Philippa Kaur

1.Crystal-Ornelas, R. & Lockwood, J. L. Cumulative meta-analysis identifies declining but negative impacts of invasive species on richness after 20 yr. Ecology 101, e03082. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.3082 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
2.Emery-Butcher, H. E., Beatty, S. J. & Robson, B. J. The impacts of invasive ecosystem engineers in freshwaters: A review. Freshw. Biol. 65, 999–1015. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.13479 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Simberloff, D. Maintenance management and eradication of established aquatic invaders. Hydrobiologia 848, 2399–2420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-020-04352-5 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Weidlich, E. W. A., Flórido, F. G., Sorrini, T. B. & Brancalion, P. H. S. Controlling invasive plant species in ecological restoration: A global review. J. Appl. Ecol. 57, 1806–1817. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13656 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Simberloff, D. Invasive species in Conservation biology for all (eds Sodhi, N. S. & Ehrlich, P. R.) 131–152 (Oxford University Press, 2010).6.Hoddle, M. S. Restoring balance: Using exotic species to control invasive exotic species. Conserv. Biol. 18, 38–49 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Turvey, N. D. Cane toads: a tale of sugar, politics and flawed science. (Sydney University Press, 2013).8.Shine, R. Cane toad wars. (University of California Press, 2018).9.Seebacher, F. & Alford, R. A. Movement and microhabitat use of a terrestrial amphibian (Bufo marinus) on a tropical island: Seasonal variation and environmental correlates. J. Herpetol. 33, 208–214. https://doi.org/10.2307/1565716 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Brown, G. P., Phillips, B. L., Webb, J. K. & Shine, R. Toad on the road: Use of roads as dispersal corridors by cane toads (Bufo marinus) at an invasion front in tropical Australia. Biol. Conserv. 133, 88–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.05.020 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Brown, G. P., Shilton, C., Phillips, B. L. & Shine, R. Invasion, stress, and spinal arthritis in cane toads. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104, 17698–17700. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0705057104 (2007).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
12.Brown, G. P., Kelehear, C. & Shine, R. Effects of seasonal aridity on the ecology and behaviour of invasive cane toads in the Australian wet–dry tropics. Funct. Ecol. 25, 1339–1347. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2011.01888.x (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Brown, G. P., Phillips, B. L. & Shine, R. The straight and narrow path: the evolution of straight-line dispersal at a cane toad invasion front. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 281, 20141385. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.1385 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Brown, G., Kelehear, C., Pizzatto, L. & Shine, R. The impact of lungworm parasites on rates of dispersal of their anuran host, the invasive cane toad. Biol. Invasions 18, 103–114 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-015-0993-1 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Phillips, B. L., Brown, G. P. & Shine, R. Evolutionarily accelerated invasions: the rate of dispersal evolves upwards during the range advance of cane toads. J. Evol. Biol. 23, 2595–2601. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02118.x (2010).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
16.Phillips, B. L., Brown, G. P., Travis, J. M. J. & Shine, ,. R. Reid’s paradox revisited: The evolution of dispersal kernels during range expansion. Am. Nat. 172, S34–S48. https://doi.org/10.1086/588255 (2008).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
17.Phillips, B. L., Brown, G. P., Webb, J. K. & Shine, R. Invasion and the evolution of speed in toads. Nature 439, 803. https://doi.org/10.1038/439803a (2006).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
18.Alford, R. A., Brown, G. P., Schwarzkopf, L., Phillips, B. L. & Shine, R. Comparisons through time and space suggest rapid evolution of dispersal behaviour in an invasive species. Wildl. Res. 36, 23–28 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Tingley, R. & Shine, R. Desiccation risk drives the spatial ecology of an invasive anuran (Rhinella marina) in the Australian semi-desert. PLoS ONE 6, e25979. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025979 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
20.Pizzatto, L., Both, C., Brown, G. & Shine, R. The accelerating invasion: dispersal rates of cane toads at an invasion front compared to an already-colonized location. Evol. Ecol. 31, 533–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-017-9896-1 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Lindström, T., Brown, G. P., Sisson, S. A., Phillips, B. L. & Shine, R. Rapid shifts in dispersal behavior on an expanding range edge. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 110, 13452. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1303157110 (2013).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
22.Pettit, L. J., Greenlees, M. J. & Shine, R. Is the enhanced dispersal rate seen at invasion fronts a behaviourally plastic response to encountering novel ecological conditions? Biol. Lett. 12, 20160539. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2016.0539 (2016).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
23.Pettit, L., Greenlees, M. & Shine, R. The impact of transportation and translocation on dispersal behaviour in the invasive cane toad. Oecologia 184, 411–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-017-3871-y (2017).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
24.Pettit, L. J., Greenlees, M. J. & Shine, R. The behavioural consequences of translocation: how do invasive cane toads (Rhinella marina) respond to transport and release to novel environments? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 71, 15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-016-2245-5 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Finnerty, P. B., Shine, R. & Brown, G. P. The costs of parasite infection: Effects of removing lungworms on performance, growth and survival of free-ranging cane toads. Funct. Ecol. 32, 402–415. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12992 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Blennerhassett, R. A., Bell-Anderson, K., Shine, R. & Brown, G. P. The cost of chemical defence: the impact of toxin depletion on growth and behaviour of cane toads (Rhinella marina). Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 286, 20190867. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.0867 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Ward-Fear, G., Greenlees, M. J. & Shine, R. Toads on lava: Spatial ecology and habitat use of invasive cane toads (Rhinella marina) in Hawai’i. PLoS ONE 11, e0151700. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151700 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Slade, R. W. & Moritz, C. Phylogeography of Bufo marinus from its natural and introduced ranges. Proc. R. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 265, 769–777. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1998.0359 (1998).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Acevedo, A. A., Lampo, M. & Cipriani, R. The cane or marine toad, Rhinella marina (Anura, Bufonidae): two genetically and morphologically distinct species. Zootaxa 4103, 574–586. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4103.6.7 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Freeland, W. J. & Kerin, S. H. Ontogenetic alteration of activity and habitat selection by Bufo marinus. Wildl. Res. 18, 431–443 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Seebacher, F. & Alford, R. A. Shelter microhabitats determine body temperature and dehydration rates of a terrestrial amphibian (Bufo marinus). J. Herpetol. 36, 69–75. https://doi.org/10.2307/1565804 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Schwarzkopf, L. & Alford, R. A. Desiccation and shelter-site use in a tropical amphibian: Comparing toads with physical models. Funct. Ecol. 10, 193–200. https://doi.org/10.2307/2389843 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Heise-Pavlov, S. R. & Longway, L. J. Diet and dietary selectivity of Cane Toads (Rhinella marina) in restoration sites: a case study in Far North Queensland, Australia. Ecol. Manag. Restor. 12, 230–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-8903.2011.00603.x (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Jørgensen, C. B. 200 years of amphibian water economy: From Robert Townson to the present. Biol. Rev. 72, 153–237. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0006323196004963 (1997).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
35.Kosmala, G. K., Brown, G. P., Shine, R. & Christian, K. Skin resistance to water gain and loss has changed in cane toads (Rhinella marina) during their Australian invasion. Ecol. Evol. 10, 13071–13079. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6895 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
36.Hopkins, G. R. & Brodie, E. D. Occurrence of amphibians in saline habitats: A review and evolutionary perspective. Herpetol. Monogr. 29, 1–27 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Yasumiba, K., Alford, R. A. & Schwarzkopf, L. Seasonal reproductive cycles of cane toads and their implications for control. Herpetologica 72, 288–292. https://doi.org/10.1655/Herpetologica-D-15-00048.1 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Brodie, S., Yasumiba, K., Towsey, M., Roe, P. & Schwarzkopf, L. Acoustic monitoring reveals year-round calling by invasive toads in tropical Australia. Bioacoustics 30, 125–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/09524622.2019.1705183 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Evans, M., Yáber, C. & Hero, J.-M. Factors influencing choice of breeding site by Bufo marinus in its natural habitat. Copeia 1996, 904–912. https://doi.org/10.2307/1447653 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.DeVore, J. L., Shine, R. & Ducatez, S. Urbanization and translocation disrupt the relationship between host density and parasite abundance. J. Anim. Ecol. 89, 1122–1133. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.13175 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
