e. strongest Bergmann’s rule) is observed in smaller-billed and smaller-legged birds (Fig. 4f, top-left, brown trend line), whereas in longer-billed and shorter-legged birds (Fig. 4f, top-left, green trend line) body size is not associated with environmental temperature. This model also indicates that in shorter-billed, longer-legged birds (Fig. 4f, top-left, purple trend line) body size increases across temperature gradient (inverse Bergmann’s pattern). This thus strengthens the support for Allen’s theory that having bodies with elongated appendages may enable species to circumvent or even reverse Bergmann’s pattern; whereas compact bodies are more prone to decrease in size with temperature in order to deal with overheating in warm climates. Counteracting this argument, however, is that longer-billed and longer-legged birds show (moderate) typical Bergmann’s pattern (Fig. 4f, leftmost plot, bluish trend line).The three-way interaction model also shows other mixtures of expected and unexpected results. For example, the strongest increase in environmental temperature with beak length occurs in larger-bodied and shorter-legged birds (Fig. 4f, top-right plot, orange trend line), which clearly suggests a trade-off in evolution of body size and beak length and a similar trade-off in the evolution of the two types of appendages, presumably reflecting different adaptive responses for thermoregulation. However, a similar increase in beak length also occurs in tiny-bodied and longer-legged birds (Fig. 4f, top-right plot, blue trend line), which stands in contrast to this trade-off hypothesis. Likewise, the steepest increase in environmental temperature with tarsus length (Allen’s rule) occurs in larger-bodied and shorter-billed birds (Fig. 4f, bottom plot, pink trend line), again suggesting a compromise scenario, with elongated tarsus evolving as thermoregulatory organ to compensate for insufficient heat exchange due to large body and small beak. It also suggests that, in large birds, having a short beak in hot climates requires longer tarsi (Fig. 4f, top-right, pinkish and orange trend lines) and vice versa (Fig. 4f, bottom plot, rose and yellowish trend lines), indicating that in large species, the summarized length of two types of appendages is important for thermoregulation. However, by contrast, it seems that in small bodied species, beak and tarsi length evolved in a correlated way (Fig. 4f, top-right and bottom plots, green and blue trend lines) across environmental temperature (occurrences in warmer temperatures are associated with simultaneously both longer beaks and tarsi, or else simultaneously shorter beaks and tarsi). This may indicate a general tendency to correlated evolution of relative beak and tarsus lengths, perhaps for functional reasons, e.g. longer beaks may allow long-legged birds to explore substrate more efficiently, as longer necks also do47.Allen’s vs Bergmann’s rules in causal modelsOur hypothesis consequently holds within phylogenetic path analysis, where the best causal models integrate Bergmann’s and Allen’s rules to explain both the size of avian appendages (Fig. 5a) and the avian thermal environment (here, maximum temperature across all months) (Fig. 5b). The best model predicting beak and tarsus length includes the causal effect of temperature on body size (Bergmann’s rule) and then body size on beak and tarsus length (allometry), as well as the direct effect of temperature on the size of appendages (Allen’s rule) (Fig. 5a). This joint Bergmann’s and Allen’s model is substantially better than the model assuming that temperature does not affect body size before scaling for the length of appendages (Fig. 5a, Allen’s rule only). The combined Bergmann’s and Allen’s model is also better than one assuming no direct effect of temperature on appendages (Fig. 5a, Bergmann’s rule only). This again indicates that how the length of avian appendages co-varies with the ambient temperature partially depends on how avian body size co-varies with temperature, yielding results aligned with the trade-off hypothesis. This notably argues against the possibility that the increase in the length of appendages (relative to body size) with temperature is an artefact of decreased body sizes at hot temperatures (see26). However, interestingly, the model including only Allen’s rule (and allometry) explains the length of appendages with similar accuracy to the model with only Bergmann’s rule (Fig. 5a).Fig. 5: Phylogenetic path analysis with responses of the length of avian appendages (beak and tarsus) (a) and the maximum temperature of all months within species range (b) across 9962 species (99.7% of global community).In both cases model candidates include different combinations of allometry (relationship between the length of appendages and body size), Bergmann’s rule (the relationship between body size and the temperature) and Allen’s rule (relationship between the length of appendages and temperature). ∆CIC—delta C statistic Information Criterion. The results were obtained with phylogenetic path analysis by using phylopath models on a single maximum clade credibility phylogenetic tree and scaled covariates (mean = 0 ± 1 SD) to compare their effect sizes (see numbers on path diagrams).Full size imageThe best model predicting the temperature associations includes the indirect effect of body size on the length of appendages (allometry), and then the length of appendages on temperature (Allen’s rule), as well as the direct effect of body size on temperature (Bergmann’s rule) (Fig. 5b). These results again demonstrate that how the temperature varies across species ranges depends on both the size of body and appendages, suggesting that Bergmann’s and Allen’s rules describe two distinct evolutionary ways to cope with thermoregulation. Moreover, the similar performance of Allen’s model compared to Bergmann’s model (Fig. 5b) again suggests that shifts in the animal’s body size and shape represent roughly equally influential in the evolution of adaptations to novel climates.Excluding possible confounding factorsTo ensure the reliability of our findings, first we show that when explaining the phenotype (Supplementary Figs. 2b and 3b), or the temperature within species geographic ranges (Supplementary Fig. 6), the main results remain consistent whichever of the five temperature measures is included. Second, despite the fact that the relationships with relative length of appendages and the experienced temperatures are strongest in resident birds, followed by partial- and full- migrants, our results still hold when accounting for these three categories of avian migratory habits (Supplementary Fig. 7); and the compromise scenario remains similar in each of these groups independently (Supplementary Figs. 8–10). It aligns with previous studies22,46, which found that ecogeographical rules are valid regardless of variation in avian migratory habits. However, it is worth to notice that the most prominent trade-offs are found in resident species (in case of explaining environmental temperature, see Supplementary Fig. 10) or in partial migrants (in case of explaining beak length, see Supplementary Fig. 8). Third, the trade-offs in thermoregulatory strategies also hold after controlling for geographic range size (Supplementary Fig. 11) and remains quantitatively (Supplementary Figs. 12–13) or qualitatively (Supplementary Fig. 14) stable across the gradient of endemic-cosmopolitan species. Thus, even if ecogeographical rules operate within widespread species (across distanced populations, as well documented9,10,11,12,13), this does not appear to influences the results of our cross-species analysis. Fourth, the predictions of temperature within species geographic ranges are also not specific to the way by which we account for the allometry of appendages (by using residual appendage length). Parallel analyses with ratios of appendage length to body mass (Supplementary Fig. 15) or principal components of all phenotypic traits (Supplementary Fig. 16) give qualitatively similar outcomes. Fifth, we also show that results of both phylogenetic regression (Supplementary Fig. 17) and phylogenetic path models (Supplementary Fig. 18) remain consistently valid across 100 randomly chosen phylogenetic trees32, mitigating concerns regarding phylogenetic uncertainty influencing our results.Notably, there is a wider list of important ecological factors constraining or favoring variation in body size and shape, e.g. tropic levels or foraging techniques21,23,47,48, although they are also themselves constrained by phylogeny to some extent, which we control for. Nevertheless, we believe that it is likely that these constraints influenced (or were influenced by) the Bergmann-Allen trade-off. Understanding of this issue would benefit from a deeper dive into the relationship between climatic, phenotypic and ecological variation across animals.Our findings in the context of eco-evolutionary processes driven by climateTo the best of our knowledge, this study is the largest (taxonomically and geographically) simultaneous test of ecogeographical rules and it provides a first empirical evidence for a trade-off in the evolution of body size (Bergmann’s rule2) and the size of appendages (Allen’s rule3) across global temperature gradients. Our results confirm what Allen3 speculated—the larger the body, the stronger the increase in appendage size with temperature; and the larger the appendages, the milder the decrease in body size with temperature. Thus, the evolution of body size under temperature regimes likely depends on the size of appendages and, on the other hand, the extent to which temperature drives the size of appendages depends on body size. This means that these two thermoregulatory adaptations are not independent of each