Philippa Kaur

1.Kenis, M. et al. Ecological effects of invasive alien insects. Biol. Invasions 11, 21–45 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Kimbro, D. L. et al. Invasive species cause large-scale loss of native California oyster habitat by disrupting trophic cascades. Oecologia 160, 563–575 (2009).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Walsh, J. R., Carpenter, S. R. & Vander Zanden, M. J. Invasive species triggers a massive loss of ecosystem services through a trophic cascade. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 4081–4085 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Russell, J. C. In Seabird Islands: Ecology, Invasion, and Restoration (eds Mulder, C. P., Anderson, W. B., Towns, D. R. & Bellingham, P. J.) Ch. 9 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2011).5.Allan, B. F. et al. Invasive honeysuckle eradication reduces tick-borne disease risk by altering host dynamics. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 18523–18527 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Young, H. S., Parker, I. M., Gilbert, G. S., Guerra, A. S. & Nunn, C. L. Introduced species, disease ecology, and biodiversity–disease relationships. Trends Ecol. Evol. 32, 41–54 (2017).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Keesing, F. et al. Impacts of biodiversity on the emergence and transmission of infectious diseases. Nature 468, 647 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Wood, C. L. et al. Does biodiversity protect humans against infectious disease? Ecology 95, 817–832 (2014).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.LoGiudice, K., Ostfeld, R. S., Schmidt, K. A. & Keesing, F. The ecology of infectious disease: effects of host diversity and community composition on Lyme disease risk. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 567–571 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Hamer, G. L. et al. Fine-scale variation in vector host use and force of infection drive localized patterns of West Nile virus transmission. PLoS ONE 6, e23767 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Schmidt, K. A. & Ostfeld, R. S. Biodiversity and the dilution effect in disease ecology. Ecology 82, 609–619 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Murray, K. A. & Daszak, P. Human ecology in pathogenic landscapes: two hypotheses on how land use change drives viral emergence. Curr. Opin. Virol. 3, 79–83 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Dorcas, M. E. et al. Severe mammal declines coincide with proliferation of invasive Burmese pythons in Everglades National Park. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 2418–2422 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.McCleery, R. A. et al. Marsh rabbit mortalities tie pythons to the precipitous decline of mammals in the Everglades. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 282, 20150120 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Sovie, A. R., McCleery, R. A., Fletcher, R. J. & Hart, K. M. Invasive pythons, not anthropogenic stressors, explain the distribution of a keystone species. Biol. Invasions 18, 3309–3318 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Reichert, B. E. et al. Urbanization may limit impacts of an invasive predator on native mammal diversity. Diversity Distrib. 23, 355–367 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Willson, J. D. Indirect effects of invasive Burmese pythons on ecosystems in southern Florida. J. Appl. Ecol. 54, 1251–1258 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Hoyer, I. J. et al. Mammal decline, linked to invasive Burmese python, shifts host use of vector mosquito towards reservoir hosts of a zoonotic disease. Biol. Lett. 13, 20170353 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Edman, J. D. Host-feeding patterns of Florida mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) VI. Culex (Melanoconion). J. Med. Entomol. 15, 521–525 (1979).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
20.Chamberlain, R. et al. Arbovirus studies in south Florida, with emphasis on Venezuelan equine encephalomyelitis virus. Am. J. Epidem. 89, 197–210 (1969).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Lord, R. D., Calisher, C. H., Sudia, W. D. & Work, T. H. Ecological investigations of vertebrate hosts of Venezuelan equine encephalomyelitis virus in south Florida. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 22, 116–123 (1973).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Bigler, W. J. Venezuelan encephalitis antibody studies in certain Florida wildlife. Bull. Wildl. Dis. Assoc. 5, 267–270 (1969).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Bigler, W. J., Ventura, A. K., Lewis, A. L. & Ehrenkranz, N. Venezuelan equine encephalomyelitis in Florida: endemic virus circulation in native rodent populations of Everglades hammocks. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 23, 513–521 (1974).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Coffey, L. L. et al. Experimental Everglades virus infection of cotton rats (Sigmodon hispidus). Emerg. Infect. Dis. 10, 8 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Weaver, S. C., Ferro, C., Barrera, R., Boshell, J. & Navarro, J. C. Venezuelan equine encephalitis. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 49, 141–174 (2004).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Gonzalez, S. C. Documenting changes in mammal communities in the Northern Everglades. Southeast. Naturalist. 18, 619–629 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Weaver, S. C., Scherer, W. F., Taylor, C. A., Castello, D. A. & Cupp, E. W. Laboratory vector competence of Culex (Melanoconion) cedecei for sympatric and allopatric Venezuelan equine encephalomyelitis viruses. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 35, 619–623 (1986).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Coffey, L. L. & Weaver, S. C. Susceptibility of Ochlerotatus taeniorhynchus and Culex nigripalpus for Everglades virus. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 73, 11–16 (2005).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Allan, B. F., Keesing, F. & Ostfeld, R. S. Effect of forest fragmentation on Lyme disease risk. Conserv. Biol. 17, 267–272 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Brownstein, J. S., Skelly, D. K., Holford, T. R. & Fish, D. Forest fragmentation predicts local scale heterogeneity of Lyme disease risk. Oecologia 146, 469–475 (2005).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Dickinson, J. L., Zuckerberg, B. & Bonter, D. N. Citizen science as an ecological research tool: challenges and benefits. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 41, 149–172 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Dorcas, M. E. & Willson, J. D. In Reptiles in Research: Investigations of Ecology, Physiology, and Behavior from Desert to Sea (ed Lutterschmidt, W. I.) Ch. 19 (Nova Science Publishers, 2013).33.Hoyer, I. J., Acevedo, C., Wiggins, K., Alto, B. W. & Burkett-Cadena, N. D. Patterns of abundance, host use, and Everglades virus infection in Culex (Melanoconion) cedecei mosquitoes, Florida, USA. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 25, 1093 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Burkett-Cadena, N. D., Hoyer, I., Blosser, E. & Reeves, L. Human-powered pop-up resting shelter for sampling cavity-resting mosquitoes. Acta Tropica 190, 288–292 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Chandler, R. B., Engebretsen, K., Cherry, M. J., Garrison, E. P. & Miller, K. V. Estimating recruitment from capture–recapture data by modelling spatio-temporal variation in birth and age-specific survival rates. Methods Ecol. Evol. 9, 2115–2130 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Krebs, C. J. Ecological Methodology (Harper & Row, 1989).37.Oksanen, J. et al. Vegan: community ecology package (R package version 1.17-4, 2010).38.Blosser, E. M., Stenn, T., Acevedo, C. & Burkett-Cadena, N. D. Host use and seasonality of Culex (Melanoconion) iolambdis (Diptera: Culicidae) from eastern Florida, USA. Acta Tropica 164, 352–359 (2016).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Giry, C., Roquebert, B., Li-Pat-Yuen, G., Gasque, P. & Jaffar-Bandjee, M.-C. Improved detection of genus-specific Alphavirus using a generic TaqMan® assay. BMC Microbiol. 17, 164 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
40.Chiang, C. L. & Reeves, W. C. Statistical estimation of virus infection rates in mosquito vector populations. Am. J. Hyg. 75, 377–391 (1962).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
41.Gu, W., Lampman, R. & Novak, R. J. Problems in estimating mosquito infection rates using minimum infection rate. J. Med. Entomol. 40, 595–596 (2003).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Biggerstaff, B. J. PooledInfRate, Version 4.0: a Microsoft Office Excel Add-In to computer prevalence estimates from pooled samples (ScienceOpen Inc., 2009).43.Biggerstaff, B. J. Confidence intervals for the difference of two proportions estimated from pooled samples. J. Agric. Biol. Environ. Stat. 13, 478–496 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
44.US Geological Survey. National Gap Analysis Program land cover data‐version 2 (2011).45.Hart, K. M. et al. Home range, habitat use, and movement patterns of non-native Burmese pythons in Everglades National Park, Florida, USA. Anim. Biotelemetry 3, 1–13 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Elith, J. et al. A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists. Diversity Distrib. 17, 43–57 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Zadrozny, B. Learning and evaluating classifiers under sample selection bias. In Proc. 21st International Conference on Machine Learning. (ed. Carla Brodley) 903–910 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2004).48.Akaike, H. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 19, 716–723 (1974).Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference. (Springer, 2002).50.Lüdecke, D. ggeffects: tidy data frames of marginal effects from regression models. J. Open Source Softw. 3, 772 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
51.R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/ (2019).52.Brooks, M. E. et al. glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling. R. J. 9, 378–400 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Spiess, A. N. & Ritz, C. qpcR: modelling and analysis of real-time PCR data (R Package Version 1.4-1, 2014).54.Bjornstad, O. N. ncf: spatial covariance functions. (R package Version 1.2-9, 2020).55.Nakagawa, S., Johnson, P. C. D. & Schielzeth, H. The coefficient of determination R² and intra-class correlation coefficient from generalized linear mixed-effects models revisited and expanded. J. R. Soc. Interface 14, 20170213 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Hess, A. D. & Swartz, A. The forage ratio and its use in determining the food grade of streams. Progr. Fish.Culturist 7, 22–23 (1940).Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Hess, A. D., Hayes, R. O. & Tempelis, C. H. The use of the forage ratio technique in mosquito host preference studies. Mosq. N. 28, 386–389 (1968).
Google Scholar  More

1.Trotsenko YA, Murrell JC. Metabolic aspects of aerobic obligate methanotrophy. Adv Appl Microbiol. 2008;63:183–229.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Knittel K, Boetius A. Anaerobic oxidation of methane: progress with an unknown process. Annu Rev Microbiol. 2009;63:311–34.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Khmelenina VN, Murrell JC, Smith TJ, Trotsenko YA. Physiology and Biochemistry of the Aerobic Methanotrophs. In: Rojo F (editor) Aerobic Utilization of Hydrocarbons, Oils and Lipids. Handbook of Hydrocarbon and Lipid Microbiology. Springer; Cham; 2018;1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39782-5_4-1.4.Kalyuzhnaya MG, Yang S, Rozova ON, Smalley NE, Clubb J, Lamb A, et al. Highly efficient methane biocatalysis revealed in a methanotrophic bacterium. Nat Commun. 2013;4:2785.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Kits KD, Klotz MG, Stein LY. Methane oxidation coupled to nitrate reduction under hypoxia by the Gammaproteobacterium Methylomonas denitrificans, sp. nov type strain FJG1. Environ Microbiol. 2015;17:3219–32.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Kits KD, Campbell DJ, Rosana AR, Stein LY. Diverse electron sources support denitrification under hypoxia in the obligate methanotroph Methylomicrobium album strain BG8. Front Microbiol. 2015;6:1072.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Gilman A, Fu Y, Hendershott M, Chu F, Puri AW, Smith AL, et al. Oxygen-limited metabolism in the methanotroph Methylomicrobium buryatense 5GB1C. PeerJ. 2017;5:5.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
8.Ettwig KF, Butler MK, Le Paslier D, Pelletier E, Mangenot S, Kuypers MM, et al. Nitrite-driven anaerobic methane oxidation by oxygenic bacteria. Nature. 2010;464:543–8.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Devol AH, Ahmed SI. Are high-rates of sulfate reduction associated with anaerobic oxidation of methane. Nature. 1981;291:407–8.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Boetius A, Ravenschlag K, Schubert CJ, Rickert D, Widdel F, Gieseke A, et al. A marine microbial consortium apparently mediating anaerobic oxidation of methane. Nature 2000;407:623–6.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
11.Orphan VJ, House CH, Hinrichs KU, McKeegan KD, DeLong EF. Methane-consuming archaea revealed by directly coupled isotopic and phylogenetic analysis. Science. 2001;293:484–7.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Ettwig KF, Zhu BL, Speth D, Keltjens JT, Jetten MSM, Kartal B. Archaea catalyze iron-dependent anaerobic oxidation of methane. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2016;113:12792–6.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Cai C, Leu AO, Xie GJ, Guo J, Feng Y, Zhao JX, et al. A methanotrophic archaeon couples anaerobic oxidation of methane to Fe(III) reduction. ISME J. 2018;12:1929–39.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Leu AO, Cai C, McIlroy SJ, Southam G, Orphan VJ, Yuan Z, et al. Anaerobic methane oxidation coupled to manganese reduction by members of the Methanoperedenaceae. ISME J. 2020;14:1030–41.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Haroon MF, Hu S, Shi Y, Imelfort M, Keller J, Hugenholtz P, et al. Anaerobic oxidation of methane coupled to nitrate reduction in a novel archaeal lineage. Nature. 2013;500:567–70.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Shi LD, Guo T, Lv PL, Niu ZF, Zhou YJ, Tang XJ, et al. Coupled anaerobic methane oxidation and reductive arsenic mobilization in wetland soils. Nat Geosci. 2020;13:799–805. -+Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
17.Leu AO, McIlroy SJ, Ye J, Parks DH, Orphan VJ, Tyson GW. Lateral gene transfer drives metabolic flexibility in the anaerobic methane-oxidizing archaeal family Methanoperedenaceae. Mbio 2020;11:11.Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Lemly AD. Aquatic selenium pollution is a global environmental safety issue. Ecotox Environ Safe. 2004;59:44–56.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Simmons DBD, Wallschlager D. A critical review of the biogeochemistry and ecotoxicology of selenium in lotic and lentic environments. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2005;24:1331–43.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Reim A, Luke C, Krause S, Pratscher J, Frenzel P. One millimetre makes the difference: high-resolution analysis of methane-oxidizing bacteria and their specific activity at the oxic-anoxic interface in a flooded paddy soil. ISME J. 2012;6:2128–39.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Danilova OV, Suzina NE, Van De Kamp J, Svenning MM, Bodrossy L, Dedysh SN. A new cell morphotype among methane oxidizers: a spiral-shaped obligately microaerophilic methanotroph from northern low-oxygen environments. ISME J. 2016;10:2734–43.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Smith GJ, Angle JC, Solden LM, Borton MA, Morin TH, Daly RA, et al. Members of the genus methylobacter are inferred to account for the majority of aerobic methane oxidation in oxic soils from a freshwater wetland. Mbio 2018;9:9.
Google Scholar 
23.Fernández-Martínez A, Charlet L. Selenium environmental cycling and bioavailability: a structural chemist point of view. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol. 2009;8:81–110.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
24.Chung J, Nerenberg R, Rittmann BE. Bioreduction of selenate using a hydrogen-based membrane biofilm reactor. Environ Sci Technol. 2006;40:1664–71.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
25.Lai CY, Wen LL, Shi LD, Zhao KK, Wang YQ, Yang X, et al. Selenate and nitrate bioreductions using methane as the electron donor in a membrane biofilm reactor. Environ Sci Technol. 2016;50:10179–86.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
26.Luo JH, Chen H, Hu S, Cai C, Yuan Z, Guo J. Microbial selenate reduction driven by a denitrifying anaerobic methane oxidation biofilm. Environ Sci Technol. 2018;52:4006–12.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
27.Shi LD, Lv PL, Wang M, Lai CY, Zhao HP. A mixed consortium of methanotrophic archaea and bacteria boosts methane-dependent selenate reduction. Sci Total Environ. 2020;732:139310.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
28.Parks DH, Chuvochina M, Chaumeil PA, Rinke C, Mussig AJ, Hugenholtz P. A complete domain-to-species taxonomy for bacteria and archaea. Nat Biotechnol. 2020;38:1079–86.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
29.Jakobs G, Labrenz M, Rehder G, Hietanen S, Kießlich K, Vogts A, et al. A bioreactor approach to investigate the linkage between methane oxidation and nitrate/nitrite reduction in the pelagic oxic-anoxic transition zone of the central baltic sea. Front Mar Sci. 2016;3:3.Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Naqvi SWA, Lam P, Narvenkar G, Sarkar A, Naik H, Pratihary A, et al. Methane stimulates massive nitrogen loss from freshwater reservoirs in India. Nat Commun. 2018;9:9.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
31.Martinez-Cruz K, Leewis MC, Herriott IC, Sepulveda-Jauregui A, Anthony KW, Thalasso F, et al. Anaerobic oxidation of methane by aerobic methanotrophs in sub-arctic lake sediments. Sci Total Environ. 2017;607:23–31.PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
32.Zheng Y, Wang H, Liu Y, Zhu B, Li J, Yang Y, et al. Methane-dependent mineral reduction by aerobic methanotrophs under hypoxia. Environ Sci Tech Lett. 2020;7:606–12.33.Oswald K, Milucka J, Brand A, Hach P, Littmann S, Wehrli B, et al. Aerobic gammaproteobacterial methanotrophs mitigate methane emissions from oxic and anoxic lake waters. Limnol Oceanogr. 2016;61:S101–S118.Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Schroder I, Rech S, Krafft T, Macy JM. Purification and characterization of the selenate reductase from Thauera selenatis. J Biol Chem. 1997;272:23765–8.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Ridley H, Watts CA, Richardson DJ, Butler CS. Resolution of distinct membrane-bound enzymes from Enterobacter cloacae SLD1a-1 that are responsible for selective reduction of nitrate and selenate oxyanions. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006;72:5173–80.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Sabaty M, Avazeri C, Pignol D, Vermeglio A. Characterization of the reduction of selenate and tellurite by nitrate reductases. Appl Environ Microbiol 2001;67:5122–6.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Turner RJ, Weiner JH, Taylor DE. Selenium metabolism in Escherichia coli. Biometals 1998;11:223–7.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Hunter WJ. An Azospira oryzae (syn Dechlorosoma suillum) strain that reduces selenate and selenite to elemental red selenium. Curr Microbiol. 2007;54:376–81.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Li D, Pang HC, Sun LC, Fan JP, Li YY, Zhang JL. Pseudoxanthomonas wuyuanensis sp. nov., isolated from saline-alkali soil. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2014;64:799–804.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Harrison G, Curle C, Laishley EJ. Purification and characterization of an inducible dissimilatory type sulfite reductase from Clostridium pasteurianum. Arch Microbiol. 1984;138:72–8.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Basaglia M, Toffanin A, Baldan E, Bottegal M, Shapleigh JP, Casella S. Selenite-reducing capacity of the copper-containing nitrite reductase of Rhizobium sullae. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2007;269:124–30.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Li DB, Cheng YY, Wu C, Li WW, Li N, Yang ZC, et al. Selenite reduction by Shewanella oneidensis MR-1 is mediated by fumarate reductase in periplasm. Sci Rep. 2014;4:3735.43.Song DG, Li XX, Cheng YZ, Xiao X, Lu ZQ, Wang YZ, et al. Aerobic biogenesis of selenium nanoparticles by Enterobacter cloacae Z0206 as a consequence of fumarate reductase mediated selenite reduction. Sci Rep. 2017;7:3239.44.Hunter WJ. A rhizobium selenitireducens protein showing selenite reductase activity. Curr Microbiol. 2014;68:311–6.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Nancharaiah YV, Lens PNL. Selenium biomineralization for biotechnological applications. Trends Biotechnol. 2015;33:323–30.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
46.McGlynn SE, Chadwick GL, Kempes CP, Orphan VJ. Single cell activity reveals direct electron transfer in methanotrophic consortia. Nature. 2015;526:531–U146.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Wegener G, Krukenberg V, Riedel D, Tegetmeyer HE, Boetius A. Intercellular wiring enables electron transfer between methanotrophic archaea and bacteria. Nature. 2015;526:587–U315.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Kleiner M, Dong X, Hinzke T, Wippler J, Thorson E, Mayer B, et al. Metaproteomics method to determine carbon sources and assimilation pathways of species in microbial communities. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2018;115:E5576–84.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Anthony C. How half a century of research was required to understand bacterial growth on C1 and C2 compounds; the story of the serine cycle and the ethylmalonyl-CoA pathway. Sci Prog. 2011;94:109–37.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Salem AR, Hacking AJ, Quayle JR. Cleavage of malyl-coenzyme-A into acetyl-coenzyme-A and glyoxylate by Pseudomonas AM1 and other C1-unit utilizing bacteria. Biochem J. 1973;136:89–96.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Large PJ, Peel D, Quayle JR. Microbial growth on C1 compounds. 3. Distribution of radioactivity in metabolites of methanol-grown Pseudomonas AM1 after incubation with 14C-methanol and 14C-bicarbonate. Biochem J 1962;82:483–8.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Shi LD, Wang Z, Liu T, Wu M, Lai CY, Rittmann BE, et al. Making good use of methane to remove oxidized contaminants from wastewater. Water Res. 2021;197:117082.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
53.Chistoserdova L, Kalyuzhnaya MG. Current trends in methylotrophy. Trends Microbiol. 2018;26:703–14.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
54.Karwautz C, Kus G, Stockl M, Neu TR, Lueders T. Microbial megacities fueled by methane oxidation in a mineral spring cave. ISME J. 2018;12:87–100.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
55.Hernandez ME, Beck DAC, Lidstrom ME, Chistoserdova L. Oxygen availability is a major factor in determining the composition of microbial communities involved in methane oxidation. PeerJ. 2015;3:3.Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Oshkin IY, Beck DA, Lamb AE, Tchesnokova V, Benuska G, McTaggart TL, et al. Methane-fed microbial microcosms show differential community dynamics and pinpoint taxa involved in communal response. ISME J. 2015;9:1119–29.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Hoehler TM, Alperin MJ, Albert DB, Martens CS. Field and laboratory studies of methane oxidation in an anoxic marine sediment—evidence for a methanogen-sulfate reducer consortium. Glob Biogeochem Cycles. 1994;8:451–63.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Nauhaus K, Treude T, Boetius A, Kruger M. Environmental regulation of the anaerobic oxidation of methane: a comparison of ANME-I and ANME-II communities. Environ Microbiol. 2005;7:98–106.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Meulepas RJW, Jagersma CG, Khadem AF, Stams AJM, Lens PNL. Effect of methanogenic substrates on anaerobic oxidation of methane and sulfate reduction by an anaerobic methanotrophic enrichment. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2010;87:1499–506.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Sorensen KB, Finster K, Ramsing NB. Thermodynamic and kinetic requirements in anaerobic methane oxidizing consortia exclude hydrogen, acetate, and methanol as possible electron shuttles. Micro Ecol. 2001;42:1–10.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Krukenberg V, Riedel D, Gruber-Vodicka HR, Buttigieg PL, Tegetmeyer HE, Boetius A, et al. Gene expression and ultrastructure of meso- and thermophilic methanotrophic consortia. Environ Microbiol. 2018;20:1651–66.62.Kaneko M, Poulson SR. Rate of oxygen isotope exchange between selenate and water. Environ Sci Technol. 2012;46:4539–45.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
63.Volant S, Lechat P, Woringer P, Motreff L, Campagne P, Malabat C, et al. Shaman: a user-friendly website for metataxonomic analysis from raw reads to statistical analysis. BMC Bioinform. 2020;21:345.64.Nurk S, Meleshko D, Korobeynikov A, Pevzner PA. Metaspades: a new versatile metagenomic assembler. Genome Res. 2017;27:824–34.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Li D, Luo R, Liu CM, Leung CM, Ting HF, Sadakane K, et al. Megahit v1.0: A fast and scalable metagenome assembler driven by advanced methodologies and community practices. Methods. 2016;102:3–11.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
66.Dong XL, Strous M. An integrated pipeline for annotation and visualization of metagenomic contigs. Front Genet. 2019;10:999.67.Kang DD, Li F, Kirton E, Thomas A, Egan R, An H, et al. Metabat 2: an adaptive binning algorithm for robust and efficient genome reconstruction from metagenome assemblies. PeerJ. 2019;7:e7359.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

