More stories

  • in

    Quantitative modeling of radioactive cesium concentrations in large omnivorous mammals after the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident

    Data setsRadioactivity measurement data for several species of wild game mammals and birds in Fukushima Prefecture from May 2011 to March 2018 were released to the public by the Fukushima Prefecture Government (https://emdb.jaea.go.jp/emdb/en/portals/1040501000/). We extracted the data for wild boar (Sus scrofa), 1404 samples, and Asian black bear (Ursus thibetanus), 422 samples. The resulting boar and bear data sets contained total radioactive cesium activity (134Cs + 137Cs isotopes) values (in Bq/kg) from animals captured at different times and locations within Fukushima Prefecture. The data were imported for analysis into R 4.0.3 software21.We ln-transformed the cesium activity values to bring their distribution closer to normal, creating the variable LnCsTot. To facilitate regression analyses (described below), we removed instances of missing data and cesium levels below detection: 20 samples (1.4%) for boar and 15 samples (3.3%) for bears. The time when each sample was taken (labeled “Day of collection” in the Fukushima Prefecture Government data set) was converted to years since the Fukushima accident (since March 11, 2011), assuming that 1 year = 365.25 days. This time of sample collection in years was called variable T.Since for each sample some time passed between sample collection and radioactivity measurement (labeled “Result found Date”, called Tr in our notation), we needed to correct the reported LnCsTot values for physical decay over this time, which was different for different samples. The procedure used to perform this correction is described in Supplementary methods. The data with corrected total cesium values (LnCsc) are provided in Supplementary data (Supplementary_Dataset_File_Full).Mathematical modelTo describe the data on ln-transformed total radioactive cesium levels (LnScc) in each species as function of time after the accident (T), we developed the following simple mathematical model (Eqs. 1A, 1B):$${LnCs}_{c}=X+Q-mu times {T}^{nu }+Atimes mathrm{sin}left[2times pi times left(T+Pright)right], $$
    (1A)
    $$X=mathrm{ln}left[mathrm{exp}left(LnCs{134}_{t{0}_{r}}right)times {2}^{-frac{T}{{Th}_{Cs134}}}+mathrm{exp}left(LnCs{137}_{t{0}_{r}}right)times {2}^{-frac{T}{{Th}_{Cs137}}}right]$$
    (1B)
    Here the term X represents the estimated average radioactive cesium level in the studied area, based on the intercepts (LnCs134t0r for 134Cs and LnCs137t0r for 137Cs, respectively) from robust regression discussed in Supplementary methods, and taking into account only physical decay for each isotope (with half-lives of ThCs134 for 134Cs and ThCs134 for 137Cs, respectively). The terms Q, µ, ν, A and P represent adjustable model parameters. Parameter Q represents the fitted relationship between radioactive cesium levels in the animal (Bq/kg), relative to the external environment (Bq/m2). Parameter µ represents the net rate of radioactive cesium reduction in animal tissues over time due to all processes except physical decay (e.g. decrease in bioavailability due to migration of cesium into deeper soil layers, human-mediated cleanup efforts, etc.). Parameter ν is a potential power dependence for these processes. By default, ν was set to ν = 1, but exploratory calculations using ν = 2 or treating ν as a freely adjustable parameter (≥ 0.1) were performed as well. Parameters A and P in the sine function represent a sinusoidal approximation for seasonal changes in radioactive cesium levels in animal tissues (e.g. due to seasonal variations in diet and life style), where A is the amplitude of the oscillations, P is the phase shift, and the period is set to 1 year. For simplicity, these parameters were assumed to be the same for both studied cesium isotopes. The descriptions of each parameter are also presented in Table 1.Table 1 The meanings of all parameters used in our mathematical model (Eq. 1A, 1B) for radioactive cesium levels in wild boar (Sus scrofa) and Asian black bear (Ursus thibetanus).Full size tableModel fitting approachesInitially, we used nonlinear ordinary least squares (OLS) regression (nls R function) to fit the model (Eq. 1A, 1B) to the data. To find the global optimum fit, we repeated the fitting procedure 2000 times with slightly different random initial parameter values and recorded the solution with the smallest root mean squared error (RMSE). Diagnostics on this regression included checking of convergence criteria and analyses of residuals (by scatter plot and histogram, regressing residuals as function of T, visualizing the QQ plot, autocorrelation and partial autocorrelation functions with 95% confidence intervals, performing the Shapiro–Wilk normality test, and calculating skewness and kurtosis). For boar data, diagnostics revealed problems with convergence (both X-convergence and relative convergence) and non-normality of residuals: e.g. Shapiro–Wilk p-value = 1.476 × 10–7, skewness = − 0.37, kurtosis = 3.50. For black bear data similar problems occurred with convergence, but residuals were closer to the normal distribution (perhaps due to smaller sample size): e.g. Shapiro–Wilk p-value = 0.0526, skewness = − 0.058, kurtosis = 2.45.Due to these issues, we used robust nonlinear regression (nlrob R package) to reduce the effects of “outlier” data points. To find the global optimum, we repeated the fitting procedure 2000 times with slightly different random initial parameter values and selected the solution with the smallest absolute value of median residuals. The best-fit parameters for OLS and robust regressions were somewhat different for both boar and bear data. For boar data, the minimum robustness weight was 0.339 and the median was 0.762, and the corresponding values for black bear data were 0.557 and 0.821, respectively.For each species, we compared the performances of model variants with different assumptions about parameter ν: (1) The default case with ν = 1, which represents an exponential rate of radioactive cesium decrease due to processes other than physical decay. (2) The case with ν = 2, which represents quadratic decay. (3) The case with ν being freely adjustable (≥ 0.1). The comparisons were based on Akaike information criterion (AIC)22,23. The purpose of these calculations was to better assess the shape of the time course for non-physical factors involved in radioactive cesium level decline in animal tissues over time after the accident.In addition to analyzing the full data set for each species, we also performed separate analyses on subsets of data from specific locations: from those districts of Fukushima Prefecture where the mean radioactive cesium levels in animal samples were the highest, and where a sufficiently large number of samples was present. For wild boar, the two selected districts for this subset analysis were Soso and Kenpoku (819 samples), and for black bear they were Kenpoku and Kenchu (163 samples).To further assess the sensitivity of model results to geographical and temporal factors, we also constructed a separate subset of data for each species. This subset excluded data from the Aizu and Minamiaizu districts, which are separated by mountains from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, and excluded data collected ≤ 6 months after the accident. These restrictions were intended to determine model performance on data collected in a more geographically contiguous area after the initial abrupt changes in contamination levels were completed and the system entered the phase of more stable kinetics. The purpose of all these analyses was to assess whether the time course of radioactive cesium levels in the bodies of each species differed between locations with high contamination vs. those with lower contamination, and as function of time after the accident.We were interested in quantifying not only the center of the distribution of radioactive cesium values in each species over time, but also in assessing the lower and upper tails of this distribution. For this purpose, we fitted the model (Eq. 1A, 1B) for each species using quantile regression (nlrq function in quantreg R package) for the median (50th percentile), and also for the 25th and 75th percentiles. Initial parameter estimates for the quantile regressions were taken from best-fit parameters from robust regression described above. The 25th and 75th percentiles were selected instead of more extreme values (e.g. 5th and 95th) because the latter resulted in poor quality fits due to limited amounts of data at the fringes of the distribution.To assess the variability of model parameters by location in more detail, we used mixed effects modeling (nlme R package) on the data from each species. Since original OLS fits suggested substantial deviations of residuals from the normality assumption, we performed mixed effects modeling on data with some outlier data points removed. The OutlierDetection package in R removed 43 boar samples and 5 bear samples. These outliers are listed in the Supplementary_outlier_data_points file. The remaining samples were used for mixed effects model fitting, but model performance metrics like coefficient of determination (R2) and RMSE were assessed on the full data set (with outliers included) for each species.Since the Fligner-Killeen test of homogeneity of variances by district generated low p-values for both species (4.6 × 10–14 for boar and 0.018 for black bear), we allowed modelled variances to differ by district (using the weights option in nlme). We investigated several random effects structures for some or all model parameters, with randomness by district only, or by district and municipality within district. Model diagnostics were the same as for fixed effects OLS modeling described above, and also included boxplots of model residuals by district. The mixed effects model variants with different random effects structures were compared using the anova function in R, and also by assessing convergence criteria, normality of residuals, skewness, and kurtosis. Consequently, preferred mixed effects model variants were selected for the full data as well as for the subset of two districts with high radioactive cesium levels, separately for each species.Model extrapolation from training to testing dataTo investigate how the robust and quantile regression fits of our model could extrapolate beyond the time range that was used for model fitting, we split the data for each species into “training” (early times) and “testing” (later times) parts. The split was done based on time since the accident (T variable), so that approximately ½ of the samples were assigned to the training and testing sets, respectively. For wild boar data, the training set included times between 0.20 and 3.45 years after the accident, and the testing set included times between 3.45 and 7.03 years. For black bear data, the training set included times between 0.42 and 3.46 years after the accident, and the testing set included times between 3.46 and 6.87 years.We also evaluated an alternative approach to splitting the data, where the split was done randomly instead of by time. In other words, any data point regardless of time had an equal probability of being assigned to either the training or the testing data set. Both the training and testing data subsets generated by this random split included the complete time range. This approach was implemented in context of the sensitivity analysis described above.For each species, robust and quantile regressions were fitted to training data, and their predictions were calculated for testing data. For robust regression, RMSE was calculated on testing data for two scenarios: (1) for the model fitted to training data only, and (2) for the model fitted over the entire data range (training + testing). These RMSE values for conditions 1 and 2 were compared to assess the quality of model extrapolation. Extrapolation performance for robust and quantile regressions was also assessed visually by plotting the model predictions and data.Application of the model to wild boar data from the Chernobyl accident areaTo compare the results of our analysis of wild boar contamination with radioactive cesium in the area affected by the Fukushima accident with data from another location, we also analyzed wild boar data from the Chernobyl accident area. These data were published by Gulakov14 and contain summaries of 137Cs contamination levels in the muscles of 188 boar collected between 1991 and 2008 (i.e. from 5 to 22 years after the 1986 accident). Sampling was carried out in three zones with different land contamination levels with 137Cs. This data set provides important information on radioactive cesium contamination in wild boar in the Chernobyl area. Unfortunately, 137Cs measurements in each sampled boar were not provided by Gulakov14, and only summary statistics are available for each zone and year after the accident (Tables 1–3 in reference14): number of animals, mean, minimum and maximum 137Cs levels.We could not apply the full model (Eq. 1A, 1B) to these summary data which lacked seasonality information and 134Cs data. However, we were able to perform a weighted linear regression to quantify the ecological half-life of 137Cs in Chernobyl boar and the relationship between 137Cs levels in the animals (Bq/kg), relative to the external environment (Bq/m2). The data used for this analysis, derived from Gulakov14, are provided in Supplementary data (Supplementary_Dataset_File_Full). They contain the following variables. Zone = location of sample collection (Alienation, Permanent control or Periodic control). Time = time in years after the Chernobyl accident. LnMeanCs = ln-transformed mean 137Cs level in boar muscle (Bq/kg). LnMeanCs_c = LnMeanCs − X, where X is ln-transformed 137Cs land contamination (Bq/m2) in the given zone, corrected for physical decay of 137Cs. Weight = weighting of each data point used for regression. Weight = number of animals/(ln[maximum 137Cs level] − ln[minimum 137Cs level])2. These approximately inverse-variance weights were normalized by the overall mean across all data points, so that the mean weight across all data points was set to 1.These data were analyzed by weighted linear regression in R, where LnMeanCs_c was allowed to depend on Time and Zone variables. Model variants containing all possible combinations and pairwise interactions between these predictor variables were fitted and their performances were compared using the Akaike information criterion with correction for small sample size (AICc). These calculations were performed using the glmulti R package. Multimodel inference (MMI) was performed on this collection of fitted model variants. It resulted in the calculation of model-averaged parameter estimates, 95% CIs and importance scores, corrected for model selection uncertainty. Of main interest here were the intercept parameter, which is analogous to parameter Q in the full model (Eq. 1A, 1B), and the Time parameter, which is analogous to parameter µ in the full model. The ecological half-life for 137Cs was calculated based on the Time parameter. More