41.Météo-France. Données publiques. https://donneespubliques.meteofrance.fr/ (2021).42.Kelehear, C. & Shine, R. Non-reproductive male cane toads (Rhinella marina) withhold sex-identifying information from their rivals. Biol. Lett. 15, 20190462. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2019.0462 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
43.Higginson, A. D. & Ruxton, G. D. Foraging mode switching: the importance of prey distribution and foraging currency. Anim. Behav. 105, 121–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.04.014 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Peig, J. & Green, A. J. New perspectives for estimating body condition from mass/length data: the scaled mass index as an alternative method. Oikos 118, 1883–1891. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2009.17643.x (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Schwarzkopf, L. & Alford, R. A. Nomadic movement in tropical toads. Oikos 96, 492–506. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2002.960311.x (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
46.R: A language and environment for statistical computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020).47.Pinheiro, J., Bates, D., DebRoy, S., Sarkar, D. & Team, R. C. nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1-140 (2019).48.Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Fox, J. & Weisberg, S. An R Companion to Applied Regression. Third edn, (Sage, 2019).50.Lenth, R. Emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. R package version 1.3.2 (2019).51.Pettit, L., Ducatez, S., DeVore, J. L., Ward-Fear, G. & Shine, R. Diurnal activity in cane toads (Rhinella marina) is geographically widespread. Sci. Rep. 10, 5723. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-62402-3 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
52.Doody, J. S., McHenry, C. R., Rhind, D. & Clulow, S. Novel habitat causes a shift to diurnal activity in a nocturnal species. Sci. Rep. 9, 230. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-36384-2 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
53.Webb, J. K., Letnic, M., Jessop, T. S. & Dempster, T. Behavioural flexibility allows an invasive vertebrate to survive in a semi-arid environment. Biol. Lett. 10, 20131014. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2013.1014 (2014).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
54.González-Bernal, E., Brown, G. P., Crowther, M. S. & Shine, R. Sex and age differences in habitat use by invasive cane toads (Rhinella marina) and a native anuran (Cyclorana australis) in the Australian wet–dry tropics. Austral Ecol. 40, 953–961. https://doi.org/10.1111/aec.12279 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Lettoof, D. C. et al. Cane toads beneath bird rookeries: utilization of a natural disturbance by an invasive species. Curr. Zool. 64, 433–439. https://doi.org/10.1093/cz/zox041 (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
56.Biesinger, Z., Bolker, B. M. & Lindberg, W. J. Predicting local population distributions around a central shelter based on a predation risk-growth trade-off. Ecol. Model. 222, 1448–1455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.02.009 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Wright, T. F., Eberhard, J. R., Hobson, E. A., Avery, M. L. & Russello, M. A. Behavioral flexibility and species invasions: the adaptive flexibility hypothesis. Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 22, 393–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/03949370.2010.505580 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Lima, S. L. & Dill, L. M. Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can. J. Zool. 68, 619–640. https://doi.org/10.1139/z90-092 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Godin, J.-G.J. & Smith, S. A. A fitness cost of foraging in the guppy. Nature 333, 69–71. https://doi.org/10.1038/333069a0 (1988).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Heithaus, M. R. et al. State-dependent risk-taking by green sea turtles mediates top-down effects of tiger shark intimidation in a marine ecosystem. J. Anim. Ecol. 76, 837–844. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2007.01260.x (2007).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
61.Brown, G. P., Kelehear, C. & Shine, R. The early toad gets the worm: cane toads at an invasion front benefit from higher prey availability. J. Anim. Ecol. 82, 854–862. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12048 (2013).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
62.Lampo, M. & Bayliss, P. Density estimates of cane toads from native populations based on mark-recapture data. Wildl. Res. 23, 305–315. https://doi.org/10.1071/wr9960305 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Urban, M. C., Phillips, B. L., Skelly, D. K. & Shine, R. A toad more traveled: The heterogeneous invasion dynamics of cane toads in Australia. Am. Nat. 171, E134–E148. https://doi.org/10.1086/527494 (2008).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
64.Ducatez, S., Tingley, R. & Shine, R. Using species co-occurrence patterns to quantify relative habitat breadth in terrestrial vertebrates. Ecosphere 5, art152, https://doi.org/10.1890/ES14-00332.1 (2014).65.Baldwin, J. M. A new factor in evolution. Am. Nat. 30, 441–451 (1896).Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Sol, D., Duncan, R. P., Blackburn, T. M., Cassey, P. & Lefebvre, L. Big brains, enhanced cognition, and response of birds to novel environments. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102, 5460–5465. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0408145102 (2005).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
67.Letnic, M., Webb, J. K., Jessop, T. S., Florance, D. & Dempster, T. Artificial water points facilitate the spread of an invasive vertebrate in arid Australia. J. Appl. Ecol. 51, 795–803. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12232 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Urban, M. C., Phillips, B. L., Skelly, D. K. & Shine, R. The cane toad’s (Chaunus [Bufo] marinus) increasing ability to invade Australia is revealed by a dynamically updated range model. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 274, 1413–1419. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2007.0114 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Zug, G. R. & Zug, P. B. The marine toad, Bufo marinus: A natural history resumé of native populations. Smithsonian Contrib. Zool. 284, 1–58, https://doi.org/10.5479/si.00810282.284 (1979).Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Kosmala, G., Christian, K., Brown, G. & Shine, R. Locomotor performance of cane toads differs between native-range and invasive populations. R. Soc. Open Sci. 4, 170517. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170517 (2017).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
71.Gruber, J., Brown, G., Whiting, M. J. & Shine, R. Geographic divergence in dispersal-related behaviour in cane toads from range-front versus range-core populations in Australia. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 71, 38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-017-2266-8 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.Menotti, F. & O’Sullivan, A. The Oxford Handbook of Wetland Archaeology. (Oxford University Press, 2013)2.O’Sullivan, A. The Archaeology of Lake Settlement in Ireland. (Discovery Programme, 1998)3.Crone, A. Forging a chronological framework for Scottish crannogs; the radiocarbon and dendrochronological evidence. In Lake Dwellings After Robert Munro. Proceedings from the Munro International Seminar: The Lake Dwellings of Europe (Midgley, M.S., Sanders, J. eds.) (University of Edinburgh, 2012).4.Lane, A., M. & Redknap, M. Llangorse Crannog: Excavation of an Early Medieval Royal Site in the Kingdom of Brycheiniog. (Oxbow Books, 2019).5.Hertz, J. The excavation of Solvig a Danish crannog in southern Denmark. Further excavation at Solvig. Chateau Gaillard 6, 84–105 (1974).
Google Scholar 
6.Barber, J. & Crone, B. A. Crannogs: A diminishing resource? A survey of the crannogs of south-west Scotland and excavations at Buiston crannog. Antiquity 67, 520–533 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Henderson, J. & Cavers, G. Proc. Soc. An Iron age crannog in south-west Scotland: Underwater survey and excavation at Lough Arthur. Antiq. Scot. 141, 103–124 (2011).8.Garrow, D. & Sturt, F. Neolithic crannogs: Rethinking settlement, monumentality and deposition in the Outer Hebrides and beyond. Antiquity 93, 664–684 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.O’Brien, C.E., Selby, K.A., Ruiz, Z., Brown, A.G., Dinnin, M Caseldine, C., Langdon, P.G. & Stuijts, I. Sediment-based multi-proxy approach to the archaeology of crannogs: A case study from Central Ireland. Holocene 15, 707–719 (2005).10.O’Sullivan, A. Crannogs Lake Dwellings of Early Ireland. (Country House, 2000).11.Wood-Martin, W. G. The Lake Dwellings of Ireland (Figgis and Co., 1886).
Google Scholar 
12.Fredengren, C. Crannogs: A study of people’s interaction with lakes, with particular reference to Lough Gara in the north-west of Ireland (Wordwell Press, 2002).
Google Scholar 
13.Stratigos, M. J. & Noble, G. Crannogs, castles and lordly residences: New research and dating of crannogs in north-east Scotland. Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot. 144, 205–222 (2014).
