Philippa Kaur

Orcutt B, D’Angelo T, Jungbluth SP, Huber JA, Sylvan JB. Microbial life in oceanic crust. OSF Preprints, 2020; https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/2wxe6.Koonin EV. On the origin of cells and viruses: primordial virus world scenario. Ann NY Acad Sci. 2009;1178:47–64.Nigro OD, Jungbluth SP, Lin HT, Hsieh CC, Miranda JA, Schvarcz CR, et al. Viruses in the oceanic basement. MBio. 2017;8:1–15.
Google Scholar 
Wheat CG, Jannasch HW, Kastner M, Hulme S, Cowen J, Edwards KJ, et al. Fluid sampling from oceanic borehole observatories: design and methods for CORK activities (1990–2010). 2011. In Fisher AT, Tsuji T, Petronotis K, and the Expedition 327 Scientists, Proc. IODP, 327: Tokyo (Integrated Ocean Drilling Program Management International, Inc.). https://doi.org/10.2204/iodp.proc.327.109.2011.Koonin EV, Yutin N Evolution of the large nucleocytoplasmic DNA viruses of eukaryotes and convergent origins of viral gigantism. Advances in Virus Research. 2019. Elsevier, pp 167–202.Koonin EV, Senkevich TG, Dolja VV. The ancient Virus World and evolution of cells. Biol Direct. 2006;1:29.
Google Scholar 
Shinn GL, Bullard BL. Ultrastructure of Meelsvirus: A nuclear virus of arrow worms (phylum Chaetognatha) producing giant “tailed” virions. PLoS One. 2018;13:e0203282.
Google Scholar 
Wilhelm SW, Bird JT, Bonifer KS, Calfee BC, Chen T, Coy SR, et al. A student’s guide to giant viruses infecting small eukaryotes: From Acanthamoeba to Zooxanthellae. Viruses. 2017;9:46–63.Schulz F, Roux S, Paez-Espino D, Jungbluth S, Walsh DA, Denef VJ, et al. Giant virus diversity and host interactions through global metagenomics. Nature. 2020;578:432–6.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Moniruzzaman M, Martinez-Gutierrez CA, Weinheimer AR, Aylward FO. Dynamic genome evolution and complex virocell metabolism of globally-distributed giant viruses. Nat Commun. 2020;11:1–11.
Google Scholar 
Martínez Martínez J, Swan BK, Wilson WH. Marine viruses, a genetic reservoir revealed by targeted viromics. ISME J. 2014;8:1079–88.
Google Scholar 
Khalil JYB, Robert S, Reteno DG, Andreani J, Raoult D, La Scola B. High-throughput isolation of giant viruses in liquid medium using automated flow cytometry and fluorescence staining. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:1–9.
Google Scholar 
Wilson WH, Gilg IC, Moniruzzaman M, Field EK, Koren S, Lecleir GR, et al. Genomic exploration of individual giant ocean viruses. ISME J. 2017;11:1736–45.
Google Scholar 
Roux S, Chan LK, Egan R, Malmstrom RR, McMahon KD, Sullivan MB. Ecogenomics of virophages and their giant virus hosts assessed through time series metagenomics. Nat Commun. 2017;8:1–12.Schulz F, Alteio L, Goudeau D, Blanchard J, Woyke T, Ryan EM, et al. Hidden diversity of soil giant viruses. Nat Commun. 2018;9:1–9.Bäckström D, Yutin N, Jørgensen SL, Dharamshi J, Homa F, Zaremba-Niedwiedzka K, et al. Virus genomes from deep sea sediments expand the ocean megavirome and support independent origins of viral gigantism. mBio. 2019;10:e02497-18.Martínez JM, Martinez-Hernandez F, Martinez-Garcia M. Single-virus genomics and beyond. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2020;18:705–16.Schulz F, Yutin N, Ivanova NN, Ortega DR, Lee TK, Vierheilig J, et al. Giant viruses with an expanded complement of translation system components. Science (80-). 2017;356:82 LP–85.
Google Scholar 
Fisher A, Wheat CG, Becker K, Cowen J, Orcutt BN, Hulme SM, et al. Design, deployment, and status of borehole observatory systems used for single-hole and cross-hole experiments, IODP Expedition 327, eastern flank of Juan de Fuca Ridge. Proc Integr Ocean Drill Program; Juan Fuca Ridge flank Hydrogeol Exped 327 riserless Drill Platf from to Victoria, Br Columbia (Canada); Sites U1362, U1301, 1027, U1363; 5 July-5 Sept 2010. 2011;327:38.Jungbluth SP, Grote J, Lin HT, Cowen JP, Rappé MS. Microbial diversity within basement fluids of the sediment-buried Juan de Fuca Ridge flank. ISME J. 2013;7:161–72.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jungbluth SP, Bowers RM, Lin HT, Cowen JP, Rappé MS. Novel microbial assemblages inhabiting crustal fluids within mid-ocean ridge flank subsurface basalt. ISME J. 2016;10:2033–47.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jungbluth SP, Amend JP, Rappé MS. Metagenome sequencing and 98 microbial genomes from Juan de Fuca Ridge flank subsurface fluids. Sci data. 2017;4:1–11.
Google Scholar 
Brussaard CPD. Optimization of procedures for counting viruses by flow cytometry. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2004;70:1506–13.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dean FB, Hosono S, Fang L, Wu X, Faruqi AF, Bray-Ward P, et al. Comprehensive human genome amplification using multiple displacement amplification. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2002;99:5261–6.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Labonté JM, Swan BK, Poulos B, Luo H, Koren S, Hallam SJ, et al. Single-cell genomics-based analysis of virus-host interactions in marine surface bacterioplankton. ISME J. 2015;9:2386–99.
Google Scholar 
Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B. Trimmomatic: A flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics. 2014;30:2114–20.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bushnell B, Rood J. BBTools. Dep Energy Jt Genome Institute, Walnut Creek, CA 2014.Bankevich A, Nurk S, Antipov D, Gurevich AA, Dvorkin M, Kulikov AS, et al. SPAdes: a new genome assembly algorithm and its applications to single-cell sequencing. J Comput Biol. 2012;19:455–77.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nurk S, Bankevich A, Antipov D, Gurevich AA, Korobeynikov A, Lapidus A, et al. Assembling single-cell genomes and mini-metagenomes from chimeric MDA products. J Comput Biol. 2013;20:714–37.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Besemer J, Lomsadze A, Borodovsky M. GeneMarkS: a self-training method for prediction of gene starts in microbial genomes. Implications for finding sequence motifs in regulatory regions. Nucleic Acids Res. 2001;29:2607–18.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ. Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol. 1990;215:403–10.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Goodacre N, Aljanahi A, Nandakumar S, Mikailov M, Khan AS, Delwart E, et al. A reference viral database (RVDB) to enhance bioinformatics analysis of high-throughput sequencing for novel virus detection. mSphere. 2018;3:e00069–18.
Google Scholar 
McGinnis S, Madden TL. BLAST: at the core of a powerful and diverse set of sequence analysis tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32:W20–W25.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sullivan MJ, Petty NK, Beatson SA. Easyfig: a genome comparison visualizer. Bioinformatics. 2011;27:1009–10.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Johnson LS, Eddy SR, Portugaly E. Hidden Markov model speed heuristic and iterative HMM search procedure. BMC Bioinformatics. 2010;11:431.
Google Scholar 
Colson P, De Lamballerie X, Yutin N, Asgari S, Bigot Y, Bideshi DK, et al. “Megavirales”, a proposed new order for eukaryotic nucleocytoplasmic large DNA viruses. Arch Virol. 2013;158:2517–21.
Google Scholar 
Yutin N, Wolf YI, Raoult D, Koonin EV. Eukaryotic large nucleo-cytoplasmic DNA viruses: Clusters of orthologous genes and reconstruction of viral genome evolution. Virol J. 2009;6:1–13.
Google Scholar 
Katoh K, Standley DM. MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: improvements in performance and usability. Mol Biol Evol. 2013;30:772–80.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Capella-Gutiérrez S, Silla-Martínez JM, Gabaldón T. trimAl: a tool for automated alignment trimming in large-scale phylogenetic analyses. Bioinformatics. 2009;25:1972–3.
Google Scholar 
Nguyen L-T, Schmidt HA, von Haeseler A, Minh BQ. IQ-TREE: a fast and effective stochastic algorithm for estimating maximum-likelihood phylogenies. Mol Biol Evol. 2014;32:268–74.
Google Scholar 
Price MN, Dehal PS, Arkin AP. FastTree: computing large minimum evolution trees with profiles instead of a distance matrix. Mol Biol Evol. 2009;26:1641–50.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kalyaanamoorthy S, Minh BQ, Wong TKF, Von Haeseler A, Jermiin LS. ModelFinder: fast model selection for accurate phylogenetic estimates. Nat Methods. 2017;14:587–9.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jain C, Rodriguez-R LM, Phillippy AM, Konstantinidis KT, Aluru S. High throughput ANI analysis of 90K prokaryotic genomes reveals clear species boundaries. Nat Commun. 2018;9:1–8.
Google Scholar 
Guindon S, Dufayard JF, Lefort V, Anisimova M, Hordijk W, Gascuel O. New algorithms and methods to estimate maximum-likelihood phylogenies: Assessing the performance of PhyML 3.0. Syst Biol. 2010;59:307–21.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Emms DM, Kelly S. OrthoFinder: solving fundamental biases in whole genome comparisons dramatically improves orthogroup inference accuracy. Genome Biol. 2015;16:157.
Google Scholar 
Barrett P, Hunter J, Miller JT, Hsu J-C, Greenfield P matplotlib–A Portable Python Plotting Package. Astron. data Anal. Softw. Syst. XIV. 2005. p 91.Lex A, Gehlenborg N, Strobelt H, Vuillemot R, Pfister H. UpSet: visualization of intersecting sets. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph. 2014;20:1983–92.
Google Scholar 
Lowe TM, Eddy SR. tRNAscan-SE: a program for improved detection of transfer RNA genes in genomic sequence. Nucleic Acids Res. 1997;25:955.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Laslett D, Canback B. ARAGORN, a program to detect tRNA genes and tmRNA genes in nucleotide sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32:11–16.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kumar S, Stecher G, Li M, Knyaz C, Tamura K. MEGA X: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis across computing platforms. Mol Biol Evol. 2018;35:1547.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Edgar RC. MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32:1792–7.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chen IMA, Markowitz VM, Chu K, Palaniappan K, Szeto E, Pillay M, et al. IMG/M: Integrated genome and metagenome comparative data analysis system. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017;45:D507–D516.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Markowitz VM, Chen I-MA, Palaniappan K, Chu K, Szeto E, Grechkin Y, et al. IMG: the integrated microbial genomes database and comparative analysis system. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40:D115–D122.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Quast C, Pruesse E, Yilmaz P, Gerken J, Schweer T, Yarza P, et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;41:D590–D596.
Google Scholar 
Yutin N, Wolf YI, Koonin EV. Origin of giant viruses from smaller DNA viruses not from a fourth domain of cellular life. Virology. 2014;466–467:38–52.
Google Scholar 
Mihara T, Koyano H, Hingamp P, Grimsley N, Goto S, Ogata H Taxon richness of “Megaviridae” exceeds those of bacteria and archaea in the ocean. Microbes Environ. 2018; ME17203.Gallot-Lavallée L, Blanc G. A glimpse of nucleo-cytoplasmic large DNA virus biodiversity through the eukaryotic genomics window. Viruses. 2017;9:17.
Google Scholar 
Aylward FO, Moniruzzaman M, Ha AD, Koonin EV. A phylogenomic framework for charting the diversity and evolution of giant viruses. PLOS Biol. 2021;19:e3001430.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Andreani J, Verneau J, Raoult D, Levasseur A, La, Scola B. Deciphering viral presences: two novel partial giant viruses detected in marine metagenome and in a mine drainage metagenome. Virol J. 2018;15:66.
Google Scholar 
Koonin EV, Yutin N. Multiple evolutionary origins of giant viruses. F1000Research. 2018;7:1840.Abrahao JS, Araujo R, Colson P, La, Scola B. The analysis of translation-related gene set boosts debates around origin and evolution of mimiviruses. PLoS Genet. 2017;13:e1006532.
Google Scholar 
Filée J, Chandler M. Gene exchange and the origin of giant viruses. Intervirology. 2010;53:354–61.
Google Scholar 
Koonin EV, Yutin N. Nucleo‐cytoplasmic large DNA viruses (NCLDV) of eukaryotes. eLS. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470015902.a0023268.Abergel C, Rudinger-Thirion J, Giegé R, Claverie J-M. Virus-encoded aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases: structural and functional characterization of mimivirus TyrRS and MetRS. J Virol. 2007;81:12406–17.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yoshihisa T. Handling tRNA introns, archaeal way and eukaryotic way. Front Genet. 2014;5:213.
Google Scholar 
Ivarsson M, Schnürer A, Bengtson S, Neubeck A. Anaerobic fungi: a potential source of biological H2 in the oceanic crust. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:1–8.Ivarsson M, Bengtson S, Neubeck A. The igneous oceanic crust e Earth’ s largest fungal habitat? Fungal Ecol. 2016;20:249–55.
Google Scholar 
Quemener M, Mara P, Schubotz F, Beaudoin D, Li W, Pachiadaki M, et al. Meta‐omics highlights the diversity, activity and adaptations of fungi in deep oceanic crust. Environ Microbiol. 2020;22:3950–67.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Drake H, Ivarsson M. The role of anaerobic fungi in fundamental biogeochemical cycles in the deep biosphere. Fungal Biol Rev. 2017;32:20–25.
Google Scholar 
Bengtson S, Rasmussen B, Ivarsson M, Muhling J, Broman C, Marone F, et al. Fungus-like mycelial fossils in 2.4-billion-year-old vesicular basalt. Nat Publ Gr. 2017;1:1–6.
Google Scholar 
Suzuki N. An introduction to fungal viruses. In Encyclopedia of Virology. Bamford DH, Zuckerman M. editors. 431–42. Oxford: Academic Press; 2021.Ivarsson M, Broman C, Holmström SJM, Ahlbom M, Lindblom S, Holm NG. Putative fossilized fungi from the lithified volcaniclastic apron of Gran Canaria, Spain. Astrobiology. 2011;11:633–50.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bengtson S, Ivarsson M, Astolfo A, Belivanova V, Broman C, Marone F, et al. Deep‐biosphere consortium of fungi and prokaryotes in Eocene subseafloor basalts. Geobiology. 2014;12:489–96.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hirayama H, Abe M, Miyazaki J, Sakai S, Nagano Y, Takai K Data report: cultivation of microorganisms from basaltic rock and sediment cores from the North Pond on the western flank of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, IODP Expedition 336 1. 2015; 336.Ivarsson M, Bengtson S, Skogby H, Lazor P, Broman C A Fungal-Prokaryotic Consortium at the Basalt-Zeolite Interface in Subseafloor A Fungal-Prokaryotic Consortium at the Basalt-Zeolite Interface in Subseafloor Igneous Crust. 2015.Khan HA, Telengech P, Kondo H, Bhatti MF, Suzuki N. Mycovirus Hunting Revealed the Presence of Diverse Viruses in a Single Isolate of the Phytopathogenic Fungus Diplodia seriata From Pakistan. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2022;12:913619.García-Pedrajas MD, Cañizares MC, Sarmiento-Villamil JL, Jacquat AG, Dambolena JS. Mycoviruses in biological control: From basic research to field implementation. Phytopathology. 2019;109:1828–39.
Google Scholar 
Ghabrial SA, Castón JR, Jiang D, Nibert ML, Suzuki N. 50-plus years of fungal viruses. Virology. 2015;479:356–68.
Google Scholar 
Okada R, Ichinose S, Takeshita K, Urayama S, Fukuhara T, Komatsu K, et al. Molecular characterization of a novel mycovirus in Alternaria alternata manifesting two-sided effects: Down-regulation of host growth and up-regulation of host plant pathogenicity. Virology. 2018;519:23–32.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Shah UA, Kotta-Loizou I, Fitt BDL, Coutts RHA. Mycovirus-induced hypervirulence of Leptosphaeria biglobosa enhances systemic acquired resistance to Leptosphaeria maculans in Brassica napus. Mol Plant-Microbe Interact. 2020;33:98–107.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hillman BI, Annisa A, Suzuki N. Viruses of plant-interacting fungi. Adv Virus Res. 2018;100:99–116.CAS 