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

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

Google Scholar 
70.Chaumeil PA, Mussig AJ, Hugenholtz P, Parks DH. GTDB-tk: a toolkit to classify genomes with the genome taxonomy database. Bioinformatics. 2020;36:1925–7.CAS 

Google Scholar 
71.Tamura K, Stecher G, Peterson D, Filipski A, Kumar S. Mega6: Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 6.0. Mol Biol Evol. 2013;30:2725–9.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Huang WL, Wilks A. A rapid seamless method for gene knockout in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. BMC Microbiol. 2017;17:199.73.Bru D, Sarr A, Philippot L. Relative abundances of proteobacterial membrane-bound and periplasmic nitrate reductases in selected environments. Appl Environ Microbiol 2007;73:5971–4.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
74.Livak KJ, Schmittgen TD. Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2(t)(-delta delta c) method. Methods. 2001;25:402–8.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
75.Maeda H, Fujimoto C, Haruki Y, Maeda T, Kokeguchi S, Petelin M, et al. Quantitative real-time PCR using Taqman and SYBR green for Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Prevotella intermedia, tetQ gene and total bacteria. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 2003;39:81–6.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
76.Tyanova S, Temu T, Cox J. The maxquant computational platform for mass spectrometry-based shotgun proteomics. Nat Protoc. 2016;11:2301–19.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
77.Daims H, Stoecker K, Wagner M. “Fluorescence in situ hybridization for the detection of prokaryotes,”. In: Osborn AM, Smith cJ, editors. Molecular microbial ecology. New york: Taylor & francis; 2005. p. 213–39.78.Wallner G, Amann R, Beisker W. Optimizing fluorescent in situ hybridization with rRNA-targeted oligonucleotide probes for flow cytometric identification of microorganisms. Cytometry. 1993;14:136–43.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
79.Eller G, Stubner S, Frenzel P. Group-specific 16S rRNA targeted probes for the detection of Type I and Type II methanotrophs by fluorescence in situ hybridisation. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2001;198:91–7.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
80.Lagkouvardos I, Joseph D, Kapfhammer M, Giritli S, Horn M, Haller D, et al. Imngs: a comprehensive open resource of processed 16S rRNA microbial profiles for ecology and diversity studies. Sci Rep. 2016;6:33721.81.Yarza P, Yilmaz P, Pruesse E, Glöckner FO, Ludwig W, Schleifer KH, et al. Uniting the classification of cultured and uncultured bacteria and archaea using 16S rRNA gene sequences. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2014;12:635–45.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
82.Vizcaíno JA, Csordas A, del-Toro N, Dianes JA, Griss J, Lavidas I, et al. 2016 update of the pride database and its related tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44:D447–D456.PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar  More