Google Scholar 
14.Tóth, M., Hardenbroek, M. van., Bleicher, N. & Heiri, O. Pronounced early human impact on lakeshore environments documented by aquatic invertebrate remains in waterlogged Neolithic settlement deposits. Q. Sci. Rev. 205, 126–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2018.12.015 (2019).15.Chen, W. & Ficetola, G. F. Conditionally autoregressive models improve occupancy analyses of autocorrelated data: An example with environmental DNA. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 19, 163–175 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Prost, K., Birk, J.J,. Lehndorff, E., Gerlach, R. & Amelung, W. Steroid biomarkers revisited—Improved source identification of faecal remains in archaeological soil material. PLoS ONE 12(1), 1/30 (2017).17.Selby, K. A. & Brown, A. G. The holocene development, spatial variations and anthropogenic record of a shallow lake system in central Ireland as recorded by diatom stratigraphy. J. Palaeolimnol. 38, 419–440 (2007).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Hawksworth, D. L., Van Geel, B. & Wiltshire, E. J. The enigma of the Diporotheca palynomorph. Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol. 235, 94–98 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Alsos, I. G. et al. Plant DNA metabarcoding of lake sediments: How does it represent the contemporary vegetation. PLoS ONE 13(4), e0195403. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195403 (2018).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
20.Giguet-Covex, C., Pansu, J., Arnaud, F., Rey, P-J., Griggo, C., Gielly, L. Domaizon, I., Coissac, E. David, F., Choler P., Poulenard, J. & Taberlet, P. Long livestock farming history and human landscape shaping revealed by lake sediment DNA.Nat. Commun. 5, 1–7 (2014).21.Sabatier, P. et al. Long-term relationships among pesticide applications, mobility, and soil erosion in a vineyard watershed. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, 15647–15652 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Crone, A. Crannogs and chronologies. Procs. Antiq. Soc. Scotland 123, 245–254. http://journals.socantscot.org/index.php/psas/article/view/9462 (1993).23.Lammers, Y., Clark, C., Erséus, C., Brown, A.G., Edwards, M. E., Gielly, L., Haflidason, H., Mangerud, J., Rota, E., Svendsen, J-I., & Alsos, I.G. Earthworms in late glacial and holocene records discovered in DNA bycatch. Boreas 48, 317–329 (2018).24.McClatchie, M., Mccormick, F. M., Kerr, T. R. & O’Sullivan, A. Early medieval farming and food production: A review of the archaeobotanical evidence from archaeological excavations in Ireland. Veg. Hist. Archaeobotany 24, 179–186 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.McCormick, F., & Murray, E. Knowth and the Zooarchaeology of Early Christian Ireland, Excavations at Knowth 3. (Royal Irish Academy Monographs in Archaeology, 2007).26.Soderberg, J. Wild cattle: Red deer in the religious texts, iconography, and archaeology of early Medieval Ireland. Int. J. Hist. Arch. 8, 167–183 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Rymer, L. The history and ethnobotany of bracken. J. Linn. Soc. 76, 151–176 (1976).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Stuart, J. Notice of a group of artificial islands in the Lough of Dowalton, Wigtownshire and other artificial islands or crannogs throughout Scotland. Procs. Soc. Antiq. Scot. 10, 31–34 (1866).
Google Scholar 
29.Dixon, N. The history of crannog survey and excavation in Scotland. Int. J. Nautical Arch. 20, 1–8 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Jones, D. & Haggar, R. J. Impact of nitrogen and organic manures on yield, botanical composition and herbage quality of two contrasting grassland field margins. Biol. Agric. Hortic. 14, 107–123 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.O’Sullivan, A. The Social and Idealogical Role of Crannogs in Early Medieval Ireland. PhD Thesis. (UCD, 2004).32.Bourke, C. The Excavations of an Early Medieval Crannog at Newtownlow, County Westmeath (December Publications, 2015).
Google Scholar 
33.Jones, M. Feast: Why Humans Share Food. (Oxford University Press).34.Bronk Ramsey, C. Deposition models for chronological records. Q. Sci. Rev. 27, 42–60 (2008).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Reimer, P. J. et al. The IntCal20 Northern hemisphere radiocarbon age calibratin curve. Radiocarbon 1, 1–33 (2020).
Google Scholar 
36.Kotov S, Pälike H. QAnalySeries—A cross-platform time series tuning and analysis tool. In AGU Fall Meeting. https://doi.org/10.1002/essoar.10500226.1 (2018)37.Croudace, I. W., Rindby, A. & Rothwell, R. G. ITRAX: Description and evaluation of a new multi-function X-ray core scanner. Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Public. 267, 51–63 (2006).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Pirrie, D. & Rollinson. G. K. Unlocking the application of automated mineralogy. Geol. Today 27, 226–235 (2011).39.Pirrie, D., Rollinson, G. K., Andersen, J. C., Wootton, D. & Moorhead, S. Soil forensics as a tool to test reported artefact find sites. J. Archaeol. Sci. 41, 461–473 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Taberlet, P., Coissac, E., Pompanon, F., Gielly, L., Miquel, C., Valentini, A., Vermat, T., Gérard, C., Brochmann, C. & Willerslev E. Power and limitations of the chloroplast trnL (UAA) intron for plant DNA barcoding. Nucl. Acids Res. e14 (2007).41.Boyer, F., Mercier, C., Bonin, A,. Le Bras, Y., Taberlet, P. & Coissac E. Obitools: A unix-inspired software package for DNA metabarcoding. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 16, 176–182 (2016).42.De Barba, M. et al. DNA metabarcoding multiplexing and validation of data accuracy for diet assessment: Application to omnivorous diet. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 14, 306–323 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Ficetola, G. F., Taberlet, P. & Coissac, E. How to limit false positives in environmental DNA and metabarcoding?. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 16, 604–607 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Lahoz-Monfort, J.J., Guillera-Arroita, G. & Tingley, G., R. Statistical approaches to account for false positive errors in environmental DNA samples. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 16, 673–685 (2016).45.Bull, I., Lockheart, M., Elhmmali, M. Roberts, D. E. & Evershed, R. The origin of faeces by means of biomarker detection. Environ. Int. 27, 647–654 (2002).46.Mackay, H., Davies, K.L., Robertson, J., Roy, L., Bull, I.D. Whitehouse, N.J., Crone, A., Cavers, G., McCormick, F., Brown, A.G. & Henderson, A.C.G. Characterising life in settlements and structures: Incorporating faecal lipid biomarkers within a multiproxy case study of a wetland village. J. Archaeol. Sci. 121 (2020).47.Battarbee, R. W. Diatom analysis. In Handbook of Holocene Palaeoecology and Palaeohydrology (ed. Berglund, B. E.) 527–570 (Wiley, 1986).