Google Scholar  More

Eilers, E. J., Kremen, C., Smith Greenleaf, S., Garber, A. K. & Klein, A. M. Contribution of pollinator-mediated crops to nutrients in the human food supply. PLoS ONE 6, 21363 (2011).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Williams, P. H. The dependence of crop pollination within the European Union on pollination by honey bees. Agric. Zool. Rev. 6, 229–257 (1994).
Google Scholar 
Burd, M. Bateman’s principle and plant reproduction: the role of pollen limitation in fruit and seed set. Bot. Rev. 60, 83–139 (1994).MathSciNet 

Google Scholar 
Aguilar, R., Ashworth, L., Galetto, L. & Aizen, M. A. Plant reproductive susceptibility to habitat fragmentation: Review and synthesis through a meta-analysis. Ecol. Lett. 9, 968–980 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Potts, S. G. et al. Declines of managed honey bees and beekeepers in Europe. J. Apic. Res. 49, 15–22 (2010).
Google Scholar 
van Engelsdorp, D., Hayes, J., Underwood, R. M. & Pettis, J. A survey of honey bee colony losses in the U.S., fall 2007 to spring 2008. PLoS ONE 3, e4071 (2008).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Aizen, M. A. & Harder, L. D. The global stock of domesticated honey bees is growing slower than agricultural demand for pollination. Curr. Biol. 19, 915–918 (2009).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Van Engelsdorp, D. et al. Colony collapse disorder: A descriptive study. PLoS ONE 4, e6481 (2009).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Genersch, E. American foulbrood in honeybees and its causative agent, Paenibacillus larvae. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 103(suppl 1), 10–19 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Graystock, P., Yates, K., Darvill, B., Goulson, D. & Hughes, W. O. H. Emerging dangers: Deadly effects of an emergent parasite in a new pollinator host. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 114, 114–119 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Insolia, L. et al. Honey bee colony loss linked to parasites, pesticides and extreme weather across the United States. Sci. Rep. 12(1), 20787. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-24946-4 (2022).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sanchez-Bayo, F. & Goka, K. Pesticide residues and bees: A risk assessment. PLoS ONE 9(4), e94482 (2014).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Bolognesi, C. & Merlo, F. D. Pesticides: Human health effects. Encyclop. Environ. Health 1, 438–453 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Mullin, C. A. et al. High levels of miticides and agrochemicals in North American apiaries: Implications for honey bee health. PLoS ONE 1, e9754 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Calatayud-Vernich, P., Calatayud, F., Simó, E. & Picó, Y. Pesticide residues in honey bees, pollen and beeswax: Assessing beehive exposure. Environ. Pollut. 241, 106–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.05.062 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Woodcock, B. A. et al. Impacts of neonicotinoid use on long-term population changes in wild bees in England. Nat. Commun. 2016(7), 12459 (2016).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Zhao, H. et al. Review on effects of some insecticides on honey bee health. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 188, 105219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pestbp.2022.105219 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ludicke, J. C. & Nieh, J. C. Thiamethoxam impairs honey bee visual learning, alters decision times, and increases abnormal behaviors. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 193, 110367 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Tison, L., Duer, A., Púčiková, V., Greggers, U. & Menzel, R. Detrimental effects of clothianidin on foraging and dance communication in honey bees. PLoS ONE 15(10), e0241134 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Fent, K., Schmid, M. & Christen, V. Global transcriptome analysis reveals relevant effects at environmental concentrations of cypermethrin in honey bees (Apis mellifera). Environ. Pollut. 259, 113715 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Christen, V., Krebs, J., Bünter, I. & Fent, K. Biopesticide spinosad induces transcriptional alterations in genes associated with energy production in honey bees (Apis mellifera) at sublethal concentrations. J. Hazard. Mater. 378, 120736 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Christen, V., Krebs, J. & Fent, K. Fungicides chlorothanolin, azoxystrobin and folpet induce transcriptional alterations in genes encoding enzymes involved in oxidative phosphorylation and metabolism in honey bees (Apis mellifera) at sublethal concentrations. J. Hazard. Mater. 377, 215–226 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Fent, K., Haltiner, T., Kunz, P. & Christen, V. Insecticides cause transcriptional alterations of endocrine related genes in the brain of honey bee foragers. Chemosphere 260, 127542 (2020).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Christen, V., Grossar, D., Charrière, J. D., Eyer, M. & Jeker, L. Correlation between increased homing flight duration and altered gene expression in the brain of honey bee foragers after acute oral exposure to thiacloprid and thiamethoxam. Insect Sci. 1, 1–15 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Mao, W., Schuler, M. A. & Berenbaum, M. R. Disruption of quercetin metabolism by fungicide affects energy production in honey bees (Apis mellifera). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 114(10), 2538–2543 (2017).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Christen, V., Kunz, P. Y. & Fent, K. Endocrine disruption and chronic effects of plant protection products in bees: Can we better protect our pollinators?. Environ. Pollut. 243(Pt B), 1588–1601 (2018).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Testai, E., Buratti, F. & Di Consiglio, E. Chlorpyrifos Hayes’ Handbook of Pesticide Toxicology 1505–1526 (Academic Press, 2010).
Google Scholar 
Eastmond, D. & Balakrishnan, S. Genotoxicity of Pesticides Hayes’ Handbook of Pesticide Toxicology 357–380 (Academic Press, 2010).
Google Scholar 
Urlacher, E. et al. Measurements of chlorpyrifos levels in forager bees and comparison with levels that disrupt honey bee odor-mediated learning under laboratory conditions. J. Chem. Ecol. 42(2), 127–138 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Li, Z. et al. Effects of sublethal concentrations of chlorpyrifos on olfactory learning and memory performances in two bee species, Apis mellifera and Apis cerana. Sociobiology 64, 174 (2017).
Google Scholar 
DeGrandi-Hoffman, G., Chen, Y. & Simonds, R. The effects of pesticides on queen rearing and virus titers in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.). Insects 4, 71–89 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Cutler, G. C., Purdy, J., Giesy, J. P. & Solomon, K. R. Risk to pollinators from the use of chlorpyrifos in the United States. In Ecological Risk Assessment for Chlorpyrifos in Terrestrial and Aquatic Systems in the United States Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology (eds Giesy, J. & Solomon, K.) (Springer, 2014).
Google Scholar 
Christen, V. & Fent, K. Exposure of honey bees (Apis mellifera) to different classes of insecticides exhibit distinct molecular effect patterns at concentrations that mimic environmental contamination. Environ. Pollut. 226, 48–59 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Stevenson, J. H. The acute toxicity of unformulated pesticides to worker honey bees (Apis mellifera L.). Plant Pathol. 27, 38–40 (1978).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bartlett, D. W. et al. The strobilurin fungicides. Pest. Manag. Sci. 58, 649–662 (2002).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ostiguy, N. et al. Honey bee exposure to pesticides: A four-year nationwide study. Insects. 10, 13 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Inoue, L. V. B., Domingues, C. E. C., Gregorc, A., Silva-Zacarin, E. C. M. & Malaspina, O. Harmful effects of pyraclostrobin on the fat body and pericardial cells of foragers of africanized honey bee. Toxics 10, 530. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics10090530 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nicodemo, D. et al. Mitochondrial respiratory inhibition promoted by pyraclostrobin in fungi is also observed in honey bees. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 39, 1267–1272 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Domingues, C. E. C., Inoue, L. V. B., Silva-Zacarin, E. C. M. & Malaspina, O. Foragers of Africanized honeybee are more sensitive to fungicide pyraclostrobin than newly emerged bees. Environ. Pollut. 266, 115267 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Tadei, R. et al. Late effect of larval co-exposure to the insecticide clothianidin and fungicide pyraclostrobin in Africanized Apis mellifera. Sci. Rep 9, 3277 (2019).ADS 