  • in

    Substrate control of sulphur utilisation and microbial stoichiometry in soil: Results of 13C, 15N, 14C, and 35S quad labelling

    1.Dong Y, Silbermann M, Speiser A, Forieri I, Linster E, Poschet G, et al. Sulfur availability regulates plant growth via glucose-TOR signaling. Nat Commun. 2017;8:1174.PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    2.Freney JR, Melville GE, Williams CH. Soil organic matter fractions as sources of plant-available sulphur. Soil Biol Biochem. 1975;7:217–21.CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    3.Kopittke PM, Dalal RC, Finn D, Menzies NW. Global changes in soil stocks of carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulphur as influenced by long‐term agricultural production. Global Change Biol. 2017;23:2509–19.Article 

    Google Scholar 
    4.Ciaffi M, Paolacci AR, Celletti S, Catarcione G, Kopriva S, Astolfi S. Transcriptional and physiological changes in the S assimilation pathway due to single or combined S and Fe deprivation in durum wheat (Triticum durum L.) seedlings. J Exp Bot. 2013;64:1663.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    5.Ma Q, Luo Y, Wen Y, Hill PW, Chadwick DR, Wu L, et al. Carbon and sulphur tracing from soil organic sulphur in plants and soil microorganisms. Soil Biol Biochem. 2020;150:107971.CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    6.Piotrowska-Długosz A, Siwik-Ziomek A, Długosz J, Gozdowski D. Spatio-temporal variability of soil sulfur content and arylsulfatase activity at a conventionally managed arable field. Geoderma. 2017;295:107–18.Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    7.Fitzgerald JW, Watwood ME. Amino-acid metabolism in forest soil—Isolation and turnover of organic matter covalently labelled with 35S-methionine. Soil Biol Biochem. 1988;20:833–8.CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    8.Ma Q, Wen Y, Pan W, Macdonald A, Hill PW, Chadwick DR, et al. Soil carbon, nitrogen, and sulphur status affects the metabolism of organic S but not its uptake by microorganisms. Soil Biol Biochem. 2020;149:107943.CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    9.Jan MT, Roberts P, Tonheim SK, Jones DL. Protein breakdown represents a major bottleneck in nitrogen cycling in grassland soils. Soil Biol Biochem. 2009;41:2272–82.CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    10.Farrell M, Macdonald LM, Hill PW, Wanniarachchi SD, Farrar J, Bardgett RD, et al. Amino acid dynamics across a grassland altitudinal gradient. Soil Biol Biochem. 2014;76:179–82.CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    11.Wilkinson A, Hill PW, Farrar JF, Jones DL, Bardgett RD. Rapid microbial uptake and mineralization of amino acids and peptides along a grassland productivity gradient. Soil Biol Biochem. 2014;72:75–83.CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    12.Hill PW, Jones DL. Plant–microbe competition: does injection of isotopes of C and N into the rhizosphere effectively characterise plant use of soil N? N Phytol. 2018;221:796–806.Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    13.Godwin CM, Cotner JB. Aquatic heterotrophic bacteria have highly flexible phosphorus content and biomass stoichiometry. ISME J. 2015;9:2324–27.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    14.Hartman WH, Ye R, Horwath WR, Tringe SG. A genomic perspective on stoichiometric regulation of soil carbon cycling. ISME J. 2017;11:2652–65.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    15.Manzoni S, Jackson RB, Trofymow JA, Porporato A. The global stoichiometry of litter nitrogen mineralization. Science. 2008;321:684–6.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    16.Cui J, Zhu Z, Xu X, Liu S, Jones DL, Kuzyakov Y, et al. Carbon and nitrogen recycling from microbial necromass to cope with C:N stoichiometric imbalance by priming. Soil Biol Biochem. 2020;142:107720.CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    17.Wei X, Zhu Z, Liu Y, Luo Y, Deng Y, Xu X, et al. C:N:P stoichiometry regulates soil organic carbon mineralization and concomitant shifts in microbial community composition in paddy soil. Biol Fert Soils. 2020;56:1093–107.Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    18.Maria M, Wolfgang W, Sophie ZB, Andreas R. Stoichiometric imbalances between terrestrial decomposer communities and their resources: mechanisms and implications of microbial adaptations to their resources. Front Microbiol. 2014;5:22.
    Google Scholar 
    19.Qiao N, Xu XL, Hu YH, et al. Carbon and nitrogen additions induce distinct priming effects along an organic-matter decay continuum. Sci Rep-UK. 2016;6:19865.CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    20.Kirkby CA, Kirkegaard JA, Richardson AE, Wade LJ, Blanchard C, Batten G. Stable soil organic matter: a comparison of C:N:P:S ratios in Australian and other world soils. Geoderma. 2011;163:197–208.CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    21.Manzoni S, Čapek P, Mooshammer M, Lindahl BD, Richter A, Šantrůčková H. Optimal metabolic regulation along resource stoichiometry gradients. Ecol Lett. 2017;20:1182–91.PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    22.Mooshammer M, Wanek W, Hämmerle I, Fuchslueger L, Hofhansl F, Knoltsch A, et al. Adjustment of microbial nitrogen use efficiency to carbon:nitrogen imbalances regulates soil nitrogen cycling. Nat Commun. 2014;5:3694.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    23.Delgado-Baquerizo M, Reich PB, Khachane AN, Campbell CD, Thomas N, Freitag TE, et al. It is elemental: soil nutrient stoichiometry drives bacterial diversity. Environ Microbiol. 2017;19:1176–88.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    24.Mayor JR, Mack MC, Schuur EAG. Decoupled stoichiometric, isotopic, and fungal responses of an ectomycorrhizal black spruce forest to nitrogen and phosphorus additions. Soil Biol Biochem. 2015;88:247–56.CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    25.Mooshammer M, Hofhansl F, Frank AH, Wanek W, Hämmerle I, Leitner S, et al. Decoupling of microbial carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus cycling in response to extreme temperature events. Sci Adv. 2017;3:e1602781.PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    26.Chen J, Seven J, Zilla T, Dippold MA, Blagodatskaya E, Kuzyakov Y. Microbial C:N:P stoichiometry and turnover depend on nutrients availability in soil: A 14C, 15N and 33P triple labelling study. Soil Biol Biochem. 2019;131:206–16.CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    27.Ma Q, Wu L, Wang J, Ma J, Zheng N, Hill PW, et al. Fertilizer regime changes the competitive uptake of organic nitrogen by wheat and soil microorganisms: An in-situ uptake test using 13C, 15N labelling, and 13C-PLFA analysis. Soil Biol Biochem. 2018;125:319–27.CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    28.Jiang G, Zhang W, Xu M, Kuzyakov Y, Zhang X, Wang J, et al. Manure and Mineral Fertilizer Effects on Crop Yield and Soil Carbon Sequestration: a Meta‐Analysis and Modeling Across China. Glob Biogeochem Cy. 2018;32:1659–72.CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    29.Liu S, Wang J, Pu S, Blagodatskaya E, Kuzyakov Y, Razavi BS. Impact of manure on soil biochemical properties: a global synthesis. Sci Total Environ. 2020;745:141003.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    30.Cheng L, Zhang N, Yuan M, Xiao J, Qin Y, Deng Y, et al. Warming enhances old organic carbon decomposition through altering functional microbial communities. ISME J. 2017;11:1825–35.PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    31.Ma Q, Wen Y, Wang D, Sun X, Hill PW, Macdonald A, et al. Farmyard manure applications stimulate soil carbon and nitrogen cycling by boosting microbial biomass rather than changing its community composition. Soil Biol Biochem. 2020;144:107760.CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    32.Ma Q, Wen Y, Ma J, Macdonald A, Hill PW, Chadwick DR, et al. Long-term farmyard manure application affects soil organic phosphorus cycling: a combined metagenomic and 33P/14C labelling study. Soil Biol Biochem. 2020;149:107959.CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    33.Jones DL, Hill PW, Smith AR, Farrell M, Ge T, Banning NC, et al. Role of substrate supply on microbial carbon use efficiency and its role in interpreting soil microbial community-level physiological profiles (CLPP). Soil Biol Biochem. 2018;123:1–6.CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    34.Jones DL, Magthab EA, Gleeson DB, Hill PW, Sánchez-Rodríguez AR, Roberts P, et al. Microbial competition for nitrogen and carbon is as intense in the subsoil as in the topsoil. Soil Biol Biochem. 2018;117:72–82.CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    35.Mariano E, Jones DL, Hill PW, Trivelin PCO. Mineralisation and sorption of dissolved organic nitrogen compounds in litter and soil from sugarcane fields. Soil Biol Biochem. 2016;103:522–32.CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    36.Corre M, Brumme R, Veldkamp EF. Changes in nitrogen cycling and retention processes in soils under spruce forests along a nitrogen enrichment gradient in Germany. Glob Change Biol. 2010;13:1509–27.Article 

    Google Scholar 
    37.Spohn M, Kuzyakov Y. Phosphorus mineralization can be driven by microbial need for carbon. Soil Biol Biochem. 2013;61:69–75.CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    38.Wu J, Joergensen RG, Pommerening B, Chaussod R, Brookes PC. Measurement of soil microbial biomass C by fumigation-extraction—an automated procedure. Soil Biol Biochem. 1990;22:1167–9.CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    39.Glanville H, Hill PW, Schnepf A, Oburger E, Jones DL. Combined use of empirical data and mathematical modelling to better estimate the microbial turnover of isotopically labelled carbon substrates in soil. Soil Biol Biochem. 2015;94:154–68.Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    40.Greenfield LM, Hill PW, Paterson E, Baggs EM, Jones DL. Methodological bias associated with soluble protein recovery from soil. Sci Rep-UK. 2018;8:11186.Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    41.Näsholm T, Kielland K, Ganeteg U. Uptake of organic nitrogen by plants. N Phytol. 2010;182:31–48.Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    42.Farrell M, Prendergast-Miller M, Jones DL, Hill PW, Condron LM. Soil microbial organic nitrogen uptake is regulated by carbon availability. Soil Biol Biochem. 2014;77:261–7.CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    43.Niknahad-Gharmakher H, Piutti S, Machet JM, Benizri E, Recous S. Mineralization-immobilization of sulphur in a soil during decomposition of plant residues of varied chemical composition and S content. Plant Soil. 2012;360:391–404.CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    44.Vong PC, Piutti S, Slezackdeschaumes S, Benizri E, Guckert A. Effects of low-molecular-weight organic compounds on sulphur immobilization and re-mineralization and extraction of immobilized sulphur by hot-water and acid hydrolysis. Eur J Soil Sci. 2010;61:287–97.CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    45.Takriti M, Wild B, Schnecker J, Mooshammer M, Knoltsch A, Lashchinskiy N, et al. Soil organic matter quality exerts a stronger control than stoichiometry on microbial substrate use efficiency along a latitudinal transect. Soil Biol Biochem. 2018;121:212–20.CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    46.Zhu Z, Ge T, Luo Y, Liu S, Xu X, Tong C, et al. Microbial stoichiometric flexibility regulates rice straw mineralization and its priming effect in paddy soil. Soil Biol Biochem. 2018;121:67–76.CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    47.Xu X, Hui D, King AW, Song X, Thornton PE, Zhang L. Convergence of microbial assimilations of soil carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and sulfur in terrestrial ecosystems. Sci Rep-UK. 2015;5:17445.CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    48.Fanin N, Fromin N, Buatois B, Ttenschwiler SH. An experimental test of the hypothesis of non-homeostatic consumer stoichiometry in a plant litter-microbe system. Ecol Lett. 2013;16:764–72.PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    49.Peters MK, Hemp A, Appelhans T, Becker JN, Behler C, Classen A, et al. Climate–land-use interactions shape tropical mountain biodiversity and ecosystem functions. Nature. 2019;568:88–92.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    50.Kaiser C, Franklin O, Dieckmann U, Richter A. Microbial community dynamics alleviate stoichiometric constraints during litter decay. Ecol Lett. 2014;17:680–90.PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    51.Xu X, Schimel JP, Thornton PE, Song X, Yuan F, Goswami S. Substrate and environmental controls on microbial assimilation of soil organic carbon: a framework for Earth system models. Ecol Lett. 2014;17:547–55.PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    52.Apostel C, Dippold M, Kuzyakov Y. Biochemistry of hexose and pentose transformations in soil analyzed by position-specific labeling and 13C-PLFA. Soil Biol Biochem. 2015;80:199–208.CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    53.Manzoni S, Taylor P, Richter A, Porporato A, Ågren GI. Environmental and stoichiometric controls on microbial carbon‐use efficiency in soils. N Phytol. 2012;196:79–91.CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    54.Fitzgerald JW, Hale DD, Swank WT. Sulphur-containing amino acid metabolism in surface horizons of a hardwood forest. Soil Biol Biochem. 1988;20:825–31.CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    55.Akashi H, Gojobori T. Metabolic efficiency and amino acid composition in the proteomes of Escherichia coli and Bacillus subtilis. P Natl Acad Sci USA. 2002;99:3695–700.CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    56.Nozaki T, Ali V, Tokoro M. Sulfur-Containing Amino Acid Metabolism in Parasitic Protozoa. Adv Parasit. 2005;60:1–99.Article 