Google Scholar 
48.Krammer, K., Lange-Bertalot, H. Bacillariophyceae. 1–4. Süßwasserflora von Mitteleuropa, Band 2/1–2/3. (Gustav Fischer, 1999–2004).49.Brooks, S.J., Langdon, P.G. & Heiri, O. The Identification and Use of Palaearctic Chironomidae Larvae in Palaeoecolgy. QRA Technical Guide No. 10. (Quaternary Research Association, 2007).50.Tóthm, M., van Hardenbroek, M., Bleicher, N. & Heiri, O. Pronounced early human impact on lakeshore environments documented by aquatic invertebrate remains in waterlogged Neolithic settlement deposits. Q. Sci. Rev. 205, 126–142 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Moog, O. Fauna Aquatica Austriaca. Wasserwirtshcaftskataster, Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Vienna (2002)52.Bennion, H. A diatom-total phosphorus transfer function for shallow, eutrophic ponds in southeast England. Hydrobiologia 275(276), 391–410 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain
the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in
Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles
and JavaScript. More

This study demonstrated that several anuran genera (Xenopus, Lithobates [Rana], Hyla, and Anaxyrus [Bufo]), as well as Nile monitor lizards, green anoles, and featherfin catfish, are susceptible to infection with D. insignis and/or D. medinensis L3s. We also found that D. insignis and D. medinensis larvae can persist in anuran tissues for at least eight and two months, respectively, although the number of L3s recovered from each infected animal was generally low. Regardless, these data show that these animals could serve as paratenic hosts if they ingest infected copepods in nature and are subsequently ingested by an appropriate definitive host.We exposed animals using two different methods (group batch or by mouth [PO]), but aimed to primarily batch expose animals as that better mimics natural exposure. A few anuran species (i.e., American toads, Cope’s gray treefrogs, and adult African clawed frogs) were exposed to D. medinensis-infected copepods PO, as they had metamorphosed into adults before D. medinensis larvae became available for use and would be unlikely to ingest all copepods autonomously. Our primary goal in this study was to determine susceptibility to Dracunculus infection.Six anurans that were exposed as tadpoles underwent metamorphosis to froglets before being necropsied. Dracunculus L3s were recovered from two of these animals, supporting previous findings that D. insignis larvae can persist in anuran tissues through metamorphosis14. The persistence of larvae in the tissues through metamorphosis may facilitate Dracunculus transmission from aquatic to terrestrial food chains. This could be an important factor in transmission, as the majority of definitive hosts of Dracunculus nematodes are terrestrial. This study found that, in addition to X. laevis and Lithobates spp. (which have previously been infected with Dracunculus spp. larvae), Anaxyrus sp. and Hyla sp. can also become infected with Dracunculus L3s14,21. The infection of Anaxyrus sp. and Hyla sp. is particularly interesting, as members of these genera transition to a terrestrial or arboreal existence as adults, compared to Xenopus sp. and Lithobates spp. which remain completely or predominantly aquatic, even as adults. This transition to a terrestrial habitat could carry infectious larvae further from water sources, making them available to definitive hosts more widely across the landscape. However, the role of these animals in Dracunculus transmission would still depend on many other factors, including the natural history of these amphibian species, diets of definitive hosts, and how long Dracunculus L3s persist in paratenic hosts, as terrestrial anurans would be unlikely to acquire new infections after metamorphosis.During a previous experimental study, D. insignis L3s persisted in amphibian paratenic hosts for up to 37 DPI, at which time the animals were necropsied16. In this long-term infection trial, we found that D. insignis larvae persisted for at least 244 days (approximately eight months), while D. medinensis larvae persisted for at least 58 days (approximately two months). These results demonstrate that infection of a paratenic host can extend the time that L3s may persist in the environment well beyond the lifespan of a copepod21. As we had a limited supply of D. medinensis L3s, we were unable to conduct sufficient trials to determine whether D. insignis may persist longer in paratenic hosts than D. medinensis. If this difference was found to exist, it could contribute to the higher proportion of wild-caught adult frogs found to be infected with D. insignis than with D. medinensis during field surveys18,19. Further testing with an increased sample size would be required to determine whether the persistence of larvae actually differs between Dracunculus species or paratenic host species.No Dracunculus larvae were recovered from the two adult African clawed frogs that were fed D. medinensis L3s that had been recovered from other paratenic hosts. It is likely that our very small sample size (two animals) and the prolonged period before necropsy (4 months) explain these negative results. In our persistence trials, there was attrition over time so these animals should have been examined earlier after exposure. Future efforts to investigate transmission of Dracunculus between different paratenic hosts should use larger sample sizes and shorter infection periods. It would also be interesting to know if predatory animals, such as Nile monitor lizards, which can experimentally become infected with Dracunculus sp. larvae could become infected by ingesting other paratenic hosts.Fish were investigated for their potential role in Dracunculus transmission, as many fish species consume copepods as part of a natural diet25,26. Despite this, Dracunculus larvae have not been recovered during multiple studies screening wild-caught fish17,19. Dracunculus insignis L3s have rarely been recovered from previous experimental trials with fish16. When larvae were recovered from fish, larval recovery rates were very low (0.6–2.0% recovery; 1–2 larvae per fish) and only 3/43 (7.0%) of the fish harbored Dracunculus larvae upon necropsy16. In a separate trial, fish experimentally functioned as short-term transport hosts of D. medinensis and D. insignis to infect domestic ferrets7. Our findings from this trial were surprising, as we recovered up to 6 D. medinensis L3s from the tissues of three out of four (75%) exposed featherfin catfish. This fish species is common in the Chari River Basin area in Chad, Africa where high numbers of D. medinensis infections are reported in domestic dogs living in fishing villages, and is consumed by both people and dogs17. Dogs in these villages often eat discarded small fish or fish viscera4. Although our sample size was small, our current findings are evidence that some fish species may be more capable of serving as paratenic hosts for Dracunculus than those that have been previously tested. This finding further supports the continuation of the screening of wild fish muscle tissues for Dracunculus larvae.Lizards were included in this study because large, subcutaneous nematodes (believed to be Dracunculus sp.) were historically reported from Nile monitor lizards and these lizards are consumed by people20,22. However, a lack of contemporary reports and recent work in Chad, Africa, determining that large, subcutaneous nematodes recovered from wild Nile monitor lizards were not Dracunculus sp. but actually most similar to Ochoterenella sp., suggest that monitor lizards in this region are not definitive hosts for D. medinensis17. This current study confirms that Nile monitor and green anole lizards could become infected with Dracunculus larvae. As the diet of Nile monitor lizards can include amphibians and fish, were those prey to contain Dracunculus larvae, it is possible that monitors could serve as paratenic hosts, either by ingestion of larvae in fish intestines or in tissues of amphibians or fish, although these modes of transmission to paratenic hosts have not been confirmed23,24. It is unlikely that green anoles would become naturally infected with Dracunculus spp. due to their diet and primarily arboreal habitat; however, their infection demonstrates that multiple, distantly related lizard species are susceptible to experimental infection.Although anoles were exposed to both D. insignis and D. medinensis larvae, it is most likely that the recovered larvae were D. insignis, as only two D. medinensis-infected copepods were administered (in addition to 23 D. insignis-infected copepods). Species identity of these larvae could not be confirmed, however, as Dracunculus larvae can only be identified to species using molecular diagnostic techniques, which would destroy the sample, and these larvae were used in an experimental infection trial after recovery. Exposure of a ferret PO to the four larvae recovered from this anole (as part of a separate study) did not yield an infection, which is unsurprising given the low dose of larvae used. A previous study has shown that as few as 10 Dracunculus larvae may lead to infection of a ferret when administered interperitoneally (IP) (which was a more effective infection route than PO inoculation), therefore, four larvae administered PO would be unlikely to yield infection of a ferret27,28.In all trials, infection occurred only in those animals that were inoculated with or exposed to at least 20 copepods per individual, suggesting an impact of parasite dose-dependent infection probability for Dracunculus infection in paratenic hosts. As copepod infection rate during this study was estimated to be (ge) 25%, it is likely that animals ingesting 20 copepods would consume at least 5 Dracunculus sp. larvae. Previous studies demonstrated that 10 larvae (administered IP) were sufficient to infect a ferret, but that percent recovery was higher with IP infection than PO27,28. It is likely that a similar minimum infectious dose also exists for paratenic hosts and may differ by paratenic host species and mode of infection. Parasite dose-dependent infection probability of Dracunculus spp. merits further investigation, as understanding this relationship could help researchers to more effectively study transmission in the laboratory by performing experimental infection trials with greater reliability.Despite the variable sample sizes and exposure routes in this study, we demonstrated that a wide range of animals (anurans, fish, and lizards) were susceptible to infection with D. insignis and/or D. medinensis L3s. Importantly, one exposed fish species (Synodontis eupterus) was susceptible, opening up further concerns that certain fish species could serve as transport and paratenic hosts of Dracunculus species. Nile monitor lizards and anoles were successfully infected with L3s, demonstrating the first experimental infection of lizards with Dracunculus larvae. Dracunculus larvae remained L3s in the tissues of tested anurans for up to 244 days, extending the known persistence time of infectious larvae. Although no larvae were recovered from frogs that were fed L3s recovered from other paratenic hosts, continued investigation into the possibility of paratenic host to paratenic host transmission would be particularly interesting in determining if some predatory frogs (tadpoles or adults), fish, or lizards may concentrate higher numbers of L3s over time through predation of other infected paratenic hosts. Despite this study not determining how infectious larvae recovered from each of these paratenic hosts would be to another host, our findings contribute to a better understanding of the ability of these paratenic hosts to harbor Dracunculus L3s. This information is valuable to understanding how transmission to animal definitive hosts may be occurring, in addition to informing GWEP management decisions aiming to decrease transmission of D. medinensis to humans and animals. More

1.Hillebrand, H. et al. Thresholds for ecological responses to global change do not emerge from empirical data. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1502–1509 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Biggs, R. O., Peterson, G. D. & Rocha, J. C. C. The Regime Shifts Database: a framework for analyzing regime shifts in social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 23, 9 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Diaz, R. J. & Rosenberg, R. Spreading dead zones and consequences for marine ecosystems. Science 321, 926–929 (2008).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Walker, B. & Meyers, J. A. Thresholds in ecological and social–ecological systems: a developing database. Ecol. Soc. 9, 3 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Hirota, M., Holmgren, M., Van Nes, E. H. & Scheffer, M. Global resilience of tropical forest and savanna to critical transitions. Science 334, 232–235 (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Scheffer, M. et al. Creating a safe operating space for iconic ecosystems. Science 347, 1317–1319 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Eppinga, M. B. et al. Long-term transients help explain regime shifts in consumer-renewable resource systems. Commun. Earth Environ. 2, 42 (2021).8.Hughes, T. P., Linares, C., Dakos, V., van de Leemput, I. A. & van Nes, E. H. Living dangerously on borrowed time during slow, unrecognized regime shifts. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 149–155 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Dakos, V., Carpenter, S. R., van Nes, E. H. & Scheffer, M. Resilience indicators: prospects and limitations for early warnings of regime shifts. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 370, 20130263 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Santos, F. C. & Pacheco, J. M. Risk of collective failure provides an escape from the tragedy of the commons. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 10421–10425 (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Rocha, J. C., Schill, C., Saavedra-Díaz, L. M., Del Pilar Moreno, R. & Maldonado, J. H. Cooperation in the face of thresholds, risk, and uncertainty: experimental evidence in fisher communities from Colombia. PLoS ONE 15, e0242363 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Barrett, S. & Dannenberg, A. Climate negotiations under scientific uncertainty. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 17372–17376 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Tengö, M., Brondizio, E. S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P. & Spierenburg, M. Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base approach. Ambio 43, 579–591 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Peterson, G. D., Carpenter, S. R. & Brock, W. A. Uncertainty and the management of multistate ecosystems: an apparently rational route to collapse. Ecology 84, 1403–1411 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Vea, E. B., Ryberg, M., Richardson, K. & Hauschild, M. Z. Framework to define environmental sustainability boundaries and a review of current approaches. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 103003 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.McCool, S. F. Planning for sustainable nature dependent tourism development. Tour. Recreat. Res. 19, 51–55 (1994).