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

Google Scholar 
Corona, M. et al. Vitellogenin, juvenile hormone, insulin signaling, and queen honey bee longevity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104, 7128–7133 (2007).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Winston, M. L. The Biology of the Honey Bee (Harvard University Press, 1987).
Google Scholar 
Ueno, T., Nakaoka, T., Takeuchi, H. & Kubo, T. Differential gene expression in the hypopharyngeal glands of worker honeybees (Apis mellifera L.) associated with an age-dependent role change. Zool. Sci. 8, 557–563 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Kubo, T. et al. Change in the expression of hypopharyngealgland proteins of the worker honeybees (Apis mellifera L.) with age and/or role. J. Biochem. 119, 291–295 (1996).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ohashi, K., Sawata, M., Takeuchi, H., Natori, S. & Kubo, T. Molecular cloning of cDNA and analysis of expression of the gene for alpha-glucosidase from the hypopharyngeal gland of the honeybee Apis mellifera L. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 221, 380–385 (1996).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ohashi, K., Natori, S. & Kubo, T. Expression of amylase and glucose oxidase in the hypopharyngeal gland with an age dependent role change of the worker honeybee (Apis mellifera L.). Eur. J. Biochem. 265, 127–133 (1999).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chanchao, C., Padoongsupalai, R. & Sangvanich, P. Expression and characterization of α-glucosidase III in the dwarf honeybee, Apis florea (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Apidae). Insect Sci. 14(4), 283–293 (2007).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Corby-Harris, V. & Snyder, L. A. Measuring hypopharyngeal gland acinus size in honey bee (Apis mellifera) Workers. J. Vis. Exp. 139, 58261 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Yamada, T. & Yamada, K. Comparison of long-term changes in size and longevity of bee colonies in mid-west Japan and Maui with and without exposure to pesticide, cold winters, and mites. PeerJ 8, e9505 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Rinkevich, F. D. et al. Genetics, synergists, and age affect insecticide sensitivity of the honey bee, Apis mellifera. PLoS ONE 10(10), e0139841 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Weidenmüller, A. The control of nest climate in bumblebee (Bombus terrestris) colonies: Interindividual variability and self reinforcement in fanning response. Behav. Ecol. 15(1), 120–128 (2004).MathSciNet 

Google Scholar 
Flatt, T., Tu, M. P. & Tatar, M. Hormonal pleiotropy and the juvenile hormone regulation of Drosophila development and life history. BioEssays 27, 999–1010 (2005).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wu, M. C., Chang, Y. W., Lu, K. H. & Yang, E. C. Gene expression changes in honey bees induced by sublethal imidacloprid exposure during the larval stage. Insect. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 88, 12–20 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ament, S. A., Corona, M., Pollock, H. S. & Robinson, G. E. Insulin signaling is involved in the regulation of worker division of labor in honey bee colonies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105, 4226–4231 (2008).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nicodemo, D. et al. Fipronil and imidacloprid reduce honeybee mitochondrial activity. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 33(9), 2070–2075 (2014).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Syromyatnikov, M. Y., Lopatin, A. V., Starkov, A. A. & Popov, V. N. Isolation and properties of flight muscle mitochondria of the bumblebee Bombus terrestris (L.). Biochemistry 78(8), 909–914 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dayer, F. C. Coadaptation of colony design and worker performance in honeybees. In Diversity in the Genus Apis (ed. Smith, D. R.) 2133–2245 (Westview Press, 1991).
Google Scholar 
Simon-Delso, N., Amaral-Rogers, V. & Belzunces, L. P. Systemic insecticides (neonicotinoids and fipronil): Trends, uses, mode of action and metabolites. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 22, 5–34 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Evans, J. D. et al. Immune pathways and defence mechanisms in honey bees Apis mellifera. Insect. Mol. Biol. 5, 645–656 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Pankiw, T. & Page, R. E. Response thresholds to sucrose predict foraging division of labor in honeybees. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 47, 265–267 (2000).
Google Scholar  More

Muller, Z. et al. Giraffa camelopardalis. The IUCN red list of threatened species 2016:e.T9194A109326950 (2018).Oconnor, D. et al. Updated geographic range maps for giraffe, Giraffa spp., throughout sub-Saharan Africa, and implications of changing distributions for conservation. Mamm. Rev. 49, 285–299. https://doi.org/10.1111/mam.12165 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brown, M. B. et al. Conservation status of giraffe: Evaluating contemporary distribution and abundance with evolving taxonomic perspectives. Ref. Module Earth Syst. Environ. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-821139-7.00139-2 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dunn, M. E. et al. Investigating the international and pan-African trade in giraffe parts and derivatives. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 3, e390. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.390 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hassanin, A. et al. Mitochondrial DNA variability in Giraffa camelopardalis: Consequences for taxonomy, phylogeography and conservation of giraffes in West and Central Africa. C.R. Biol. 330, 265–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crvi.2007.02.008 (2007).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Groves, C. & Grubb, P. Ungulate Taxonomy (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2011).Book 

Google Scholar 
Fennessy, J. et al. Multi-locus analyses reveal four giraffe species instead of one. Curr. Biol. 26, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.07.036 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Winter, S., Fennessy, J. & Janke, A. Limited introgression supports division of giraffe into four species. Ecol. Evol. 8, 10156–10165. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4490 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bercovitch, F. B. Giraffe taxonomy, geographic distribution, and conservation. Afr. J. Ecol. 58, 150–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/aje.12741 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Petzold, A. & Hassanin, A. A comparative approach for species delimitation based on multiple methods of multi-locus DNA sequence analysis: A case study of the genus Giraffa (Mammalia, Cetartiodactyla). PLoS ONE 15, e0217956. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217956 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Petzold, A. et al. First insights into past biodiversity of giraffes based on mitochondrial sequences from museum specimens. Eur. J. Taxon. 703, L57-63. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217956 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Coimbra, R. T. F. et al. Whole-genome analysis of giraffe supports four distinct species. Curr. Biol. 31, 2929-2938.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.04.033 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Muneza, A. B. et al. Giraffa camelopardalis ssp. reticulata. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018:e.T88420717A88420720 (2018).Miller, M. F. Dispersal of Acacia seeds by ungulates and ostriches in an African Savanna. J. Trop. Ecol. 12, 345–356. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467400009548 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Palmer, T. M. et al. Breakdown of an ant-plant mutualism follows the loss of large herbivores from an African savanna. Science 319, 192–195. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1151579 (2008).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kalema, G. Investigation of a skin disease in giraffe in Murchison Falls National Park. Report Submitted to Uganda National Park. Uganda National Parks. Kampala, Uganda (1996).Muneza, A. B. et al. Regional variation of the manifestation, prevalence, and severity of giraffe skin disease: A review of an emerging disease in wild and captive giraffe populations. Biol. Conserv. 198, 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.04.014 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Epaphras, A. M., Karimuribo, E. D., Mpanduji, D. G. & Meing’ataki, G. E. Prevalence, disease description and epidemiological factors of a novel skin disease in giraffes (Giraffa camelopardalis) in Ruaha National Park, Tanzania. Res. Opin. Anim. Vet. Sci. 2, 60–65 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Lee, D. E. & Bond, M. L. The occurrence and prevalence of giraffe skin disease in protected areas of northern Tanzania. J. Wildl. Dis. 52, 753–755. https://doi.org/10.7589/2015-09-24 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Muneza, A. B. et al. Examining disease prevalence for species of conservation concern using non-invasive spatial capture–recapture techniques. J. Appl. Ecol. 54, 709–717. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12796 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brown, M. Murchison falls giraffe project: Field report. Giraffid 9, 5–10 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Muneza, A. B. et al. Quantifying the severity of an emerging skin disease affecting giraffe populations using photogrammetry analysis of camera trap data. J. Wildl. Dis. 55, 770–781. https://doi.org/10.7589/2018-06-149 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Han, S. et al. Giraffe skin disease: Clinicopathologic characterization of cutaneous filariasis in the critically endangered Nubian giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis camelopardalis). Vet. Pathol. https://doi.org/10.1177/03009858221082606 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Whittier, C. A. et al. Cutaneous filariasis in free-ranging Rothschild’s giraffes (Giraffa Camelopardalis rothschildi) in Uganda. J. Wildl. Dis. 56, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.7589/2018-09-212 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pellew, R. Food consumption and energy budgets of the giraffe. J. Appl. Ecol. 21, 141–159. https://doi.org/10.2307/2403043 (1984).Article 

Google Scholar 
Strauss, M. K. L. & Packer, C. Using claw marks to study lion predation on giraffes of the Serengeti. J. Zool. 289, 134–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2012.00972.x (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Muneza, A. B. et al. Exploring the connections between giraffe skin disease and lion predation. J. Zool. https://doi.org/10.1111/jzo.12930 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lindsey, P. A. et al. The bushmeat trade in African savannas: Impacts, drivers, and possible solutions. Biol. Conserv. 160, 80–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.12.020 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Becker, M. et al. Evaluating wire-snare poaching trends and the impacts of by-catch on elephants and large carnivores. Biol. Conserv. 158, 26–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.08.017 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mudumba, T., Jingo, S., Heit, D. & Montgomery, R. A. The landscape configuration and lethality of snare poaching of sympatric guilds of large carnivores and ungulates. Afr. J. Ecol. 59, 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/aje.12781 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Strauss, M. K. L., Kilewo, M., Rentsch, D. & Packer, C. Food supply and poaching limit giraffe abundance in the Serengeti. Popul. Ecol. 57, 505–516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10144-015-0499-9 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Munn, J. Effects of injury on the locomotion of free-ranging chimpanzees in the Budongo Forest Reserve, Uganda. In Primates of Western Uganda: Developments in Primatology: Progress and Prospects (eds. Newton-Fisher, N. E., Notman, H., Paterson, J. D., & Reynolds, V.) 259–280 (Springer, 2006).Yersin, H., Asiimwe, C., Voordouw, M. J. & Zuberbühler, K. Impact of snare injuries on parasite prevalence in wild chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Int. J. Primatol. 38, 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-016-9941-x (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dagg, A. I. Gaits of the giraffe and okapi. J. Mammal. 41, 282–282. https://doi.org/10.2307/1376381 (1960).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dagg, A. I. The role of the neck in the movements of the giraffe. J. Mammal. 43, 88–97. https://doi.org/10.2307/1376883 (1962).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dagg, A. I. & Vos, A. D. The walking gaits of some species of Pecora. J. Zool. 155, 103–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1968.tb03031.x (1968).Article 

Google Scholar 
Alexander, R. M. N., Langman, V. A. & Jayes, A. S. Fast locomotion of some African ungulates. J. Zool. 183, 291–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1977.tb04188.x (1977).Article 

Google Scholar 
Basu, C., Deacon, F., Hutchinson, J. R. & Wilson, A. M. The running kinematics of free-roaming giraffes, measured using a low cost unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). PeerJ 7, e6312. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.6312 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Basu, C., Wilson, A. M. & Hutchinson, J. R. The locomotor kinematics and ground reaction forces of walking giraffes. J. Exp. Biol. 222, jeb159277. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.159277 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hildebrand, M. The adaptive significance of tetrapod gait selection. Am. Zool. 20, 255–267. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/20.1.255 (1980).Article 

Google Scholar 
Flower, F. C., Sanderson, D. J. & Weary, D. M. Hoof pathologies influence kinematic measures of dairy cow gait. J. Dairy Sci. 88, 3166–3173. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(05)73000-9 (2005).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Brown, M. B., Bolger, D. T. & Fennessy, J. All the eggs in one basket: A countrywide assessment of current and historical giraffe population distribution in Uganda. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 19, e00612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00612 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Foster, J. B. The giraffe of Nairobi National Park: Home range, sex ratios, the herd, and food. Afr. J. Ecol. 4, 139–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2028.1966.tb00889.x (1966).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bond, M. L., Strauss, M. K. L. & Lee, D. E. Soil correlates and mortality from giraffe skin disease in Tanzania. J. Wildl. Dis. 52, 953–958. https://doi.org/10.7589/2016-02-047 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dunham, N. T., McNamara, A., Shapiro, L., Hieronymus, T. & Young, J. W. A user’s guide for the quantitative analysis of substrate characteristics and locomotor kinematics in free-ranging primates. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 167, 569–584. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.23686 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rueden, C. T. et al. Imagej 2: Imagej for the next generation of scientific image data. BMC Bioinform. 18, 529. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12859-017-1934-z (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cartmill, M., Lemelin, P. & Schmitt, D. Support polygons and symmetrical gaits in mammals. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 136, 401–420. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00038.x (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hildebrand, M. Analysis of the symmetrical gaits of tetrapods. Folia Biotheoretica 6, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/1379571 (1966).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shapiro, L. J. & Young, J. W. Kinematics of quadrupedal locomotion in sugar gliders (Petaurus breviceps): Effects of age and substrate size. J. Exp. Biol. 215, 480–496. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.062588 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shapiro, L. J., Young, J. W. & VandeBerg, J. L. Body size and the small branch niche: Using marsupial ontogeny to model primate locomotor evolution. J. Hum. Evol. 68, 14–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.12.006 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dunham, N. T., McNamara, A., Shapiro, L., Phelps, T. & Young, J. W. Asymmetrical gait kinematics of free-ranging callitrichines in response to changes in substrate diameter, orientation, and displacement. J. Exp. Biol. 223, jeb217562. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.217562 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Robinson, R., Herzog, W. & Nigg, B. Use of force platform variables to quantify the effects of chiropractic manipulation on gait symmetry. J. Manipulative Physiol. Ther. 10, 172–176 (1987).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Vanden Hole, C. et al. How innate is locomotion in precocial animals? A study on the early development of spatiotemporal gait variables and gait symmetry in piglets. J. Exp. Biol. 220, 2706–2716. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.157693 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jacobs, B. Y., Kloefkorn, H. E. & Allen, K. D. Gait analysis methods for rodent models of osteoarthritis. Curr. Pain Headache Rep. 18, 456–475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11916-014-0456-x (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pfau, T., Spence, A., Starke, S., Ferrari, M. & Wilson, A. Modern riding style improves horse racing times. Science 325, 289–289. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1174605 (2009).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2019). http://www.R-project.org/.Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B. & Christensen, R. H. B. LmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. J. Stat. Softw. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Length, R. emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least‐squares means. R package version 0.9. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans (2017).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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x (1995).Article 
MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Merkens, H. W. & Schamhardt, H. C. Evaluation of equine locomotion during different degrees of experimentally induced lameness I: Lameness model and quantification of ground reaction force patterns of the limbs. Equine Vet. J. 20, 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2042-3306.1988.tb04655.x (1988).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fanchon, L. & Grandjean, D. Accuracy of asymmetry indices of ground reaction forces for diagnosis of hind limb lameness in dogs. Am. J. Vet. Res. 68, 1089–1094. https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.68.10.1089 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bragança, F. M. S., Rhodin, M. & van Weeren, P. R. On the brink of daily clinical application of objective gait analysis: What evidence do we have so far from studies using an induced lameness model?. Vet. J. 234, 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2018.01.006 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brown, M. B. & Bolger, D. T. Male-biased partial migration in a giraffe population. Front. Ecol. Evol. 7, 524. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2019.00524 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dagg, A. I. Giraffe: Biology, Behaviour and Conservation (Cambridge University Press, 2014).Book 