    Google Scholar 
    57.Takagi H, Ohtsu I. l-Cysteine Metabolism and Fermentation in Microorganisms. Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol. 2016;159:129–51.
    Google Scholar 
    58.Bustos I, Miguel AM, Fouad A, Carmen P, Teresa R, CM M. Volatile sulphur compounds-forming abilities of lactic acid bacteria: C-S lyase activities. Int J Food Microbiol. 2011;148:121–7.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    59.Assefa MK, Tucher SV, Schmidhalter U. Soil sulfur availability due to mineralization: soil amended with biogas residues. J Soil Sci Enviro Manag. 2014;5:13–9.CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Nitrogen factor of common carp Cyprinus carpio fillets with and without skin

    Fish and experimental protocolThree-hundred-fifty market-size (755–3865 g) common carp Cyprinus carpio were obtained from six sources at various times of year to for effects of variation in rearing conditions. The weight of collected carp corresponded to the weight of carp normally delivered to the market. Fish were obtained from the Faculty of Fisheries and Protection of Waters of the University of South Bohemia in Ceske Budejovice (FFPW USB), Vodnany and the fisheries Chlumec nad Cidlinou, Blatna, Hodonin, Klatovy, Lnare, and Tabor. Ten fish were collected from each fishery at the spring (March/April), summer (June/July), and autumn harvests (October/November) in 2018 and 2019. Carp were transported live to the laboratory of the FFPW, killed by a blow to the head, weighed, measured, and filleted. Two fillets, one with skin removed, from each fish were individually vacuum packed, immediately frozen, and stored at − 32 °C until chemical analysis.Ethics approvalAll the methods used in the present study followed relevant guidelines and regulations. Also, the competent authority (Ethical Committee for the Protection of Animals in Research of the University of South Bohemia, FFPW Vodnany) approved the fish sampling and protocols of the present study and reporting herein follows the recommendations in the ARRIVE guidelines.Chemical analysisSeven-hundred carp fillets were analysed for basic nutritional composition, dry matter, protein, fat, and ash. All samples were homogenized by grinding before analysis.The determination of dry matter followed ISO 1442:1997 Meat and meat products—Determination of moisture content (Reference method)26. The homogenized samples were dried with sand to constant weight at 103 ± 2 °C in a laboratory oven (Memmert UE 500, Memmert GmbH + Co. KG, Germany).The determination of ash was based on the standard ISO 936:1998 Meat and meat products—Determination of total ash27. The homogenized samples were burned in a muffle furnace (Nabertherm A11/HR, Nabertherm GmbH, Germany) at 550 ± 25 °C to a grey-white colour.The determination of total fat was based on the standard ISO 1443:1973 Meat and meat products—Determination of total fat content28. The homogenized samples were hydrolysed by hydrochloric acid, and fat was extracted by light petroleum in SOXTEC 2050 (FOSS Headquarters, Denmark).The determination of nitrogen used the Kjeldahl method based on the standard method ISO 937:1978 Meat and meat products—Determination of nitrogen content (Reference method)29. The homogenized samples were digested by sulphuric acid and a catalyser in a KjelROC Digestor 20 (OPSIS AB, Sweden) digestion unit at 420 ± 10 °C. Organically bound nitrogen was measured on the KJELTEC 8400 with KJELTEC sampler 8420 (FOSS Headquarters, Denmark). Calculation of protein content from nitrogen used the conversion factor for meat of 6.25.All analysis of dry matter, ash, and total fat were performed in duplicate and analysis of nitrogen (protein) was performed in triplicate for each sample.Calculation of fat-free nitrogen (Nff) in g/100 g used the formula24:$$ N_{ff} = frac{{100 times N { }}}{{100 – F { }}}. $$This formula was applied to nitrogen (N) and fat (F) content for all samples, providing a fat-free nitrogen value for each sample.Fish meat content calculated based on nitrogen factor Nf (total fillet) in g/100 g used the formula9:$$ Fish ;content_{Nf} = frac{N times 100}{{N_{f} }}. $$Fish meat content calculated based on fat-free nitrogen factor (Nff) and DCC (defatted carp content) in g/100 g used formulas11:$$ Fishc; content_{Nff} = DCC + F, $$$$ DCC = frac{N times 100}{{N_{ff} }}. $$Statistical analysisKolmogorov–Smirnov and Bartlett’s tests were applied to assess normal distribution data and the homoscedasticity of variance, respectively. A two-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test was conducted to analyse effects of season, weight, fishery, and difference between fillets with and without skin. The significance level was set at p  More

  • in

    Comparison of sample types from white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) for DNA extraction and analyses

    1.Piertney, S. B. In Current Trends in Wildlife Research (eds Mateo, R. et al.) 201–223 (Springer International Publishing, 2016).2.Jabin, G., Sahajpal, V., Chandra, K. & Thakur, M. In Forensic DNA Typing: Principles, Applications and Advancements (eds Shrivastava, P., et al.) 399–403 (Springer, Singapore, 2020).3.Drechsler, A., Helling, T. & Steinfartz, S. Genetic fingerprinting proves cross-correlated automatic photo-identification of individuals as highly efficient in large capture–mark–recapture studies. Ecol. Evol. 5, 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1340 (2015).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    4.Gupta, S. K. In DNA Fingerprinting: Advancements and Future Endeavors (eds Ranjan Dash, H., et al.) 77–87 (Springer, Singapore, 2018).5.Dale, T. D. et al. Enhancement of wildlife disease surveillance using multiplex quantitative PCR: Development of qPCR assays for major pathogens in UK squirrel populations. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 62, 589–599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-016-1031-z (2016).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    6.Latch, E. K., Heffelfinger, J. R., Fike, J. A. & Rhodes, O. E. Jr. Species-wide phylogeography of North American mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus): Cryptic glacial refugia and postglacial recolonization. Mol. Ecol. 18, 1730–1745. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04153.x (2009).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    7.Moscarella, R. A., Aguilera, M. & Escalante, A. A. Phylogeography, population structure, and implications for conservation of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in Venezuela. J. Mammal. 84, 1300–1315. https://doi.org/10.1644/brb-028 (2003).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    8.Lang, K. R. & Blanchong, J. A. Population genetic structure of white-tailed deer: Understanding risk of chronic wasting disease spread. J. Wildl. Manag. 76, 832–840. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.292 (2012).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    9.Locher, A., Scribner, K. T., Moore, J. A., Murphy, B. & Kanefsky, J. Influence of landscape features on spatial genetic structure of white-tailed deer in human-altered landscapes. J. Wildl. Manag. 79, 180–194 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    10.Green, M. L., Manjerovic, M. B., Mateus-Pinilla, N. & Novakofski, J. Genetic assignment tests reveal dispersal of white-tailed deer: Implications for chronic wasting disease. J. Mammal. 95, 646–654. https://doi.org/10.1644/13-MAMM-A-167 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    11.Zachos, F. E. et al. Population viability analysis and genetic diversity of the endangered red deer Cervus elaphus population from Mesola, Italy. Wildl. Biol. 15, 175–186 (2009).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    12.Villanova, V. L., Hughes, P. T. & Hoffman, E. A. Combining genetic structure and demographic analyses to estimate persistence in endangered key deer (Odocoileus virginianus clavium). Conserv. Genet. 18, 1061–1076. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-017-0958-2 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    13.Lorenzini, R. DNA forensics and the poaching of wildlife in Italy: A case study. Forensic Sci. Int. 153, 218–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2005.04.032 (2005).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    14.Vikas, K. Wildlife DNA evidence: Recognition, collection and preservation. Res. J. Forensic Sci. 3(7), 8–15 (2015).
    Google Scholar 
    15.Waits, L. P. & Paetkau, D. Noninvasive genetic sampling tools for wildlife biologists: A review of applications and recommendations for accurate data collection. J. Wildl. Manag. 69, 1419–1433 (2005).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    16.Oyler-McCance, S. J. & Leberg, P. L. In The Wildlife Techniques Manual: Research (ed 7th) 526–546 (John Hopkins University Press, 2012).17.Begley-Miller, D. R., Hipp, A. L., Brown, B. H., Hahn, M. & Rooney, T. P. White-tailed deer are a biotic filter during community assembly, reducing species and phylogenetic diversity. AoB Plants https://doi.org/10.1093/aobpla/plu030 (2014).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    18.Saunders, S. E., Bartelt-Hunt, S. L. & Bartz, J. C. Occurrence, transmission, and zoonotic potential of chronic wasting disease. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 18, 369–376 (2012).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    19.Miller, W. L., Edson, J., Pietrandrea, P., Miller-Butterworth, C. & Walter, W. D. Identification and evaluation of a core microsatellite panel for use in white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). BMC Genet. 20, 49. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12863-019-0750-z (2019).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    20.Budd, K., Berkman, L. K., Anderson, M., Koppelman, J. & Eggert, L. S. Genetic structure and recovery of white-tailed deer in Missouri. J. Wildl. Manag. 82, 1598–1607. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.21546 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    21.DeYoung, R. W., Demarais, S., Gonzales, R. A., Honeycutt, R. L. & Gee, K. L. Multiple paternity in white-tailed deer (Odocoileus Virginianus) revealed by DNA microsatellites. J. Mammal. 83, 884–892. https://doi.org/10.1644/1545-1542(2002)083%3c0884:mpiwtd%3e2.0.co;2 (2002).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    22.Poutanen, J., Pusenius, J., Wikström, M. & Brommer, J. E. Estimating population density of the white-tailed deer in Finland using non-invasive genetic sampling and spatial capture-recapture. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 56, 1–16 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    23.Brinkman, T. J. et al. Individual identification of Sitka black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus sitkensis) using DNA from fecal pellets. Conserv. Genet. Resour. 2, 115–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12686-010-9176-7 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    24.de Vargas Wolfgramm, E. et al. Simplified buccal DNA extraction with FTA® Elute Cards. Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 3, 125–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2008.11.008 (2009).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    25.Bunting, S., Burnett, E., Hunter, R. B., Field, R. & Hunter, K. L. Incorporating molecular genetics into remote expedition fieldwork. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 7, 260–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/194008291400700207 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    26.McClure, M. C., McKay, S. D., Schnabel, R. D. & Taylor, J. F. Assessment of DNA extracted from FTA cards for use on the Illumina iSelect BeadChip. BMC Res Notes 2, 107. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-2-107 (2009).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    27.Milne, E. et al. Buccal DNA collection: Comparison of buccal swabs with FTA cards. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 15, 816–819. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.epi-05-0753 (2006).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    28.Smith, L. M. & Burgoyne, L. A. Collecting, archiving and processing DNA from wildlife samples using FTA databasing paper. BMC Ecol 4, 4–4. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6785-4-4 (2004).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    29.Fryxell, R. T. T. et al. Survey of Borreliae in ticks, canines, and white-tailed deer from Arkansas, U.S.A. Parasit. Vectors 5, 139. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-5-139 (2012).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    30.Picard-Meyer, E., Barrat, J. & Cliquet, F. Use of filter paper (FTA®) technology for sampling, recovery and molecular characterisation of rabies viruses. J. Virol. Methods 140, 174–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jviromet.2006.11.011 (2007).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    31.Haley, N. J. et al. Antemortem detection of chronic wasting disease prions in nasal brush collections and rectal biopsy specimens from white-tailed deer by real-time quaking-induced conversion. J. Clin. Microbiol. 54, 1108–1116. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.02699-15 (2016).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    32.Mas, S., Crescenti, A., Gassó, P., Vidal-Taboada, J. M. & Lafuente, A. DNA cards: Determinants of DNA yield and quality in collecting genetic samples for pharmacogenetic studies. Basic Clin. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 101, 132–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-7843.2007.00089.x (2007).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    33.Drew, R. E. et al. Conservation genetics of the fisher (Martes pennanti) based on mitochondrial DNA sequencing. Mol. Ecol. 12, 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294X.2003.01715.x (2003).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    34.Soulsbury, C. D., Iossa, G., Edwards, K. J., Baker, P. J. & Harris, S. Allelic dropout from a high-quality DNA source. Conserv. Genet. 8, 733–738. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-006-9194-x (2007).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    35.Soanes, K. et al. Evaluating the success of wildlife crossing structures using genetic approaches and an experimental design: Lessons from a gliding mammal. J. Appl. Ecol. 55, 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12966 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    36.Cheng, E., Hodges, K. E., Sollmann, R. & Mills, L. S. Genetic sampling for estimating density of common species. Ecol. Evol. 7, 6210–6219. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3137 (2017).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    37.DeYoung, R. W. et al. Evaluation of DNA microsatellite panel useful for genetic exclusion studies in white-tailed deer. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 31, 220–232 (2003).
    Google Scholar 
    38.Vedicherla, S. & Buckley, C. T. Rapid chondrocyte isolation for tissue engineering applications: The effect of enzyme concentration and temporal exposure on the matrix forming capacity of nasal derived chondrocytes. Biomed. Res. Int. 2395138, 12 (2017).
    Google Scholar 
    39.Maličev, E., Kregar-Velikonja, N., Barlič, A., Alibegović, A. & Drobnič, M. Comparison of articular and auricular cartilage as a cell source for the autologous chondrocyte implantation. J. Orthop. Res. 27, 943–948. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.20833 (2009).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    40.Goel, M., Picciani, R. G., Lee, R. K. & Bhattacharya, S. K. Aqueous humor dynamics: A review. Open Ophthalmol J 4, 52–59. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874364101004010052 (2010).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    41.Park, S. J., Kim, J. Y., Yang, Y. G. & Lee, S. H. Direct STR amplification from whole blood and blood- or saliva-spotted FTA® without DNA purification*. J. Forensic Sci. 53, 335–341. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2008.00666.x (2008).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    42.Forgacs, D., Wallen, R., Boedeker, A. & Derr, J. Evaluation of fecal samples as a valid source of DNA by comparing paired blood and fecal samples from American bison (Bison bison). BMC Genet https://doi.org/10.1186/s12863-019-0722-3 (2019).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    43.Pfeiler, S. S. et al. Costs and precision of fecal DNA mark–recapture versus traditional mark–resight. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 44, 531–542. https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.1119 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    44.Henry, P., Henry, A. & Russello, M. A noninvasive hair sampling technique to obtain high quality DNA from elusive small mammals. J. Vis. Exp. JoVE. https://doi.org/10.3791/2791 (2011).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    45.Wirsing, A. J., Quinn, T. P., Adams, J. R. & Waits, L. P. Optimizing selection of brown bear hair for noninvasive genetic analysis. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 44, 94–100. https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.1057 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Field studies on breeding sites of Culicoides Latreille (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae) in agriculturally used and natural habitats