1.Raude, J., McColl, K., Flamand, C. & Apostolidis, T. Understanding health behavior changes in response to outbreaks: findings from a longitudinal study of a large epidemic of mosquito-borne disease. Soc. Sci. Med. 230, 184–193 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Kapiriri, L. & Ross, A. The politics of disease epidemics: a comparative analysis of the SARS, Zika, and Ebola outbreaks. Glob. Soc. Welf. 7, 33–45 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Lewis, M. The economics of epidemics. Georget. J. Int. Aff. 2, 25–31 (2001).
Google Scholar 
4.Gelfand M. J. et al. The relationship between cultural tightness–looseness and COVID-19 cases and deaths: a global analysis. Lancet Planet. Health https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30301-6 (2021).5.Marston, C., Renedo, A. & Miles, S. Community participation is crucial in a pandemic. Lancet 395, 1676–1678 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Shultz, J. M. et al. The role of fear-related behaviors in the 2013–2016 West Africa Ebola virus disease outbreak. Curr. Psychiatry Rep. 18, 104 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Abramowitz, S. et al. The opposite of denial: social learning at the onset of the Ebola emergency in Liberia. J. Health Commun. 22, 59–65 (2017).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Lee, C., Ayers, S. L. & Kronenfeld, J. J. The association between perceived provider discrimination, healthcare utilization and health status in racial and ethnic minorities. Ethn. Dis. 19, 330–337 (2009).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
9.Fenton, J. J., Jerant, A. F., Bertakis, K. D. & Franks, P. The cost of satisfaction: a national study of patient satisfaction, health care utilization, expenditures, and mortality. Arch. Intern. Med. 172, 405–411 (2012).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Carter, S. E. et al. Barriers and enablers to treatment-seeking behavior and causes of high-risk practices in Ebola: a case study from Sierra Leone. J. Health Commun. 22, 31–38 (2017).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Kretzschmar, M. Disease modeling for public health: added value, challenges, and institutional constraints. J. Public Health Policy 41, 39–51 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Brauer, F. Mathematical epidemiology: past, present, and future. Infect. Dis. Model 2, 113–127 (2017).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
13.Chowell, G., Sattenspiel, L., Bansal, S. & Viboud, C. Mathematical models to characterize early epidemic growth: a review. Phys. Life Rev. 18, 66–97 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Polonsky, J. A. et al. Outbreak analytics: a developing data science for informing the response to emerging pathogens. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 374, 20180276 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Longini, I. M. Jr et al. Containing pandemic influenza at the source. Science 309, 1083–1087 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Zhang, Q. et al. Spread of Zika virus in the Americas. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 114, E4334–E4343 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Chretien, J.-P., Riley, S. & George, D. B. Mathematical modeling of the West Africa Ebola epidemic. eLife 4, e09186 (2015).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Chowell, G. & Nishiura, H. Transmission dynamics and control of Ebola virus disease (EVD): a review. BMC Med. 12, 196 (2014).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Adam, D. Special report: the simulations driving the world’s response to COVID-19. Nature 580, 316–318 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Siegenfeld, A. F., Taleb, N. N. & Bar-Yam, Y. Opinion: what models can and cannot tell us about COVID-19. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 16092–16095 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Manfredi, P. & D’Onofrio, A., eds. Modeling the Interplay Between Human Behavior and the Spread of Infectious Diseases (Springer-Verlag, 2013).22.Philipson, T. in Handbook of Health Economics (eds Culyer, A. and Newhouse, J.) Vol. 1, Ch. 33, 1761–1799 (Elsevier, 2000).23.Abramowitz, S. A., Hipgrave, D. B., Witchard, A. & Heymann, D. L. Lessons from the West Africa Ebola epidemic: a systematic review of epidemiological and social and behavioral science research priorities. J. Infect. Dis. 218, 1730–1738 (2018).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
24.Bedford, J. et al. Application of social science in the response to Ebola, Equateur Province, Democratic Republic of the Congo/Application des sciences sociales dans la riposte a la maladie a virus Ebola, province de l’Equateur, Republique democratique du Congo. Wkly Epidemiological Rec. 94, 19–24 (2019).
Google Scholar 
25.Norton, A. et al. A living mapping review for COVID-19 funded research projects: six-month update [version 3; peer review: 2 approved]. Wellcome Open Res. 5, 209 (2021).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Pedi, D. et al. The development of standard operating procedures for social mobilization and community engagement in sierra leone during the West Africa Ebola outbreak of 2014-2015. J. Health Commun. 22, 39–50 (2017).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
27.RCCE Collective Service. Operational guide for engaging communities in contact tracing World Health Organization (2021); https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/341553/WHO-2019-nCoV-Contact_tracing-Community_engagement-2021.1-eng.pdf?sequence=128.Cellules d’Analyses en Sciences Sociales (CASS). Social Science Support for COVID-19: Lessons Learned Brief 3 7 (2020); https://www.unicef.org/drcongo/media/4131/file/CASS-Brief3-recommendations.pdf29.Xepapadeas, A. The spatial dimension in environmental and resource economics. Environ. Dev. Econ. 15, 747–758 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Reed, M. S. et al. What is social learning? Ecol. Soc. 15, r1 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Kermack, W. O., McKendrick, A. G. & Walker, G. T. A contribution to the mathematical theory of epidemics. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 115, 700–721 (1927).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Influenza in a boarding school. Brit. Med. J. 1, 587–587 (1978).33.Funk, S., Salathé, M. & Jansen, V. A. A. Modelling the influence of human behaviour on the spread of infectious diseases: a review. J. R. Soc. Interface 7, 1247–1256 (2010).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Eksin, C., Paarporn, K. & Weitz, J. S. Systematic biases in disease forecasting-the role of behavior change. Epidemics 27, 96–105 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Bedford, J. et al. A new twenty-first century science for effective epidemic response. Nature 575, 130–136 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Verelst, F., Willem, L. & Beutels, P. Behavioural change models for infectious disease transmission: a systematic review (2010-2015). J. R. Soc. Interface https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2016.0820 (2016).37.Weston, D., Hauck, K. & Amlôt, R. Infection prevention behaviour and infectious disease modelling: a review of the literature and recommendations for the future. BMC Public Health 18, 336 (2018).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Gersovitz, M. The economics of infection control. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 3, 277–296 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Perrings, C. et al. Merging economics and epidemiology to improve the prediction and management of infectious disease. Ecohealth 11, 464–475 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Althouse, B. M., Bergstrom, T. C. & Bergstrom, C. T. Evolution in health and medicine Sackler colloquium: a public choice framework for controlling transmissible and evolving diseases. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 1696–1701 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Ward, C. J. Influenza vaccination campaigns: is an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure? Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 6, 38–72 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Fenichel, E. P. Economic considerations for social distancing and behavioral based policies during an epidemic. J. Health Econ. 32, 440–451 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Acemoglu, D., Chernozhukov, V., Werning, I. & Whinston, M. D. Optimal Targeted Lockdowns in a Multi-Group SIR Model Working Paper 27102 (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2020); https://doi.org/10.3386/w2710244.Ahituv, A., Hotz, V. J. & Philipson, T. The responsiveness of the demand for condoms to the local prevalence of AIDS. J. Hum. Resour. 31, 869–897 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Kremer, M. Integrating behavioral choice into epidemiological models of AIDS. Q. J. Econ. 111, 549–573 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Justwan, F., Baumgaertner, B., Carlisle, J. E., Carson, E. & Kizer, J. The effect of trust and proximity on vaccine propensity. PLoS ONE 14, e0220658 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Chen, F. H. Rational behavioral response and the transmission of STDs. Theor. Popul. Biol. 66, 307–316 (2004).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Geoffard, P.-Y. & Philipson, T. Rational epidemics and their public control. Int. Econ. Rev. 37, 603–624 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Fenichel, E. P. et al. Adaptive human behavior in epidemiological models. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 6306 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Morin, B. R., Fenichel, E. P. & Castillo-Chavez, C. SIR dynamics with economically driven contact rates. Nat. Resour. Model. 26, 505–525 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Fenichel, E. P., Kuminoff, N. V. & Chowell, G. Skip the trip: air travelers’ behavioral responses to pandemic influenza. PLoS ONE 8, e58249 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Hung, Y. W. et al. Impact of a free care policy on the utilisation of health services during an Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo: an interrupted time-series analysis. BMJ Glob. Health 5, e002119 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Modeling Anthropogenic Effects in the Spread of Infectious Diseases (MASpread) Project. EcoServices: Disease Risks. Arizona State University (Accessed 17 April 2021); http://ecoservices.asu.edu/Diseaserisks/DRindex.html54.Morris, M. Network Epidemiology: A Handbook for Survey Design and Data Collection (OUP, 2004).55.Meyers, L. Contact network epidemiology: bond percolation applied to infectious disease prediction and control. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 44, 63–86 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Pastor-Satorras, R., Castellano, C., Van Mieghem, P. & Vespignani, A. Epidemic processes in complex networks. Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 925–979 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Wang, Z. et al. Statistical physics of vaccination. Phys. Rep. 664, 1–113 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Cohen, R., Havlin, S. & Ben-Avraham, D. Efficient immunization strategies for computer networks and populations. Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 247901 (2003).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
59.Salathé, M. & Jones, J. H. Dynamics and control of diseases in networks with community structure. PLoS Comput. Biol. 6, e1000736 (2010).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
60.Hébert-Dufresne, L., Allard, A., Young, J.-G. & Dubé, L. J. Global efficiency of local immunization on complex networks. Sci. Rep. 3, 2171 (2013).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Rosenblatt, S. F., Smith, J. A., Gauthier, G. R. & Hébert-Dufresne, L. Immunization strategies in networks with missing data. PLoS Comput. Biol. 16, e1007897 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Funk, S., Gilad, E., Watkins, C. & Jansen, V. A. A. The spread of awareness and its impact on epidemic outbreaks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 6872–6877 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Funk, S. & Jansen, V. A. A. Interacting epidemics on overlay networks. Phys. Rev. E Stat. Nonlin. Soft Matter Phys. 81, 036118 (2010).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
64.Hébert-Dufresne, L., Mistry, D. & Althouse, B. M. Spread of infectious disease and social awareness as parasitic contagions on clustered networks. Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033306 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Marceau, V., Noël, P.-A., Hébert-Dufresne, L., Allard, A. & Dubé, L. J. Modeling the dynamical interaction between epidemics on overlay networks. Phys. Rev. E Stat. Nonlin. Soft Matter Phys. 84, 026105 (2011).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
66.Fu, F., Christakis, N. A. & Fowler, J. H. Dueling biological and social contagions. Sci. Rep. 7, 43634 (2017).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Granell, C., Gómez, S. & Arenas, A. Competing spreading processes on multiplex networks: awareness and epidemics. Phys. Rev. E Stat. Nonlin. Soft Matter Phys. 90, 012808 (2014).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
68.Fan, C.-J. et al. Effect of individual behavior on the interplay between awareness and disease spreading in multiplex networks. Phys. A 461, 523–530 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Scatà, M., Di Stefano, A., Liò, P. & La Corte, A. The impact of heterogeneity and awareness in modeling epidemic spreading on multiplex networks. Sci. Rep. 6, 37105 (2016).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
70.Wang, W. et al. Suppressing disease spreading by using information diffusion on multiplex networks. Sci. Rep. 6, 29259 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Zheng, C., Xia, C., Guo, Q. & Dehmer, M. Interplay between SIR-based disease spreading and awareness diffusion on multiplex networks. J. Parallel Distrib. Comput. 115, 20–28 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Gross, T. & Blasius, B. Adaptive coevolutionary networks: a review. J. R. Soc. Interface 5, 259–271 (2008).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
73.Gross, T. & Sayama, H. in Adaptive Networks: Theory, Models and Applications (eds Gross, T. & Sayama, H.) 1–8 (Springer, 2009).74.Wang, Z., Andrews, M. A., Wu, Z.-X., Wang, L. & Bauch, C. T. Coupled disease–behavior dynamics on complex networks: a review. Phys. Life Rev. 15, 1–29 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
75.Valdez, L. D., Macri, P. A. & Braunstein, L. A. Intermittent social distancing strategy for epidemic control. Phys. Rev. E Stat. Nonlin. Soft Matter Phys. 85, 036108 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
76.Tunc, I., Shkarayev, M. S. & Shaw, L. B. Epidemics in adaptive social networks with temporary link deactivation. J. Stat. Phys. 151, 355–366 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
77.Epstein, J. M., Parker, J., Cummings, D. & Hammond, R. A. Coupled contagion dynamics of fear and disease: mathematical and computational explorations. PLoS ONE 3, e3955 (2008).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
78.Kiss, I. Z., Cassell, J., Recker, M. & Simon, P. L. The impact of information transmission on epidemic outbreaks. Math. Biosci. 225, 1–10 (2010).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
79.Gross, T., D’Lima, C. J. D. & Blasius, B. Epidemic dynamics on an adaptive network. Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 208701 (2006).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
80.Zanette, D. H. & Risau-Gusmán, S. Infection spreading in a population with evolving contacts. J. Biol. Phys. 34, 135–148 (2008).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
81.Marceau, V., Noël, P.-A., Hébert-Dufresne, L., Allard, A. & Dubé, L. J. Adaptive networks: coevolution of disease and topology. Phys. Rev. E Stat. Nonlin. Soft Matter Phys. 82, 036116 (2010).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
82.Shaw, L. B. & Schwartz, I. B. Enhanced vaccine control of epidemics in adaptive networks. Phys. Rev. E Stat. Nonlin. Soft Matter Phys. 81, 046120 (2010).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
83.Althouse, B. M. & Hébert-Dufresne, L. Epidemic cycles driven by host behaviour. J. R. Soc. Interface https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2014.0575 (2014).84.Scarpino, S. V., Allard, A. & Hébert-Dufresne, L. The effect of a prudent adaptive behaviour on disease transmission. Nat. Phys. 12, 1042–1046 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
85.Shaw, L. B. & Schwartz, I. B. Fluctuating epidemics on adaptive networks. Phys. Rev. E Stat. Nonlin. Soft Matter Phys. 77, 066101 (2008).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
86.Sayama, H. et al. Modeling complex systems with adaptive networks. Comput. Math. Appl. 65, 1645–1664 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
87.Do, A.-L., Rudolf, L. & Gross, T. Patterns of cooperation: fairness and coordination in networks of interacting agents. N. J. Phys. 12, 063023 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
88.Van Segbroeck, S., Santos, F. C., Lenaerts, T. & Pacheco, J. M. Selection pressure transforms the nature of social dilemmas in adaptive networks. N. J. Phys. 13, 013007 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
89.Zhan, X.-X. et al. Coupling dynamics of epidemic spreading and information diffusion on complex networks. Appl. Math. Comput. 332, 437–448 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
90.Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T. & Rapson, R. L. Emotional contagion. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2, 96–100 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
91.Epstein, J. M. Agent_Zero: Toward Neurocognitive Foundations for Generative Social Science (Princeton Univ. Press, 2014).92.Barton, C. M. et al. Call for transparency of COVID-19 models. Science 368, 482–483 (2020).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
93.Hammond, R., Ornstein, J. T., Purcell, R., Haslam, M. D., & Kasman, M. Modeling robustness of COVID-19 containment policies. Preprint at OSF https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/h5ua7 (2021).94.Cooley, P. C. et al. The model repository of the models of infectious disease agent study. IEEE Trans. Inf. Technol. Biomed. 12, 513–522 (2008).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
95.Eubank, S. et al. Modelling disease outbreaks in realistic urban social networks. Nature 429, 180–184 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
96.Burke, D. S. et al. Individual-based computational modeling of smallpox epidemic control strategies. Acad. Emerg. Med. 13, 1142–1149 (2006).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
97.Ferguson, N. M. et al. Strategies for mitigating an influenza pandemic. Nature 442, 448–452 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
98.Germann, T. C., Kadau, K., Longini, I. M. Jr & Macken, C. A. Mitigation strategies for pandemic influenza in the United States. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 5935–5940 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
99.Longini, I. M. Jr et al. Containing a large bioterrorist smallpox attack: a computer simulation approach. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 11, 98–108 (2007).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
100.Hammond, R. A. Considerations and Best Practices in Agent-Based Modeling to Inform Policy (National Academies Press, 2015).101.Wallace, R et al. Assessing the Use of Agent-Based Models for Tobacco Regulation (National Academies Press, 2015).102.Pedro, S. A. et al. Conditions for a second wave of COVID-19 due to interactions between disease dynamics and social processes. Front. Phys. 8, 574514 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
103.Walters, C. E., Meslé, M. M. I. & Hall, I. M. Modelling the global spread of diseases: a review of current practice and capability. Epidemics 25, 1–8 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
104.Li, Y., Lawley, M. A., Siscovick, D. S., Zhang, D. & Pagán, J. A. Agent-based modeling of chronic diseases: a narrative review and future research directions. Prev. Chronic Dis. 13, E69 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
105.Weston, D., Ip, A. & Amlôt, R. Examining the application of behaviour change theories in the context of infectious disease outbreaks and emergency response: a review of reviews. BMC Public Health 20, 1483 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
106.Ripoll, S., Gercama, I., Jones, T. & Wilkinson, A. Social Science in Epidemics: Ebola Virus Disease Lessons Learned Background Report, UNICEF, IDS & Anthrologica https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/handle/20.500.12413/14160 (Institute of Development Studies, 2018).107.DuBois, M., Wake, C., Sturridge, S. & Bennett, C. The Ebola Response in West Africa: Exposing the Politics and Culture of International Aid (Overseas Development Institute, 2015).108.Hird, T. et al. Lessons From Ebola Affected Communities: Being Prepared for Future Health Crises (Africa All Party Parliamentary Group, 2016).109.WHO. Report of the Ebola Interim Assessment Panel—July 2015 (2020).110.Ashworth, H. C., Dada, S., Buggy, C. & Lees, S. The importance of developing rigorous social science methods for community engagement and behavior change during outbreak response. Disaster Med. Public Health Prep. 1–6 (2020).111.Wenham, C. et al. Women are most affected by pandemics—lessons from past outbreaks. Nature 583, 194–198 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
112.Schwartz, D. A., Anoko, J. N. & Abramowitz, S. A. Pregnant in the Time of Ebola: Women and Their Children in the 2013-2015 West African Epidemic (Springer International Publishing, 2019).113.Moore, M. D. Historicising ‘containment and delay’: COVID-19, the NHS and high-risk patients. Wellcome Open Res. 5, 130 (2020).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
114.Marcis, F. L., Enria, L., Abramowitz, S., Saez, A.-M. & Faye, S. L. B. Three acts of resistance during the 2014–16 West Africa Ebola epidemic. J. Humanitarian Aff. 1, 23–31 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
115.Parker, M., Hanson, T. M., Vandi, A., Babawo, L. S. & Allen, T. Ebola and public authority: saving loved ones in Sierra Leone. Med. Anthropol. 38, 440–454 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
116.Vinck, P., Pham, P. N., Bindu, K. K., Bedford, J. & Nilles, E. J. Institutional trust and misinformation in the response to the 2018–19 Ebola outbreak in North Kivu, DR Congo: a population-based survey. Lancet Infect. Dis. 19, 529–536 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
117.Ripoll, S., Gercama, I. & Jones, T. Rapid Appraisal of Key Health-Seeking Behaviours in Epidemics. SSHAP Practical Approaches brief 5, UNICEF, IDS & Anthrologica https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/handle/20.500.12413/15430 (Institute of Development Studies, 2020).118.Bielicki, J. A. et al. Monitoring approaches for health-care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet Infect. Dis. 20, e261–e267 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
119.Chu, I. Y.-H., Alam, P., Larson, H. J. & Lin, L. Social consequences of mass quarantine during epidemics: a systematic review with implications for the COVID-19 response. J. Travel Med. 27, taaa192 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
120.R&D Good Participatory Practice for COVID-19 Clinical Trials: a Toolbox (World Health Organization, 2020); https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/r-d-good-participatory-practice-for-covid-19-clinical-trials-a-toolbox121.Hankins, C. Good Participatory Practice Guidelines for Trials of Emerging (and Re-emerging) Pathogens That are Likely to Cause Severe Outbreaks in the Near Future and For Which Few or No Medical Countermeasures Exist (GPP-EP) (WHO, 2016).122.Sigfrid, L. et al. Addressing challenges for clinical research responses to emerging epidemics and pandemics: a scoping review. BMC Med. 18, 190 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
123.Gobat, N. H. et al. Talking to the people that really matter about their participation in pandemic clinical research: a qualitative study in four European countries. Health Expect. 21, 387–395 (2018).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
124.Richards, P. et al. Social pathways for ebola virus disease in rural Sierra Leone, and some implications for containment. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 9, e0003567 (2015).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
125.Jalloh, M. F. et al. National survey of Ebola-related knowledge, attitudes and practices before the outbreak peak in Sierra Leone: August 2014. BMJ Glob. Health 2, e000285 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
126.Bedford, J. Social science and behavioral data compilation, DRC Ebola outbreak, November 2018 – February 2019. Social Science in Humanitarian Action and GOARN Research Social Science Group (2019); https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/handle/20.500.12413/14144/SSHAP_data_compilation_brief_November_2018_updated.pdf127.Pinchoff, J. et al. Evidence-based process for prioritizing positive behaviors for promotion: Zika prevention in Latin America and the Caribbean and applicability to future health emergency responses. Glob. Health Sci. Pr. 7, 404–417 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
128.Guirguis, S., Obregon, R., Coleman, M., Hickler, B. & SteelFisher, G. Placing human behavior at the center of the fight to eradicate polio: lessons learned and their application to other life-saving interventions. J. Infect. Dis. 216, S331–S336 (2017).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
129.Research Guides: Social Science Data Resources: COVID-19 https://guides.library.yale.edu/covid19impacts (Accessed 17 April 2021).130.Rohan, H., Bausch, D. G. & Blanchet, K. Action not justification: how to use social science to improve outbreak response. PLoS Blogs (2018); https://collectionsblog.plos.org/action-not-justification-how-to-use-social-science-to-improve-outbreak-response/131.Bardosh, K. et al. Towards People-Centred Epidemic Preparedness and Response: From Knowledge to Action (Wellcome/DFID, 2019).132.UNICEF Minimum Quality Standards and Indicators for Community Engagement. Guidance Towards High Quality, Evidence-Based Community Engagement in The Development and Humanitarian Contexts. (2020); https://www.unicef.org/mena/reports/community-engagement-standards133.Hennessey Lavery, S. et al. The community action model: a community-driven model designed to address disparities in health. Am. J. Public Health 95, 611–616 (2005).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
134.Boyce, M. R. & Katz, R. Community health workers and pandemic preparedness: current and prospective roles. Front. Public Health 7, 62 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
135.Baggio, O. Real-Time Ebola Community Feedback Mechanism (SSHAP Case Study 10, UNICEF, IDS and Anthrologica, 2020).136.Collective Communication and Community Engagement in Humanitarian Action: How to Guide for Leaders and Responders (CDAC Network, 2019).137.Ackerman Gulaid, L. & Kiragu, K. Lessons learnt from promising practices in community engagement for the elimination of new HIV infections in children by 2015 and keeping their mothers alive: summary of a desk review. J. Int. AIDS Soc. 15, 17390 (2012).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
138.Gilmore, B. et al. Community engagement for COVID-19 prevention and control: a rapid evidence synthesis. BMJ Glob. Health 5, e003188 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
139.O’Mara-Eves, A. et al. The effectiveness of community engagement in public health interventions for disadvantaged groups: a meta-analysis. BMC Public Health 15, 129 (2015).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
140.Milton, B., Attree, P., French, B., Povall, S. L. & Popay, J. The impact of community engagement on health and social outcomes: a systematic review. 47, 316–334 (2011).141.Abramowitz, S. et al. Data Sharing in Public Health Emergencies: Anthropological and Historical Perspectives on Data Sharing During the 2014-2016 Ebola Epidemic and the 2016 Yellow Fever Epidemic (Wellcome Trust, 2018); https://www.glopid-r.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/data-sharing-in-public-health-emergencies-yellow-fever-and-ebola.pdf142.Bedson, J. et al. Community engagement in outbreak response: lessons from the 2014-2016 Ebola outbreak in Sierra Leone. BMJ Glob. Health 5, e002145 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
143.Jalloh, M. Design and implementation of an integrated digital system for community engagement and community-based surveillance during the 2014-2016 Ebola outbreak in Sierra Leone. BMJ Global Health 5, e003936 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
144.McComas, K. A. Defining moments in risk communication research: 1996-2005. J. Health Commun. 11, 75–91 (2006).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
145.Glik, D. C. Risk communication for public health emergencies. Annu. Rev. Public Health 28, 33–54 (2007).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
146.WHO General Information on Risk Communication (2015).147.Tworek, H., Beacock, I. & Ojo, E. Democratic health communications during Covid-19: a RAPID response (UBC Centre for the Study of Democratic Institutions, 2020); https://democracy.arts.ubc.ca/2020/09/14/covid-19/148.Winters, M. et al. Risk communication and ebola-specific knowledge and behavior during 2014-2015 outbreak, Sierra Leone. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 24, 336–344 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
149.Novetta. Social Media Analysis of ‘Tu vois Les Retombées’ Facebook Page (Insecurity Insight, 2020); http://insecurityinsight.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Social-Media-Analysis-Novetta-June-2020.pdf150.Ghenai, A. & Mejova, Y. Catching Zika Fever: Application of Crowdsourcing and Machine Learning for Tracking Health Misinformation on Twitter. Preprint at arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.03778 (2017).151.Taggart, T., Grewe, M. E., Conserve, D. F., Gliwa, C. & Roman Isler, M. Social media and HIV: a systematic review of uses of social media in HIV communication. J. Med. Internet Res. 17, e248 (2015).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
152.Smith, R. D. Responding to global infectious disease outbreaks: lessons from SARS on the role of risk perception, communication and management. Soc. Sci. Med. 63, 3113–3123 (2006).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
153.Li, C. et al. Retrospective analysis of the possibility of predicting the COVID-19 outbreak from Internet searches and social media data, China, 2020. Euro Surveill. 25, 2000199 (2020).PubMed Central 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
154.Lu, Y. & Zhang, L. Social media WeChat infers the development trend of COVID-19. J. Infect. 81, e82–e83 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
155.Effenberger, M. et al. Association of the COVID-19 pandemic with Internet search volumes: a Google TrendsTM Analysis. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 95, 192–197 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
156.Gallotti, R., Valle, F., Castaldo, N., Sacco, P. & De Domenico, M. Assessing the risks of ‘infodemics’ in response to COVID-19 epidemics. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 1285–1293 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
157.Bhattacharjee, S. & Dotto, C. Case study: understanding the impact of polio vaccine disinformation in Pakistan. First Draft (20 February 2020); https://firstdraftnews.org/long-form-article/first-draft-case-study-understanding-the-impact-of-polio-vaccine-disinformation-in-pakistan/158.Krause, N. M., Freiling, I., Beets, B. & Brossard, D. Fact-checking as risk communication: the multi-layered risk of misinformation in times of COVID-19. J. Risk Res. 23, 1052–1059 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
159.Eysenbach, G. Infodemiology and infoveillance: framework for an emerging set of public health informatics methods to analyze search, communication and publication behavior on the Internet. J. Med. Internet Res. 11, e11 (2009).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
160.Eysenbach, G. Infodemiology: the epidemiology of (mis)information. Am. J. Med. 113, 763–765 (2002).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
161.Islam, M. S. et al. COVID-19-related infodemic and its impact on public health: a global social media analysis. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 103, 1621–1629 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
162.Funk, S. et al. Nine challenges in incorporating the dynamics of behaviour in infectious diseases models. Epidemics 10, 21–25 (2015).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
163.Davis, P. K., O’Mahony, A., Gulden, T. R., Sieck, K. & Osoba, O. A. Priority Challenges for Social and Behavioral Research and Its Modeling (RAND, 2018).164.WHO Guidance For Managing Ethical Issues In Infectious Disease Outbreaks (2016).165.Bruine de Bruin, W., Parker, A. M., Galesic, M. & Vardavas, R. Reports of social circles’ and own vaccination behavior: a national longitudinal survey. Health Psychol. 38, 975–983 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
166.Facebook. COVID-19 Interactive Map & Dashboard (Accessed 14 April 2020); https://dataforgood.facebook.com/covid-survey/?region=WORLD167.Pruyt, E., Auping, W. L. & Kwakkel, J. H. Ebola in west Africa: model-based exploration of social psychological effects and interventions: Ebola in West Africa. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 32, 2–14 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
168.Schmidt-Hellerau, K. et al. Homecare for sick family members while waiting for medical help during the 2014-2015 Ebola outbreak in Sierra Leone: a mixed methods study. BMJ Glob. Health 5, e002732 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
169.Baggio, O. Case Study, Real-Time Ebola Community Feedback Mechanism (Social Science in Humanitarian Action, 2020); https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/326024204.pdf170.WHO, UNICEF and IFRC. The Collective Service (2020); https://www.who.int/teams/risk-communication/the-collective-service171.WHO. COVID-19 Knowledge Hub (2020); https://extranet.who.int/goarn/COVID19Hub172.Giles-Vernick, T. et al. A new social sciences network for infectious threats. Lancet Infect. Dis. 19, 461–463 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
173.Preventive Health Survey (Facebook, 2020); https://dataforgood.fb.com/tools/preventive-health-survey/174.COVID-19 Community Mobility Reports (Google, 2020).175.Badr, H. S. et al. Association between mobility patterns and COVID-19 transmission in the USA: a mathematical modelling study. Lancet Infect. Dis. 20, 1247–1254 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
176.WHO. Early AI-supported Response with Social Listening (2020); https://whoinfodemic.citibeats.com/?cat=fYJ1oBNEUQtfbExrkGvsyr177.WHO. Ebola or Marburg Case Investigation and Recording Sheet (16 June 2020); https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/ebola-or-marburg-case-investigation-and-recording-sheet178.CDC. Investigating a COVID-19 Case (2020); https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/contact-tracing/contact-tracing-plan/investigating-covid-19-case.html179.WHO. Disease Case Investigation Forms (Accessed 14 April 2021); https://www.who.int/emergencies/outbreak-toolkit/data-collection-standards/disease-case-investigation-forms180.Social Science Support for COVID-19: Lessons Learned Brief 1 (Cellule D’analyse en Sciences Sociales, 2020).181.Rivers, C., Pollett, S. & Viboud, C. The opportunities and challenges of an Ebola modeling research coordination group. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 14, e0008158 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
182.WHO. Global Health Observatory (Accessed 14 April 2021); https://www.who.int/data/gho183.Data Portal (RCCE Collective Service: Risk Communication and Community Engagement, 2020); https://www.rcce-collective.net/data/184.Richards, P. Ebola: How a People’s Science Helped End an Epidemic (Zed Books, 2016).185.Social Science in Humanitarian Action Platform Social Science in Humanitarian Action, Key Considerations: Engaging Twa communities in Equateur Province (2018).186.Heesterbeek, H. et al. Modeling infectious disease dynamics in the complex landscape of global health. Science 347, aaa4339 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
187.Skrip, L., Fallah, M. P., Bedson, J., Hébert-Dufresne, L. & Althouse, B. M. Coordinated support for local action: a modeling study of strategies to facilitate behavior adoption in urban poor communities of Liberia for sustained COVID-19 suppression. Preprint at medRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.11.20172031 (2020).188.Online Database of Training on Social Dimensions of Infectious Threats (Sonar Global, Accessed 14 April 2021); https://www.sonar-global.eu/trainings/189.OpenWHO. https://openwho.org (Accessed 14 April 2021).190.Gwynn, S. Access to Research in the Global South: Reviewing the Evidence (International Network for the Availability of Scientific Publications, 2019).191.Urassa, M. et al. Cross-cultural research must prioritize equitable collaboration. Nat. Hum. Behav. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01076-x (2021).192.Bonino, F., Jean, I. & Knox-Clarke, P. Closing the Loop: Effective Feedback in Humanitarian Contexts (ALNAP/ODI, 2014).193.Metcalf, C. J. E., Edmunds, W. J. & Lessler, J. Six challenges in modelling for public health policy. Epidemics 10, 93–96 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
194.Cobey, S. Modeling infectious disease dynamics. Science 368, 713–714 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
195.Ordway, D.-M. Epidemiological Models: 10 Things to Know About Coronavirus Research (Harvard Kennedy School, 2020); https://journalistsresource.org/tip-sheets/research/epidemiological-models-coronavirus/196.Knight, G. M. et al. Bridging the gap between evidence and policy for infectious diseases: how models can aid public health decision-making. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 42, 17–23 (2016).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.Bonan, G. B. Forests and climate change: forcings, feedbacks, and the climate benefits of forests. Science 320, 1444–1449 (2008).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Saatchi, S. S. et al. Benchmark map of forest carbon stocks in tropical regions across three continents. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 9899–9904 (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Veldkamp, E., Schmidt, M., Powers, J. S. & Corre, M. D. Deforestation and reforestation impacts on soils in the tropics. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 1, 590–605 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Ceccherini, G. et al. Abrupt increase in harvested forest area over Europe after 2015. Nature 583, 72–77 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Mitchard, E. T. A. The tropical forest carbon cycle and climate change. Nature 559, 527–534 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Curran, L. M. et al. Lowland forest loss in protected areas of Indonesian Borneo. Science 303, 1000–1003 (2004).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Friedl, A. et al. MODIS Collection 5 Global Land Cover: Algorithm Refinements and Characterization of New Datasets, 2001–2012 Collection 5.1 (Boston University, 2010).8.Hansen, M. C. et al. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 342, 850–853 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Margono, B. A., Potapov, P. V., Turubanova, S., Stolle, F. & Hansen, M. C. Primary forest cover loss in Indonesia over 2000–2012. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 730–735 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Turubanova, S. et al. Ongoing primary forest loss in Brazil, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Indonesia. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 074028 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Searchinger, T. et al. Creating a Sustainable Food Future: A Menu of Solutions to Feed Nearly 10 Billion People by 2050 (World Resources Institute, 2019).12.Gibbs, H. K. et al. Tropical forests were the primary sources of new agricultural land in the 1980s and 1990s. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 16732–16737 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Tyukavina, A. et al. Congo Basin forest loss dominated by increasing smallholder clearing. Sci. Adv. 4, eaat2993 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Achard, F. et al. Determination of tropical deforestation rates and related carbon losses from 1990 to 2010. Glob. Change Biol. 20, 2540–2554 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Baccini, A. et al. Tropical forests are a net carbon source based on aboveground measurements of gain and loss. Science 358, 230–234 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Aide, T. M. et al. Woody vegetation dynamics in the tropical and subtropical Andes from 2001 to 2014: satellite image interpretation and expert validation. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 2112–2126 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Song, X. P. et al. Global land change from 1982 to 2016. Nature 560, 639–643 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Körner, C. et al. A global inventory of mountains for bio-geographical applications. Alp. Bot. 127, 1–15 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Zeng, Z. et al. Highland cropland expansion and forest loss in Southeast Asia in the twenty-first century. Nat. Geosci. 11, 556–562 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Zeng, Z., Gower, D. B. & Wood, E. F. Accelerating forest loss in Southeast Asian Massif in the 21st century: a case study in Nan Province, Thailand. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 4682–4695 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Zarin, D. J. et al. Can carbon emissions from tropical deforestation drop by 50% in 5 years? Glob. Change Biol. 22, 1336–1347 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Spracklen, D. & Righelato, R. Tropical montane forests are a larger than expected global carbon store. Biogeosciences 11, 2741–2754 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Miettinen, J., Shi, C. & Liew, S. C. Deforestation rates in insular Southeast Asia between 2000 and 2010. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 2261–2270 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Austin, K. G. et al. What causes deforestation in Indonesia? Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 024007 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Hansen, M. et al. Response to comment on ‘high-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change’. Science 344, 981–981 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Chan, N., Xayvongsa, L. & Takeda, S. in Environmental Resources Use and Challenges in Contemporary Southeast Asia (eds Lopez, M. I. & Suryomenggolo, J.) 231–246 (Springer, 2018).27.Thompson, J. R., Carpenter, D. N., Cogbill, C. V. & Foster, D. R. Four centuries of change in northeastern United States forests. PLoS ONE 8, e72540 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Lawrence, D. & Vandecar, K. Effects of tropical deforestation on climate and agriculture. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 27–36 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Zeng, Z. et al. Deforestation-induced warming over tropical mountain regions regulated by elevation. Nat. Geosci. 14, 23–29 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Senior, R. A., Hill, J. K., Benedick, S. & Edwards, D. P. Tropical forests are thermally buffered despite intensive selective logging. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 1267–1278 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Senior, R. A., Hill, J. K., González del Pliego, P., Goode, L. K. & Edwards, D. P. A pantropical analysis of the impacts of forest degradation and conversion on local temperature. Ecol. Evol. 7, 7897–7908 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Sodhi, N. S. et al. The state and conservation of Southeast Asian biodiversity. Biodivers. Conserv. 19, 317–328 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Ahrends, A. et al. Current trends of rubber plantation expansion may threaten biodiversity and livelihoods. Glob. Environ. Change 34, 48–58 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Edwards, D. P. et al. Degraded lands worth protecting: the biological importance of Southeast Asia’s repeatedly logged forests. Proc. R. Soc. B 278, 82–90 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Srinivasan, U., Elsen, P. R. & Wilcove, D. S. Annual temperature variation influences the vulnerability of montane bird communities to land-use change. Ecography 42, 2084–2094 (2019).Article 