other, but the phenotype has at least two ways to adapt to novel climates, i.e. by the shifts in body size or the shifts in the size of appendages (or both to a lesser extent).The evolution of appendages (e.g. avian beaks49) was a dynamic process believed to overtake the changes in body size across evolutionary time50. Our analyses do not indicate, however, that shifts in body size have been more frequent than shifts in appendage size (or vice versa), at least not because of thermoregulation. Rather, they indicate that shifts in body size and shape are intertwined through avian evolutionary history, agreeing with the theory that animals select the most convenient strategy of thermoregulation to maintain functional traits of its phenotype. For functional reasons animal lineages tend to increase in body size over evolutionary time (Cope’s rule43), thus it is not surprising that strategies allowing species to maintain/develop larger bodies (i.e. over-increase in appendage size) are to be expected evolutionarily. On the other hand, some lineages may be constrained in appendage size (e.g. to forage21,47 or communicate23 effectively), hence those may favor the shifts in body size to reconcile optimal thermoregulation with a desired functionality.We found that the compromise in thermoregulatory strategies may also involve two distinct types of appendages, here beak versus tarsus. However, this is true only for larger-bodied species (see Fig. 4f top-right and bottom plots, trends for large bodies), that are more likely to acquire higher heat loads in warmer environments, thus the summarized size of many appendages may be for them crucial to disperse heat loads. Both beak and legs have been confirmed to act as key regions of heat transfer on the avian body37,38,51,52, thus both may be sensitive to thermal conditions when body size is too large to deal alone with too hot temperatures. Yet, in small-bodied species both appendages seem to evolve in concerted way across temperature gradients, and this may be in a way that conforms with Allen’s rule or not (see Fig. 4f, top-right and bottom plots, trends for small bodies), indicating that the small body ensures good temperature exchange in hot climates, thus the evolution of appendages in these species may be correlated, but independent of thermoregulatory selection pressures.It is worthwhile emphasizing that apart from shifts in body size and shape, many other elements combine to help birds meet their thermoregulatory requirements53, e.g. through variation in insulation (feathers)54, coloration55,56 metabolism57, blood circulation58 or behavior59,60,61. Extrapolating our results, these thermoregulatory strategies might also co-evolve under a trade-off to ensure optimal thermoregulation along with desired functionality. This is presumably a reason for the relatively low performance of our models; e.g. physical phenotype explains up to only 20% of the variance in ambient temperature (Fig. 4b, upper model), therefore unexplained variance must be attributed to other thermoregulatory strategies.In this study, we demonstrate that Allen’s rule may be attributed to the varying allometric functions across temperature gradients. Although logical and argued elsewhere26, it has never been addressed by any empirical research. Our findings clearly indicate the importance of considering body mass as both a fixed and interaction term in studies of Allen’s rule, but also might suggest that ambient temperature should be included in other allometric studies of animals’ morphology. That said, temperature explains very little of the variance in the size of appendages compared to body size (Figs. 2c and 3c), thus thermal conditions are unlikely to be a very crucial confounding factor for allometry in comparative analyses.In this study, we empirically confirm for the first time an evolutionary compromise theory that was first proposed almost 150 years ago3– the evolution of body size and appendages are two distinct and interacting ways to cope with thermoregulation. This may explain why many studies fail to detect Allen’s or Bergmann’s rules independently which has led to questioning of the generality of these ecogeographical patterns13,24,25. Here, our findings suggest that Bergmann’s and Allen’s rules should not necessarily be considered in isolation. We believe that these thermoregulatory strategies might intertwine through the evolutionary history of animals, as the evolution of phenotype possibly interacts to confound ecogeographical rules to evolve functional traits. This explanation also highlights the diverse mechanisms that animals may employ to expand across the world’s multiple environments. It also raises the speculation that with observed and future anticipated warming of Earth’s climate, we should expect mainly large animals to elongate in appendages, while mainly compact-bodied animals to shrink in size. More