    In total, 13 culicoid species were found in the present study, with 45.5% of the collected specimens belonging to the Obsoletus Complex while species only occasionally present in previous collections in Germany, accounted for approximately 25% of the sampled individuals. Thus, the species composition is only partly in accordance to earlier studies on the German Culicoides fauna according to which 70 to over 90% of the specimens belonged to the Obsoletus Complex and up to 20% represented members of the Pulicaris Complex, while other culicoid species were present in negligible numbers only12,13. However, previous studies were based on UV-light trap catches12,13,14,15 and targeted active culicoid specimens16. The results obtained in this study are very specific as they represent the species compositions associated with the respective breeding substrates.The gender ratio differed strongly between species, revealing no pattern applicable to all species. The dominance of female Culicoides emerging from breeding sites corresponds to earlier results17,18, even though the sex ratio in the present study showed a much higher proportion of females with 70.7% or a female:male ratio of 2.4:1 than the above studies with 55.6%17 or a female:male ratio of 1.06:118.The evaluation of the diversity of each biotope (excluding the ungrazed meadow where no Culicoides were found) revealed clear differences between the agriculturally used habitats and the more natural biotopes. The Shannon–Weaver index depicted very low diversity for all three studied meadows where biting midges were found. The two meadows (with cattle and sheep) of region 2 reached the lowest possible diversity. This seems plausible as only one species was sampled within each biotope. The meadow with cattle of region 1 revealed at least two species. The Evenness factor of 0.24 depicts the dominance of one of them. The low number of species and unbalanced number of specimens within the biotope result in a low Shannon–Weaver index of 0.24, which describes the poor level of biodiversity.The Simpson index measures the probability that two individuals, randomly selected from a sample, belong to the same species. As only one species was sampled on each meadow from region 2, the probability to choose two specimens which belong to one species is 100% (displayed by the value of D = 1.0). The meadow with cattle of region 2 revealed at least two culicoid species, but the dominance of one species leads to a high Simpson index of 0.92 as well.Opposite to the very low biodiversity of all meadows, the four more natural biotopes of region 3 show an overall high level of biodiversity: according to the Shannon–Weaver index, the level of biodiversity is highest within the AFS (H = 2.96). Compared to the other biotopes of region 3, the AFS revealed by far the highest numbers of culicoid species and specimens. This and the relatively high Evenness factor (E = 0.89) lead to the high H value. The Shannon–Weaver indices for CW and MA are 1.91 and 1.92, respectively. Based on the low numbers of species and specimens in both biotopes, the relatively high H value is mainly caused by its high Evenness values of 0.95 (CW) and 0.96 (MA), respectively. Therefore, the almost equal numbers of all present species leads to the relatively high biodiversity, rather than a high number of species.The Shannon–Weaver index of the DW is the lowest of the four biotopes of region 3 with H = 1.42 and rates this biotope as the one with the lowest diversity of region 3. Though the number of species equal the one of the CW and MA, the higher number of specimens and especially the much lower Evenness factor of 0.71 reduces the H value.Other than the Shannon–Weaver index, the Simpson index rates both, the AFS and the MA, as the two most diverse biotopes. With values of D = 0.13, the probability to randomly select two species of the same species is rather low in both biotopes. As the AFS revealed more than double as many species than the MA, the lower number of caught specimens of the MA must have led to the same biodiversity rate.Study 1—Influence of domestic animals on meadows: up to date, dung-breeding Culicoides have been investigated more thoroughly18,19,20 than most other culicoid species. Most studies have focused on examining selectively either dungheaps or cowpats, rather than conducting a direct comparison between grazed and ungrazed meadows under field conditions. In the present study, we were able to show that the ungrazed meadow seems to be an unsuitable breeding habitat for Culicoides. Therefore, it seems plausible that the suitability of meadows as culicoid breeding sites can be largely, if not completely, attributed to the influence of livestock pasturing.The strong dominance of Obsoletus Complex specimens sampled on grazed meadows is not surprising as this species complex is known to contain typical dung-breeders19,20. The high potential of manure as a breeding substrate has been demonstrated before21,22 and explains the high quantity of Culicoides developing on meadows used by cattle in the present study. While 0.83 midges/sample were found on the meadow with cattle in region 1, only 0.21 midges/sample were collected on the meadow with cattle in region 2. The quantitative differences between these two study sites might be caused by the differing time periods of sampling (April to July for region 1 and August to October for region 2). Previous studies observed population peaks of Obsoletus Complex midges in October, though23, giving reason to expect even higher numbers of midges for region 2 than for region 1, particularly so, as region 2 is an agriculturally dominated area with a higher abundance of potential blood hosts and more suitable breeding habitats than region 1.Compared to the much higher total number of midges emerging from cowpats, sheep dung produced only two specimens. The very low number of midges originating from sheep faeces might be due to the very quick decomposition and desiccation of the rather small droppings, which likely reduces the quality of these remains as culicoid breeding sites. Therefore, it can be assumed that, contrary to pastures with cattle dung, sheep-runs might not play an essential role in promoting the distribution of Culicoides. For modeling approaches, it should be considered, though, that this might only apply to single scattered pieces of faeces as the longer persistence of higher volumes of sheep dung, i.e. on muckheaps, might very likely raise its quality as potential breeding sites as observed by21.All grazed meadows revealed very few culicoid species. Besides members of the Obsoletus Complex, only one individual of C. comosioculatus was found. The present investigation represents a case study though as merely one habitat of each type was sampled. More research to confirm the present results is therefore strongly recommended, even more, as ceratopogonid communities of terrestrial ecosystems have been barely investigated24, with the consequence that breeding sites of Culicoides spp. are still poorly known25.Study 2—Quality of forest-dominated biotopes as culicoid breeding sites: In the present study, the AFS turned out to be very productive as a culicoid breeding site in regards to the number of caught specimens and species diversity. Ten of the 13 collected species were found in the AFS. This is 2.5 times as many species as in the three other biotopes of region 3, which contained four species each in different compositions. Therefore, species-specific requirements for larval development seem to be met for more culicoid species in the AFS than in any of the other study sites.The measured pH values are in accordance to soil analyses conducted in German forests26. As the top layers usually are the most acidic ones, the chosen depth of soil sampling in the present study (upper 0–5 cm) persistently produced low pH values. Additionally, the used solvent (CaCl2) is less sensitive to fast changing weather conditions, but also lowers the measured pH value significantly compared to distilled water26—a solvent often used in earlier studies analyzing the distribution of Ceratopogonidae.The wide variances of the soil factors, especially moisture and organic content, were mainly caused by unequal soil conditions within each biotope rather than changes over time (unpublished data). Nevertheless, the statistical analysis revealed that all four biotopes of region 3 were significantly different from each other regarding the three soil factors. Comparing the means of each soil factor revealed that the AFS contained a higher level of soil moisture, a less acidic pH value and a higher organic content than the other three biotopes of region 3. We could show that significantly more midges (0.4 Culicoides/sample) developed in the AFS compared to the three other biotopes of region 3 with 0.12 (DW), 0.07 (CW) and 0.06 (MA) Culicoides per sample.Previous studies have assumed that the level of moisture be a crucial factor for ceratopogonid development17,20. Also, some studies determined the organic content as pivotal17,27. Our statistical analysis revealed that each soil factor has an impact on the probability of Culicoides to occur. Due to high correlations between the various measured soil factors, it could not be clarified, though, whether they influence the number of specimens, too. But as many culicoid species are known to lay their eggs in batches and previous egg-laying encourages females to oviposit at the same site28, an increase in the probability of biting midge presence should indirectly result in a higher number of specimens, too.The aggregation of larvae in terrestrial habitats29 typically results in a high number of samples completely devoid of midges and an overall low number of specimens sampled by emergence traps30. Thus, the obtained low numbers of collected specimens are not surprising. Nevertheless, emergence traps are still considered to be the best tool for the investigation of breeding site productivity, as it offers a safe assignment of species to their specific developmental sites24,29,31.The Culicoides collected in this study are discussed on species level in regards to existing literature.Culicoides achrayi was found in the AFS. A swamp as a breeding site32 and soil located in stagnant water22 have previously been described for this species. We confirm June as the time of emergence32 and add that C. achrayi co-exists with C. pulicaris.Culicoides albicans was collected in the AFS and DW. Specimens hatched from late April to mid-June, representing one generation per year. We confirm co-habitation with C. pictipennis and C. kibunensis11,33 and the preference for very humid substrates which has been described for the wettest parts of boglands5,34 and for artificially waterlogged soil11. Our results show, that C. albicans larvae can tolerate medium moisture levels, too. The mean organic content of their developmental sites reached from moderate to high, and the pH values lay between strong and ultra-acidic.Culicoides comosioculatus was found on the meadow with cattle dung in mid-June. As only one individual (a gravid female with the presumed intention to oviposit) was collected and no literature regarding breeding sites of this species could be found, our finding only indicates that this species might possibly develop in animal dung although in extremely low numbers.Culicoides grisescens was found within the AFS, the CW and the DW from late May until mid-July. Kremer35 listed soils of swamps and boggy grasslands as developmental sites. We collected C. grisescens in three different biotopes with wide variances of the mean moisture level, mean organic content and mean pH value, which reveals the wide tolerance range of this species towards these three soil factors.Culicoides impunctatus was collected in the AFS and the CW from late May to mid-July, representing one generation per year. This finding differs from earlier observations of two generations per year in Scotland36. Previous studies described breeding sites as acidic, oligotrophic grasslands, swamps, boglands or marshes, often of a peaty consistence5,10,33,34,37 and with soil pH values of 5.0–6.5 (dissolved in distilled water)37. This matches the pH values of the AFS in the present study (lower, but dissolved in CaCl2), but excludes the much lower pH values of the CW. The range considered suitable for C. impunctatus larvae should therefore be extended downwards to as low as pH 2.9–3.9 (CaCl2). We found C. impunctatus in two biotopes comprising a wide variance regarding soil moisture and organic content, which illustrates the wide tolerance range of this species. Individuals of C. impunctatus co-exist with Obsoletus Complex specimens as both were collected within the same sample in the AFS.Culicoides kibunensis was collected in the AFS and MA, which matches earlier observations depicting swamps of eutrophic fresh water bodies17,34, soil of stagnant water bodies22 and acidic grasslands in considerable distances to swamps33 as breeding sites. The AFS and MA revealed pH values between 3.4 and 5.4. Soil moisture and organic content displayed wide variances. All specimens hatched from late May to mid-June. Culicoides kibunensis was found to co-exist with C. albicans as observed by Kettle33. Earlier observations of co-habitations with C. obsoletus s.s. and C. pallidicornis5,34 could not be confirmed.Obsoletus Complex members were present in all study sites except for the ungrazed meadow. In the grazed meadows, Obsoletus Complex midges emerged almost throughout the entire sampling period except for the month of September. Two peaks were observed, one in June/July and a smaller one in October. As in the grazed meadows, the biotopes of region 3 also revealed two generations, but emerging at a slightly earlier time of the year with one peak in May/June and the other one in September/October.Members of the Obsoletus Complex are known to be generalists regarding their choice of breeding sites. Only the identified member species, C. chiopterus and C. obsoletus s.s., are considered here.Culicoides chiopterus was exclusively found on meadows grazed by cattle, which is in accordance to several earlier studies as this species is described as a dung-breeding species developing in cowpats and horse droppings5,34,35,38.Culicoides obsoletus s.s. was mostly sampled in the AFS. Only one individual was collected on a meadow grazed by cattle. Previous descriptions of breeding sites differed widely. Acidic grasslands in considerable distance to bogs/swamps33 and leaf litter compost5,35 could not be confirmed in the present study, although the MA and AFS were of a comparable character. While Uslu and Dik17 could not find any C. obsoletus s.s. in wet organic matter-rich soil, we collected most specimens of this species in the AFS and can therefore confirm previous findings11,29,32,39. The time of C. obsoletus s.s. activity in Germany (April–October) as described by Havelka32 agrees with our observations.Culicoides pallidicornis was found in the MA in late June. This species revealed the smallest variances of all sampled biting midge species regarding the three soil factors, using soil with pH values of 3.6–5.0 (CaCl2) and a relatively low level of moisture. This contradicts earlier observations where C. pallidicornis developed in the mud of eutrophic fresh-water swamps5. While C. pallidicornis larvae are known to co-exist with C. kibunensis5, we can add C. subfagineus to share the same developmental site.Culicoides pictipennis was collected in the DW and, to a minor part, in the AFS. The preferred physicochemical breeding conditions were ultra to extremely acidic with a medium moisture level and a moderate to slightly increased organic content. This differs from previous studies, which have found this species to develop only at the margin of stillwater bodies like pools and ponds, and the littoral of lakes or in artificially waterlogged soil11,32,34. Havelka32 observed C. pictipennis between May and June, while in our investigation the first specimen emerged as early as mid-April. We can confirm the co-existence of C. pictipennis and C. albicans as previously observed by Harrup11.Culicoides pulicaris was sampled in the AFS from late June until September, which agrees with observations denoting May to September as the activity time of this species32. Culicoides pulicaris seems to prefer breeding substrates with a high moisture level and a high organic content, as previously described17,32,34. We can add that C. pulicaris breeds in soil showing pH values at least between 4.0 and 5.4. We collected C. pulicaris together with C. achrayi and found it to simultaneously emerge from one biotope with C. obsoletus s.s. Additionally, we can confirm the co-existence of C. pulicaris with C. punctatus5,40, since both species have similar breeding habitat preferences11.Culicoides punctatus was sampled in the AFS and, to a minor part, in the CW. Time of emergence was from mid-June to late September, which is in accordance with earlier observations listing April-August and October as times of activity32. In the present study, a strong preference for swampy conditions with soil of high moisture, high organic content and a strong to very strong acidity was found. This is in agreement to previous findings11,32,41. The co-existence of C. punctatus with C. pulicaris is well known5,40 and can be confirmed once more. Additionally, we found C. punctatus to co-occur with C. subfasciipennis.Culicoides subfagineus was caught in the MA in late June. The soil was oligotrophic and contained a relatively low moisture level with pH values between 3.6 and 5.0. The first record of this species in Germany was in 2014, when C. subfagineus was observed to attack cattle42.Culicoides subfasciipennis was sampled in mid-June in the AFS. The time and choice of breeding site are in accordance to previous findings17,32. Breeding conditions for the only individual collected revealed a medium soil moisture factor, a pH value of 5.2 and a medium organic content. The species was found to co-develop with C. punctatus. More