Google Scholar 
Castles, M. P. et al. Relationships between male giraffes’ colour, age and sociability. Anim. Behav. 157, 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2019.08.003 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Anae, J. et al. Recent advances in biochar engineering for soil contaminated with complex chemical mixtures: Remediation strategies and future perspectives. Sci. Total Environ. 767, 144351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144351 (2021).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kiran, B. R. & Prasad, M. N. V. Biochar and rice husk ash assisted phytoremediation potentials of Ricinus communis L. for lead-spiked soils. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 183, 109574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2019.109574 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bolan, N. et al. Remediation of heavy metal(loid)s contaminated soils – To mobilize or to immobilize?. J. Hazard. Mater. 266, 141–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2013.12.018 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Burachevskaya, M. et al. The effect of granular activated carbon and biochar on the availability of Cu and Zn to Hordeum sativum distichum in contaminated soil. Plants https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10050841 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cao, P. et al. Mercapto propyltrimethoxysilane- and ferrous sulfate-modified nano-silica for immobilization of lead and cadmium as well as arsenic in heavy metal-contaminated soil. Environ. Pollut. 266, 115152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115152 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ok, Y. S. et al. Ameliorants to immobilize Cd in rice paddy soils contaminated by abandoned metal mines in Korea. Environ. Geochem. Health 33(Suppl 1), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-010-9364-0 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Qin, Y. et al. Dual-wastes derived biochar with tailored surface features for highly efficient p-nitrophenol adsorption. J. Clean. Prod. 353, 131571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131571 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rajput, V. D. et al. Nano-biochar: A novel solution for sustainable agriculture and environmental remediation. Environ. Res. 210, 112891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.112891 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ding, Y. et al. Biochar to improve soil fertility. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 36, 36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-016-0372-z (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Oni, B. A., Oziegbe, O. & Olawole, O. O. Significance of biochar application to the environment and economy. Ann. Agric. Sci. 64, 222–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aoas.2019.12.006 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
He, E. et al. Two years of aging influences the distribution and lability of metal(loid)s in a contaminated soil amended with different biochars. Sci. Total Environ. 673, 245–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.037 (2019).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Netherway, P. et al. Phosphorus-rich biochars can transform lead in an urban contaminated soil. J. Environ. Qual. 48, 1091–1099. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2018.09.0324 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
O’Connor, D. et al. Biochar application for the remediation of heavy metal polluted land: A review of in situ field trials. Sci. Total Environ. 619–620, 815–826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.11.132 (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Xu, X. et al. Effect of physicochemical properties of biochar from different feedstock on remediation of heavy metal contaminated soil in mining area. Surf. Interfaces 32, 102058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfin.2022.102058 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Melo, L. C. A. et al. Sorption and desorption of cadmium and zinc in two tropical soils amended with sugarcane-straw-derived biochar. J. Soils Sediments 16, 226–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-015-1199-y (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Uchimiya, M., Chang, S. & Klasson, K. T. Screening biochars for heavy metal retention in soil: Role of oxygen functional groups. J. Hazard. Mater. 190, 432–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2011.03.063 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jatav, H. S. et al. Sustainable approach and safe use of biochar and its possible consequences. Sustainability https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810362 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Varalta, F. & Sorvari, J. In Organic Waste Composting through Nexus Thinking: Practices, Policies, and Trends (eds Hettiarachchi, H. et al.) 213–232 (Springer International Publishing, 2020).Chapter 

Google Scholar 
Pinotti, L. et al. Recycling food leftovers in feed as opportunity to increase the sustainability of livestock production. J. Clean. Prod. 294, 126290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126290 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jafri, N., Wong, W. Y., Doshi, V., Yoon, L. W. & Cheah, K. H. A review on production and characterization of biochars for application in direct carbon fuel cells. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 118, 152–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2018.06.036 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jin, Y. et al. Characterization of biochars derived from various spent mushroom substrates and evaluation of their adsorption performance of Cu(II) ions from aqueous solution. Environ. Res. 196, 110323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.110323 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Tomczyk, A., Sokołowska, Z. & Boguta, P. Biomass type effect on biochar surface characteristic and adsorption capacity relative to silver and copper. Fuel 278, 118168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.118168 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
FAO. Food Outlook – Biannual Report on Global Food Markets: November 2020. Rome. Phytoremediation of copper-contaminated soil by Artemisia absinthium: comparative effect of chelating agents. Environmental Geochemistry and Health. (2020). https://doi.org/10.4060/cb1993enRussian-Statistical-Year-Book. Statistical handbook. P76 M., 2020 – 700 p. ISBN 978-5-89476-497-9 (2020).Cheng, C.-H., Lehmann, J., Thies, J. E. & Burton, S. D. Stability of black carbon in soils across a climatic gradient. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 113, 55. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JG000642 (2008).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Singh, B. P., Cowie, A. L. & Smernik, R. J. Biochar carbon stability in a clayey soil as a function of feedstock and pyrolysis temperature. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 11770–11778. https://doi.org/10.1021/es302545b (2012).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
He, Y. et al. Effects of biochar application on soil greenhouse gas fluxes: A meta-analysis. GCB Bioenergy 9, 743–755. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12376 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Janu, R. et al. Biochar surface functional groups as affected by biomass feedstock, biochar composition and pyrolysis temperature. Carbon Resour. Convers. 4, 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crcon.2021.01.003 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Tan, X. et al. Application of biochar for the removal of pollutants from aqueous solutions. Chemosphere 125, 70–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.12.058 (2015).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ni, B.-J. et al. Competitive adsorption of heavy metals in aqueous solution onto biochar derived from anaerobically digested sludge. Chemosphere 219, 351–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.12.053 (2019).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Park, J.-H. et al. Competitive adsorption of heavy metals onto sesame straw biochar in aqueous solutions. Chemosphere 142, 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.05.093 (2016).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Methodological-Guidelines. Methodological guidelines for the determination of heavy metals in the soils of agricultural land and crop production – M., TSINAO, 61 (1992)Zhang, A., Li, X., Xing, J. & Xu, G. Adsorption of potentially toxic elements in water by modified biochar: A review. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 8, 104196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2020.104196 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Avramiotis, E., Frontistis, Z., Manariotis, I. D., Vakros, J. & Mantzavinos, D. On the performance of a sustainable rice husk biochar for the activation of persulfate and the degradation of antibiotics. Catalysts 11, 1303 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Maiti, S., Dey, S., Purakayastha, S. & Ghosh, B. Physical and thermochemical characterization of rice husk char as a potential biomass energy source. Biores. Technol. 97, 2065–2070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2005.10.005 (2006).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Herrera, K., Morales, L. F., Tarazona, N. A., Aguado, R. & Saldarriaga, J. F. Use of biochar from rice husk pyrolysis: Part A: Recovery as an adsorbent in the removal of emerging compounds. ACS Omega 7, 7625–7637. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.1c06147 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Szewczuk-Karpisz, K., Tomczyk, A., Grygorczuk-Płaneta, K. & Naveed, S. Rhizobium leguminosarum bv. trifolii exopolysaccharide and sunflower husk biochar as factors affecting immobilization of both tetracycline and Cd2+ ions on soil solid phase. J. Soils Sediments 22, 2620–2639. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-022-03255-3 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hubetska, T. S., Kobylinska, N. G. & García, J. R. Sunflower biomass power plant by-products: Properties and its potential for water purification of organic pollutants. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 157, 105237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2021.105237 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Braghiroli, F. L. et al. The influence of pilot-scale pyro-gasification and activation conditions on porosity development in activated biochars. Biomass Bioenerg. 118, 105–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2018.08.016 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Braghiroli, F. L. et al. The conversion of wood residues, using pilot-scale technologies, into porous activated biochars for supercapacitors. J. Porous Mater. 27, 537–548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10934-019-00823-w (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Boraah, N., Chakma, S. & Kaushal, P. Attributes of wood biochar as an efficient adsorbent for remediating heavy metals and emerging contaminants from water: A critical review and bibliometric analysis. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 10, 107825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2022.107825 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Phillips, C. L. et al. Towards predicting biochar impacts on plant-available soil nitrogen content. Biochar 4, 9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42773-022-00137-2 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sun, L. & Gong, K. Silicon-based materials from rice husks and their applications. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 40, 5861–5877. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie010284b (2001).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Islam, T. et al. Synthesis of rice husk-derived magnetic biochar through liquefaction to adsorb anionic and cationic dyes from aqueous solutions. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 46, 233–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-020-04537-z (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mohan, D. et al. Biochar production and applications in soil fertility and carbon sequestration – a sustainable solution to crop-residue burning in India. RSC Adv. 8, 508–520. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7RA10353K (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Li, F. et al. Preparation and characterization of biochars from Eichornia crassipes for cadmium removal in aqueous solutions. PLoS ONE 11, e0148132. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148132 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Song, H. et al. Potential of novel biochars produced from invasive aquatic species outside food chain in removing ammonium nitrogen: Comparison with conventional biochars and clinoptilolite. Sustainability https://doi.org/10.3390/su11247136 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yang, G. et al. Effects of pyrolysis temperature on the physicochemical properties of biochar derived from vermicompost and its potential use as an environmental amendment. RSC Adv. 5, 40117–40125. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RA02836A (2015).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Enders, A., Hanley, K., Whitman, T., Joseph, S. & Lehmann, J. Characterization of biochars to evaluate recalcitrance and agronomic performance. Bioresour. Technol. 114, 644–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.03.022 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, Y., Wang, J. & Feng, Y. The effects of biochar addition on soil physicochemical properties: A review. CATENA 202, 105284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2021.105284 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Özçimen, D. & Ersoy-Meriçboyu, A. Characterization of biochar and bio-oil samples obtained from carbonization of various biomass materials. Renew. Energy 35, 1319–1324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2009.11.042 (2010).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lin, Q. et al. Effects of biochar-based materials on the bioavailability of soil organic pollutants and their biological impacts. Sci. Total Environ. 826, 153956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153956 (2022).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yang, H. et al. Thermogravimetric analysis−fourier transform infrared analysis of palm oil waste pyrolysis. Energy Fuels 18, 1814–1821. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef030193m (2004).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pasangulapati, V. et al. Effects of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin on thermochemical conversion characteristics of the selected biomass. Biores. Technol. 114, 663–669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.03.036 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kim, P. et al. Surface functionality and carbon structures in lignocellulosic-derived biochars produced by fast pyrolysis. Energy Fuels 25, 4693–4703. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef200915s (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Keiluweit, M., Nico, P. S., Johnson, M. G. & Kleber, M. dynamic molecular structure of plant biomass-derived black carbon (biochar). Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 1247–1253. https://doi.org/10.1021/es9031419 (2010).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wijeyawardana, P. et al. Removal of Cu, Pb and Zn from stormwater using an industrially manufactured sawdust and paddy husk derived biochar. Environ. Technol. Innov. 28, 102640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2022.102640 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kołodyńska, D., Krukowska, J. & Thomas, P. Comparison of sorption and desorption studies of heavy metal ions from biochar and commercial active carbon. Chem. Eng. J. 307, 353–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2016.08.088 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Uchimiya, M. et al. Immobilization of heavy metal ions (CuII, CdII, NiII, and PbII) by broiler litter-derived biochars in water and soil. J. Agric. Food Chem. 58, 5538–5544. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf9044217 (2010).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Misono, M., Ochiai, E. I., Saito, Y. & Yoneda, Y. A new dual parameter scale for the strength of lewis acids and bases with the evaluation of their softness. J. Inorg. Nucl. Chem. 29, 2685–2691. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1902(67)80006-X (1967).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
McBride, M. B. Environmental Chemistry of Soils (Oxford University Press, 1994).
Google Scholar 
Basta, N. T. & Tabatabai, M. A. Effect of cropping systems on adsorption of metals by soils: III. Competitive adsorption1. Soil Sci. 153, 331–337 (1992).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sposito, G. The Chemistry of Soils (Oxford University Press, 2016).Bauer, T. V. et al. Application of XAFS and XRD methods for describing the copper and zinc adsorption characteristics in hydromorphic soils. Environ. Geochem. Health 44, 335–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-020-00773-2 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Abd-Elfattah, A. L. Y. & Wada, K. Adsorption of lead, copper, zinc, cobalt, and cadmium by soils that differ in cation-exchange materials. J. Soil Sci. 32, 271–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.1981.tb01706.x (1981).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Etesami, H., Fatemi, H. & Rizwan, M. Interactions of nanoparticles and salinity stress at physiological, biochemical and molecular levels in plants: A review. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 225, 112769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2021.112769 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Soria, R. I., Rolfe, S. A., Betancourth, M. P. & Thornton, S. F. The relationship between properties of plant-based biochars and sorption of Cd(II), Pb(II) and Zn(II) in soil model systems. Heliyon 6, e05388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05388 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Alfarra, A., Frackowiak, E. & Béguin, F. The HSAB concept as a means to interpret the adsorption of metal ions onto activated carbons. Appl. Surf. Sci. 228, 84–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2003.12.033 (2004).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hu, J., Zhou, X., Shi, Y., Wang, X. & Li, H. Enhancing biochar sorption properties through self-templating strategy and ultrasonic fore-modified pre-treatment: Characteristic, kinetic and mechanism studies. Sci. Total Environ. 769, 144574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144574 (2021).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ward, J., Rasul, M. G. & Bhuiya, M. M. K. Energy recovery from biomass by fast pyrolysis. Proced. Eng. 90, 669–674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2014.11.791 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Al-Wabel, M. I., Al-Omran, A., El-Naggar, A. H., Nadeem, M. & Usman, A. R. A. Pyrolysis temperature induced changes in characteristics and chemical composition of biochar produced from conocarpus wastes. Biores. Technol. 131, 374–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.12.165 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Calvelo Pereira, R. et al. Contribution to characterisation of biochar to estimate the labile fraction of carbon. Org. Geochem. 42, 1331–1342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orggeochem.2011.09.002 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Vorob’eva, L. A. Theory and Practice Chemical Analysis of Soils (GEOS Press, Moscow, 2006).
Google Scholar 
Pinskii, D. L. et al. Copper adsorption by chernozem soils and parent rocks in Southern Russia. Geochem. Int. 56, 266–275. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0016702918030072 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wang, Q., Wang, B., Lee, X., Lehmann, J. & Gao, B. Sorption and desorption of Pb(II) to biochar as affected by oxidation and pH. Sci. Total Environ. 634, 188–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.03.189 (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pourret, O. & Houben, D. Characterization of metal binding sites onto biochar using rare earth elements as a fingerprint. Heliyon 4, e00543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.e00543 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Huang, L. et al. High-resolution insight into the competitive adsorption of heavy metals on natural sediment by site energy distribution. Chemosphere 197, 411–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.01.056 (2018).Article 
ADS 
MathSciNet 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ming, H. et al. Competitive sorption of cadmium and zinc in contrasting soils. Geoderma 268, 60–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.01.021 (2016).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Musso, T. B., Parolo, M. E., Pettinari, G. & Francisca, F. M. Cu(II) and Zn(II) adsorption capacity of three different clay liner materials. J. Environ. Manag. 146, 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.07.026 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cui, H. et al. Immobilization of Cu and Cd in a contaminated soil: One- and four-year field effects. J. Soils Sediments 14, 1397–1406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-014-0882-8 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Elbana, T. A. et al. Freundlich sorption parameters for cadmium, copper, nickel, lead, and zinc for different soils: Influence of kinetics. Geoderma 324, 80–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.03.019 (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar  More