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

Google Scholar 
37.Guo, F., Lenoir, J. & Bonebrake, T. C. Land-use change interacts with climate to determine elevational species redistribution. Nat. Commun. 9, 1315 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
38.Elsen, P. R., Monahan, W. B. & Merenlender, A. M. Topography and human pressure in mountain ranges alter expected species responses to climate change. Nat. Commun. 11, 1974 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Spracklen, D. V., Arnold, S. R. & Taylor, C. M. Observations of increased tropical rainfall preceded by air passage over forests. Nature 489, 282–285 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Spracklen, D. V. & Garcia-Carreras, L. The impact of Amazonian deforestation on Amazon Basin rainfall. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 9546–9552 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Cheng, L. et al. Quantifying the impacts of vegetation changes on catchment storage–discharge dynamics using paired-catchment data. Water Resour. Res. 53, 5963–5979 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Chappell, A., Baldock, J. & Sanderman, J. The global significance of omitting soil erosion from soil organic carbon cycling schemes. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 187–191 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
43.Yue, Y. et al. Lateral transport of soil carbon and land–atmosphere CO2 flux induced by water erosion in China. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 6617–6622 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Ziegler, A. D. et al. Carbon outcomes of major land-cover transitions in SE Asia: great uncertainties and REDD+ policy implications. Glob. Change Biol. 18, 3087–3099 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Brinck, K. et al. High resolution analysis of tropical forest fragmentation and its impact on the global carbon cycle. Nat. Commun. 8, 14855 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Fox, J., Castella, J. C. & Ziegler, A. D. Swidden, rubber and carbon: can REDD+ work for people and the environment in montane mainland Southeast Asia? Glob. Environ. Change 29, 318–326 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Harris, N. L. et al. Global maps of twenty-first century forest carbon fluxes. Nat. Clim. Change https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00976-6 (2021).48.Tachikawa, T., Hato, M., Kaku, M. & Iwasaki, A. Characteristics of ASTER GDEM version 2. In Proc. IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS) 3657–3660 (IEEE, 2011).49.Burrough, P. A., McDonnell, R., McDonnell, R. A. & Lloyd, C. D. Principles of Geographical Information Systems (Oxford Univ. Press, 2015).50.Mokany, K., Raison, R. J. & Prokushkin, A. S. Critical analysis of root : shoot ratios in terrestrial biomes. Glob. Change Biol. 12, 84–96 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Tyukavina, A. et al. Aboveground carbon loss in natural and managed tropical forests from 2000 to 2012. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 074002 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
52.Ryan, S. E. & Porth, L. S. A Tutorial on the Piecewise Regression Approach Applied to Bedload Transport Data (CreateSpace, 2015).53.Toms, J. D. & Lesperance, M. L. Piecewise regression: a tool for identifying ecological thresholds. Ecology 84, 2034–2041 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Zeng, Z. et al. A reversal in global terrestrial stilling and its implications for wind energy production. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 979–985 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Zaiontz, C. Real Statistics Using Excel (accessed 16 June 2021); http://www.real-statistics.com/ More