  • in

    Molecular detection of giant snakeheads, Channa micropeltes (Cuvier, 1831), one of the most troublesome fish species

    Ethics statementAll procedures were conducted in accordance with the current laws in Thailand on experimental animals and were approved by the safety management committee for experiments of the Laboratory Animal Center, Chiang Mai University (Project Number 2561/FA-0001). The study also followed the recommendations in the ARRIVE guidelines.Species-specific primer designAll the DNA tissue analysed originated from the mucus of the individual giant snakehead. Total DNA was extracted from the mucus sample using the Qiagen DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit (Qiagen, Valencia, CA). Extracted DNA was used as a template for qPCR assay together with synthetic fragments. DNA samples were quantified using a Qubit fluorometer (Life Technologies) calibrated with the Quant-iT dsDNA HS Assay following the manufacturer’s instructions. For each replicate, 3 µL volumes were measured.Species-specific primers and a minor-groove binding (MGB) probe incorporating a 5′ FAM reporter dye and a 3′ non-fluorescent quencher were designed to amplify an 127 bp targeting within the 16S region for the giant snakehead (C. micropeltes), using Primer Express (V3.0, Life Technologies; Table 3). Probe and primer sequences were matched against the National Centre for Biotechnology Information (NCBI, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) nucleotide database with BLASTn (Basic Local Alignment Search Tool) to confirm the species’ specificity for the giant snakehead in silico assays.Table 3 Details of species-specific primers and the probe designed to amplify a 127 bp fragment of the 16S region of Channa micropeltes (Cuvier, 1831).Full size tableTo ensure that the assay only amplified the giant snakehead, it was deployed on a closely related species commonly found in Thai freshwater environments using conventional PCR amplification and visualization on a 1.5% agarose gel stained with SYBR Safe DNA Gel Stain (Life Technologies).qPCR assayThe qPCR assay was deployed using Environmental Master Mix (Applied Biosystems) on mucus samples from the giant snakehead and related species to ensure the species specificity to the qPCR assay. In addition, eDNA qPCR assay for the giant snakehead, a water sample collected from tank at Phayao Freshwater Aquarium (Phayao Inland Fisheries Research and Development Center) was known to have only the giant snakehead was included as a positive control for the presence of amplifiable eDNA in water samples. The tank contains around 4.5 m3 of water with one individual of giant snakehead resides in the tank (the fish is about 60–70 cm in length).All eDNA qPCR amplifications were performed in three replicates in a final volume of 20 µL, using 10.0 µL of 2 × TaqMan Environmental Master Mix 2.0 (Thermo Fisher Scientific), 2.0 µL of DNA template, 900 nM each of the F/R primers, and 125 nM of the probe. Samples were run under the following conditions: an initial 10 min incubation at 95 °C followed by 50 cycles of denaturation at 95 °C for 15 s and annealing/extension at 60 °C for 1 min. Negative controls with all PCR reagents but no template (three replicates) were run in parallel to assess potential contamination. The quantification cycle (Cq) was converted to quantities per unit volume using the linear regression obtained from the synthesized target gene standard curve (Integrated DNA Technologies Pte. Ltd., Singapore). The giant snakehead eDNA concentrations were then reported as copies/mL. The limit of detection (LOD) and the limit of quantification (LOQ) were also measured using the standard dilution series of synthesized target gene fragment with known copy numbers. A dilution series containing 1.5 × 101 to 1.5 × 104 copies per PCR tube were prepared and used as quantification standards. The calculation of LOD and LOQ was done using published R script by Klymus et al.26.DNA extraction from the filtersDNA trapped on the filters obtained from the aquarium experiments and field collections were extracted using Qiagen DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) using a protocol modified from the manufacturer’s protocol with the following changes: the DNA from all samples were eluted twice with 25 µL AE buffer, in a total volume of 50 µL to obtain a more concentrated eDNA solution. The volume of ATL buffer (360 µL), Proteinase K (40 µL), AL buffer (400 µL) and Ethanol (400 µL) were doubled.Aquarium experimentAn aquarium experiment was used to test the extent to which qPCR of water samples can detect eDNA of giant snakehead at low simulated densities. The juvenile giant snakehead was obtained from the fish store and transported to a laboratory at Chiang Mai University. The giant snakeheads were then held in separate 120 L plastic holding containers in which the water was continuously filtered. The fish were fed frozen shrimp/commercially available flake fish food three times a week, and were held at 23 ± 1 °C.The sensitivity of eDNA detection in the aquaria was evaluated by conducting three aquarium experiments using plastic tanks (30 × 45 × 25 cm) filled with 120 L of aged-tap water. The water in the tanks was continuously aerated through a filter. In each experiment, the giant snakeheads were randomly assigned to the tanks (10 individuals per tank). The average size of the snakeheads was 9.7 cm (body length ranging from 9.1 to 10.6 cm). The average weight was 8.15 g (ranging from 6.7 to 10.6 g). The water in the tanks was maintained at 23 ± 1 °C. A 300 mL water sample from each tank was collected at each time point (0, 3, 6, 12, 24, 48, 72, 96, 120, 144, and 168 after removal of the fishes from the tanks) in triplicate. Collected water was filtered on a GF/F filter (0.7 μm Whatman International Ltd., Maidstone, UK). The eDNA from each sample solution was extracted using a Qiagen DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) in a final volume of 50 µL, detailed in DNA extraction from the filters. To confirm the absence of the giant snakehead eDNA in the water prior to the experiments, three tanks without giant snakehead were prepared and water sample was collected and treated as described above.Real-time PCR was performed with the species-specific primers and probe set using a Rotor-Gene Q system (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany). The reaction conditions were the same as described in qPCR assay. Three replicates were conducted for each sample including the negative PCR control and positive control.eDNA field collectionWater samples were collected at 6 points within Kwan Payao according to the survey locations of the Inland Fisheries Research and Development Center. Additional water samples were collected from 11 and 6 locations in Ing River where water flowed into and out of Kwan Payao, respectively (Fig. 1). To avoid contamination, all field equipment was sterilized using 10% bleach, UV-Crosslinker or autoclaved and sealed prior to transport to the study site, and a separate pair of nitrile disposable gloves were used for each sample. At each site, water samples were collected three replicate in bucket that had been previously decontaminated with a 10% bleach rinse followed by two distilled water rinses.In total, water samples were collected from 6 sites (in Kwan Phayao) and from 17 sites (in the Ing River) from 15th February to 5th March 2019, the middle of the dry season. Each site was sampled in triplicate, 300 mL samples of water were collected and filtered on GF/F filter (0.7 μm Whatman International Ltd., Maidstone, UK). In total, 306 water samples were collected from the surface water of lakes and rivers. For every sampling day, deionised water (300 mL) was filtrated as a negative control. The water samples and real-time PCR was processed as described above in qPCR assay. More