Ren, W. et al. Changes of periphyton abundance and biomass driven by factors specific to flooding inflow in a river inlet area in Erhai Lake, China. Front. Environ. Sci. 9, 680718. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.680718 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Woodruff, S. L. et al. The effects of a developing biofilm on chemical changes across the sediment-water interface in a freshwater environment. Int. Rev. Hydrobiol. 84(5), 509–532 (1999).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Muñoz, I., Real, M., Guasch, H., Navarro, E. & Sabater, S. Effects of atrazine on periphyton under grazing pressure. Aquat. Toxicol. 55(3–4), 239–249 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Hoagland, K. D., Roemer, S. C. & Rosowski, J. R. Colonization and community structure of two periphyton assemblages, with emphasis on the diatoms (Bacillariophyceae). Am. J. Bot. 69, 188–213. https://doi.org/10.2307/2443006 (1982).Article 

Google Scholar 
Steinman, A. D. & McIntire, C. D. Effects of current velocity and light energy on the structure of periphyton assemblages in laboratory streams. J. Phycol. 22, 352–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1529-8817.1986.TB00035.X (1986).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tonkin, J. D., Death, R. G. & Barquín, J. Periphyton control on stream invertebrate diversity: Is periphyton architecture more important than biomass?. Mar. Freshw. Res. 65(9), 818–829 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Beck, W. S., Markman, D. W., Oleksy, I. A., Lafferty, M. H. & Poff, N. L. Seasonal shifts in the importance of bottom-up and top-down factors on stream periphyton community structure. Oikos 128, 680–691. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.05844 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hogsden, K. L. & Harding, J. S. Consequences of acid mine drainage for the structure and function of benthic stream communities: A review. Freshw. Sci. 31, 108–120. https://doi.org/10.1899/11-091.1 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sofi, M. S., Bhat, S. U., Rashid, I. & Kuniyal, J. C. The natural flow regime: A master variable for maintaining river ecosystem health. Ecohydrology 13(8), e2247. https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.2247 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Biggs, B. J. F. Eutrophication of streams and rivers: Dissolved nutrient-chlorophyllrelationship for benthic algae. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 19, 17–31 (2000).
Google Scholar 
Ormerod, S. J., Dobson, M., Hildrew, A. G. & Townsend, C. Multiple stressors in freshwater ecosystems. Freshw. Biol. 55, 1–4 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Poff, et al. The natural flow regime: A paradigm for river conservation and restoration. Bioscience 47, 769–784 (1997).
Google Scholar 
Naiman, R. J., Décamps, H., & McClain, M. E. Riparia: Ecology, Conservation and Management of Streamside Communities, (Elsevier/Academic Press, 2005).Gleick, P. H. Water use. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 28, 275–314 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Jenkins, K. M. & Boulton, A. J. Connectivity in a dryland river: Short-term aquatic macroinvertebrate recruitment following floodplain inundation. Ecology 84(10), 2708–2723 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Biggs, B. J. F. Patterns in benthic algae of streams. In Algal Ecology in Freshwater Benthic Ecosystems (eds. Stevenson, R. J., Bothwell, M. L., & Lowe, R. L.) 31–56 (Academic Press, 1996).Smolar-Žvanut, N. & Mikoš, M. The impact of flow regulation by hydropower dams on the periphyton community in the Soča River, Slovenia. Hydrol. Sci. J. 59(5), 1032–1045. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2013.834339 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Curry, C. J. & Baird, D. J. Habitat type and dispersal ability influence spatial structuring of larval Odonata and Trichoptera assemblages. Freshw. Biol. 60, 2142–2152 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Wu, N., Cai, Q. & Fohrer, N. Contribution of microspatial factors to benthic diatom communities. Hydrobiologia 732, 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-014-1843-3 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mueller, M., Pander, J. & Geist, J. The effects of weirs on structural stream habitat and biological communities. J. Appl. Ecol 48(6), 1450–1461. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.02035.x (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Davies, P. M. et al. Flow–ecology relationships: closing the loop on effective environmental flows. Mar. Freshw. Res. 65(2), 133–141 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Jun, Y. C. et al. Spatial distribution of benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages in relation to environmental variables in Korean nationwide streams. Water 8(1), 27. https://doi.org/10.3390/w8010027 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Biggs, B. J. F. & Close, M. E. Periphyton biomass dynamics in gravel bed rivers: The relative effects of flows and nutrients. Freshw. Biol. 22, 209–231 (1989).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jowett, I. & Biggs, B. J. F. Flood and velocity effects on periphyton and silt accumulation in two New Zealand rivers. N. Zeal. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 31, 287–300 (1997).
Google Scholar 
Biggs, B. J. F., Goring, D. G. & Nikora, V. I. Subsidy and stress responses of stream periphyton to gradients in water velocity as a function of community growth form. J. Phycol. 34, 598–607 (1998).
Google Scholar 
Malmqvist, B. & Englund, G. Effects of hydropower-induced flow perturbations on mayfly (Ephemeroptera) richness and abundance in north Swedish river rapids. Hydrobiologia 341(2), 145–158 (1996).
Google Scholar 
Poff, N. L. & Ward, J. V. Herbivory under different flow regimes: A field experiment and test of a model with a benthic stream insect. Oikos 72, 179–188 (1995).
Google Scholar 
Poff, L. N., Wellnitz, T. & Monroe, J. B. Redundancy among three herbivorous insects across an experimental current velocity gradient. Oecologia 134, 262–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-002-1086-2 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vaughn, C. C. The role of periphyton abundance and quality in the microdistribution of a stream grazer, Helicopsyche borealis (Trichoptera: Helicopsychidae). Freshw. Biol. 16, 485–493 (1986).
Google Scholar 
Francoeur, S. N. Meta-analysis of lotic nutrient amendment experiments: Detecting and quantifying subtle responses. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 20, 358–368 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Elser, J. J. et al. Global analysis of nitrogen and phosphorus limitation of primary producers in freshwater, marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Ecol. Lett. 10, 1135–1142 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Hillebrand, H. Meta-analysis of grazer control of periphyton biomass across aquatic ecosystems. J. Phycol. 45, 798–806 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Lamberti, G. A. The role of periphyton in benthic food webs. In Algal Ecology—Freshwater Benthic Ecosystems, 533–572 (eds. Stevenson, R. J., Bothwell, M. L. & Lowe, R. L.) (Academic Press, 1996).Lamberti, G. A. et al. Influence of grazer type and abundance on plant–herbivore interactions in streams. Hydrobiologia 306, 179–188 (1995).
Google Scholar 
Gregory, S. V. Plant–herbivore interactions in stream systems. In Stream Ecology (eds. Barnes, J. R. & Minshall, G. W.) 157–189 (Plenum, 1983).Lamberti, G. A. & Moore, J. W. Aquatic insects as primary consumers. In The Ecology of Aquatic Insects (eds Resh, V. H. & Rosenberg, D. M.) 164–195 (Praeger, 1984).
Google Scholar 
Sterner, R. W., Elser, J. J. & Hessen, D. O. Stoichiometric relationships among producers, consumers and nutrient cycling in pelagic ecosystems. Biogeochemistry 17, 49–67 (1992).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kahlert, M. & Baunsgaard, M. T. Nutrient recycling—A strategy of a grazer community to overcome nutrient limitation. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 18, 363–369 (1999).
Google Scholar 
Burkholder, J. M., Wetzel, R. G. & Klomparens, K. L. Direct comparison of phosphate uptake by adnate and loosely attached microalgae within and intact biofilm matrix. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 56, 2882–2890 (1990).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Steinman, A. D. Effects of grazers on freshwater benthic algae. In Algal Ecology: Freshwater Benthic Ecosystems (eds. Stevenson, R. J., Bothwell & Lowe, R. L.) 341–366 (Academic Press, 1996).Smucker, N. J. & Vis, M. L. Spatial factors contribute to benthic diatom structure in streams across spatial scales: Considerations for biomonitoring. Ecol. Indic. 11, 1191–1203 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Myers, et al. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403, 853–858 (2000).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wang, J., Pan, F., Soininen, J., Heino, J. & Shen, J. Nutrient enrichment modifies temperature-biodiversity relationship in large scale field experiments. Nat. Commun. 7, 13 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Wu, et al. Flow regimes filter species traits of benthic diatom communities and modify the functional features of lowland streams-a nationwide scale study. Sci. Total Environ. 651, 357–366 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nisar, M. A. Geospatial approach to study environmental characterization of a Kashmir wetland (Anchar) catchment with special reference to land use/land cover and changing climate. Ph.D Thesis, Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology, Kashmir. Weblink. http://krishikosh.egranth.ac.in/handle/1/91309 (2012).Bhat, S. U., Sofi, A. H., Yaseen, T., Pandit, A. K. & Yousuf, A. R. Macro invertebrate community from Sonamarg streams of Kashmir Himalaya. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 14(3), 182–194. https://doi.org/10.3923/pjbs.2011.182.194 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Baba, A. I., Sofi, A. H., Bhat, S. U., & Pandit, A. K. Periphytic algae of river Sindh in the Sonamarg area of Kashmir valley. J. Phytol. 3(6) (2011).Sofi, M. S., Rautela, K. S., Bhat, S. U., Rashid, I. & Kuniyal, J. C. Application of geomorphometric approach for the estimation of hydro-sedimentological flows and cation weathering rate: Towards understanding the sustainable land use policy for the Sindh Basin, Kashmir Himalaya. Water Air Soil Pollut. 232(7), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-021-05217-w (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Romshoo, S. A., & Fayaz, M. Use of high resolution remote sensing for improving environmental Friendly tourism master planning in the Alpine Himalaya: A case study of Sonamarg tourist resort, Kashmir. J. Himalayan Ecol. Sustain. Dev. 14 (2019).Biggs, B. J. F. & Kilroy, C. Stream periphyton monitoring manual. Published by NIWA for Ministry for the Environment, 226 Christchurch, New Zealand: NIWA (2000).APHA. Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater, 22nd edn. (American Public Health Association, 2012).Cox, E. J. Identification of Freshwater Diatoms from Live Material. (Chapman and Hall, 1996). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315400041023.Krammer, K., & Lange-Bertalot, H. Bacillariophyceae, Part 5. English and French Translation of the Keys. (VEB Gustav Fisher Verlag, 2000).Reichardt, E. A remarkable association of diatoms in a spring habitat in the Grazer Bergland, Austria. In Iconographia Diatomologica (ed. Lange-Bertalot, H.) 419–479 (2004).Żelazna-Wieczorek, J. Diatom flora in springs of Lódz Hills (Central Poland). Biodiversity, taxonomy and temporal changes of epipsammic diatom assemblages in springs affected by human impact, 419. Volume 13 of Diatom monographs. Gantner. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=bdxeewAACAAJ (2011).Stark, J. D., Boothroyd, I. K. G., Harding, J. S., Maxted, J. R. & Scarsbrook, M. R. Protocols for sampling macroinvertebrates in wadeable streams. In New Zealand Macroinvertebrate Working Group Report no. 1. Prepared for the Ministry for the Environment. Sustainable Management Fund Project, 5103 (2001).Winterbourn, M. J. Sampling stream invertebrates. In Biological Monitoring of Freshwaters. Proceedings of the Seminar. Water and Soil Miscellaneous Publication No. 83 (eds. Pridmore, R. D., Cooper, A. B.) 241–258. (National Water and Soil Conservation Authority, 1985).Barbour, M. T., Gerritsen, J., Snyder, B. D., Stribling, J. B. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish, 339. (United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 1999).Malmqvist, B. & Hoffsten, P. O. Macroinvertebrate taxonomic richness, community structure and nestedness in Swedish streams. Fundam. Appl. Limnol. 150(1), 29–54. https://doi.org/10.1127/archiv-hydrobiol/150/2000/29 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ilmonen, J. & Paasivirta, L. Benthic macrocrustacean and insect assemblages in relation to spring habitat characteristics: Patterns in abundance and diversity. Hydrobiologia 533(1–3), 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-004-2399-4 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Munasinghe, D. S. N., Najim, M. M. M., Quadroni, S. & Musthafa, M. M. Impacts of streamflow alteration on benthic macroinvertebrates by mini-hydro diversion in Sri Lanka. Sci. Rep. 11(1), 546. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-79576-5 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Edmondson, W. T. Fresh-Water Biology, 2nd ed. 1050–1056 (Wiley, 1959).Pennak, R. W. Freshwater Invertebrates of United States. (Wiley, 1978).McCafferty, W. P., Provonsha, A. V. Aquatic entomology: The fishermen’s and ecologists’ Illustrated Guide to Insects and their Relatives. (Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 1983).Borror, D., Triplehorn, C., Johnson, N. An Introduction to the Study of Insects, 6th ed. (Saunders College Publishing, 1989).Ward, J. V. Aquatic Insect Ecology, Biology and Habitat. (Wiley, 1992).Engblom, E. & Lingdell, P.E. Analyses of Benthic Invertebrates (ed. Nyman, L.) (1999).Bouchard, R. W. Guide to Aquatic Invertebrates of the Upper Midwest: Identification Manual for Students (University of Minnesota, 2004).
Google Scholar 
Subramanian, K. A. & Sivaramakrishnan, K. G. Aquatic Insects for Biomonitoring Freshwater Ecosystems—A Methodology Manual. (Ashoka Trust for Ecology and Environment (ATREE), 2007).Thorp, J. H., & Covich, A. P. (eds.) Ecology and Classification of North American Freshwater Invertebrates. (Academic Press, 2009).Allan, J. D. & Castillo, M.M. An introduction to fluvial ecosystems. In Stream Ecology: Structure and Function of Running Waters, 1–12 (2007).Oksanen, et al. Vegan: Community ecology package. In: R package version 2.4-3.McCune, B. & Grace, B. Analysis of Ecological Communities (MjM Software Design, 2016).Clarke, K. R. & Gorley, R. N. Primer v6 Permanova+ (Primer-E Ltd., 2006).
Google Scholar 
Salazar, G. EcolUtils: Utilities for Community Ecology Analysis. R package version 0.1 software (2018).Anderson, M. J., Ellingsen, K. E. & McArdle, B. H. Multivariate dispersion as a measure of beta diversity. Ecol. Lett. 9(6), 683–693 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Gardener, M. Community Ecology: Analytical Methods in Using R and Excel. (Pelagic Publishing, 2014).Chao, A. & Bunge, J. Estimating the number of species in a stochastic abundance model. Biometrics 58, 531–539. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341X.2002.00531.x (2002).Article 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Peres-Neto, P. R., Legendre, P., Dray, S. & Borcard, D. Variation partitioning of species data matrices: estimation and comparison of fractions. Ecology 87, 2614–2625 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Meng, X. L. et al. Responses of macroinvertebrates and local environment to short-term commercial sand dredging practices in a flood-plain lake. Sci. Total Environ. 631, 1350–1359 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Core Team, R. R: A Language and Environmental for Statistical Computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2017).Wood, P. J. & Armitage, P. D. Biological effects of fine sediment in the lotic environment. Environ. Manag. 21, 203–217 (1997).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Marchant, R. Changes in the benthic invertebrate communities of the Thomson River, southeastern Australia, after dam construction. Regul. Rivers Res. Manag. 4, 71–89 (1989).
Google Scholar 
Gray, L. J. & Ward, J. V. Effects of sediment releases from a reservoir on stream macroinvertebrates. Hydrobiologia 96, 177–184 (1982).
Google Scholar 
Sand-Jensen, K., Moller, J. & Olesen, B. H. Biomass regulation of microbenthic algae in Danish lowland streams. Oikos 53, 332–340 (1988).
Google Scholar 
Lewis, M. A., Weber, D. E., Stanley, R. S. & Moore, J. C. Dredging impact on an urbanized Florida bayou: Effects on benthos and algal-periphyton. Environ. Pollut. 115(2), 161–171 (2001).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Biggs, B. J. Algal ecology in freshwater benthic ecosystems geology and landuse to the habitat template of periphyton in stream ecosystems. Freshw. Biol. 33, 419–438 (1995).
Google Scholar 
Taylor, et al. Can diatom-based pollution indices be used for biomonitoring in South Africa? A case study of the Crocodile West and Marico water management area. Hydrobiologia 592, 455–464 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Porter, et al. Efficacy of algal metrics for assessing nutrient and organic enrichment in flowing waters. Freshw. Biol. 53, 1036–1054 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Wetzel, R. G. & Likens, G. E. Limnological analyses, 3rd ed. In Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Other Nutrients, 85–113. (Springer, 2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-3250-4.Wetzel, R. G. Attached algal-substrata interactions: Fact or myth, and when and how? vol. 17. In Periphyton of Freshwater Ecosystems (ed. Wetzel, R.) 207–215 (Springer, 1983). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-7293-3_28.Krajenbrink, H. J. et al. Diatoms as indicators of the effects of river impoundment at multiple spatial scales. PeerJ 7, e8092. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8092 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Poff, N. L., Voelz, N. J., Ward, J. V. & Lee, R. E. Algal colonization under four experimentally-controlled current regimes in a high mountain stream. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 9, 303–318 (1990).
Google Scholar 
Dodds, W. K. & Marra, J. L. Behaviors of the midge, Cricotopus (Diptera; Chironomidae) related to mutualism with Nostoc parmeloides (Cyanobacteria). Aquat. Insects 11, 201–208 (1989).
Google Scholar 
Tang, T., Niu, S. Q. & Dudgeon, D. Responses of epibenthic algal assemblages to water abstraction in Hong Kong streams. Hydrobiologia 703(1), 225–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-012-1362-z (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Maheshwari, K., Vashistha, J., Paulose, P. V. & Agarwal, T. Seasonal changes in phytoplankton community of lake Ramgarh, India. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 4(11), 318–330 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Luttenton, M. R., & Baisden, C. The relationships among disturbance, substratum size and periphyton community structure. In Advances in Algal Biology: A Commemoration of the Work of Rex Lowe 111–117. (Springer, 2006).Uehlinger, U. Spatial and temporal variability of periphyton biomass in a prealpine river (Necker, Switzerland). Arch. Fur. Hydrobiol. 123, 219–237 (1991).
Google Scholar 
Hill, W. R. Effects of light. In Algal Ecology in Freshwater Benthic Ecosystems. 121–148 (eds. Stevenson, R. J., Bothwell, M. L., Lowe, R. L.) (Academic Press, 1996).DeNichola, D. M. Periphyton responses to temperature at different ecological levels. In Algal Ecology in Freshwater Benthic Ecosystems. (eds. Stevenson, R. J., Bothwell, M. L., Lowe, R. L.) 149–181 (Academic Press, 1996).O’Reilly, C. M. Seasonal dynamics of periphyton in a large tropical lake. Hydrobiologia 553, 293–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-005-0878-x (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Borduqui, M. & Ferragut, C. Factors determining periphytic algae succession in a tropical hypereutrophic reservoir. Hydrobiologia 683, 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-011-0943-6 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
De Souza, M. L., Pellegrini, B. G. & Ferragut, C. Periphytic algal community structure in relation to seasonal variation and macrophyte richness in a shallow tropical reservoir. Hydrobiologia 755, 183–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-015-2232-2 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Prowse, T. D. River-ice hydrology. In Encyclopedia of Hydrological Sciences, vol. 4 (ed. Anderson, M. G.). (Wiley, 2005).Rusanov, A. G., Stanislavskaya, E. V. & Ács, É. Periphytic algal assemblages along environmental gradients in the rivers of the Lake Ladoga basin, Northwestern Russia: Implication for the water quality assessment. Hydrobiologia 695(1), 305–327 (2012).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sofi, M. S., Hamid, A., Bhat, S. U., Rashid, I. & Kuniyal, J. C. Impact evaluation of the run-of-river hydropower projects on the water quality dynamics of the Sindh River in the Northwestern Himalayas. Environ. Monit. Assess. 194(9), 1–6 (2022).
Google Scholar 
MCCormick, P. V. Resource competition and species coexistence in freshwater algal assemblages. In Algal ecology—Freshwater Benthic Ecosystems (eds. Stevenson, R. J., Bothwell, M. L., Lowe, R. L.) 229–252 (Academic, 1996).Hillebrand, H., Worm, B. & Lotze, H. K. Marine microbenthic community structure regulated by nitrogen loading and grazing pressure. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 204, 27–38 (2000).CAS 