A combination of airborne and satellite remote sensing data were used to quantify changes in mangrove forest structure and function from Hurricane Irma (Supplementary Fig. 1). Findings based on multi-sensor airborne data were scaled to the entire study area using estimates of forest structure and vegetation phenology derived from satellite data.G-LiHT Airborne campaignDuring April 2017, NASA Goddard’s Lidar, Hyperspectral, and Thermal (G-LiHT) airborne imager conducted an extensive airborne campaign in South Florida covering >130,000 ha. The same flight lines were resurveyed with G-LiHT eight months later, during November and December of 2017, to quantify structural changes in coastal forests of South Florida and Everglades National Park (ENP) following Hurricane Irma (Fig. 1). Lidar data was collected with two VQ-280i (Riegl USA) and synced during flight using RiACQUIRE version 2.3.7. The plane flew at a nominal height of 335 m above ground level at a pulse repetition frequency of 300 kHz to collect ~12 laser pulses per square meter. The analysis of pre- and post-hurricane conditions used 1-m resolution lidar data products (Supplementary Fig. 2) and 3-cm resolution stereo aerial and ground photos to estimate changes in vegetation structure, fractional cover, and terrain heights across the study domain. G-LiHT lidar canopy height models, digital terrain models, and estimates of fractional vegetation canopy cover (FVC) were produced using standard processing methodology21. All Level 1 through 3 lidar data products and fine-resolution imagery are openly shared through the G-LiHT webpage (https://gliht.gsfc.nasa.gov/).High resolution stereo maps of canopy heightStereo imagery from high-resolution commercial satellites can be used to estimate canopy and terrain surfaces42,43. Here, we derived digital surface models (DSMs) from DigitalGlobe’s WorldView 2 Level 1B imagery. DigitalGlobe provides these data to U.S. Government agencies and non-profit organizations that support U.S. interests via the NextView license agreement44. The spatial resolution of these data depends on the degree of off-nadir pointing for each acquisition. In this study, image resolution ranged from 0.5 to 0.7 m. We selected along-track stereopairs within the study domain to identify stereo image strips (each ~17 km × 110 km) that were nominally cloud-free over the forested domain of interest for years 2012–2013, the most recent cloud-free stereo data available for the study region prior to Hurricane Irma. The DSMs were produced using the Ames Stereo Pipeline (ASP) v. 2.5.1 on the NASA Center for Climate Simulation’s Advanced Data Analytics Platform at Goddard Space Flight Center (ADAPT, https://www.nccs.nasa.gov/services/adapt). The Worldview DSMs have been shown to accurately estimate mangrove canopy height when compared to airborne lidar and radar interferometry42,43. The processing workflow was adapted from ref. 45, and was implemented semi-global matching algorithms with a 5 × 5 correlation kernel, and a 3 × 3 median-filter applied to the output point cloud prior to producing a 1 m DSM using a weighted average gridding rule46. The ASP processing yielded five DSMs at 1-m resolution that were used to capture pre-storm canopy surface elevations.Each of the five Worldview DSMs were individually calibrated using overlapping pre-storm G-LiHT lidar data to estimate mangrove canopy heights across the study region (Supplementary Fig. 1). We sampled 1000 points within the mangrove forest cover (see mangrove classification, below) to develop a bias-correction equation between G-LiHT lidar-derived canopy heights and stereo DSM elevations (Supplementary Fig. 6). The bias-corrected canopy height models from high-resolution stereo imagery were mosaicked together to generate a 1-m resolution CHM for the entire study region (Supplementary Fig. 7). A pre-storm canopy volume was calculated by summing the 1 m × 1 m WorldView CHM for the entire region of interest. Similarly, a post-storm canopy volume was derived using the canopy damage model (see the section below), the relationship between the pre-storm CHM and the max wind speed. This analysis was conducted in ArcMap 10.7.1.Landsat mangrove forest classificationLandsat 8 Operational Land Imager (OLI) imagery was used to map mangrove cover for the southern Florida study region. The imagery was preprocessed to surface reflectance47 and clouds were masked following methods outlined in ref. 48. The Surface Reflectance Tier 1 product in Google Earth Engine was used to create a cloud-free image mosaic for 2016 based on the median values of all cloud-free images for the year for all bands (Supplementary Fig. 1).Training points were hand-selected using contemporary Google Earth imagery, field photos, and expert knowledge of the region. Twenty-four polygons covering a mangrove area of 1243 ha and 17 polygons covering a non-mangrove area of 2759 ha were identified for training regions. Within each of the two classes (i.e., mangrove and non-mangrove), 100,00 points were sampled and used for the training data in a Random Forest Classification implemented in Google Earth Engine49. The Random Forest model used 20 trees and a bag fraction of 0.5. The Landsat-based mangrove map was validated using the Region 3 species land cover map developed by the National Park Service for Everglades National Park50. The National Park species map was reclassified into mangrove and non-mangrove land cover, and 500 randomly generated points were sampled within each of the two land cover classes. The resulting error matrix indicated an overall accuracy of 90.6%.Post-storm canopy coverTime series of Landsat data were used to estimate hurricane damages of mangrove forest cover through December 31, 2017. We combined data from Landsat 7 ETM+ and Landsat 8 OLI to create a dense time series of cloud-free observations. All images were pre-processed to surface reflectance and masked for clouds using the same methods as the mangrove classification. Landsat 7 and Landsat 8 data were then harmonized to account for differences in the sensor specifications following51. We calculated the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) and Normalized Difference Water Index (NDWI) for each image in the collection. We calculated two reference maps from the time series of Landsat imagery (Supplementary Fig. 1). A pre-storm reference was calculated as the median value for each reflectance and index band for all cloud-free imagery in the two years prior Hurricane Irma, August 31, 2015 through August 31, 2017. Similarly, a post-storm median mosaic image was made using Landsat data between October 1, 2017 and December 31, 2017.Pre- and post-storm wall-to-wall Fractional Vegetation Cover (FVC) maps were generated using a combination of lidar-based FVC metrics and Landsat imagery (Supplementary Fig. 1). First, lidar-based FVC was binned into five classes; 0–20%, 20–40%, 40–60%, 60–80%, and 80–100% (Supplementary Fig. 7). We then collected 1000 randomly generated points in each of the five FVC classes, a total of 5000 points, to be used as training data in the Landsat classification. Here, we implemented a Random Forest Classifier using 100 trees and a bag fraction of 0.5. These steps were applied to both the pre-storm and post-storm lidar-derived FVC and Landsat mosaic image metrics. Changes between the pre- and post-storm FVC were then calculated based on the five different FVC classes (Supplementary Fig. 7). For example, a pixel with pre-storm FVC of 80–100% and a post-storm FVC of 20–40%, a reduction of three FVC classes, was assigned a drop in FVC of 40–60% (Fig. 1).Recovery times and resilienceWe estimated the time to full recovery of pre-storm mangrove green canopy cover using the time series of Landsat NDVI during the first 15-months following Hurricane Irma. The pre-storm mean NDVI layer was used as a reference, as described in the previous section. Next we calculated the NDVI anomaly for each image during the post-storm period, September 17, 2017 through December 31, 2018 (Supplementary Fig. 1). We then summed the individual anomaly values from each Landsat image and normalized by the total number of valid pixels (i.e., pixels meeting quality control measures) to estimate the average change in NDVI within the 15 months after the storm. We used anomaly values to identify mangrove forests with large decreases in the 15 months after the storm using a threshold of 0.2 for the 15-month NDVI average anomaly19,52. These areas suffered large losses of canopy material and limited new growth during the post-storm period. We used the slope in NDVI values for each pixel during 2018 to estimate the time in years to full recovery to pre-storm NDVI values, excluding data from October to December 2017 to remove delayed browning of damaged vegetation and spurious NDVI values from surface water features following the storm. Areas with a negative NDVI slope were not assigned a recovery time.We used a combination of the NDVI slope, estimated time to full NDVI recovery, and the average change in NDVI between the pre- and post-storm periods to categorize mangrove forest resilience, the potential for mangroves to rebound to pre-disturbance conditions. The specific criteria for mangrove recovery rates and mangrove damage thresholds were adapted from field and remote sensing studies, respectively6,19,25. Regions of high resilience (a combination of high resistance and resilience) were identified based on rapid recovery and/or little to no immediate impact from the storm: (1) areas that were observed to recover to pre-disturbance conditions during 2018, (2) areas that were predicted to recover within 5 years regardless of the post-storm drop in NDVI6, and (3) regions with a post-storm change in NDVI 15 years or a negative NDVI slope that occurred in regions with the largest ( >0.2) post-storm drop in average NDVI25 (Supplementary Fig. 9). The resilience class map is available online for download53.Mangrove species and elevationWe used species level maps developed by the National Park Service for Everglades National Park50 to characterize the impact of Hurricane Irma on different mangrove species. For that study, dominant species were identified through photo-interpretation of stereoscopic, color-infrared aerial imagery. Grid cells of 50 m × 50 m covering an area (Region 3) of ~100,000 ha in southwest Florida were interpreted based on the majority cover type and validated using field observations. A total of 169 vegetation cover classes were identified in this region, however, only five mangrove cover classes were considered for these analyses: Avicennia germinans (Black Mangrove), Laguncularia racemosa (White Mangrove), Rhizophora mangle (Red Mangrove), Conocarpus erectus (Buttonwood), and a single mixed species mangrove class. Mangrove forest communities were defined as the dominant diagnostic species in the upper-most stratum50. The mangrove species data were reprojected to match the Landsat resolution and the resilience maps. We used the intersection of the resilience and species extent maps to estimate the proportion of each resilience class by dominant species.The USGS National Elevation Dataset (NED) was used to estimate the soil elevation across southwest Florida. The 1/9 arc second (~3 m × 3 m) products were acquired from NED, and reprojected to Landsat resolution to estimate the proportion of each resilience class by soil elevation.Additional data and analysisModeled maximum storm surge data for Hurricane Irma were acquired from Coastal Emergency Risks Assessment data portal. Storm surge is derived from the ADCIRC Prediction System that solves for time dependent, circulation, and transport in multiple dimensions54. Maximum sustained hurricane wind speed was modeled hourly at a 5 km × 5 km resolution for 2017 by NASA’s Global Modeling and Assimilation Office (GMAO)55. The storm maximum wind speed for each 5 km × 5 km grid cell was calculated and binned into six discrete classes of wind speeds at 5 m s−1 increments: 26–30, 31–35, 36–40, 41–45, 46–50, and >50.Statistical analysesCanopy height losses measured from NASA G-LiHT data were grouped by five pre-storm canopy height classes (0–5 m, 5–10 m, 10–15 m, 15–20 m, and >20 m). All valid pixels within the lidar footprint was used to calculate the mean, standard error, and area (sum of 1 m × 1 m pixels) for each class (Supplementary Table 1). These results were then tested for significant differences between canopy height losses and pre-storm canopy height classes between using a one-way ANOVA analysis with a post-hoc Tukey test in R (version 4.0.3). For testing the significance between environmental variables (i.e., pre-storm canopy height, canopy height loss, percent canopy height loss, surface elevation, and storm surge water level above ground) we employed a two-sided Kolmogorov–Smirnov test56 implemented in R (version 4.0.3). First, we created a multi-band stacked image which included each of the variable layers. Within each resilience class (i.e., Low, Intermediate, and High) with randomly selected 10,000–20,000 points using Google Earth Engine to sample from the environmental variables images. From that sample set we then randomly selected 500 samples within each of the resilience classes. Each class combination (1) Low-Intermediate, (2) Low-High, and (3) Intermediate-High were compared using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. We repeated this procedure using 5000 iterations in order to provide a robust estimate of the Kolmogorow–Smirnov statistic, including the mean and first and third quartiles, which were then compared to the critical value (Supplementary Table 2).Reporting summaryFurther information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article. More