Google Scholar 
17.Bruckner, T., Petschel-Held, G., Leimbach, M. & Toth, F. L. Methodological aspects of the tolerable windows approach. Clim. Change 56, 73–89 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.UN Environment Programme. Convention on Biological Diversity. Aichi Biodiversity Targets https://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/ (2010).19.Dearing, J. A. et al. Safe and just operating spaces for regional social-ecological systems. Glob. Environ. Change 28, 227–238 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Strassburg, B. B. N. et al. Global priority areas for ecosystem restoration. Nature 586, 724–729 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.Harvell, D., Altizer, S., Cattadori, I. M., Harrington, L. & Weil, E. Climate change and wildlife diseases: when does the host matter the most? Ecology 90, 912–920 (2009).2.Wood, C. L. & Johnson, P. T. J. A world without parasites: exploring the hidden ecology of infection. Front. Ecol. Environ. 13, 425–434 (2015).3.Randall, C. J. & Van Woesik, R. Contemporary white-band disease in Caribbean corals driven by climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 5, 375–379 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Bruno, J. F. et al. Thermal stress and coral cover as drivers of coral disease outbreaks. PLoS Biol. 5, 1220–1227 (2007).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
5.Pollock, F. J. et al. Sediment and turbidity associated with offshore dredging increase coral disease prevalence on nearby reefs. PLoS ONE 9, e102498 (2014).6.Harvell, C. D. et al. Climate warming and disease risks for terrestrial and marine biota. Science 296, 2158–2162 (2002).7.Lafferty, K. D. & Kuris, A. M. Mass mortality of abalone Haliotis cracherodii on the California Channel Islands: tests of epidemiological hypotheses. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 96, 239–239 (1993).8.Miner, C. M. et al. Large-scale impacts of sea star wasting disease (SSWD) on intertidal sea stars and implications for recovery. PLoS ONE 13, e0192870 (2018).9.Patterson, K. L. et al. The etiology of white pox, a lethal disease of the Caribbean elkhorn coral, Acropora palmata. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99, 8725–8730 (2002).10.Aronson, R. B. & Precht, W. F. White-band disease and the changing face of Caribbean coral reefs. Hydrobiologia. 460, 25–38 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Weil, E., Croquer, A. & Urreiztieta, I. Temporal variability and impact of coral diseases and bleaching in La Parguera, Puerto Rico from 2003-2007. Caribb. J. Sci. 45, 221–246 (2009).12.Muller, E. et al. Coral disease following massive bleaching in 2005 causes 60% decline in coral cover on reefs in the US Virgin Islands. Coral Reefs. 28, 925–937 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Jones, G. P., McCormick, M. I., Srinivasan, M. & Eagle, J. V. Coral decline threatens fish biodiversity in marine reserves. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 101, 8251–8253 (2004).14.Jones, D. O. B. et al. Global reductions in seafloor biomass in response to climate change. Glob Chang Biol. 20, 1861–1872 (2014).15.Descombes, P. et al. Forecasted coral reef decline in marine biodiversity hotspots under climate change. Glob. Chang Biol. 21, 2479–2487 (2015).16.Weil, E., Smith, G. & Gil-Agudelo, D. L. Status and progress in coral reef disease research. Dis. Aquatic Organ. 69, 1–7 (2006).17.Sutherland, K. P., Porter, J. W. & Torres, C. Disease and immunity in Caribbean and Indo-Pacific zooxanthellate corals. Marine Ecol. Progress Ser. 266, 273–302 (2004).18.Pollock, F. J., Morris, P. J., Willis, B. L. & Bourne, D. G. The urgent need for robust coral disease diagnostics. PLoS Pathog. 7, e1002183 (2011).19.Williams, L., Smith, T. B., Burge, C. A. & Brandt, M. E. Species-specific susceptibility to white plague disease in three common Caribbean corals. Coral Reefs 39, 27–31 (2020).20.Velthuis, A. G. J., Bouma, A., Katsma, W. E. A., Nodelijk, G. & De Jong, M. C. M. Design and analysis of small-scale transmission experiments with animals. Epidemiol. Infect. 135, 202–217 (2007).21.Richardson, L. L., Goldberg, W. M., Carlton, R. G. & Halas, J. C. Coral disease outbreak in the Florida keys: Plague type II. Rev. Biol. Trop. 46, 187–198 (1998).
Google Scholar 
22.Frias-Lopez, J., Klaus, J. S., Bonheyo, G. T. & Fouke, B. W. Bacterial community associated with black band disease in corals. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 70, 5955–5962 (2004).23.Soffer, N., Brandt, M. E., Correa, A. M. S., Smith, T. B. & Thurber, R. V. Potential role of viruses in white plague coral disease. ISME J. 8, 271–283 (2014).24.Sweet, M. et al. Compositional homogeneity in the pathobiome of a new, slow-spreading coral disease. Microbiome 7, 1–14 (2019).25.Sweet, M. J. & Bulling, M. T. On the importance of the microbiome and pathobiome in coral health and disease. Front. Marine Sci. 4, 9 (2017).26.Egan, S. & Gardiner, M. Microbial dysbiosis: rethinking disease in marine ecosystems. Front. Microbiol. 7, 991 (2016).27.Ezzat, L. et al. Parrotfish predation drives distinct microbial communities in reef-building corals. Anim. Microbiome 2, 5 (2020).28.Ezzat, L. et al. Surgeonfish feces increase microbial opportunism in reef-building corals. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 631, 81–97 (2019).29.Meyer, J. L. et al. Microbial community shifts associated with the ongoing stony coral tissue loss disease outbreak on the Florida reef tract. Front. Microbiol. 10, 2244 (2019).30.Lima, L. F. O. et al. Modeling of the coral microbiome: the influence of temperature and microbial network. MBio. 11, e02691–19 (2020).31.Thurber, R. V. et al. Deciphering coral disease dynamics: integrating host, microbiome, and the changing environment. Front. Ecol. Evol. 8, 402 (2020).