Google Scholar  More

Now consider a generalized model in which the species interactions are heterogeneous. A natural way of introducing heterogeneity in the system is by having a species diversify into subpopulations with different interaction strengths12,13,14,15. This way of modeling heterogeneity is useful as it can describe different kinds of heterogeneity. For example, the subpopulations could represent polymorphic traits that are genetically determined or result from plastic response to heterogeneous environments. A population could also be divided into local subpopulations in different spatial patches, which can migrate between patches and may face different local predators. We can also model different behavioral modes as subpopulations that, for instance, spend more time foraging for food or hiding from predators. We study several kinds of heterogeneity after we introduce a common mathematical framework. By studying these different scenarios using variants of the model, we show that our main results are not sensitive to the details of the model.We focus on the simple case where only the prey species splits into two types, (C_1) and (C_2), as illustrated in Fig. 1b. The situation is interesting when predator A consumes (C_1) more readily than predator B and B consumes (C_2) more readily than A (i.e., (a_1 / a_0 > b_1 / b_0) and (b_2 / b_0 > a_2 / a_0), which is equivalent to the condition that the nullclines of A and B cross, see section “Resources competition and nullcline analysis”). The arrows between (C_1) and (C_2) in Fig. 1b represent the exchange of individuals between the two subpopulations, which can happen by various mechanisms considered below. Such exchange as well as intraspecific competition between (C_1) and (C_2) result from the fact that the two prey types remain a single species.The system is now described by an enlarged Lotka-Volterra system with four variables, A, B, (C_1), and (C_2): $$begin{aligned} dot{A}&= varepsilon _A ,alpha _{A1} , A , C_1 + alpha _{A2} , A , C_2 – beta _A , A end{aligned}$$
(3a)
$$begin{aligned} dot{B}&= varepsilon _B , alpha _{B1} , B , C_1 + alpha _{B2} , B , C_2 – beta _B , B end{aligned}$$
(3b)
$$begin{aligned} dot{C_1}&= C_1 , (beta _C – alpha _{CC} , C)-alpha _{A1} , C_1 A-alpha _{B1} , C_1 B – sigma _1 , C_1 + sigma _2 , C_2 end{aligned}$$
(3c)
$$begin{aligned} dot{C_2}&= C_2 , (beta _C – alpha _{CC} , C) -alpha _{A2} , C_2 A -alpha _{B2} , C_2 B + sigma _1 , C_1 – sigma _2 , C_2 end{aligned}$$
(3d)
The parameters in these equations and their meanings are listed in Table 1. Here we assume that the prey types (C_1) and (C_2) have the same birth rate and intraspecific competition strength, but different interaction strengths with A and B. Note that (C_1) and (C_2) are connected by the (sigma _i) terms, which represent the exchange of individuals between these subpopulations through mechanisms studied below; these terms indicate a major difference between our model of a prey with intraspecific heterogeneity and other models of two prey species. For the convenience of analysis, we transform the variables (C_1) and (C_2) to another pair of variables C and (lambda), where (C equiv C_1 + C_2) is the total population of C as before, and (lambda equiv C_2 / (C_1 + C_2)) represents the composition of the population (Fig. 1c). After this transformation and rescaling of variables (described in “Methods”), the new dynamical system can be written as: $$begin{aligned} dot{A}&= A , big ( C , (a_1 (1-lambda ) + a_2 lambda ) – a_0 big ) end{aligned}$$
(4a)
$$begin{aligned} dot{B}&= B , big ( C , (b_1 (1-lambda ) + b_2 lambda ) – b_0 big ) end{aligned}$$
(4b)
$$begin{aligned} dot{C}&= C , big ( 1 – C – A (a_1 (1-lambda ) + a_2 lambda ) – B (b_1 (1-lambda ) + b_2 lambda ) big ) end{aligned}$$
(4c)
$$begin{aligned} dot{lambda }&= lambda (1-lambda ) , big ( A (a_1 – a_2) + B (b_1 – b_2) big ) + eta _1 (1-lambda ) – eta _2 lambda end{aligned}$$
(4d)
Here, (a_i) and (b_i) are the (rescaled) feeding rates of the predators on the prey type (C_i); (a_0) and (b_0) are the death rates of the predators as before; (eta _1) and (eta _2) are the exchange rates of the prey types (Table 1). The latter can be functions of other variables, representing different kinds of heterogeneous interactions that we study below. Notice that Eqs. (4a–4c) are equivalent to the homogeneous Eqs. (2a–2c) but with effective interaction strengths (a_text {eff} = (1-lambda ) , a_1 + lambda , a_2) and (b_text {eff} = (1-lambda ) , b_1 + lambda , b_2) that both depend on the prey composition (lambda) (Fig. 1c).Table 1 Model parameters (before/after rescaling) and their meanings.Full size tableThe variable (lambda) can be considered an internal degree of freedom within the C population. In all of the models we study below, (lambda) dynamically stabilizes to a special value (lambda ^*) (a bifurcation point), as shown in Fig. 3a. Accordingly, a new equilibrium point (P_N) appears (on the line (mathscr {L}) in Fig. 2), at which all three species coexist. For comparison, Fig. 3b shows the equilibrium points if (lambda) is held fixed at any other values, which all result in the exclusion of one of the predators. Thus, heterogeneous interactions give rise to a new coexistence phase (see Fig. 4 below) by bringing the prey composition (lambda) to the value (lambda ^*), instead of having to fine-tune the interaction strengths. The exact conditions for this new equilibrium to be stable are detailed in “Methods”.Figure 3(a) Time series of (lambda) for systems with each kind of heterogeneity. All three systems stabilize at the same (lambda ^*) value, which is the bifurcation point in panel (b). (b) Equilibrium population of each species (X = A), B, or C, with (lambda) held fixed at different values. Solid curves represent stable equilibria and dashed curves represent unstable equilibria (see Eq. (9) in “Methods”). The vertical dashed line is where (lambda = lambda ^*), which is also the bifurcation point. Notice that the equilibrium population of C is maximized at this point (for (a_1 > a_2) and (b_2 > b_1)). Parameters used here are ((a_0, a_1, a_2, b_0, b_1, b_2, rho , eta _1, eta _2, kappa ) = (0.25, 0.5, 0.2, 0.4, 0.2, 0.6, 0.5, 0.05, 0.05, 50)).Full size imageInherent heterogeneityWe first consider a scenario where individuals of the prey species are born as one of two types with a fixed ratio, such that a fraction (rho) of the newborns are (C_2) and ((1-rho )) are (C_1). This could describe dimorphic traits, such as the winged and wingless morphs in aphids12 or the horned and hornless morphs in beetles13. We call this “inherent” heterogeneity, because individuals are born with a certain type and cannot change in later stages of life. The prey type given at birth determines the individual’s interaction strength with the predators. This kind of heterogeneity can be described by Eq. (4d) with (eta _1 = rho (1-C)) and (eta _2 = (1-rho ) (1-C)) (see “Methods”).Figure 4Phase diagrams showing regions of parameter space identified by the stable equilibrium points. Yellow region represents (P_C) (predators A, B both extinct), red represents (P_A) (A excludes B), blue represents (P_B) (B excludes A), and green represents (P_N) (A, B coexist). The middle point (black dot) is where the preferences of the two predators are identical, (a_2/a_0=b_2/b_0) and (b_1/b_0=a_1/a_0). The coexistence phase appears in all three kinds of heterogeneity modeled here. (a–d) Inherent heterogeneity: Individuals of the prey population are born in two types with a fixed composition (rho). In the extreme cases of (rho = 0) and 1, the prey is homogeneous and there is no coexistence of the predators. (e–h) Reversible heterogeneity: Individual prey can switch types with fixed switching rates (eta _1) and (eta _2). As the switching rates increase, the coexistence region shrinks because the prey population becomes effectively homogeneous (the occasional green spots are numerical artifacts because the time to reach the equilibrium becomes long in this limit). (i–l) Adaptive heterogeneity: The switching rates (eta _i) dynamically adapt to the predator densities, so as to maximize the growth rate of the prey. As the sharpness (kappa) of the sigmoidal decision function is increased, the prey adapts more optimally and the region of coexistence expands. Parameters used here are ((a_0, a_1, b_0, b_2) = (0.3, 0.5, 0.4, 0.6)).Full size imageThe stable equilibrium of the system can be represented by phase diagrams that show the identities of the species at equilibrium. We plot these phase diagrams by varying the parameters (a_2) and (b_1) while keeping (a_1) and (b_2) constant. As shown in Fig. 4a–d, the equilibrium state depends on the parameter (rho). In the limit (rho = 0) or 1, we recover the homogeneous case because only one type of C is produced. The corresponding phase diagrams (Fig. 4a, d) contain only two phases where either of the predators is excluded, illustrating the competitive exclusion principle. For intermediate values of (rho), however, there is a new phase of coexistence that separates the two exclusion phases (Fig. 4b, c). There are two such regions of coexistence, which touch at a middle point and open toward the bottom left and upper right, respectively. The middle point is at ((a_2/a_0 = b_2/b_0, b_1/b_0 = a_1/a_0)), where the feeding preferences of the two predators are identical (hence their niches fully overlap). Towards the origin and the far upper right, the predators consume one type of C each (hence their niches separate). The coexistence region in the bottom left is where the feeding rates of the predators are the lowest overall. There can be a region (yellow) where both predators go extinct, if their primary prey type alone is not enough to sustain each predator. Increasing the productivity of the system by increasing the birth rate ((beta _C)) of the prey eliminates this extinction region, whereas lowering productivity causes the extinction region to take over the lower coexistence region. Because the existence and identity of the phases is determined by the configuration of the equilibrium points (Fig. 2, see also section “Mathematical methods”), the qualitative shape of the phase diagram is not sensitive to changes of parameter values.The new equilibrium is not only where the predators A and B can coexist, but also where the prey species C grows to a larger density than what is possible for a homogeneous population. This is illustrated in Fig. 3b, which shows the equilibrium population of C if we hold (lambda) fixed at different values. The point (lambda = lambda ^*) is where the system with a dynamic (lambda) is stable, and also where the population of C is maximized (when A and B prefer different prey types). That means the population automatically stabilizes at the optimal composition of prey types. Moreover, the value of (C^*) at this coexistence point can even be larger than the equilibrium population of C when there is only one predator A or B. This is discussed further in section “Multiple-predator effects and emergent promotion of prey”. These results suggest that heterogeneity in interaction strengths can potentially be a strategy for the prey population to leverage the effects of multiple predators against each other to improve survival.Reversible heterogeneityWe next consider a scenario where individual prey can switch their types. This kind of heterogeneity can model reversible changes of phenotypes, i.e., trait changes that affect the prey’s interaction with predators but are not permanent. For example, changes in coat color or camouflage14,16,17, physiological changes such as defense15, and biomass allocation among tissues18,19. One could also think of the prey types as subpopulations within different spatial patches, if each predator hunts at a preferred patch and the prey migrate between the patches20,21. With some generalization, one could even consider heterogeneity in resources, such as nutrients located in different places, that can be reached by primary consumers, such as swimming phytoplankton22. We can model this “reversible” kind of heterogeneity by introducing switching rates from one prey type to the other. In Eq. (4d), (eta _1) and (eta _2) now represent the switching rates per capita from (C_1) to (C_2) and from (C_2) to (C_1), respectively. Here we study the simplest case where both rates are fixed.In the absence of the predators, the natural composition of the prey species given by the switching rates would be (rho equiv eta _1 / (eta _1 + eta _2)), and the rate at which (lambda) relaxes to this natural composition is (gamma equiv eta _1 + eta _2). Compared to the previous scenario where we had only one parameter (rho), here we have an additional parameter (gamma) that modifies the behavior of the system. Fig. 4e–h shows phase diagrams for the system as (rho) is fixed and (gamma) varies. We again find the new equilibrium (P_N) where all three species coexist. When (gamma) is small, the system has a large region of coexistence. As (gamma) is increased, this region is squeezed into a border between the two regions of exclusion, where the slope of the border is given by (eta _1/eta _2) as determined by the parameter (rho). However, this is different from the exclusion we see in the case of inherent heterogeneity, which happens only for (rho rightarrow 0) or 1, where the borders are horizontal or vertical (Fig. 4a,d). Here the predators exclude each other despite having a mixture of prey types in the population.This special limit can be understood as follows. For a large (gamma), (lambda) is effectively set to a constant value equal to (rho), because it has a very fast relaxation rate. In other words, the prey types exchange so often that the population always maintains a constant composition. In this limit, the system behaves as if it were a homogeneous system with effective interaction strengths (a_text {eff} = (1-rho ) , a_1 + rho , a_2) and (b_text {eff} = (1-rho ) , b_1 + rho , b_2). As in a homogeneous system, there is competitive exclusion between the predators instead of coexistence. This demonstrates that having a constant level of heterogeneity is not sufficient to cause coexistence. The overall composition of the population must be able to change dynamically as a result of population growth and consumption by predators.An interesting behavior is seen when we examine a point inside the shrinking coexistence region as (gamma) is increased. Typical trajectories of the system for such parameter values are shown in Fig. 5. As (gamma) increases, the system relaxes to the line (mathscr {L}) quickly, then slowly crawls along it towards the final equilibrium point (P_N). This is because increasing (gamma) increases the speed that (lambda) relaxes to (lambda ^*), and when (lambda rightarrow lambda ^*), (mathscr {L}) becomes marginally stable. Therefore, the attraction to (mathscr {L}) in the perpendicular direction is strong, but the attraction towards the equilibrium point along (mathscr {L}) is weak. This leads to a long transient behavior that makes the system appear to reach no equilibrium in a limited time23,24. It is especially true when there is noise in the dynamics, which causes the system to diffuse along (mathscr {L}) with only a weak drift towards the final equilibrium (Fig. 5). Thus, the introduction of a fast timescale (quick relaxation of (lambda) due to a large (gamma)) actually results in a long transient.Figure 5Trajectories of the system projected in the A-B plane, with parameters inside the coexistence region (by holding the position of (P_N) fixed). As (gamma) increases, the system tends to approach the line (mathscr {L}) quickly and then crawl along it. The grey trajectory is with independent Gaussian white noise ((sim mathscr {N}(0,0.5))) added to each variable’s dynamics. Noise causes the system to diffuse along (mathscr {L}) for a long transient period before coming to the equilibrium point (P_N). Parameters used here are ((a_0, a_1, a_2, b_0, b_1, b_2) = (0.2, 0.8, 0.5, 0.2, 0.6, 0.9)), chosen to place (P_N) away from the middle of (mathscr {L}) to show the trajectory drifting toward the equilibrium.Full size imageAdaptive heterogeneityA third kind of heterogeneity we consider is the change of interactions in time. By this we mean an individual can actively change its interaction strength with others in response to certain conditions. This kind of response is often invoked in models of adaptive foraging behavior, where individuals choose appropriate actions to maximize some form of fitness25,26. For example, we may consider two behaviors, resting and foraging, as our prey types. Different predators may prefer to strike when the prey is doing different things. In response, the prey may choose to do one thing or the other depending on the current abundances of different predators. Such behavioral modulation is seen, for example, in systems of predatory spiders and grasshoppers27. Phenotypic plasticity is also seen in plant tissues in response to consumers28,29,30.This kind of “adaptive” heterogeneity can be modeled by having switching rates (eta _1) and (eta _2) that are time-dependent. Let us assume that the prey species tries to maximize its population growth rate by switching to the more favorable type. From Eq. (4c), we see that the growth rate of C depends linearly on the composition (lambda) with a coefficient (u(A,B) equiv (a_1 – a_2) A + (b_1 – b_2) B). Therefore, when this coefficient is positive, it is favorable for C to increase (lambda) by switching to type (C_2). This can be achieved by having a positive switching rate (eta _2) whenever (u(A,B) > 0). Similarly, whenever (u(A,B) < 0), it is favorable for C to switch to type (C_1) by having a positive (eta _1). In this way, the heterogeneity of the prey population constantly adapts to the predator densities. We model such adaptive switching by making (eta _1) and (eta _2) functions of the coefficient u(A, B), e.g., (eta _1(u) = 1/(1+mathrm {e}^{kappa u})) and (eta _2(u) = 1/(1+mathrm {e}^{-kappa u})). The sigmoidal form of the functions means that the switching rate in the favorable direction for C is turned on quickly, while the other direction is turned off. The parameter (kappa) controls the sharpness of this transition.Phase diagrams for the system with different values of (kappa) are shown in Fig. 4i–l. A larger (kappa) means the prey adapts its composition faster and more optimally, which causes the coexistence region to expand. In the extreme limit, the system changes its dynamics instantaneously whenever it crosses the boundary where (u(A,B) = 0), like in a hybrid system31. Such a system can still reach a stable equilibrium that lies on the boundary, if the flow on each side of the boundary points towards the other side32. This is what happens in our system and, interestingly, the equilibrium is the same three-species coexistence point (P_N) as in the previous scenarios. The region of coexistence turns out to be largest in this limit (Fig. 4l).Our results suggest that the coexistence of the predators can be viewed as a by-product of the prey’s strategy to maximize its own benefit. The time-dependent case studied here represents a strategy that involves the prey evaluating the risk posed by different predators. This is in contrast to the scenarios studied above, where the prey population passively creates phenotypic heterogeneity regardless of the presence of the predators. These two types of behavior are analogous to the two strategies studied for adaptation in varying environments, i.e., sensing and bet-hedging33,34. The former requires accessing information about the current environment to make optimal decisions, whereas the latter relies on maintaining a diverse population to reduce detrimental effects caused by environmental changes. Here the varying abundances of the predators play a similar role as the varying environment. From this point of view, the heterogeneous interactions studied here can be a strategy of the prey species that is evolutionarily favorable. More