Study siteThe experiment was conducted at Madingley Wood, Cambridgeshire, UK (0◦3.2´E, 52◦12.9´N) during summer 2018. Madingley Wood is an established field site with an ongoing long-term study of the blue tit and great tit populations. During the autumn and winter birds are caught from feeding stations using mist nets and they are fitted with British Trust of Ornithology (BTO) ID rings. Since 2012, blue tits and great tits have been fitted with RFID tags (BTO Special Methods permit to HMR), which enables collecting data remotely about their foraging behavior and social relationships. The study site has 90 nest boxes that are monitored annually during the breeding season. In 2018 chicks (n = 325) fledged successfully from 45 nest boxes (blue tits = 21, great tits = 24) and they were all ringed and fitted with RFID tags when they were approximately 10 days old. Because new juvenile flocks were arriving at our study site throughout the summer, we also conducted several mist-netting and ringing sessions in July and August to maintain a high proportion of blue tits and great tits ringed and RFID tagged for the experiments (on average 89%, see below). The study protocol was approved by the Animal Users Committee at the Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge.Food itemsWe investigated birds’ foraging choices by offering them colored almond flakes at bird feeders that were distributed throughout the wood. Before beginning the experiments, we allowed the birds to become familiar with the food items by providing plain ‘control’ almonds (plain and not colored) in paired feeders (1.5 m apart) at three locations (approximately 170 m from each other). The feeders were surrounded with metal cages to exclude larger birds, and we placed plastic buckets under the feeders to collect any spilled almonds and minimize birds’ opportunities to forage from the ground. We introduced the feeders at the beginning of June when the nestlings had fledged and were beginning to forage independently, and continued to provide these plain almonds in between our learning experiments (Fig. 3c).In the learning experiments, almond flakes were dyed with non-toxic food dye (Classikool Concentrated Droplet Food Colouring). We used three different color pairs: green (Leaf Green) and red (Bright Red), purple (Lavender Purple) and blue (Royal Blue), and orange (Satsuma Orange) and yellow (Dandelion Yellow). Almond flakes were dyed by soaking them for approximately 20 min in a solution of 900 ml of water and 30 ml of food dye and then left to air dry for 48 h. In the avoidance learning experiments, we made half of the almond flakes unpalatable by soaking them for one hour in 67% solution of chloroquine phosphate, following previously established methods from avoidance learning studies with birds in captivity14,23,24,25. The food dye was added to the solution during the last 20 min.Red and green are common colors used by aposematic, or cryptic prey, respectively9. Therefore, we investigated whether blue tits and great tits had initial color biases towards these colors before starting the main experiment. Because we did not want the birds in our study population to have any experience of the colors before the main experiment, this pilot study was conducted in Newbury, which is 130 km from our main study site. Birds were simultaneously presented with two feeders containing red and green almonds (both palatable) for 30 min and the number of almonds of each color taken by blue tits or great tits was recorded using binoculars. The position of the feeders was switched after 15 min to control for any preferences for feeder location, and the test was repeated on 9 different days. We did not find any evidence that birds had initial color preferences (t-test: t = 0, df = 15.69, p = 1). For the other two learning experiments, we chose color pairs that were available as a food dye and as different from red and green in the visible spectrum as possible to avoid generalization across experiments. These color pairs (blue/purple and yellow/orange) had similar contrast ratios as green and red, based on their RGB values (measured from photographs, see Supplementary Information). Although avian and human vision is different, the discriminability of colors is likely to be similar51, and rapid avoidance learning in each experiment shows that all colors were easily distinguishable. This was the main requirement for testing social information use, and subtle differences in color pair discriminability should only introduce noise to our data but not influence our conclusions.Learning experiments with colored almondsWe conducted three avoidance learning experiments with different color pairs throughout the summer: red/green, blue/purple, and yellow/orange (unpalatable/palatable). In addition, we conducted a reversal-learning experiment with the blue/purple color pair by making both colors palatable after birds had acquired avoidance to blue almonds. Each experiment followed a similar protocol, in which birds were presented with colored almonds at the same three feeding stations where they were previously offered plain almonds. Each feeding station had two feeders, where one contained the palatable color and the other contained the unpalatable color (except in the reversal learning test when both colors were palatable). We switched the side of the feeders every day to make sure that birds learned to associate palatability with an almond color and not a feeder position. The feeders were filled at least once a day (or more often if necessary) to make sure that birds always had access to both colors. We continued each avoidance learning experiment until >90% of all recorded visits were to the feeder with palatable almonds, indicating that most birds in the population had learned to discriminate the colors. This took 7 days in the red/green experiment and 8 days in the other two color pairs (blue/purple and yellow/orange). The reversal learning experiment was finished after 9 days when 50% of the visits were to the previously unpalatable color (blue), indicating that most birds had reversed their learned avoidance towards it.Recording visits to feedersWe monitored visits to all feeders using RFID antennas and data loggers (Francis Scientific Instruments, Ltd) that scanned birds’ unique RFID tag codes when they landed on a perch attached to the feeder. During the learning experiments, each day we also recorded videos from all three feeding stations (using Go Pro Hero Action Camera and Canon Legria HF R66 Camcorder). From the videos, we monitored the proportion of blue tits and great tits that did not have RFID tags and were therefore not recorded when visiting the feeders. We calculated the estimated RFID tag coverage for each day of the experiments by watching at least 100 visits to the feeders from the videos (divided equally among the three feeding stations) and recording whether blue tits and great tits had an RFID tag or not. We realized that the number of untagged individuals was very high (approximately 50% of all visiting birds) when we started the experiment with the first color pair (red/green; see Supplementary Fig. 3). We, therefore, stopped the experiment after two days and caught birds from the feeding stations with mist nets to fit RFID tags to new individuals. To maintain a high number of individuals RFID tagged for the other color pairs, we conducted a mist netting session a day before starting each experiment, as well as 4–5 days after it. We always switched the feeders back to containing plain almonds during mist-netting sessions to ensure that this would not interfere with the learning experiments. Apart from the first two days of the red/green experiment, the RFID tag coverage was on average 89% throughout the experiments (varying between 80 and 95%, Supplementary Fig. 3).Birds were recorded every time that they visited the feeders, i.e., landed on the RFID antenna. However, it is possible that birds did not take the almond during every visit. To get an estimate of how often birds landed on the antenna without taking the almond, and whether this differed between palatable and unpalatable colors, we analyzed the visits to the feeders from the video recordings. We watched videos from the five first days of each experiment (i.e., different color pairs) and analyzed 60 visits to each color (divided approximately equally among the three feeding stations). We recorded whether the feeding event happened (birds ate the almond at the feeder or flew away with it) or whether birds left the feeder without sampling the almond. Because the number of visits to the unpalatable feeder was low during the last days of the avoidance learning experiments, we decided not to analyze avoidance learning videos after day five (but recorded visits from all days of the reversal learning experiment). We found that in avoidance learning experiments birds started to ‘reject’ unpalatable almonds after two days, i.e., they sometimes landed on the feeder but flew away without taking the almond (see Supplementary Fig. 4a). This change was not observed at palatable feeders where birds continued to consume almonds at a similar rate as at the beginning of the experiment (Supplementary Fig. 4a). In reversal learning, the proportion of visits that did not include a feeding event did not differ between purple and blue almonds: birds showed similar hesitation towards both colors at the beginning of the experiment, but this wariness decreased when the experiment progressed, with birds taking the almond during most of their visits (Supplementary Fig. 4b).Statistical analyses and model validationForaging choices in learning experimentsWe first analyzed how birds’ foraging choices changed during the learning experiments using generalized linear mixed-effects models with a binomial error distribution. The number of times an individual visited each feeder on each day of the experiment was used as a bounded response variable, and this was explained by species (blue tit/great tit), individuals’ age (juvenile/adult), and day of the experiment (continuous variable), as well as bird identity as a random effect. When analyzing avoidance learning, initial exploration of data suggested that results were similar across all three experiments, so we combined the experiments in the same model. To investigate whether learning curves differed between the species or age groups, the day of the experiment was included as a second-order polynomial term, and we started model selections with models that included a three-way interaction between species, age, and day2. Best-fitting models were selected based on Akaike’s information criterion (see Supplementary Tables 1 and 2).Social networkTo investigate if birds used social information in their foraging choices, we first constructed a social network of the bird population based on their visits to feeders outside of the learning experiments, i.e., when birds were presented with plain almonds (in total 92 days, see Supplementary Information for the robustness of analysis to exclusion of network data before or after the experiment). We used only these data as individuals were likely to vary in their hesitation to visit novel colored almonds. We used a Gaussian mixture model to detect the clusters of visits (‘gathering events’) at the feeders52 and then calculated association strengths between individuals based on how often they were observed in the same group (gambit of the group approach). These associations (network edges) were calculated using the simple ratio index, SRI35.$$frac{x}{x+{y}_{{mathrm{A}}}+{y}_{{mathrm{B}}}+{y}_{{{mathrm{AB}},}}}$$
(2)
where x is the number of samples where individuals A and B co-occurred in the same group, yA is the number of samples where only individual A was seen, yB is the number of samples where only individual B was seen, and yAB is the number of samples where both A and B were observed in the same sample but not together. Network associations, therefore, estimated the probability that two individuals were in the same group at a given time, with the values scaled between 0 (never observed in the same group) and 1 (always observed in the same group).Social information use during avoidance learning: model descriptionIf social avoidance learning was occurring, then the more birds observed negative responses of others feeding on the unpalatable feeder, the less likely they would be to choose the unpalatable feeder themselves. Thus, we expected the probability of bird j choosing the unpalatable option at time t to decrease with ({R}_{-,j}left(tright)) (the real number of negative feeding events observed by j prior to time t). Likewise, if appetitive social learning was occurring, then the more birds observed positive responses of others feeding on the palatable feeder, the more likely they would be to choose the palatable feeder themselves (rather than the unpalatable feeder). So, we also expected the probability of j choosing the unpalatable option at time t to decrease as ({R}_{+,j}left(tright),)(the real number of positive events observed by j prior to time t) increased.However, we could not test for an effect of ({R}_{-,j}left(tright)) and ({R}_{+,j}left(tright)) directly, since birds often ate the almond away from the feeder, and therefore the real number of observed feeding events could not be measured. Instead, we aimed to test for a pattern following the social network that is consistent with these social learning processes. We reasoned that the probability that one individual i, observes a specific feeding event by another individual j, was proportional to the network connection between them, aij (probability they are in the same feeding group at a given time). Therefore, in each avoidance learning experiment (i.e., different color pair), we calculated the expected number of negative feeding events observed, prior to each choice (occurring at time t) as$${O}_{-,i}left(tright)={sum }_{j}{N}_{-,j}left(tright){a}_{{ij}},$$
(3)
where ({N}_{-,j}left(tright)) was the number of times j had visited unpalatable almonds prior to time t (i ≠ j), and summation is across all birds in the network, and likewise for the expected number of positive feeding events:$${O}_{+,i}left(tright)={sum }_{j}{N}_{+,j}left(tright){a}_{{ij}},$$
(4)
where ({N}_{+,j}left(tright)) was the number of times j had visited palatable almonds prior to time t (i ≠ j).We analyzed whether the expected observations of positive and/or negative feeding events of others influenced the foraging choices in the avoidance learning experiments using generalized linear mixed-effects models with a binomial error distribution. We used each choice (i.e., visit a feeder) as a binary response variable (1 = unpalatable chosen, 0 = palatable chosen), with the probability that unpalatable feeder is chosen on feeding event E given by ({p}_{E}={p}_{-,{i}(E)}left({t}_{E}right)), where i(E) is the individual that fed during event E and ({t}_{E}) is the time at which event E occurred. We then modeled the probability of i choosing the unpalatable option at time t as:$${p}_{-,i}left(tright)={rm{logit}}left(alpha +{beta }_{{rm{asoc}}+}{N}_{+,i}left(tright)+{beta }_{{rm{asoc}}-}{N}_{-,i}left(tright)+{beta }_{{rm{soc}}+}{O}_{+,i}left(tright)+{beta }_{s{rm{oc}}-}{O}_{-,i}left(tright)+{{{{rm{B}}}}}_{i}right),$$
(5)
where ({N}_{+,i}left(tright)) is the number of times a choosing individual had visited the palatable feeder (positive personal information), ({N}_{-,i}left(tright)) is the number of times a choosing individual had visited the unpalatable feeder (negative personal information), ({O}_{+,i}left(tright)) is the expected number of observed positive (positive social information) and ({O}_{-,i}left(tright)) observed negative feeding events (negative social information). Bird identity was included as a random effect, ({{rm{{B}}}}_{i}) (age and species were later added as variables, see below). Parameters ({beta }_{{rm{asoc}}+}) and ({beta }_{{rm{asoc}}-}) are the effects of asocial learning about the palatable and unpalatable foods, ({beta }_{{rm{soc}}+}) is the effect of social learning about the palatable food, and ({beta }_{{rm{soc}}-})is the effect of social avoidance learning about the unpalatable food. Estimation of these parameters, with associated Wald tests and confidence intervals, allowed us to make inferences about which effects were operating and the size of these effects. To aid model fitting we standardized all predictor variables and then back-transformed the effects to the original scale (see Supplementary Tables 3–5 for the model outputs). To assess the importance of asocial and social effects, we also ran separate models that excluded either asocial or social parameters and compared them to the initial model in Eq. (5) using Akaike’s information criterion (see Supplementary Table 6). However, in most cases, this reduced model fit significantly, and we, therefore, kept all parameters in the final models.Our approach took ({O}_{-,{i}}left(tright)) as a measure of ({R}_{-,j}left(tright)), and ({O}_{+,{i}}left(tright)) as a measure of ({R}_{+,j}left(tright))-, which we termed the ‘expected’ number of observations of each type. Strictly speaking, ({O}_{-,{i}}left(tright)) and ({O}_{+,{i}}left(tright)) were upper limits on the expected number of observations, assuming that birds observed all feeding events in the groups in which they were present, whereas only an unknown proportion of such events (({p}_{o})) was observed. Therefore, the real expected number of negative/positive observations would be (Eleft({R}_{-,j}left(tright)right)={p}_{o}{O}_{-,{i}}left(tright)) and (Eleft({R}_{+,j}left(tright)right)={p}_{o}{O}_{+,{i}}left(tright)) respectively. Thus, the coefficient, ({beta }_{{rm{soc}}-}), for the effect of ({O}_{-,{i}}left(tright)) could be interpreted as ({beta }_{s{rm{oc}}-}={p}_{o}acute{{beta }_{{rm{soc}}-}}) where (acute{{beta }_{s{rm{oc}}-}}) is the effect per observation. Note that since ({p}_{o}le 1), and(,{beta }_{{rm{soc}}-}=acute{{beta }_{s{rm{oc}}-}}{p}_{o}), ({beta }_{s{rm{oc}}-}) is more likely to underestimate than overestimate the effect per observation of a negative feeding event. An analogous argument applies to the coefficient, ({beta }_{{rm{soc}}+}), for the effect of ({O}_{+,{i}}left(tright)).Social information use during avoidance learning: extension to test for species effectsAfter fitting the initial model shown in Eq. (5), we further broke down the model to test whether individuals were more likely to learn socially by observing conspecifics than heterospecifics. This was done by splitting the expected number of observed positive and negative feeding events to observations of conspecifics (({O}_{+{rm{C}},i}left(tright)), ({O}_{-{rm{C}},i}left(tright))) and heterospecifics (({O}_{+{rm{H}},i}left(tright)), ({O}_{-{rm{H}},i}left(tright))), and including these in the model as separate explanatory variables thus:$${p}_{-,i}(t)={rm{logit}}left(begin{array}{c}alpha +{beta }_{{rm{asoc}}+}{N}_{+,i}(t)+{beta }_{{rm{asoc}}-}{N}_{-,i}(t)\ +{beta }_{{rm{soc}},+{rm{H}}}{O}_{+{rm{H}},i}(t)+{beta }_{{rm{soc}},-{rm{H}}}{O}_{-{rm{H}},i}(t)\ +{beta }_{{rm{soc}},+{rm{C}}}{O}_{+{rm{C}},i}(t)+{beta }_{{rm{soc}},-{rm{C}}}{O}_{-{rm{C}},i}(t) \ +{{{{rm{B}}}}}_{i}end{array}right)$$
(6a)
with ({beta }_{{rm{soc}},-{rm{H}}}) and ({beta }_{{rm{soc}},-{rm{C}}}) giving the effect of a negative observation of a heterospecific and conspecific, respectively, whereas ({beta }_{{rm{soc}},+{rm{H}}}) and ({beta }_{{rm{soc}},+{rm{C}}}) give the effect of positive observation of a heterospecific and conspecific, respectively. In general –/+ subscripts refer to negative/positive feeding events and C/H subscripts to feeding events by conspecifics/heterospecifics. By re-parameterizing the model thus:$${p}_{-,i}left(tright)={rm{logit}}left(begin{array}{c}alpha +{beta }_{{rm{asoc}}+}{N}_{+,i}left(tright)+{beta }_{{rm{asoc}}-}{N}_{-,i}left(tright) \ +{beta }_{{rm{soc}},{rm{H}}+}{O}_{+,i}left(tright)+{beta }_{{rm{soc}},{rm{H}}-}{O}_{-,i}left(tright)\ +left({beta }_{{rm{soc}},{rm{C}}+}-{beta }_{{rm{soc}},{rm{H}}+}right){O}_{+{rm{C}},i}left(tright)+left({beta }_{{rm{soc}},{rm{C}}-}-{beta }_{{rm{soc}},{rm{H}}-}right){O}_{-{rm{C}},i}left(tright)\ +{{{{rm{B}}}}}_{i}end{array}right)$$
(6b)
we were able to test for a difference between observations of negative feeds by conspecifics and heterospecifics (left({beta }_{{rm{soc}},{rm{C}}-}-{beta }_{{rm{soc}},{rm{H}}-}right)) and between observations of positive feeds by conspecifics and heterospecifics (left({beta }_{{rm{soc}},{rm{C}}+}-{beta }_{{rm{soc}},{rm{H}}+}right)).For all experiments there was no evidence for a difference between ({beta }_{{rm{soc}},-{rm{H}}}) and ({beta }_{{rm{soc}},-{rm{C}}}) (yellow/orange: Z = 0.803, p = 0.42; red/green: Z = 0.065, p = 0.95; blue/purple: Z = 1.113, p = 0.27). However, there was some evidence of a difference between ({beta }_{{rm{soc}},+{rm{H}}}) and ({beta }_{{rm{soc}},+{rm{C}}}) in two of the three experiments (yellow/orange: Z = 1.359, p = 0.17; red/green: Z = 1.417, p = 0.16; blue/purple: Z = 0.729, p = 0.47). Consequently, we reduced the model down to:$${p}_{-,i}left(tright)={rm{logit}}left(begin{array}{c}alpha +{beta }_{{rm{asoc}}+}{N}_{+,i}left(tright)+{beta }_{{rm{asoc}}-}{N}_{-,i}left(tright)\ +{beta }_{{rm{soc}},-}{O}_{-,i}left(tright)+{beta }_{{rm{soc}},+{rm{H}}}{O}_{+{rm{H}},i}left(tright)+{beta }_{{rm{soc}},+{rm{C}}}{O}_{+{rm{C}},i}left(tright)\ +{{{{rm{B}}}}}_{i}end{array}right)$$
(7)
for further analysis, i.e., with different effects for observations of conspecific/heterospecific positive feeds, but not of negative feeds. We did this for all color combinations (including blue/purple) to allow comparison across experiments (see Table 1). The R code used to run these models can be found in Supplementary data53 in ‘GLMM models Orange Yellow final.r’.Social information use during avoidance learning: simulations to test for a network effectNext, we tested whether the social effects we detected followed the social network. When using a network-based diffusion analysis (NBDA43), researchers can compare a network model with one in which the network has homogeneous connections among all individuals, but we found this to be unreliable for our model. Instead, we used a simulation approach to generate a null distribution for the null hypothesis of homogeneous social effects, taking the size of the social effects from the fitted models. We ran 1000 simulations (using the same procedure described above) for all social effects that were found to be significant in each avoidance learning model (each color pair; see Table 1). The total number of expected observations was kept equal, but we homogenized the observation effect across all birds by replacing the probability of bird i observing a feed by bird j, previously ({a}_{{ij}}), with ({sum }_{i}{a}_{{ij}}/n), where n is the number of birds in the experiment, (i.e., all birds had the same probability of observing each feeding event). The model was fitted to the simulated data each time to extract the Z value (Wald test statistic) of the social effect of interest. The distribution of these values was then used as a null distribution to test whether our observed social effect differed from the effects that did not follow the social network. To this end, we calculated the proportion of simulations that yielded a Z value as extreme or more extreme than that observed (judged by distance in either direction from the mean of the null distribution). The R code used to run these simulations can be found in Supplementary data53 in ‘Simulations to test if network effects follow network Orange Yellow.r’.Social information use during avoidance learning: extension to test for age effectsWe then aimed to test whether each of the three social effects detected differed based on the age class of the observed individual (adult versus juveniles). We, therefore, split the negative expected observations ({O}_{-,i}left(tright)) into the expected observations of adults ({O}_{-{rm{A}},i}left(tright)) and juveniles ({O}_{-{rm{J}},i}left(tright)), each with its associated coefficient in the model ({beta }_{{rm{soc}},-{rm{A}}}) and ({beta }_{{rm{soc}},-{rm{J}}}). Likewise, we split positive observations of conspecifics as ({O}_{+{rm{CA}},i}left(tright)) and ({O}_{+{rm{CJ}},i}left(tright)) and positive observations of heterospecifics as ({O}_{+{rm{HA}},i}left(tright)) and ({O}_{+{rm{HJ}},i}left(tright)) to give the model:$${p}_{-,i}left(tright)={rm{logit}}left(begin{array}{c}alpha +{beta }_{{rm{asoc}}+}{N}_{+,i}left(tright)+{beta }_{{rm{asoc}}-}{N}_{-,i}left(tright)\ +{beta }_{{rm{soc}},-{rm{A}}}{O}_{-{rm{A}},i}left(tright)+{beta }_{{rm{soc}},-{rm{J}}}{O}_{-{rm{J}},i}left(tright)\ +{beta }_{{rm{soc}},+{rm{HA}}}{O}_{+{rm{HA}},i}left(tright)+{beta }_{{rm{soc}},+{rm{HJ}}}{O}_{+{rm{HJ}},i}left(tright)\ +{beta }_{{rm{soc}},+{rm{CA}}}{O}_{+{rm{CA}},i}left(tright)+{beta }_{{rm{soc}},+{rm{CJ}}}{O}_{+{rm{CJ}},i}left(tright)\ +{{{{rm{B}}}}}_{i}end{array}right)$$
(8a)
As before, –/+ subscripts refer to negative/positive feeding events, C/H subscripts to feeding events by conspecifics/heterospecifics, and A/J subscripts to feeding events by adults/juveniles. We also fitted a re-parameterized version allowing us to test for a difference between expected observations of adults and observations of juveniles for each of the three social effects:$${p}_{-,i}left(tright)={rm{logit}}left(begin{array}{c}alpha +{beta }_{{rm{asoc}}+}{N}_{+,i}left(tright)+{beta }_{{rm{asoc}}-}{N}_{-,i}left(tright)\ +{beta }_{{rm{soc}},-{rm{J}}}{O}_{-,i}left(tright)+left({{beta }_{{rm{soc}},-{rm{A}}}-beta }_{{rm{soc}},-{rm{J}}}right){O}_{-{rm{A}},i}left(tright)\ +{beta }_{{rm{soc}},+{rm{H}}}{O}_{+{rm{H}},i}left(tright)+left({{beta }_{{rm{soc}},+{rm{HA}}}-beta }_{{rm{soc}},+{rm{HJ}}}right){O}_{+{rm{JA}},i}left(tright)\ +{beta }_{{rm{soc}},+{rm{C}}}{O}_{+{rm{C}},i}left(tright)+left({{beta }_{{rm{soc}},+{rm{CA}}}-beta }_{{rm{soc}},+{rm{CJ}}}right){O}_{+{rm{CA}},i}left(tright)\ +{{{{rm{B}}}}}_{i}end{array}right)$$
(8b)
The R code used to run these models can be found in Supplementary data53 in ‘GLMM models Orange Yellow final.r’. The main results of each model are presented in Table 2 and full model outputs in Supplementary Tables 3–5.Social information use during reversal learningTo investigate social information use during reversal learning, we used the order of acquisition diffusion analysis (OADA), a variant of NBDA43, which explores the order in which individuals acquire a behavioral trait44. The rate of social transmission between two individuals is assumed to be linearly proportional to their network connection, and the spread of trait acquisition is therefore predicted to follow the network patterns if individuals are using social information. We used NBDA to investigate whether the order of individuals’ first visit to the previously unpalatable blue almonds (mimics) followed the network. We fitted several different models that included (i) only asocial learning, (ii) social transmission of information following a homogeneous network (equal associations among all individuals), or (iii) social transmission of information following our observed network. Models that included social transmission were further divided into models with equal or different transmission rates from adults and juveniles, and from conspecifics and heterospecifics, by constructing separate networks for each adult/juvenile and conspecific/heterospecific combination. To investigate whether asocial or social learning rates differed between blue tits and great tits, we included species as an individual-level variable. We then compared different social transmission models that assumed that species differed in both asocial and social learning rates, only in asocial or only in social learning rates, or that they did not differ in either (see Table 3). The best-supported model was selected using a model-averaging approach with Akaike’s information criterion corrected for small sample sizes. All analyses were conducted with the software R.3.6.154, using lme455, asnipe56, and NBDA57 packages.Reporting summaryFurther information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article. More