  • in

    Semiparametric model selection for identification of environmental covariates related to adult groundfish catches and weights

    1.Francis, R. C., Hare, S. R., Hollowed, A. B. & Wooster, W. S. Effects of interdecadal climate variability on the oceanic ecosystems of the NE Pacific. Fish. Oceanogr. 7, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2419.1998.00052.x (1998).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    2.Hollowed, A. B. & Wooster, W. S. Variability of winter ocean conditions and strong year classes of Northeast Pacific groundfish. ICES Mar. Sci. Symp. 195, 433–444 (1992).
    Google Scholar 
    3.Mantua, N. J. & Hare, S. R. The Pacific decadal oscillation. J. Oceanogr. 58, 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015820616384 (2002).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    4.Di Lorenzo, E. et al. North Pacific gyre oscillation links ocean climate and ecosystem change. Geophys. Res. Lett.https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL032838 (2008).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    5.Di Lorenzo, E. et al. Synthesis of pacific ocean climate and ecosystem dynamics. Oceanography 26, 68–81. https://doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2013.76 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    6.Anderson, P. J. & Piatt, J. F. Community reorganization in the Gulf of Alaska following ocean climate regime shift. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 189, 117–123 (1999).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    7.Polovina, J. J., Mitchum, G. T. & Evans, G. T. Decadal and basin-scale variation in mixed layer depth and the impact on biological production in the Central and North Pacific, 1960–88. Deep Sea Res. Part I Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 42, 1701–1716 (1995).8.Litzow, M. A. & Mueter, F. J. Assessing the ecological importance of climate regime shifts: an approach from the North Pacific Ocean. Prog. Oceanogr. 120, 110–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2013.08.003 (2014).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    9.Möllmann, C., Folke, C., Edwards, M. & Conversi, A. Marine regime shifts around the globe: theory, drivers and impacts. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 370, 20130260. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0260 (2015).10.Litzow, M. A., Mueter, F. J. & Hobday, A. J. Reassessing regime shifts in the North Pacific: incremental climate change and commercial fishing are necessary for explaining decadal-scale biological variability. Glob. Change Biol. 20, 38–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12373 (2014).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    11.Goen, J., & Erikson, L. Fishery Statistics. Technical Report. IPHC-2018-AM094-05, International Pacific Halibut Commission (2017).12.Johnson, K. F. et al. Status of the U.S. Sablefish Resource in 2015. Technical Report. Pacific Fishery Management Council (2016).13.Pacific Fishery Management Council. Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan. Technical Report, NOAA (2016).14.NPFMC. Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska. Technical Report, North Pacific Fishery Management Council (2017).15.Pennoyer, S. & Balsiger, J. Groundfish Total Allowable Catch Specifications and Prohibited Species Catch Limits Under the Authority of the Fishery Management Plans for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area and Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska: Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Technical Report, United States National Marine Fisheries Service Alaska Regional Office, Juneau, Alaska (1998).16.Rodgveller, C. J., Lunsford, C. R. & Fujioka, J. T. Evidence of hook competition in longline surveys. Fish. Bull. 106, 364–374 (2008).
    Google Scholar 
    17.Hutchings, J. A. Collapse and recovery of marine fishes. Nature 406, 882–885. https://doi.org/10.1038/35022565 (2000).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    18.Moore, J. A. Deep-sea finfish fisheries: lessons from history. Fisheries 24, 16–21 (1999).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    19.Moore, J. & Mace, P. Challenges and prospects for deep-sea finfish fisheries. Fisheries 24, 22–23 (1999).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    20.Rijnsdorp, A. D., Peck, M. A., Engelhard, G. H., Möllmann, C. & Pinnegar, J. K. Resolving the effect of climate change on fish populations. ICES J. Mar. Sci. J. Conseil 66, 1570–1583. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsp056 (2009).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    21.Xia, Y. & Li, W. K. On single-index coefficient regression models. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 94, 1275–1285. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1999.10473880 (1999).MathSciNet 
    Article 
    MATH 

    Google Scholar 
    22.Kammann, E. E. & Wand, M. P. Geoadditive models. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. C (Appl. Stat.) 52, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9876.00385 (2003).MathSciNet 
    Article 
    MATH 

    Google Scholar 
    23.Lu, Z., Steinskog, D. J., Tjøstheim, D. & Yao, Q. Adaptively varying-coefficient spatiotemporal models. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B (Stat. Methodol.) 71, 859–880. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9868.2009.00710.x (2009).24.Ruppert, D., Wand, M. P. & Carroll, R. J. Semiparametric Regression. Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathematics (Cambridge University Press, 2003).25.Scheipl, F., Staicu, A.-M. & Greven, S. Functional additive mixed models. J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 24, 477–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/10618600.2014.901914 (2015).MathSciNet 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    MATH 

    Google Scholar 
    26.Wood, S. N. Generalized Additive Models. Texts in Statistical Science Series (Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2006). An Introduction with (R).27.Wood, S. N., Scheipl, F. & Faraway, J. J. Straightforward intermediate rank tensor product smoothing in mixed models. Stat. Comput. 23, 341–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11222-012-9314-z (2013).MathSciNet 
    Article 
    MATH 

    Google Scholar 
    28.Conn, P. B., Johnson, D. S. & Boveng, P. L. On extrapolating past the range of observed data when making statistical predictions in ecology. PLoS ONE 10, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141416 (2015).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    29.Hodges, J. S. & Reich, B. J. Adding spatially-correlated errors can mess up the fixed effect you love. Am. Stat. 64, 325–334. https://doi.org/10.1198/tast.2010.10052 (2010).MathSciNet 
    Article 
    MATH 

    Google Scholar 
    30.Kim, M. & Wang, L. Generalized spatially varying coefficient models. J. Comput. Graph. Stat.https://doi.org/10.1080/10618600.2020.1754225 (2020).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    31.Mu, J., Wang, G. & Wang, L. Estimation and inference in spatially varying coefficient models. Environmetrics 29, e2485. https://doi.org/10.1002/env.2485 (2018).MathSciNet 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    32.Brumback, B. A. & Rice, J. A. Smoothing spline models for the analysis of nested and crossed samples of curves. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 93, 961–976. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1998.10473755 (1998).MathSciNet 
    Article 
    MATH 

    Google Scholar 
    33.Augustin, N. H., Trenkel, V. M., Wood, S. N. & Lorance, P. Space-time modelling of blue ling for fisheries stock management. Environmetrics 24, 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1002/env.2196 (2013).MathSciNet 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    34.Finley, A. O. Comparing spatially-varying coefficients models for analysis of ecological data with non-stationary and anisotropic residual dependence. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2, 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2010.00060.x (2011).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    35.Al-Sulami, D., Jiang, Z., Lu, Z. & Zhu, J. Estimation for semiparametric nonlinear regression of irregularly located spatial time-series data. Econom. Stat. 2, 22–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecosta.2017.01.002 (2017).MathSciNet 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    36.Gelfand, A. E., Kim, H.-J., Sirmans, C. F. & Banerjee, S. Spatial modeling with spatially varying coefficient processes. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 98, 387–396. https://doi.org/10.1198/016214503000170 (2003).MathSciNet 
    Article 
    MATH 

    Google Scholar 
    37.Feng, S. & Xue, L. Model detection and estimation for single-index varying coefficient model. J. Multivariate Anal. 139, 227–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmva.2015.03.008 (2015).MathSciNet 
    Article 
    MATH 

    Google Scholar 
    38.Zhao, P. & Xue, L. Variable selection for semiparametric varying coefficient partially linear models. Stat. Probab. Lett. 79, 2148–2157 (2009).MathSciNet 
    Article 
    MATH 

    Google Scholar 
    39.Guisan, A. Jr. & Hastie, T. Generalized linear and generalized additive models in studies of species distributions: setting the scene. Ecol. Model. 157, 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(02)00204-1 (2002).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    40.Zhang, L. & Gove, J. H. Spatial assessment of model errors from four regression techniques. For. Sci. 51, 334–346. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestscience/51.4.334 (2005).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    41.Cai, A., Tsay, R. S. & Chen, R. Variable selection in linear regression with many predictors. J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 18, 573–591 (2009).MathSciNet 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    42.Tibshirani, R. Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B (Stat. Methodol.) 58, 267–288. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1996.tb02080.x (1996).43.Ledolter, J. Penalty-Based Variable Selection in Regression Models with Many Parameters (LASSO), chap. 6, 71–82 (Wiley, 2013). https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/9781118596289.ch6.44.Yuan, M. & Lin, Y. Model selection and estimation in regression with grouped variables. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B (Stat. Methodol.) 68, 49–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9868.2005.00532.x (2006).45.Fan, J., Yao, Q. & Cai, Z. Adaptive varying-coefficient linear models. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B (Stat. Methodol.) 65, 57–80 (2003).46.Matsui, H. & Misumi, T. Variable selection for varying-coefficient models with the sparse regularization. Comput. Stat. 30, 43–55 (2015).MathSciNet 
    Article 
    MATH 

    Google Scholar 
    47.Wang, H. & Xia, Y. Shrinkage estimation of the varying coefficient model. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 104, 747–757. https://doi.org/10.1198/jasa.2009.0138 (2009).MathSciNet 
    CAS 
    Article 
    MATH 

    Google Scholar 
    48.Xue, L. & Qu, A. Variable selection in high-dimensional varying-coefficient models with global optimality. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 13, 1973–1998 (2012).MathSciNet 
    MATH 

    Google Scholar 
    49.Feng, S. & Xue, L. Variable selection for single-index varying-coefficient model. Front. Math. China 8, 541–565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11464-013-0284-z (2013).MathSciNet 
    Article 
    MATH 

    Google Scholar 
    50.Song, Y., Jian, L. & Lin, L. Robust exponential squared loss-based variable selection for high-dimensional single-index varying-coefficient model. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 308, 330–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2016.05.030 (2016).MathSciNet 
    Article 
    MATH 

    Google Scholar 
    51.Yang, J. & Yang, H. Robust modal estimation and variable selection for single-index varying-coefficient models. Commun. Stat. Simul. Comput 46, 2976–2997. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610918.2015.1069346 (2017).MathSciNet 
    Article 
    MATH 

    Google Scholar 
    52.Wei, F., Huang, J. & Li, H. Variable selection and estimation in high-dimensional varying-coefficient models. Stat. Sin. 21, 1515–1540. https://doi.org/10.5705/ss.2009.316 (2011).MathSciNet 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    MATH 