Google Scholar 
32.Cárdenas, A., Rodriguez-R, L. M., Pizarro, V., Cadavid, L. F. & Arévalo-Ferro, C. Shifts in bacterial communities of two Caribbean reef-building coral species affected by white plague disease. ISME J. 6, 502–512 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
33.Meyer, J. L., Gunasekera, S. P., Scott, R. M., Paul, V. J. & Teplitski M. Microbiome shifts and the inhibition of quorum sensing by Black Band Disease cyanobacteria. ISME J. 10, 1204–1216 (2016).34.Sweet M. J., Burian A., Bulling M. Corals as canaries in the coalmine: towards the incorporation of marine ecosystems into the ‘One Health’ concept. OSF Prepr. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/gv6s7 (2020).35.Glasl, B. et al. Microbial indicators of environmental perturbations in coral reef ecosystems. Microbiome 7, 1–13 (2019).36.Zaneveld, J. R., McMinds, R. & Thurber, R. V. Stress and stability: applying the Anna Karenina principle to animal microbiomes. Nat. Microbiol. 2, 1–8 (2017).37.Fan, L., Liu, M., Simister, R., Webster, N. S. & Thomas T. Marine microbial symbiosis heats up: the phylogenetic and functional response of a sponge holobiont to thermal stress. ISME J. 7, 991–1002 (2013).38.Darling, E. S., Alvarez-Filip, L., Oliver, T. A., Mcclanahan, T. R. & Côté, I. M. Evaluating life-history strategies of reef corals from species traits. Ecol. Lett. 15, 1378–1386 (2012).39.Calnan, J. M., Smith, T. B., Nemeth, R. S., Kadison, E. & Blondeau, J. Coral disease prevalence and host susceptibility on mid-depth and deep reefs in the United States Virgin Islands. Rev. Biol. Trop. 56, 223–224 (2008).40.Perry, C. T. et al. Regional-scale dominance of non-framework building corals on Caribbean reefs affects carbonate production and future reef growth. Glob Chang Biol. 21, 1153–1164 (2015).41.Okazaki, R. R. et al. Species-specific responses to climate change and community composition determine future calcification rates of Florida Keys reefs. Glob. Chang Biol. 23, 1023–1035 (2017).42.Green, D. H., Edmunds, P. J. & Carpenter, R. C. Increasing relative abundance of Porites astreoides on Caribbean reefs mediated by an overall decline in coral cover. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 359, 1–10 (2008).43.Pinzón, C. J. H., Beach-Letendre, J., Weil, E. & Mydlarz, L. D. Relationship between phylogeny and immunity suggests older caribbean coral lineages are more resistant to disease. PLoS ONE 9, e104787 (2014).44.Smith, T. B. et al. Convergent mortality responses of Caribbean coral species to seawater warming. Ecosphere 4, 1–40 (2013).45.Jolles, A. E., Sullivan, P., Alker, A. P., Harvell, C. D. Disease transmission of aspergillosis in sea fans: Inferring process from spatial pattern. Ecology 83, 2373–2378 (2002).46.Shore, A. & Caldwell, J. M. Modes of coral disease transmission: how do diseases spread between individuals and among populations? Mar. Biol. 166, 45 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Glasl, B., Herndl, G. J., Frade, P. R. The microbiome of coral surface mucus has a key role in mediating holobiont health and survival upon disturbance. ISME J. 10, 2280–2292 (2016).48.Lesser, M. P., Bythell, J. C., Gates, R. D. & Johnstone, R. W., Hoegh-Guldberg, O. Are infectious diseases really killing corals? Alternative interpretations of the experimental and ecological data. J. Exp. Mar. Bio. Ecol. 346, 36–44 (2007).49.Muller, E. M. & Van Woesik, R. Caribbean coral diseases: primary transmission or secondary infection? Glob. Chang Biol. 18, 3529–3535 (2012).50.Fernandes, N. et al. Genomes and virulence factors of novel bacterial pathogens causing bleaching disease in the marine red alga Delisea pulchra. PLoS ONE 6, e27387 (2011).51.Vandecandelaere, I. et al. Nautella italica gen. nov., sp. nov., isolated from a marine electroactive biofilm. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 59, 811–817 (2009).52.Dang, H. & Lovell, C. R. Bacterial primary colonization and early succession on surfaces in marine waters as determined by amplified rRNA gene restriction analysis and sequence analysis of 16S rRNA genes. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 66, 467–475 (2000).53.Kviatkovski, I. & Minz, D. A member of the Rhodobacteraceae promotes initial biofilm formation via the secretion of extracellular factor(s). Aquat. Microb. Ecol. 75, 155–167 (2015).54.Rosales, S. M., Clark, A. S., Huebner, L. K., Ruzicka, R. R. & Muller E. M. Rhodobacterales and Rhizobiales are associated with stony coral tissue loss disease and its suspected sources of transmission. Front. Microbiol. 11, 681 (2020).55.Campbell, A. H., Harder, T., Nielsen, S., Kjelleberg, S. & Steinberg, P. D. Climate change and disease: bleaching of a chemically defended seaweed. Glob. Chang. Biol. 17, 2958–2970 (2011).56.Kumar, V., Zozaya-Valdes, E., Kjelleberg, S., Thomas, T. & Egan, S. Multiple opportunistic pathogens can cause a bleaching disease in the red seaweed Delisea pulchra. Environ. Microbiol. 18, 3962–3975 (2016).57.Brandt, M. E. & Mcmanus, J. W. Disease incidence is related to bleaching extent in reef-building corals. Ecology 90, 2859–2867 (2009).58.Brandt, M. E., Smith, T. B., Correa, A. M. S. & Vega-Thurber, R. Disturbance driven colony fragmentation as a driver of a coral disease outbreak. PLoS ONE 8, e57164 (2013).59.Godwin, S., Bent, E., Borneman, J. & Pereg, L. The role of coral-associated bacterial communities in Australian subtropical white Syndrome of Turbinaria mesenterina. PLoS ONE 7, e44243 (2012).60.Ranson, H. J. et al. Draft Genome Sequence of the Putative Marine Pathogen Thalassobius sp. I31.1. Microbiol. Resour. Announc. 8, e01431–18 (2019).61.Miller A. W., Richardson L. L. Fine structure analysis of black band disease (BBD) infected coral and coral exposed to the BBD toxins microcystin and sulfide. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 109, 27–33 (2012).62.Geffen, Y., Ron, E. Z. & Rosenberg, E. Regulation of release of antibacterials from stressed scleractinian corals. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 295, 103–109 (2009).63.Beurmann, S. et al. Pseudoalteromonas piratica strain OCN003 is a coral pathogen that causes a switch from chronic to acute Montipora white syndrome in Montipora capitata. PLoS ONE (2017).64.Apprill, A., Marlow, H. Q., Martindale, M. Q., Rappé, M. S. Specificity of associations between bacteria and the coral Pocillopora meandrina during early development. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 78, 7467–7475 (2012).65.Shnit-Orland, M., Sivan, A. & Kushmaro, A. Antibacterial activity of Pseudoalteromonas in the Coral Holobiont. Microb. Ecol. 64, 851–859 (2012).66.Sunagawa, S. et al. Bacterial diversity and white Plague disease-associated community changes in the caribbean coral montastraea faveolata. ISME J. 3, 512–521 (2009).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
67.Bettarel, Y. et al. Corallivory and the microbial debacle in two branching scleractinians. ISME J. 12, 1109–1126 (2018).68.Ritchie, K. B. Regulation of microbial populations by coral surface mucus and mucus-associated bacteria. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 322, 1–14 (2006).69.Bayer, T. et al. The microbiome of the red sea coral stylophora pistillata is dominated by tissue-associated endozoicomonas bacteria. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 79, 4759–4762 (2013).70.Lesser, M. P. & Jarett, J. K. Culture-dependent and culture-independent analyses reveal no prokaryotic community shifts or recovery of Serratia marcescens in Acropora palmata with white pox disease. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 88, 457–467 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
71.Morrow, K. M., Muller, E. & Lesser, M. P. How does the coral microbiome cause, respond to, or modulate the bleaching process? Coral Bleaching 233, 153–188 (2018).72.Pollock, F. J. et al. Coral-associated bacteria demonstrate phylosymbiosis and cophylogeny. Nat. Commun. 9, 1–13 (2018).73.Price, E. P. et al. Accurate and rapid identification of the Burkholderia pseudomallei near-neighbour, Burkholderia ubonensis, using real-time PCR. PLoS ONE 8, e71647 (2013).74.Price, E. P. et al. Phylogeographic, genomic, and meropenem susceptibility analysis of Burkholderia ubonensis. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 11, e0005928 (2017).75.Therneau, T. Package Survival: A Package for Survival Analysis in R. R Package version 238. (2015).76.Oksanen, J. et al. Vegan: community ecology. R package version 2.2-1. (2015).77.Andres, B., David, O., Sebastien, V., Julien, De B. & Fabien, L. betapart: partitioning Beta Diversity into Turnover and Nestedness Components. R Packag. (1.5.1). https://cran.r-project.org/package=betapart (2018).78.nmacknight. nmacknight/16sCommunityAnalysis: First Release. 2021 Mar 24 [cited 2021 Mar 24]: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4635319#.YFvOI-zLDNs.mendeley. (2021). More

Exp 1: chemo-tactile conditioning of the proboscis extension response (PER)Bee foragers may assess the quality of floral nectars through chemo-sensilla located on their antennae47. In this first experiment, we asked whether nectar-relevant concentrations of GABA, β-alanine, taurine, citrulline and ornithine can be detected by bees through their antennae. To this aim, we used a chemo-tactile differential conditioning of PER protocol48 in which different groups of bees were trained to discriminate one of the five NPAAs from water. Briefly, tethered bees experienced five pairings of a neutral stimulus (either NPAA-laced water or water) (CS+) with a 30% sucrose solution reinforcement (US) and five pairings (either water or NPAA-laced water) (CS−) with a saturated NaCl solution (US) used as punishment. The results showed that bees increased their response to both the rewarded (CS+) and the punished (CS−) stimuli over the ten conditioning trials (GLMM, trial: GABA: n = 76, χ2 = 65.75, df = 1, p  More