1.IPCC Climate Change 2014: Synthesis report. In Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Core Writing Team et al.) (IPCC, 2014).
Google Scholar 
2.Keogan, K. et al. Global phenological insensitivity to shifting ocean temperatures among seabirds. Nat. Clim. Chang. 8, 313–318 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Chambers, L. E. et al. Phenological changes in the southern hemisphere. PLoS ONE 8, E75514 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Thackeray, S. J. et al. Phenological sensitivity to climate across taxa and trophic levels. Nature 535, 241–245 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Forrest, J. & Miller-Rushing, A. J. Toward a synthetic understanding of the role of phenology in ecology and evolution. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Series B Biol. Sci. 365, 3101–3112 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Møller, A. P., Rubolini, D. & Lehikoinen, E. Populations of migratory bird species that did not show a phenological response to climate change are declining. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 105, 16195–16200 (2008).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Hipfner, J. M. Matches and mismatches: Ocean climate, prey phenology and breeding success in a zooplanktivorous seabird. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 368, 295–304 (2008).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Moyes, K. et al. Advancing breeding phenology in response to environmental change in a wild red deer population. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 2455–2469 (2011).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Poloczanska, E. S. et al. Global imprint of climate change on marine life. Nat. Clim. Chang. 3, 919–925 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Hauser, D. D. et al. Decadal shifts in autumn migration timing by Pacific Arctic beluga whales are related to delayed annual sea ice formation. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 2206–2217 (2017).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Beltran, R. S., Kirkham, A. L., Breed, G. A., Ward Testa, J. & Burns, J. M. Reproductive success delays moult phenology in a polar mammal. Sci. Rep. 9, 1–12 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Oosthuizen, W. C. et al. Individual heterogeneity in life-history trade-offs with age at first reproduction in capital breeding elephant seals. Popul. Ecol. 61, 421–435 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Ling, J. K. The skin and hair of the southern elephant seal, Mirounga leonina (Linn). IV. Annual cycle of pelage follicle activity and moult. Aust. J. Zool. 60, 259–271 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Johanos, T. C., Becker, B. L. & Ragen, T. J. Annual reproductive cycle of the female Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi). Mar. Mamm. Sci. 10, 13–30 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Beltran, R. S., Burns, J. M. & Breed, G. A. Convergence of biannual moulting strategies across birds and mammals. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 285, 20180318 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Boyd, I., Arnbom, T. & Fedak, M. Water flux, body composition, and metabolic rate during moult in female southern elephant seals (Mirounga leonina). Physiol. Zool. 66, 43–60 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Postma, M., Bester, M. N. & De Bruyn, P. J. N. Spatial variation in female southern elephant seal mass change assessed by an accurate non-invasive photogrammetry method. Antarct. Sci. 25, 731–740 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Paterson, W. et al. Seals like it hot: Changes in surface temperature of harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) from late pregnancy to moult. J. Therm. Biol. 37, 454–461 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Slip, D. J. & Burton, H. R. Population status and seasonal haulout patterns of the southern elephant seal (Mirounga leonina) at Heard Island. Antarct. Sci. 11, 38–47 (1999).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Kirkman, S. et al. Variation in the timing of moult in southern elephant seals at Marion Island. S. Afr. J. Wildlife Res. 33, 79–84 (2003).
Google Scholar 
21.Ling, J. & Bryden, M. Southern elephant seal Mirounga leonina (Linnaeus), 1758. In Handbook of Marine Mammals Vol. 2 (eds Ridgway, S. H. & Harrison, R. J.) 297–327 (Academic Press, 1981).
Google Scholar 
22.Constable, A. J. et al. Climate change and southern ocean ecosystems I: how changes in physical habitats directly affect marine biota. Glob. Change Biol. 20, 3004–3025 (2014).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Rogers, A. et al. Antarctic futures: An assessment of climate-driven changes in ecosystem structure, function, and service provisioning in the Southern Ocean. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 12, 87–120 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Hindell, M. A. & Burton, H. R. Seasonal haul-out patterns of the southern elephant seal (Mirounga leonina L.), at Macquarie Island. J. Mammal. 69, 81–88 (1988).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Postma, M., Bester, M. N. & De Bruyn, P. J. N. Age-related reproductive variation in a wild marine mammal population. Polar Biol. 36, 719–729 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Le Boeuf, B. J. & Laws, R. M. Elephant seals: An introduction to the genus. In Elephant Seals: Population Ecology, Behavior, and Physiology (eds Le Beouf, B. J. & Laws, R. M.) 1–28 (University Of California Press, 1994).Chapter 

Google Scholar 
27.De Bruyn, P. J. N. et al. Sex at sea: Alternative mating system in an extremely polygynous mammal. Anim. Behav. 82, 445–451 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Oosthuizen, W. C., Pradel, R., Bester, M. N. & De Bruyn, P. J. N. Making use of multiple surveys: Estimating breeding probability using a multievent-robust design capture-recapture model. Ecol. Evolut. 9, 836–848 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Bester, M. N. et al. The marine mammal programme at the Prince Edward Islands: 38 years of research. Afr. J. Mar. Sci. 33, 511–521 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Pistorius, P. A., De Bruyn, P. J. N. & Bester, M. N. Population dynamics of southern elephant seals: A synthesis of three decades of demographic research at Marion Island. Afr. J. Mar. Sci. 33, 523–534 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Pistorius, P. A., Bester, M. N. & Kirkman, S. P. Survivorship of a declining population of southern elephant seals, Mirounga leonina, in relation to age, sex and cohort. Oecologia 121, 201–211 (1999).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Oosthuizen, W. C., Bester, M. N., Altwegg, R., McIntyre, T. & De Bruyn, P. J. N. Decomposing the variance in southern elephant seal weaning mass: Partitioning environmental signals and maternal effects. Ecosphere 6, 139 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Daniel, R. G., Jemison, L. A., Pendleton, G. W. & Crowley, S. M. Molting phenology of harbor seals on Tugidak Island, Alaska. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 19, 128–140 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Chaise, L. L. et al. Local weather and body condition influence habitat use and movements on land of molting female southern elephant seals (Mirounga leonina). Ecol. Evol. 8, 6081–6090 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Dingemanse, N. J. & Dochtermann, N. A. Quantifying individual variation in behaviour: Mixed-effect modelling approaches. J. Anim. Ecol. 82, 39–54 (2013).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Burnham, K. P., Anderson, D. R. & Huyvaert, K. P. AIC model selection and multimodel inference in behavioral ecology: Some background, observations, and comparisons. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 65, 23–35 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Zuur, A., Ieno, E. N., Walker, N., Saveliev, A. A. & Smith, G. M. Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R (Springer Science & Business Media, 2009).MATH 
Book 

Google Scholar 
38.Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2020). https://www.R-project.org/.40.Nakagawa, S. & Schielzeth, H. Repeatability for Gaussian and non-Gaussian data: A practical guide for biologists. Biol. Rev. 85, 935–956 (2010).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
41.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 
42.Grosbois, V. et al. Assessing the impact of climate variation on survival in vertebrate populations. Biol. Rev. 83, 357–399 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Forcada, J., Trathan, P. N. & Murphy, E. J. Life history buffering in Antarctic mammals and birds against changing patterns of climate and environmental variation. Glob. Change Biol. 14, 2473–2488 (2008).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Bradshaw, C. J., Hindell, M. A., Sumner, M. D. & Michael, K. J. Loyalty pays: Potential life-history consequences of fidelity to marine foraging regions by southern elephant seals. Anim. Behav. 68, 1349–1360 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Cotté, C., Park, Y.-H., Guinet, C. & Bost, C.-A. Movements of foraging king penguins through marine mesoscale eddies. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 274, 2385–2391 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Barbraud, C. & Weimerskirch, H. Antarctic birds breed later in response to climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 103, 6248–6251 (2006).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Hindell, M. A. et al. Long-term breeding phenology shift in royal penguins. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1563–1571 (2012).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Zimova, M. et al. Function and underlying mechanisms of seasonal colour moulting in mammals and birds: What keeps them changing in a warming world?. Biol. Rev. 93, 1478–1498 (2018).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Thompson, P. & Rothery, P. Age and sex differences in the timing of moult in the common seal, Phoca vitulina. J. Zool. 212, 597–603 (1987).Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Cronin, M., Gregory, S. & Rogan, E. Moulting phenology of the harbour seal in south-west Ireland. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK 94, 1079–1086 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Kirkman, S. et al. Variation in the timing of the breeding haulout of female southern elephant seals at Marion Island. Aust. J. Zool. 52, 379–388 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Hindell, M. A., Slip, D. J. & Burton, H. R. Body mass loss of moulting female southern elephant seals, Mirounga leonina, at Macquarie Island. Polar Biol. 14, 275–278 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Carlini, A., Marquez, M., Daneri, G. & Poljak, S. Mass changes during their annual cycle in females of southern elephant seals at King George Island. Polar Biol. 21, 234–239 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Worthy, G. A. J., Morris, P. A., Costa, D. P. & Le Boeuf, B. J. Moult energetics of the northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris). J. Zool. 227, 257–265 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Arnbom, T., Fedak, M. & Rothery, P. Offspring sex ratio in relation to female size in southern elephant seals, Mirounga leonina. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 35, 373–378 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Proffitt, K. M., Garrott, R. A., Rotella, J. J. & Wheatley, K. E. Environmental and senescent related variations in Weddell seal body mass: Implications for age-specific reproductive performance. Oikos 116, 1683–1690 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Bérubé, C. H., Festa-Bianchet, M. & Jorgenson, J. T. Individual differences, longevity, and reproductive senescence in bighorn ewes. Ecology 80, 2555–2565 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Oosthuizen, W. C., Péron, G., Pradel, R., Bester, M. N. & De Bruyn, P. J. N. Positive early-late life-history trait correlations in elephant seals. Ecology 102, e03288. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.3288 (2021).59.Kirby, V. L. & Ortiz, C. L. Hormones and fuel regulation in fasting elephant seals. In Elephant Seals: Population Ecology, Behavior, and Physiology (eds Le Beouf, B. J. & Laws, R. M.) 374–386 (University of California Press, 1994).Chapter 

Google Scholar 
60.Yochem, P. K. & Stewart, B. S. Hair and fur. In Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals 3rd edn (eds Würsig, B. et al.) 447–448 (Academic Press, 2018).Chapter 

Google Scholar 
61.Ashwell-Erickson, S., Fay, F., Elsner, R. & Wartzok, D. Metabolic correlates of molting and regeneration of pelage in Alaskan harbour and spotted seals (Phoca vitulina and Phoca largha). Can. J. Zool. 64, 1086–1092 (1986).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Laws, R. M. & Sinha, A. A. Reproduction. In Antarctic Seals: Research Methods and Techniques (ed. Laws, R. M.) 228–267 (Cambridge University Press, 1993).Chapter 

Google Scholar 
63.Smout, S., King, R. & Pomeroy, P. Environment-sensitive mass changes influence breeding frequency in a capital breeding marine top predator. J. Anim. Ecol. 89, 384–396 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Clutton-Brock, T. & Sheldon, B. C. Individuals and populations: the role of long-term, individual-based studies of animals in ecology and evolutionary biology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 562–573 (2010).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Cordes, L. S. & Thompson, P. M. Variation in breeding phenology provides insights into drivers of long-term population change in harbour seals. Proc. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 280, 20130847 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Barbraud, C. et al. Contrasted demographic responses facing future climate change in Southern Ocean seabirds. J. Anim. Ecol. 80, 89–100 (2011).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Atkinson, S., DeMaster, D. P. & Calkins, D. G. Anthropogenic causes of the western Steller sea lion Eumetopias jubatus population decline and their threat to recovery. Mamm. Rev. 38, 1–18 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Desprez, M., McMahon, C. R., Hindell, M. A., Harcourt, R. & Gimenez, O. Known unknowns in an imperfect world: incorporating uncertainty in recruitment estimates using multi-event capture-recapture models. Ecol. Evol. 3, 4658–4668 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Griffen, B. D. Reproductive skipping as an optimal life history strategy in the southern elephant seal, Mirounga leonina. Ecol. Evol. 8, 9158–9170 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Rohwer, S., Viggiano, A. & Marzluff, J. M. Reciprocal tradeoffs between moult and breeding in albatrosses. Condor 113, 61–70 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Grissot, A., Graham, I. M., Quinn, L., Bråthen, V. S. & Thompson, P. M. Breeding status influences timing but not duration of moult in the northern fulmar Fulmarus glacialis. Ibis 162, 446–459 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Condit, R., Beltran, R.S., Robinson, P.W., Crocker, D.E. & Costa, D.P. Birth timing after the long feeding migration in elephant seals. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.02.324210 (in review). More