    Google Scholar 
    53.Sun, W., Bindele, H. F., Abebe, A. & Correia, H. E. Robust functional coefficient selection for the single-index varying coefficients regression model. J. Stat. Comput. Simul. 1, 17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00949655.2020.1867548 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    54.Alaska Fisheries Science Center. AFSC/ABL: Longline Sablefish Survey. https://noaa-fisheries-afsc.data.socrata.com/dataset/AFSC-ABL-Longline-Sablefish-Survey/itxd-qjvg/data (2019). Accessed 14 Apr 2014.55.Sigler, M. F. & Lunsford, C. R. Survey Protocol for the Alaska Sablefish Longline Survey. Technical Report, Alaska Fisheries Science Center (2009).56.National Data Buoy Center. Meteorological and oceanographic data collected from the National Data Buoy Center Coastal-Marine Automated Network (C-MAN) and moored (weather) buoys. https://accession.nodc.noaa.gov/NDBC-CMANWx (2018).57.Alaska Fisheries Science Center. AFSC/RACE/GAP: RACEBASE Database. Online: http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/RACE/groundfish/survey_data/default.htm (2019).58.O’Brien, T. D. COPEPOD: The Global Plankton Database. A Review of the 2007 Database Contents and New Quality Control Methodology. Technical Report. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/ST-34, U.S. Dep. Commerce (2007).59.Boyer, T. P. et al. World Ocean Database 2013. Technical Report. National Oceanographic Data Center, Ocean Climate Laboratory, NOAA (2013). https://doi.org/10.7289/V5NZ85MT.60.Neter, J., Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J. & Wasserman, W. Applied Linear Statistical Models, vol. 4 (Irwin Chicago, 1996).61.O’Brien, R. M. A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Qual. Quant. 41, 673–690 (2007).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    62.Li, L., Losser, T., Yorke, C. & Piltner, R. Fast inverse distance weighting-based spatiotemporal interpolation: a web-based application of interpolating daily fine particulate matter pm2.5 in the contiguous U.S. using parallel programming and k–d tree. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 11, 9101–9141. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph110909101 (2014).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    63.Melo, C. & Melo, O. geosptdb: Spatio-Temporal Inverse Distance Weighting and Radial Basis Functions with Distance-Based Regression (2015). R package version 0.5-0.64.Whitney, F. A. Nutrient variability in the mixed layer of the subarctic Pacific Ocean, 1987–2010. J. Oceanogr. 67, 481–492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10872-011-0051-2 (2011).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    65.Whitney, F. A., Bograd, S. J. & Ono, T. Nutrient enrichment of the subarctic Pacific Ocean pycnocline. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40, 2200–2205. https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50439 (2013).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    66.Brodeur, R. D. & Ware, D. M. Long-term variability in zooplankton biomass in the subarctic Pacific Ocean. Fish. Oceanogr. 1, 32–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2419.1992.tb00023.x (1992).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    67.Chiba, S., Tadokoro, K., Sugisaki, H. & Saino, T. Effects of decadal climate change on zooplankton over the last 50 years in the western subarctic North Pacific. Glob. Change Biol. 12, 907–920. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01136.x (2006).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    68.Childers, A. R., Whitledge, T. E. & Stockwell, D. A. Seasonal and interannual variability in the distribution of nutrients and chlorophyll a across the Gulf of Alaska shelf: 1998–2000. Deep Sea Res. Part II Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 52, 193–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2004.09.018 (2005). U.S. GLOBEC Biological and Physical Studies of Plankton, Fish and Higher Trophic Level Production, Distribution, and Variability in the Northeast Pacific.69.Sackmann, B., Mack, L., Logsdon, M. & Perry, M. J. Seasonal and inter-annual variability of SeaWiFS-derived chlorophyll a concentrations in waters off the Washington and Vancouver Island coasts, 1998–2002. Deep Sea Res. Part II Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 51, 945–965 (2004).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    70.Wong, C. et al. Seasonal cycles of nutrients and dissolved inorganic carbon at high and mid latitudes in the North Pacific Ocean during the Skaugran cruises: determination of new production and nutrient uptake ratios. Deep Sea Res. Part II Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 49, 5317–5338 (2002).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    71.Houde, E. D. chap. Recruitment variability. In Fish Reproductive Biology: Implications for Assessment and Management (Eds. Jakobsen, T., Fogarty, M. J., Megrey, B. A. & Moksness, E.) (Wiley, 2016).72.Mason, J. C., Beamish, R. J. & McFarlane, G. A. Sexual maturity, fecundity, spawning, and early life history of sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) off the Pacific Coast of Canada. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 40, 2126–2134. https://doi.org/10.1139/f83-247 (1983).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    73.Stark, J. W. Geographic and seasonal variations in maturation and growth of female Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus) in the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea. Fish. Bull. 105, 396–407 (2007).
    Google Scholar 
    74.Clark, W. G., Hare, S. R., Parma, A. M., Sullivan, P. J. & Trumble, R. J. Decadal changes in growth and recruitment of Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 56, 242–252. https://doi.org/10.1139/f98-163 (1999).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    75.Echeverria, T. W. Thirty-four species of California rockfishes: maturity and seasonality of reproduction. Fish. Bull. 85, 229–250 (1987).
    Google Scholar 
    76.Di Lorenzo, E. North Pacific Gyre Oscillation (2018). NPGO index.77.NOAA ESRL Physical Sciences Division. Multivariate ENSO Index Version 2 (MEI.v2) (2019). ENSO index.78.Mantua, N. J. & JISAU, University of Washington. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation. http://research.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/ (2016).79.Di Lorenzo, E. et al. Central Pacific El Niño and decadal climate change in the North Pacific Ocean. Nat. Geosc. 3, 762–765. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo984 (2010).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    80.Ladd, C. & Stabeno, P. J. Stratification on the Eastern Bering Sea shelf revisited. Deep Sea Res. Part II Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 65-70, 72–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2012.02.009 (2012). Understanding Ecosystem Processes in the Eastern Bering Sea.81.Benjamini, Y. & Hochberg, Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B (Methodol.) 57, 289–300 (1995).82.Frainer, A. et al. Climate-driven changes in functional biogeography of Arctic marine fish communities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114, 12202–12207, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1706080114 (2017).83.Hewitt, J. E., Ellis, J. I. & Thrush, S. F. Multiple stressors, nonlinear effects and the implications of climate change impacts on marine coastal ecosystems. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 2665–2675. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13176 (2016).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    84.Liu, H. et al. Nonlinear dynamic features and co-predictability of the Georges Bank fish community. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 464, 195–207 (2012).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    85.Echave, K., Rodgveller, C. & Shotwell, S. K. Calculation of the Geographic Area Sizes Used to Create Population Indices for the Alaska Fisheries Science Center Longline Survey. Technical Report. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-253, U.S. Department of Commerce (2013).86.Webster, R. A., Soderlund, E., Dykstra, C. L. & Stewart, I. J. Monitoring change in a dynamic environment: spatio-temporal modelling of calibrated data from different types of fisheries surveys of Pacific halibut. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2019-0240 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    87.Spencer, P. D., Hollowed, A. B., Sigler, M. F., Hermann, A. J. & Nelson, M. W. Trait-based climate vulnerability assessments in data-rich systems: an application to eastern Bering Sea fish and invertebrate stocks. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 3954–3971. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14763 (2019).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    88.Sogard, S. M. & Olla, B. L. Growth and behavioral responses to elevated temperatures by juvenile sablefish Anoplopoma fimbria and the interactive role of food availability. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 217, 121–134 (2001).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    89.Stoner, A. W. & Sturm, E. A. Temperature and hunger mediate sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) feeding motivation: implications for stock assessment. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 61, 238–246. https://doi.org/10.1139/f03-170 (2004).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    90.Sogard, S. Interannual variability in growth rates of early juvenile sablefish and the role of environmental factors. Bull. Mar. Sci.https://doi.org/10.5343/bms.2010.1045 (2011).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    91.Shotwell, S. K., Hanselman, D. H. & Belkin, I. M. Toward biophysical synergy: investigating advection along the Polar Front to identify factors influencing Alaska sablefish recruitment. Deep Sea Res. Part II Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 107, 40–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2012.08.024 (2014). Fronts, Fish and Top Predators.92.Tolimieri, N., Haltuch, M. A., Lee, Q., Jacox, M. G. & Bograd, S. J. Oceanographic drivers of sablefish recruitment in the California current. Fish. Oceanogr. 27, 458–474. https://doi.org/10.1111/fog.12266 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    93.Harrison, P. J., Whitney, F. A., Tsuda, A., Saito, H. & Tadokoro, K. Nutrient and plankton dynamics in the NE and NW gyres of the subarctic Pacific Ocean. J. Oceanogr. 60, 93–117 (2004).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    94.Coffin, B. & Mueter, F. Environmental covariates of sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) and Pacific ocean perch (Sebastes alutus) recruitment in the Gulf of Alaska. Deep Sea Res. Part II Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 132, 194–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2015.02.016 (2016). Understanding Ecosystem Processes in the Gulf of Alaska: Volume 1.95.Hagen, P. T. & Quinn, T. J. Long-term growth dynamics of young Pacific halibut: evidence of temperature-induced variation. Fish. Res. 11, 283–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-7836(91)90006-2 (1991). Fish Population Dynamics: Solving Fishery Management Problems.96.Hurst, T. P., Spencer, M. L., Sogard, S. M. & Stoner, A. W. Compensatory growth, energy storage and behavior of juvenile Pacific halibut Hippoglossus stenolepis following thermally induced growth reduction. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 293, 233–240 (2005).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    97.Holsman, K. K., Aydin, K., Sullivan, J., Hurst, T. & Kruse, G. H. Climate effects and bottom-up controls on growth and size-at-age of Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) in Alaska (USA). Fish. Oceanogr. 28, 345–358. https://doi.org/10.1111/fog.12416 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    98.Lynam, C. P. et al. Interaction between top-down and bottom-up control in marine food webs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114, 1952–1957. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1621037114 (2017).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    99.Desmit, X., Ruddick, K. & Lacroix, G. Salinity predicts the distribution of chlorophyll a spring peak in the southern North Sea continental waters. J. Sea Res. 103, 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seares.2015.02.007 (2015).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    100.Benson, A. J. & Trites, A. W. Ecological effects of regime shifts in the Bering Sea and eastern North Pacific Ocean. Fish Fish. 3, 95–113. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-2979.2002.00078.x (2002).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    101.Feng, J. et al. Contrasting correlation patterns between environmental factors and chlorophyll levels in the global ocean. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 29, 2095–2107. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GB005216 (2015).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    102.Kahru, M. et al. Global correlations between winds and ocean chlorophyll. J. Geophys. Res. Oceanshttps://doi.org/10.1029/2010JC006500 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    103.Sadorus, L. L., Mantua, N. J., Essington, T., Hickey, B. & Hare, S. Distribution patterns of Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) in relation to environmental variables along the continental shelf waters of the US West Coast and southern British Columbia. Fish. Oceanogr. 23, 225–241. https://doi.org/10.1111/fog.12057 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    104.Barbeaux, S. et al. Gulf of Alaska Stock Assessments. Technical Report, North Pacific Fishery Management Council, Anchorage, AK (2018).105.Barbeaux, S. J. & Hollowed, A. B. Ontogeny matters: climate variability and effects on fish distribution in the eastern Bering Sea. Fish. Oceanogr. 27, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/fog.12229 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    106.Yang, Q. et al. How “The Blob” affected groundfish distributions in the Gulf of Alaska. Fish. Oceanogr. 28, 434–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/fog.12422 (2019).107.Hagens, M. & Middelburg, J. J. Attributing seasonal pH variability in surface ocean waters to governing factors. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 12528–12537. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL071719 (2016).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    108.Fry, C. H., Tyrrell, T., Hain, M. P., Bates, N. R. & Achterberg, E. P. Analysis of global surface ocean alkalinity to determine controlling processes. Mar. Chem. 174, 46–57 (2015).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    109.Bromhead, D. et al. The potential impact of ocean acidification upon eggs and larvae of yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares). Deep Sea Res. Part II Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 113, 268–279, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2014.03.019 (2015). Impacts of climate on marine top predators.110.Doney, S. C. et al. Impact of anthropogenic atmospheric nitrogen and sulfur deposition on ocean acidification and the inorganic carbon system. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104, 14580–14585. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702218104 (2007).111.Napp, J. M. & Hunt, G. L. Anomalous conditions in the south-eastern Bering Sea 1997: linkages among climate, weather, ocean, and biology. Fish. Oceanogr. 10, 61–68. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2419.2001.00155.x (2001).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    112.Noakes, D. J. & Beamish, R. J. Synchrony of marine fish catches and climate and ocean regime shifts in the North Pacific Ocean. Mar. Coast. Fish. 1, 155–168. https://doi.org/10.1577/C08-001.1 (2009).Article 

    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Effects of cadmium stress on growth and physiological characteristics of sassafras seedlings