1.Rogelj, J. et al. Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 °C. Nature 534, 631–639 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Song, J. et al. A meta-analysis of 1,119 manipulative experiments on terrestrial carbon-cycling responses to global change. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 1309–1320 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Lal, R. Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science 304, 1623–1627 (2004).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Houghton, R. A. The contemporary carbon cycle. Treatise Geochem. 8, 473–513 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Paterson, E., Midwood, A. J. & Millard, P. Through the eye of the needle: a review of isotope approaches to quantify microbial processes mediating soil carbon balance. New Phytol. 184, 19–33 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Bader, M. K. F. & Körner, C. No overall stimulation of soil respiration under mature deciduous forest trees after 7 years of CO2 enrichment. Glob. Change Biol. 16, 2830–2843 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Reynolds, L. L., Lajtha, K., Bowden, R. D., Johnson, B. R. & Bridgham, S. D. The carbon quality–temperature hypothesis does not consistently predict temperature sensitivity of soil organic matter mineralization in soils from two manipulative ecosystem experiments. Biogeochemistry 136, 249–260 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Knorr, W., Prentice, I. C., House, J. & Holland, E. Long-term sensitivity of soil carbon turnover to warming. Nature 433, 298–301 (2005).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Allison, S. D., Wallenstein, M. D. & Bradford, M. A. Soil–carbon response to warming dependent on microbial physiology. Nat. Geosci. 3, 336–340 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Kirschbaum, M. U. F. The temperature dependence of organic-matter decomposition—still a topic of debate. Soil Biol. Biochem. 38, 2510–2518 (2006).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Feng, X., Simpson, A. J., Wilson, K. P., Williams, D. D. & Simpson, M. J. Increased cuticular carbon sequestration and lignin oxidation in response to soil warming. Nat. Geosci. 1, 836–839 (2008).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Pries, C. E. H., Castanha, C., Porras, R. & Torn, M. The whole-soil carbon flux in response to warming. Science 355, 1420–1423 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
13.Li, J. et al. Reduced carbon use efficiency and increased microbial turnover with soil warming. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 900–910 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Schaphoff, S. et al. Contribution of permafrost soils to the global carbon budget. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 014026 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Nottingham, A. T., Meir, P., Velasquez, E. & Turner, B. L. Soil carbon loss by experimental warming in a tropical forest. Nature 584, 234–237 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Davidson, E. A. & Janssens, I. A. Temperature sensitivity of soil carbon decomposition and feedbacks to climate change. Nature 440, 165–173 (2006).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Koven, C. D. et al. The effect of vertically resolved soil biogeochemistry and alternate soil C and N models on C dynamics of CLM4. Biogeosciences 10, 7109–7131 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Sulman, B. N., Phillips, R. P., Oishi, A. C., Shevliakova, E. & Pacala, S. W. Microbe-driven turnover offsets mineral-mediated storage of soil carbon under elevated CO2. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 1099–1102 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Schmidt, M. W. et al. Persistence of soil organic matter as an ecosystem property. Nature 478, 49–56 (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Wieder, W. R. et al. Explicitly representing soil microbial processes in Earth system models. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 29, 1782–1800 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Gonzalez-Dominguez, B. et al. Temperature and moisture are minor drivers of regional-scale soil organic carbon dynamics. Sci. Rep. 9, 6422 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Blankinship, J. C. et al. Improving understanding of soil organic matter dynamics by triangulating theories, measurements, and models. Biogeochemistry 140 (2018).23.Koven, C. D. et al. Permafrost carbon–climate feedbacks accelerate global warming. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 14769–14774 (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Angst, G. et al. Soil organic carbon stocks in topsoil and subsoil controlled by parent material, carbon input in the rhizosphere, and microbial-derived compounds. Soil Biol. Biochem. 122, 19–30 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Abramoff, R. et al. The Millennial model: in search of measurable pools and transformations for modeling soil carbon in the new century. Biogeochemistry 137, 51–71 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Doetterl, S. et al. Links among warming, carbon and microbial dynamics mediated by soil mineral weathering. Nat. Geosci. 11, 589–593 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Hamdi, S., Moyano, F., Sall, S., Bernoux, M. & Chevallier, T. Synthesis analysis of the temperature sensitivity of soil respiration from laboratory studies in relation to incubation methods and soil conditions. Soil Biol. Biochem. 58, 115–126 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Hashimoto, S. et al. Global spatiotemporal distribution of soil respiration modeled using a global database. Biogeosciences 12, 4121–4132 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Varney, R. M. et al. A spatial emergent constraint on the sensitivity of soil carbon turnover to global warming. Nat. Commun. 11, 5544 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Wu, D., Piao, S., Liu, Y., Ciais, P. & Yao, Y. Evaluation of CMIP5 Earth System Models for the spatial patterns of biomass and soil carbon turnover times and their linkage with climate. J. Clim. 31, 5947–5960 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Wieder, W. R. et al. Carbon cycle confidence and uncertainty: exploring variation among soil biogeochemical models. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 1563–1579 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Koven, C. D., Hugelius, G., Lawrence, D. M. & Wieder, W. R. Higher climatological temperature sensitivity of soil carbon in cold than warm climates. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 817–822 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Mahecha, M. D. et al. Global convergence in the temperature sensitivity of respiration at ecosystem level. Science 329, 838–840 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Foereid, B., Ward, D., Mahowald, N., Paterson, E. & Lehmann, J. The sensitivity of carbon turnover in the Community Land Model to modified assumptions about soil processes. Earth Syst. Dynam. 5, 211–221 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Friedlingstein, P. et al. Climate–carbon cycle feedback analysis: results from the C4MIP model intercomparison. J. Clim. 19, 3337–3353 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Post, H., Vrugt, J. A., Fox, A., Vereecken, H. & Hendricks Franssen, H. J. Estimation of Community Land Model parameters for an improved assessment of net carbon fluxes at European sites. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 122, 661–689 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Luo, Y. et al. Toward more realistic projections of soil carbon dynamics by Earth system models. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 30, 40–56 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Bailey, V. L. et al. Soil carbon cycling proxies: understanding their critical role in predicting climate change feedbacks. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 895–905 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Conant, R. T. et al. Temperature and soil organic matter decomposition rates—synthesis of current knowledge and a way forward. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 3392–3404 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Meyer, N., Welp, G. & Amelung, W. The temperature sensitivity (Q10) of soil respiration: controlling factors and spatial prediction at regional scale based on environmental soil classes. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 32, 306–323 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Doetterl, S. et al. Soil carbon storage controlled by interactions between geochemistry and climate. Nat. Geosci. 8, 780–783 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Melillo, J. M. et al. Long-term pattern and magnitude of soil carbon feedback to the climate system in a warming world. Science 358, 101–105 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Kramer, M. G. & Chadwick, O. A. Climate-driven thresholds in reactive mineral retention of soil carbon at the global scale. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 1104–1108 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Cusack, D. F. et al. Decadal-scale litter manipulation alters the biochemical and physical character of tropical forest soil carbon. Soil Biol. Biochem. 124, 199–209 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Wang, X. et al. Are ecological gradients in seasonal Q10 of soil respiration explained by climate or by vegetation seasonality? Soil Biol. Biochem. 42, 1728–1734 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Warner, D. L., Bond‐Lamberty, B., Jian, J., Stell, E. & Vargas, R. Spatial predictions and associated uncertainty of annual soil respiration at the global scale. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 33, 1733–1745 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Todd-Brown, K., Zheng, B. & Crowther, T. W. Field-warmed soil carbon changes imply high 21st-century modeling uncertainty. Biogeosciences 15, 3659–3671 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