AnimalsTissue samples for expression analysis were collected on August 24 and September 9 2016 from a population of spring-spawning herring kept in captivity at University of Bergen; the rearing of captive herring was approved by the Norwegian national animal ethics committee (Forsøksdyrutvalget FOTS ID-5072). The tissue samples used for ATAC-sequencing were collected at Hästskär on June 19 2019 from wild spring-spawning Atlantic herring in the Baltic Sea, which do not require ethical permission.Genome scan and genetic diversity at the TSHR locusWe used a 2 × 2 contingency X2 test to estimate the extent of SNP allele frequency differences between seven spring- and seven autumn-spawning herring populations from the Northeast Atlantic (Supplementary Table 2), and thus, identify the major genomic regions associated with seasonal reproduction. The SNP allele frequencies were generated in a previous study16 and were derived from Pool-seq data. For the X2 test, we formed two groups, spring and autumn spawners, and summed the reads supporting the reference and the alternative alleles for the pools included in each group.To characterize genetic diversity at the TSHR locus, we calculated nucleotide diversity (π) and Tajima’s D for the same seven spring- and seven autumn-spawning Atlantic herring populations used in the genome scan (n = ~41–100 per pool) (Supplementary Table 2). The whole-genome re-sequence data of these pools were previously reported by Han et al.16 (for details of the pools used here see Supplementary Table 2). Unbiased nucleotide diversity π and Tajima’s D were calculated for each pool using the program PoPoolation 1.2.236, which accounts for the truncated allele frequency spectrum of pooled data. In brief, a pileup file of chromosome 15 was generated from each pool BAM file using samtools v.1.1037,38. Indels and 5 bp around indels were removed to exclude spurious SNPs due to misalignments around indels. To minimize biases in the π and Tajima’s D calculations, which are sensitive to sequencing errors and coverage fluctuations39, the coverage of each pileup file was subsampled without replacement to a uniform value based on a per-pool coverage distribution (the target coverage corresponded to the 5th percentile of the coverage frequency distribution, which was used as the minimum coverage allowed for an SNP to be included in the analysis) (Supplementary Table 2). We also calculated the diversity parameters but skipping the coverage subsampling step and obtained very similar results with both approaches (Supplementary Fig. 5), thus, we decided to keep working with the subsampled datasets as coverage subsampling is recommended by the software developers36. To exclude spurious SNPs associated with repetitive sequences and copy number variants, we applied a maximum coverage filter equivalent to the per-pool 99th percentile of the coverage frequency distribution (Supplementary Table 2). A minimum base quality of 20, a minimum mapping quality of 20, and a minor allele count of 2 were required to retain high quality SNPs for further analysis. Both, π and Tajima’s D statistics were calculated using a sliding window approach with a window size of 10 kb and a step size of 2 kb (the selected window-step combination offered a good genomic resolution while reducing the noise from single SNPs, after testing windows of 5, 10, 20, 40, 50, and 100 kb for non-overlapping and overlapping windows with a step size equivalent to 20% of the window size). Only windows with a coverage fraction ≥ 0.5 were included in the computations. In addition, we estimated the effective allele frequency difference, or delta allele frequency (dAF), between spring and autumn spawning groups at the TSHR locus using the formula dAF = abs(mean(spring pools)−mean(autumn pools)). For each of the diversity parameters, we assessed whether the mean differences between sets of SNPs within chr 15: 8.85–8.95 Mb (215 SNPs) and outside (214 635 SNPs) the TSHR region were statistically significant among spring- and autumn-spawning groups using a Wilcoxon test. Data postprocessing, statistical tests, and plotting were performed in the R environment40 (for specific parameters used in PoPoolation, see the associated code to this publication).Identification of the 5.2 kb structural variantSequences spanning the entire TSHR gene plus 10 kb upstream and downstream from two reference assemblies, ASM96633v115 and Ch_v2.0.218, were aligned using BLAST41 and the output was subsequently processed with a custom R script40. Repeats were annotated by CENSOR21 for the region harboring the 5.2 kb structural variant. To validate the structural variant, long-range PCR was performed with genomic DNA from two spring- and autumn-spawning Atlantic herring in a 20 μL reaction containing 0.8 mM dNTPs, 0.3 μM each of the forward and reverse 5.2kb-confirm primers (Supplementary Table 1) and 0.75 U PrimeSTAR GXL DNA Polymerase (TaKaRa) following the program: 95 °C for 3 min, 35 cycles of 98 °C for 10 s, 58 °C for 20 s and 68 °C for 2 min 30 s, and a final extension of 10 min at 68 °C.ATAC-seq analysisBSH and brain without BSH were dissected from two spring-spawning herring caught in the Baltic Sea and transported to the lab on dry ice, then kept at –80 °C before nuclei isolation. ATAC-seq libraries were constructed according to the Omni-ATAC protocol with minor modifications42. Briefly, tissue was homogenized in 2 ml homogenization buffer (5 mM CaCl2, 3 mM Mg(Ac)2, 10 mM Tris-HCl (pH = 7.8), 0.017 mM PMSF, 0.17 mM ß-mercaptoethanol, 320 mM Sucrose, 0.1 mM EDTA and 0.1% NP-40) with a Dounce homogenizer on ice. 400 μl suspension was transferred to a 2 ml tube for the density gradient centrifugation with different concentrations of Iodixanol solution. After centrifugation, a 200 μl fraction containing the nuclei band was collected, stained with Trypan blue and counted with a Countess II Automated Cell Counter (Thermo Fisher Scientific). An aliquot of 100,000–200,000 nuclei was used as input in a 50 μl transposition reaction containing 2 X TD buffer and 100 nM assembled Tn5 transposase for a 30-min incubation at 37 °C. Tagmented DNA was purified with a Zymo clean kit (Zymo Research). Purified DNA was used for an initial pre-amplification for 5 cycles, and the additional amplification cycle was determined by qPCR based on the “R vs Cycle Number” plot43. Amplified libraries were purified with a Zymo clean kit again, and library concentrations and qualities were evaluated using the 2200 TapeStation System (Agilent Technologies).ATAC-seq was performed with a MiniSeq High Output Kit (150 cycles) on a MiniSeq instrument (Illumina) and 7–9 million reads were generated for each ATAC-seq library. Quality control, trimming, mapping, and peak calling of the sequenced reads were conducted following the ENCODE ATAC-seq pipeline (https://www.encodeproject.org/atac-seq/). The trimmed reads were aligned to the Atlantic herring reference genome (Ch_v2.0.2)18 with Bowtie244 and the mapping rate was 85–95%. Duplicate reads, reads with low mapping quality and those aligned to the mitochondria genome were removed. The remaining reads (4–5 million) were subjected to peak calling by MACS245, where 22–32 K peaks were called. Sequenced library qualities were further evaluated by calculating the TSS enrichment score and checking the library complexity with the Non-Redundant Fraction (NRF) and PCR Bottlenecking Coefficients (PBC1 and 2). Finally, conserved peaks between two biological replicates were identified by evaluating the irreproducible discovery rate (IDR).Genotyping of six differentiated variants and haplotype analysisAll six genetic variants, including the 5.2 kb structural variant, two non-coding SNPs, two missense SNPs and the copy number variant of C-terminal 22aa repeat, were genotyped in 45 spring-, 67 autumn-spawning Atlantic herring and 13 Pacific herring. TaqMan Custom SNP assays were performed to genotype the four SNPs in 5 μl reactions with a template of 20 ng genomic DNA (ThermoFisher Scientific). Copy number of the C-terminal 22aa repeat was determined by the PCR product size generated with geno22aa primers. Genotyping of the 5.2 kb structural variant was performed in a PCR reaction containing two forward primers (geno5.2kb-1F and geno5.2kb-2F) and one reverse primer (geno5.2kb-R), which generated PCR products with different sizes between spring and autumn spawners. All the primers used for genotyping are listed in Supplementary Table 1.Tissue expression profiles by quantitative PCRTotal RNA was prepared from gonad, heart, spleen, kidney, gills, intestine, hypothalamus and saccus vasculosus (BSH), and brain without BSH (brain) of six adult spring-spawning Atlantic herring using RNeasy Mini Kit (Qiagen). RNA was then reverse transcribed into cDNA with a High-Capacity cDNA Reverse Transcription Kit (ThermoFisher Scientific). TaqMan Gene Expression assay (ThermoFisher Scientific) containing 0.3 μM primers and 0.25 μM TaqMan probe (Integrated DNA Technologies) was performed to compare the relative expression levels of TSHR among different tissues. qPCR with SYBR Green chemistry was used for TSHB and DIO2 in a 10 μl reaction of SYBR Green PCR Master Mix (ThermoFisher Scientific) and 0.3 μM primers, with a program composed of an initial denaturation for 10 min at 95 °C followed by 40 cycles of 95 °C for 15 s and 60 °C for 1 min. Ct values were first normalized to the housekeeping gene ACTIN, then the average expression for each gene in the gonad was assumed to be 1 for the subsequent calculation of the relative expression in other tissues.Plasmid constructsThe coding sequence for the herring single-chain TSH (scTSH) was designed following a strategy previously used for mammalian gonadotropins46 that contained an in-frame fusion of the cDNA sequences (5′–3′) of herring TSH beta subunit (NCBI: XM_012836756.1) and alpha subunit (NCBI: XM_012822755.1) linked by six histidines and then the C-terminal peptide of the hCG beta subunit. The designed sequence should generate a protein with a size of 30.6 kDa. Both scTSH and spring herring TSHR cDNA sequences were synthesized in vitro and cloned in the expression vector pcDNA3.1 by Genscript (Leiden, Netherlands). pcDNA3.1 plasmid expressing human TSHR was kindly provided by Drs. Gilbert Vassart and Sabine Costagliola (Université libre de Bruxelles, Belgium). Then, the spring herring TSHR and human TSHR plasmids were used as templates for site-directed mutagenesis to generate constructs coding for different mutant herring or human TSHRs. Plasmids for the dual-luciferase assay, including pGL4.29[luc2P/CRE/Hygro] containing cAMP response elements (CREs) to drive the transcription of luciferase gene luc2P and pRL-TK monitoring the transfection efficiency, were purchased from Promega. Five ng of each plasmid was used to transform the XL1-Blue competent cells (Agilent), plasmid DNA was subsequently extracted from 200 ml overnight culture of a single transformant clone using an EndoFree plasmid Maxi Kit (Qiagen).Cell cultureChinese hamster ovary (CHO) (ATCC CCL-61) and human embryonic kidney 293 (HEK293) (ATCC CRL-1573) cells were maintained in DMEM supplemented with 5% (CHO) or 10% FBS (HEK293), 100 U/ml penicillin, 100 μg/ml streptomycin and 292 μg/ml l-Glutamine (ThermoFisher Scientific) at 37 °C with 5% CO2. Epithelioma Papulosum Cyprini (EPC) cells (ATCC CRL-2872) were cultured in EMEM (Sigma) supplemented with 10% FBS, 100 U/ml penicillin, 100 μg/ml streptomycin, 292 μg/ml l-Glutamine and 1 mM Sodium Pyruvate (ThermoFisher Scientific) at 26 °C with 5% CO2.Production of recombinant herring scTSHCHO cells were transfected with the scTSH expression plasmid using Lipofectamine 3000 (Invitrogen), stable clones were subsequently selected with 500 μg/ml G418 (Invitrogen) and screened for producing scTSH by western blot using a polyclonal antisera against the sea bass alpha subunit47. A positive clone was expanded in 225 cm2 cell culture flasks (Corning) in culture medium containing 5% FBS until confluence, then the cells were maintained in serum-free DMEM for hormone production for 7 days at 25 °C48. After 7 days, culture medium containing scTSH or without (negative control) was centrifuged at 15000 x g for 15 min and concentrated by ultrafiltration using Centricon Plus-70 / Ultracel PL-30 (Merck Millipore Ltd.). Then, western blotting was performed to confirm TSH production. Concentrated medium containing herring scTSH was denatured at 94 °C for 5 min in 0.1% SDS and 50 mM 2-mercaptoethanol, and then treated with 2.5 units of peptide-N-glycosidase F (Roche Diagnostics) at 37 °C for 2 h in 20 mM sodium phosphate with 0.5% Nonidet P-40, pH 7.5. All samples were run in 12% SDS-PAGE in the reducing condition and transferred to a PVDF membrane (Immobilon P; Millipore Corp.), then blocked overnight with 5% skimmed milk at 4 °C. After blocking, the membrane was incubated with polyclonal antisera against the sea bass alpha subunit (dilution 1:2000) for 90 min at room temperature, washed, and then further incubated with 1:25000 goat anti-rabbit immunoglobulin G (IgG) horseradish peroxidase conjugate (Bio-Rad Laboratories) for 60 min at room temperature. Immunodetection was performed by chemiluminescence with a Pierce ECL Plus Western Blotting Substrate kit (ThermoFisher Scientific).Cell surface expressionA Rhotag (MNGTEGPNFYVPFSNKTGVVYEE) was inserted at the N-terminus of herring TSHR for flow cytometry analysis of receptor cell surface expression. Anti-Rhotag polyclonal antibody was kindly provided by Drs. Gilbert Vassart and Sabine Costagliola (Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium). PBS containing 1% BSA and 0.05% sodium azide was prepared as the flow cytometry (FCM) buffer for the washing and antibody incubation steps. 2.2 × 106 EPC cells were seeded in a 100 mm poly-d-Lysine-treated petri dish the day before transfection. Each dish was transfected with 10 μg TSHR or empty pcDNA3.1 expression plasmid using 20 μl jetPRIME transfection reagent in 500 μl jetPRIME transfection buffer (Polyplus transfection). Cells were harvested 24 h after transfection, then washed once in cold PBS and fixed in 2% PFA for 10 min at room temperature. After fixation, cells were washed three times with FCM buffer, then incubated with anti-Rhotag antibody or FCM buffer (negative control) for 1 h at room temperature. Cells were washed again with FCM buffer three times and stained with Alexa Fluor 488-labeled chicken anti-mouse IgG (H + L) antibody (1:200 dilution, ThermoFisher Scientific) or FCM buffer (negative control) for 45 min in the dark. After the fluorescent staining, cells were washed three times and resuspended in FCM buffer before analysis on a CytoFLEX instrument (Beckman Coulter). A minimum of 100,000 events was recorded for each sample, fluorescence intensities of negative control and cells transfected with empty pcDNA3.1 plasmid were used as the background for gating strategy. Cell surface expression was represented by the mean fluorescence intensity of the positively stained cell population.Dual-luciferase reporter assayEPC or HEK293 cells were plated in a 48-well plate at a density of 1 × 105 cells/well the day before transfection. A total of 250 ng plasmid mixture containing pGL4.29[luc2P/CRE/Hygro], TSHR expression plasmid (or empty pcDNA3.1) and pRL-TK with the ratio of 20:5:1 was prepared to transfect each well of cells using jetPRIME transfection reagent (Polyplus). Medium was replaced by fresh medium containing 10% FBS (TSH-induced condition) or serum-free medium (constitutive activity condition) 4 h after transfection. On day three, cells were treated with serum-free medium containing different dilutions of the concentrated scTSH medium for 4 h (TSH-induced condition) or directly subjected to the luminescence measurement without TSH induction (constitutive activity condition). Luminescence was measured using a Dual-Luciferase Reporter assay (Promega) on an Infinite M200 Microplate Reader (Tecan Group Ltd., Switzerland), and luciferase activity was represented as the ratio of firefly (pGL4.29[luc2P/CRE/Hygro]) to Renilla (pRL-TK) luminescence.5′-RACE to identify the herring DIO2 TSSTotal RNA was prepared from brain of a spring-spawning Atlantic herring using the RNeasy Mini Kit (Qiagen). Six μg of the isolated RNA was used for 5′-RACE with a FirstChoiceTM RLM-RACE Kit (ThermoFisher Scientific). One μl cDNA or Outer RACE PCR product was used as PCR template in a 20 μL reaction containing 0.8 mM dNTPs, 0.3 μM of each forward and reverse primer (Supplementary Table 1) and 0.75 U PrimeSTAR GXL DNA Polymerase (TaKaRa). Amplification was carried out with an initial denaturation of 3 min at 95 °C, followed by 35 cycles of 98 °C for 10 s, 58 °C for 20 s and 68 °C for 40 s, and a final extension of 10 min at 68 °C. The final 5′ RACE product was sequenced at Eurofins Genomics (Ebersberg, Germany).Sequence conservation analysisGenomic sequences covering the TSHR locus were extracted from Ensembl Genome Browser for Atlantic herring and 11 other fish species, including Amazon molly (Poecilia formosa), denticle herring (Denticeps clupeoides), goldfish (Carassius auratus), guppy (Poecilia reticulata), Neolamprologus brichardi, Japanese medaka (Oryzias latipes), northern pike (Esox lucius), orange clownfish (Amphiprion percula), spotted gar (Lepisosteus oculatus), three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) and spotted green pufferfish (Tetraodon nigroviridis). The extracted sequences were firstly aligned using progressiveCactus49,50, and a subsequent alignment was generated using the hal2maf program from halTools51 with Atlantic herring assembly (Ch_v2.0.2)18 as the co-ordinate backbone. This alignment was used for the downstream phastCons score calculation by running phyloFit24 and phastCons25 from the PHAST package with default parameters. Peaks were called by grouping signals with a minimum phastCons score of 0.2 within 500 bp region.Structure modeling of human and herring TSHRsIn order to explore the possible interactions of the variant residues with other receptor interacting proteins and to study intramolecular interactions, we built a structural homology model for the herring TSHR (herrTSHR) complexed with herring TSH and Gs-protein. The TSHR hinge region that harbors the Q370H substitution and the C-terminus containing the 22aa repeat were excluded from the homology model due to the lack of structural templates for these regions. The homology model was constructed by using the following structural templates of evolutionarily related class A GPCRs: (i) the leucine-rich repeat domain (LRRD) complexed with hormone was modeled based on the solved FSHR LRRD – FSH complex structure (Protein Data Bank (PDB) ID: 4AY9)52,53, this part of model included herring TSHR Cys33 – Asn296 and fragments of the hinge region Gln297 – Thr312 and Ser393 – Ile421; (ii) the available structural complex of β2-adrenoreceptor with Gs-protein (PDB ID: 3SN6)54 was used as the template to model the seven-transmembrane helix domain (7TMD) of herring TSHR in the active conformation; (iii) the extracellular loop 2 (ECL2) was built by using the ECL2 of μ-opioid receptor (PDB ID: 6DDE)55. To prepare the template for herring TSHR modeling, the fused T4-lysozyme and bound ligand of β2-adrenoreceptor were deleted, the ECL1 and ECL3 loops were adjusted manually to the loop length of herring TSHR. Due to the lack of third intracellular loop (ICL3) in the β2-adrenoreceptor structure, amino acid residues of herring TSHR ICL3 were manually added to the template. Since herring TSHR does not have the TMH5 proline, which is highly conserved among all class A GPCRs and responsible for the helical kinks and bulges within this region56, we assumed a rather regular (stretched) helix conformation for the herring TSHR TMH5 and therefore replaced the kinked β2-adrenoreceptor TMH5 template with a regular α-helix. Moreover, the ECL2 template was substituted with μOR ECL2 structure because of its higher sequence similarity with herring TSHR in this region. Finally, amino acid residues of this chimeric 7TMD template and FSHR N-terminus were mutated to the corresponding spring herring TSHR residues and sequence of the heterodimeric FSH ligand was substituted by the herring TSH. All homology models were generated by using SYBYL-X 2.0 (Certara, NJ, US). The 7TMD structure was then fused with FSHR N-terminus at position 421. The assembled complex was subsequently optimized by the energy minimization under constrained backbone atoms (the AMBER F99 force field was used), followed by a 2 ns molecular dynamics simulation (MD) of the side chains. The entire TSHR complex was energetically minimized without any constraints until converging at a termination gradient of 0.05 kcal/mol*Å. Next, for autumn herrTSHR modeling, the spring TSHR sequence was substituted with autumn TSHR sequence. For humTSHR, the spring TSHR sequence was substituted with human TSHR, and the herring TSH ligand was replaced by the bovine TSH sequence. Both complex models were energetically minimized until converging at a termination gradient of 0.05 kcal/mol*Å.To investigate the microenvironment around the L471M mutation at TMH2 position 2.51, local short MD’s of 4 ns on Met4712.51 (spring herrTSHR), Leu471 (autumn herrTSHR) or Phe461 (humTSHR) and its surrounding amino acids were performed. During MD simulations, backbone atoms of the entire complexes as well as all side chains, except residues at positions 1.47, 1.51, 1.54, 2.48, 2.52, and 2.55 that form the hydrophobic patch around position 2.51, were constrained.Statistics and reproducibilityResults were presented as the mean + SD (standard deviation) calculated from at least four biological replicates for each experiment, and at least two independent experiments were conducted for each assay. Unpaired two-tailed Student’s t test was performed to calculate the P-values and means were judged as statistically significant when P ≤ 0.05.Reporting summaryFurther information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article. More