    1.Ali, B. et al. Physiological and ultra-structural changes in Brassica napus seedlings induced by cadmium stress. Biol Plant 58(1), 131–138 (2014).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    2.Tang, Y. et al. Cadmium-accumulator straw application alleviates cadmium stress of lettuce (Lactuca sativa) by promoting pgotosynthetic activity and antioxidative enzyme activities. Environ. Sci. pollut. Res. 25, 30671–30679 (2018).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    3.Jia, L. et al. Hormesis effects induced by cadmium on growth and photosynthetic performance in a hyperaccumulator, Lonicera japonica. Thunb. J Plant Growth Regul 34(1), 13–21 (2015).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    4.Gallego, S. M., Benavides, M. P. (2019) Cadmium-induced oxidative and nitrosative stress in plants. Cadmium Toxicity and Tolerance in Plants. Elsevier, pp. 233–274.5.Rizwan, M. et al. Cadmium minimization in wheat: a critical review. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 130, 43–53 (2016).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    6.Zou, J. et al. Transcriptional, physiological and cytological analysis validated the roles of some key genes linked Cd stress in Salix matsudanaKoidz. Environ. Exp. Bot. 134, 116–129 (2017).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    7.Chen, H. C. et al. The effects of exogenous organic acids on the growth, photosynthesis and cellular ultrastructure of Salix variegata Franch Under Cd stress. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 187, 1–10 (2020).
    Google Scholar 
    8.Sarvajeet, S. G., Nafees, A. K. & Narendra, T. Cadmium at high dose perturbs growth, photosynthesis and nitrogen metabolism while at low dose it up regulates sulfur assimilation and antioxidant machinery in garden cress (Lepidium sativum L.). Plant Sci. 182, 112–120 (2011).
    Google Scholar 
    9.Daniel, H., Tereza, C., Tom´a, V. & Radka, P. The effect of nanoparticles on the photosynthetic pigments in cadmium-zinc interactions. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 26(4), 4147–4151 (2019).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    10.Tian, X. et al. Measurement of metal bioaccessibility in vegetables to improve human exposure assessments: field study of soil–plant–atmosphere transfers in urban areas South China. Environ. Geochem. Health 38(6), 1283–1301 (2016).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    11.He, J. et al. A transcriptomic network underlies microstructural and physiological responses to cadmium in Populus× _canescens. Plant Physiol. 162, 424–439 (2013).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    12.He, J. et al. Cadmium tolerance in six poplar species. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 20, 163–174 (2013).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    13.He, N. et al. Draft genome sequence of the mulberry tree Morus notabilis. Nat. Commun. 4, 1–9 (2013).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    14.Wu, P., Luo, Z. (1981) Precious sassafras of Guizhou[J]. Guizhou Forest. Sci. Technol.15.Flora of China, 1982, vol. 31, p. 238.16.Xiyou, C. Study on Growth of Sassafras in different Mixed ways[J]. Anhui Forest. Sci. Technol. 4, 9–11 (2015).
    Google Scholar 
    17.Cheng Yong, Wu. et al. Storage test of sassafras seeds[J]. Hunan Forest. Sci. Technol. 2, 28–30 (2014).
    Google Scholar 
    18.Shen, Y. et al. Study on biomass and productivity of natural secondary Sassafras Mixed Forest[J]. J. Central South Univ. Forest. Technol. 5, 26–30 (2011).
    Google Scholar 
    19.Jin, Y. Q. et al. Efficient adsorption of methylene blue and lead ions in aqueous solutions by 5-sulfosalicylic acid modified lignin[J]. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 123, 50–58 (2019).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    20.Cheng, Y. F. et al. Rapid method for protein quantitation by Bradford assay after elimination of the interference of polysorbate 80[J]. Anal Biochem 494, 37–39 (2016).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    21.Abdelgawad, H., Zinta, G., Badreldin, A. H., et al. (2019) Maize roots and shoots show distinct profiles of oxidative stress and antioxidant defense under heavy metal toxicity[J]. Environ. Pollut., p. 11370522.Donahue, J. L. et al. Responses of antioxidants to paraquat in pea leaves (relationships to resistance) [J]. Plant Physiol 113(1), 249–257 (1997).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    23.Merey, H. A. et al. Validated UPLC method for the determination of guaiphenesin, oxeladin citrate, diphenhydramine, and sodium benzoate in their quaternary mixture used in treatment of cough, in the presence of guaiphenesin-related substance (guaiacol)[J]. Chem. Pap. 72(9), 2247–2254 (2018).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    24.Beers, R. F. & Sizer, I. W. A spectrophotometric method for measuring the breakdown of hydrogen peroxide by catalase[J]. J. Biol. Chem. 195(1), 133–140 (1952).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    25.Zhao, F. J., Jiang, R. F., Dunham, S. J. & McGrath, S. P. Cadmium uptake, translocation and tolerance in the hyperaccumulator Arabidopsis halleri. New Phytol. J. 172, 646–654 (2006).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    26.Lichtenthaler, H. K. & Wellburn, A. R. Determinations of total carotenoids and chlorophylls a and b of leaf extracts in different solvents. Analysis 11(5), 591–592 (1983).CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    27.Zipiao, Ye. Andvances in models of photosynthetic response to light and CO2[J]. Chin. J. Plant Ecol. 06, 727–740 (2010).
    Google Scholar 
    28.Saidi, I. et al. Oxidative damages induced by short-term exposure to cadmium in bean plants: protective role of salicylic acid. S Afr. J. Bot. 85, 32–38 (2013).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    29.Anwaar, S. A. et al. Silicon (Si) alleviates cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) fromzinc (Zn) toxicity stress by limiting Zn uptake and oxidative damage. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 22, 3441–3450 (2014).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    30.Fuzhong, Wu. et al. Effects of cadmium stress on the growth, nutrient accumulation, distribution and utilization of Osmanthus fragrans. J. Plant Ecol. 34(10), 1220–1226 (2010).
    Google Scholar 
    31.Cengiz, K., Nudrat, A., Akram, M., Ashraf, M., Nasser, A., Parvaiz, A. (2020) Exogenously supplied silicon (Si) improves cadmium tolerance in pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) by upregulating the synthesis of nitric oxide and hydrogen sulfide[J]. J. Biotechnol., p. 31632.Wang, H. et al. Effects of cadmium stress at different concentrations on photosynthesis, lipid peroxidation and antioxidant enzyme activities in maize seedlings [J]. J. Plant Nutrition Fertilizer 14(01), 36–42 (2008).CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    33.Awasthi, P., Mahajan, V., Jamwal, V. L. et al. (2016) Cloning and expression analysis of chalcone synthase gene from Coleus forskohlii. J. Genet.34.Ahmad, P., Jaleel, C. A., Salem, M. A., Nabi, G. & Sharma, S. Roles of enzymatic and nonenzymatic antioxidants in plants during abiotic stress. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 30(3), 161–175 (2010).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    35.Chen, H. et al. H2O2 mediates nitrate-induced iron chlorosis by regulating iron homeostasis in rice. Plant Cell Environ. 41, 767–781 (2018).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    36.Kohli, S. K., Khanna, K., Bhardwaj, R., Abd_Alla, E. F., Corpas, F. J. (2019) Assessment of subcellular ros and no metabolism in higher plants: multifunctional signaling molecules. Antioxidants, vol 8, no 1237.Meng Jie, A. & Hai Jiang, W. Effects of modifiers on the growth, photosynthesis, and antioxidant enzymes of cotton under cadmium toxicity. J. Plant Growth Regulat. 38, 1196–1205 (2019).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    38.Wei, X. et al. Effects of different breaking dormancy ways on the photosynthetic characteristics and activities of protective enzymes of ‘misty’ blueberry leaves. Sci. Agric. Sin. 48(22), 4517–4528 (2015).CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    39.Chaabene, Z. et al. Copper toxicity and date palm (Phoenix dactylifera) seedling tolerance: monitoring of related biomarkers. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 37(3), 797–806 (2018).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    40.Ozfidan-Konakci, C. et al. The humic acid-induced changes in the water status, chlorophyll fluorescence and antioxidant defense systems of wheat leaves with cadmium stress. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 155, 66–75 (2018).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    41.Liu, Q. S. et al. Transcriptomic responses of dove tree (Davida involucrata Baill) to heat stress at the seedling stage[J]. Forest 10(8), 656 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    42.Yang, L. P. et al. Effect of Cd on growth, physiological response, Cd subcellular distribution and chemical forms of Koelreuteria paniculate[J]. Ecotox Environ. Safe 160, 10–18 (2018).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    43.Zhang, Y. L. et al. The physiological characteristics of ornamental kale for cold resistance[J]. Act. Agric. 31(4), 168–176 (2016).CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    44.Rady, M. M. & Hemida, K. A. Modulation of cadmium toxicity and enhancing cadmium-tolerance in wheat seedlings by exogenous application of polyamines. Ecotoxicol Environ. Saf 119, 178–185 (2015).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    45.Chen, Y. H. et al. Study on the characteristics of proline and active oxygen metabolism in red sea under salt stress [J]. J. Xiamen Univ. Nat. Sci. 43(03), 402–405 (2004).CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    46.Niu, M. G. et al. Effects of drought, waterlogging and low temperature stress on physiological and biochemical characteristics of wheat [J]. Seed 04, 17–19 (2003).
    Google Scholar 
    47.Deng, F.-F., Yang, S.-L. & Gong, M. Regulation of proline metabolism in abiotic plants by cell signaling molecules [J]. J. Plant Physiol. 51(10), 1573–1582 (2015).CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    48.Samuel, D. et al. Proline inhibits aggre-gation during protein refolding[J]. Protein Sci. 9(2), 344–352 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    49.Abd Allah, E. F. et al. Calcium application enhances growth and alleviates the damaging effects induced by Cd stress in sesame (Sesamum indicum L.). J. Plant Interact. 12(1), 237–243 (2017).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    50.Zhang, X. D. et al. Annotation and characterization of Cd-responsive metal transporter genes in rapeseed (Brassica napus). Bio Metals 31(1), 107–121 (2018).CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    51.Chen, K. et al. Physiological response and cold resistance evaluation of the leaves of Parashorea chinensis seedlings to low temperature stress[J]. J NW For Univ 34(3), 67–73 (2019).CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    52.Ge, W. & Jiao, Y. Changes of soluble protein content of two poplar trees under cadmium stress [J]. Modern Agric. Sci. Technol. 1, 199–200 (2012).
    Google Scholar 
    53.Aina, R. et al. Thiol-petide level and proteomic changes in response to cadmium toxicity in Oryza sativa L. rotts[J]. Environ. Exp. Botany 59(3), 381–392 (2007).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    54.Xu, J. J. et al. Effects of Cd stress on antioxidant enzymes activity of Sonchus asper L. Hill and Zea mays L. in intercropping system[J]. J. Yunnan Agric. Univ. Nat Sci. Ed. 30(2), 348–355 (2016).
    Google Scholar 
    55.Hendrik, K., Frithjof, K. & Martin, S. Environmental relevance of heavy metal-substituted chlorophylls using the example of water plants[J]. J. Exp. Bot. 47(2), 259–266 (1996).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    56.Chen, X. X. et al. Effects of thallium and cadmiun stress on the growth and photosynthetic characteristics of Arundinacea[J]. Guangxi Plants 39(6), 743–751 (2019).
    Google Scholar 
    57.Ahanger, M. A., U Aziz, Alsahli, A. A., Alyemeni, M. N., Ahmad, P. (2020). Combined kinetin and spermidine treatments ameliorate growth and photosynthetic inhibition in vigna angularis by up-regulating antioxidant and nitrogen metabolism under cadmium stress. Biomolecules, vol. 10, no 158.Sun Xiaolin, Xu. et al. Response of photosynthetic pigments in plant leaves to shading[J]. Chin. J. Plant Ecol. 34(8), 989–999 (2010).
    Google Scholar 
    59.Chen, X.-X. et al. Effects of cadmium stress on growth and photosynthetic characteristics of asparagus spears[J]. Plants Guangxi 39(6), 743–751 (2019).
    Google Scholar 
    60.Lu, Y. et al. Effects of heavy metals on photosynthetic and physiological growth characteristics of halophytes[J]. Acta Botanica Northwestern Sinica 31(2), 370–376 (2011).CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    61.Farquhar, G. D. & Sharkey, T. D. Stomatal Conductance and Photosynthesis[J]. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 33(1), 317–345 (1982).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    62.Haizhen, W. et al. Response of chlorophyll fluorescence characteristics to high temperature in heteromorphous leaves of Populus eureka [J]. Acta Ecol. Sin. 9, 100–109 (2011).
    Google Scholar 
    63.Liyuan, Li. et al. Photosynthetic light response simulation of leaves of Quercus variabilis and Robinia pseudoacacia under different light environments[J]. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 29(7), 2295–2306 (2016).
    Google Scholar 
    64.Wang, F.-K. et al. Photosynthetic light response curve of Populus microphylla under different slope orientation[J]. Water Soil Conservat. Res. 22(113), 182–187 (2015).
    Google Scholar 
    65.Xin, Qi., Qunfang, C. & Yulong, F. Adaptation of photosynthesis to growth light intensity in seedlings of three tree species of Putaoia in tropical rain forest [J]. Chin. J. Plant Ecol. 01, 34–41 (2004).
    Google Scholar  More