48.He, Y. et al. Radiocarbon constraints imply reduced carbon uptake by soils during the 21st century. Science 353, 1419–1424 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Haddix, M. L. et al. The role of soil characteristics on temperature sensitivity of soil organic matter. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 75, 56–68 (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Lara, M. J., Lin, D. H., Andresen, C., Lougheed, V. L. & Tweedie, C. E. Nutrient release from permafrost thaw enhances CH4 emissions from Arctic tundra wetlands. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 124, 1560–1573 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Prater, I. et al. From fibrous plant residues to mineral-associated organic carbon–the fate of organic matter in Arctic permafrost soils. Biogeosciences 17, 3367–3383 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Åkerman, H. J. & Johansson, M. Thawing permafrost and thicker active layers in sub‐arctic Sweden. Permafr. Periglac. Process. 19, 279–292 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Jilling, A. et al. Minerals in the rhizosphere: overlooked mediators of soil nitrogen availability to plants and microbes. Biogeochemistry 139, 103–122 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Jones, M. C. et al. Rapid carbon loss and slow recovery following permafrost thaw in boreal peatlands. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 1109–1127 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Korell, L., Auge, H., Chase, J. M., Harpole, W. S. & Knight, T. M. We need more realistic climate change experiments for understanding ecosystems of the future. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 325–327 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Raich, J. W. & Schlesinger, W. H. The global carbon dioxide flux in soil respiration and its relationship to vegetation and climate. Tellus B 44, 81–99 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Jansson, J. K. & Hofmockel, K. S. Soil microbiomes and climate change. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 18, 35–46 (2020).58.Crowther, T. et al. The global soil community and its influence on biogeochemistry. Science 365, eaav0550 (2019).59.R Core Team. C. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2017).60.Bond-Lamberty, B. & Thomson, A. Temperature-associated increases in the global soil respiration record. Nature 464, 579–582 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Shapiro, S. S. & Wilk, M. B. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 52, 591–611 (1965).Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Conover, W. J., Johnson, M. E. & Johnson, M. M. A comparative study of tests for homogeneity of variances, with applications to the outer continental shelf bidding data. Technometrics 23, 351–361 (1981).Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Chen, X., Zhao, P. L. & Zhang, J. A note on ANOVA assumptions and robust analysis for a cross‐over study. Stat. Med. 21, 1377–1386 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
64.McGuinness, K. A. Of rowing boats, ocean liners and tests of the ANOVA homogeneity of variance assumption. Austral. Ecol. 27, 681–688 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Zimmerman, D. W. & Zumbo, B. D. Relative power of the Wilcoxon test, the Friedman test, and repeated-measures ANOVA on ranks. J. Exp. Educ. 62, 75–86 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Tomczak, M. & Tomczak, E. The need to report effect size estimates revisited. An overview of some recommended measures of effect size. Trends Sport Sci. 1, 19–25 (2014).
Google Scholar 
67.Thornley, J. & Cannell, M. Soil carbon storage response to temperature: an hypothesis. Ann. Bot. 87, 591–598 (2001).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Lloyd, J. & Taylor, J. On the temperature dependence of soil respiration. Funct. Ecol. 8, 315–323 (1994).69.Libohova, Z. et al. The anatomy of uncertainty for soil pH measurements and predictions: implications for modellers and practitioners. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 70, 185–199 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Kirkby, C. A. et al. Carbon–nutrient stoichiometry to increase soil carbon sequestration. Soil Biol. Biochem. 60, 77–86 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Bronick, C. J. & Lal, R. Soil structure and management: a review. Geoderma 124, 3–22 (2005).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Beer, C. et al. Temporal and among‐site variability of inherent water use efficiency at the ecosystem level. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 23, GB2018 (2009).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
73.Averill, C., Turner, B. L. & Finzi, A. C. Mycorrhiza-mediated competition between plants and decomposers drives soil carbon storage. Nature 505, 543 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
74.Bradford, M. A. Thermal adaptation of decomposer communities in warming soils. Front. Microbiol. 4, 333 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
75.Friedman, J., Hastie, T. & Tibshirani, R. The Elements of Statistical Learning Vol. 1 (Springer, 2001).76.Efron, B., Hastie, T., Johnstone, I. & Tibshirani, R. Least angle regression. Ann. Stat. 32, 407–499 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
77.Zou, H. & Hastie, T. Regularization and variable selection via the elastic net. J. R. Stat. Soc. B 67, 301–320 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
78.Kuhn, M. & Johnson, K. Applied Predictive Modeling Vol. 26 (Springer, 2013).79.Breiman, L. Random forests. Mach. Learn. 45, 5–32 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
80.Friedman, J. H. Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine. Ann. Stat. 29, 1189–1232 (2001).81.Breiman, L. Bagging predictors. Mach. Learn. 24, 123–140 (1996).
Google Scholar 
82.Quinlan, J. R. Learning with Continuous Classes in Proceedings of the 5th Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (eds Adams, A. & Sterling, L.) 343–348 (World Scientific, 1992).83.Boulesteix, A. L., Janitza, S., Kruppa, J. & König, I. R. Overview of random forest methodology and practical guidance with emphasis on computational biology and bioinformatics. WIRES Data Mining Knowl. Discov. 2, 493–507 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
84.Xu, Q.-S. & Liang, Y.-Z. Monte Carlo cross validation. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 56, 1–11 (2001).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
85.Shcherbakov, M. V. et al. A survey of forecast error measures. World Appl. Sci. J. 24, 171–176 (2013).
Google Scholar 
86.James, G., Witten, D., Hastie, T. & Tibshirani, R. An Introduction to Statistical Learning Vol. 112 (Springer, 2013).87.Kuhn, M. Building predictive models in R using the caret package. J. Stat. Softw. 28 (2008).88.Grömping, U. Variable importance assessment in regression: linear regression versus random forest. Am. Statistician 63, 308–319 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
89.Wei, P., Lu, Z. & Song, J. Variable importance analysis: a comprehensive review. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 142, 399–432 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
90.Yang, R.-M. et al. Comparison of boosted regression tree and random forest models for mapping topsoil organic carbon concentration in an alpine ecosystem. Ecol. Indic. 60, 870–878 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
91.Greenwell, B. M. pdp: an R package for constructing partial dependence plots. R J. 9, 421–436 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
92.Elith, J., Leathwick, J. R. & Hastie, T. A working guide to boosted regression trees. J. Anim. Ecol. 77, 802–813 (2008).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
93.Land Cover CCI Product User Guide Version 2 (ESA, 2017); maps.elie.ucl.ac.be/CCI/viewer/download/ESACCI-LC-Ph2-PUGv2_2.0.pdf94.Hengl, T. et al. SoilGrids250m: global gridded soil information based on machine learning. PLoS ONE 12, e0169748 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
95.Moran, P. A. A test for the serial independence of residuals. Biometrika 37, 178–181 (1950).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
96.Legendre, P. Spatial autocorrelation: trouble or new paradigm? Ecology 74, 1659–1673 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar  More