Study areaThe Qinghai–Tibet Plateau (26°00′-39°47′N, 73°19′-104°47′E), one of the most important pastoral areas in the world, straddles the southwest regions of China, and it includes 244 counties, which belong to six provinces: Tibet, Qinghai, Xinjiang, Gansu, Sichuan, and Yunnan. It is characterized by rich natural grassland resources, including desert steppes, alpine steppes, and alpine meadows (Fig. 1a). The grassland areas account for over 56% of this region34. The grassland plays a vital role in providing regional and national animal husbandry products and fodder35, which enables the local herders to obtain almost all of the resources required for survival36. The grazing density distribution is extremely unbalanced (Fig. 1a) owing to the high spatial heterogeneity of economic development (Fig. 1b-1) and grassland production (Fig. 1b-2), resulting from the differences in resources and environmental factors37. Over the past few decades, there has been a significant change in the number of livestock animals, and the number of sheep exceeded 160 million by 2020. Therefore, it is urgent to obtain a high-resolution gridded grazing dataset for its evaluating spatiotemporal changes and coordinating the relationship between human beings and the grassland ecosystem.Fig. 1Location of the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau: (a) grassland type and distribution, and grazing density (GD) in 244 counties; (b) spatial heterogeneity of economic development (ED) and grassland production (GP) in 244 counties. GD, ED, and GP are represented by sheep unit per grassland area per county (SU/hm2), human footprint index per pixel (HF/pixel) per county, and net primary production per grassland area per county (gC/m2), respectively.Full size imageFig. 2Methodological framework for grazing spatialization.Full size imageMethodological frameworkWe developed a methodological framework for high-resolution gridded grazing dataset mapping. The framework mainly includes four parts: (i) identifying features affecting grazing, (ii) extracting theoretical suitable grazing areas, (iii) building grazing spatialization model, and (iv) correcting the grazing spatialization dataset. Each step is explained in more detail below (Fig. 2).Step 1: Identifying features affecting grazingGrazing activities are affected by the spatial heterogeneity of resources and environmental factors, regulated by the grazing behavior of herders and the foraging behavior of herds, and restricted by ecological protection policies. Therefore, the specific implications of the 14 influencing factors from the above four aspects are presented in Table 1. These factors are necessary for spatializing the county-level grazing data.Table 1 The identified features affecting grazing.Full size tableStep 2: Extracting theoretical suitable grazing areasThe decision tree approach38 was adopted to extract the theoretical suitable grazing areas for further grazing spatialization (step 2 in Fig. 2). First, the potential grazing area was identified according to the boundary of the grassland ecosystem, because grazing behavior only occurs in the grassland. Then, the unsuitable areas for grazing, i.e., extremely-high-altitude areas and areas adjacent to towns, were removed from the potential grazing area stepwise. The areas strictly prohibited for grazing, i.e., the core areas of national nature reserves39 within grassland areas, were also deemed unsuitable for grazing. Finally, the extracted areas were the theoretically suitable grazing areas.Step 3: Building grazing spatialization model(i) Extracting cross-scale feature (CSFs)In the traditional method, the spatial resolution of the training data (i.e., the average value at the administrative level) differs from that of the predicting data (i.e., the value at the pixel level), and the trained model can only capture the characteristics within the training data. However, the extreme value of the predicting data inevitably exceeds the range of the training data, which can result in underestimation in these parts40. To reduce these mismatches, we built an improved method for CSFs extraction (Fig. 2, first part of step 3).First, the census grazing data are simply distributed from county level to pixel level using the weight of the absolute disturbance (AD) index as Eq. (1). The AD index is measured by Mahalanobis distance using Eq. (2), which is calculated according to the deviation between the potential and observed normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) values22. Second, the distributed grazing data are graded via the hierarchical clustering method, and the optimal number of the group can be determined using the Davies–Bouldin index (DBI)41 as Eq. (3), an index for evaluating the quality of clustering algorithm. The smaller the DBI, the smaller the distance within each group. Therefore, the DBI can be used to select the best similar values to minimize the deviation within each group. Finally, we can obtain the scope of the groups within each county using the above two steps and obtain the average value of all independent variables and the dependent variable accordingly. As expected, we can decompose the average value at the county level (traditional features in Fig. 2) into the average value at the group level (improved features in Fig. 2).$$S{U}_{i}=S{U}_{j}^{C}frac{{w}_{A{D}_{i}}}{{w}_{A{D}_{j}}}$$
(1)
where SUi and (S{U}_{j}^{C}) are the grazing value for pixel i and the census grazing value for county j; ({w}_{A{D}_{i}}) is the weight of the AD index for pixel i and ({w}_{A{D}_{j}}) represents the summed weight of the AD index values for all pixels in county j.$$begin{array}{cll}A{D}_{i} & = & sqrt{{({D}_{i}-u)}^{T}co{v}^{-1}({D}_{i}-u)}\ {D}_{i} & = & NDV{I}_{i}^{T}-NDV{I}_{i}^{P}end{array}$$
(2)
where ADi is the AD index for pixel i; the vector composed of its observed NDVI (left(NDV{I}_{i}^{T}right)) and potential NDVI (left(NDV{I}_{i}^{P}right)) time-series data could be considered as two points in the feature space for pixel i, and Di and u are the difference and the mean value of the vector, respectively; cov is the covariance matrix.$$DB{I}_{k}=frac{1}{k}{sum }_{x=1}^{k}ma{x}_{yne x}left(frac{overline{{a}_{x}}+overline{{a}_{y}}}{left|{delta }_{x}-{delta }_{y}right|}right)$$
(3)
where DBIk is the DBI coefficient when the cluster number is k; (overline{{a}_{x}}) and (overline{{a}_{y}}) are the average distances of the group xth and the group yth, respectively; δx and δy are the center distance of the group xth and the group yth, respectively.Different from the traditional method, our method can decompose features into multiple features using the grading AD index. The differences among counties will not be easily averaged out. Moreover, our method is less affected by scale mismatch and can be transferred to cross-scale modeling26.(ii) Building RF model with partitioningA single model cannot accurately obtain the variation information of the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau with high spatial heterogeneity. The partition model, a widely used method for estimating population distribution and others42,43, can be incorporated into the proposed model to improve its performance. The thresholds (0.43, 0.35 and 0.21 SU/hm2), determined according to the theoretical livestock carrying capacity (equation S1), were calculated and used to separate independent variables and dependent variable for each grassland types: alpine meadow, alpine steppe and alpine desert steppe (see Section 6.1 for details). Then, the RF models were established, and the training and testing samples were randomly divided in the proportion of 3:1. It is notable that transforming the response variable using natural log prior to RF model fitting is necessary to achieve higher prediction accuracies44. Finally, the independent variables at the pixel level were inputted into the two trained RF models, and the corresponding grid grazing dataset was output by combining the two results (Fig. 2, second part of step 3).(iii) Validating the accuracy of the methodsThe performance of the grazing spatialization model was evaluated through a comparison of the predicted value with census value26. Accuracy validation indexes, including coefficients of determination (R2), root mean square error (RMSE), and mean absolute error (MAE), were used to evaluate the performances of the proposed RF-based models (Table 2), as presented in Eq. (4).$$begin{array}{ccc}{R}^{2} & = & 1-frac{{sum }_{j=1}^{N}{left(S{U}_{j}^{C}-S{U}_{j}^{P}right)}^{2}}{{sum }_{j=1}^{N}{left(S{U}_{j}^{C}-overline{S{U}^{C}}right)}^{2}}\ RMSE & = & sqrt{frac{{sum }_{j=1}^{N}{left(S{U}_{j}^{C}-S{U}_{j}^{P}right)}^{2}}{N}}\ MAE & = & frac{{sum }_{j=1}^{N}| S{U}_{j}^{C}-S{U}_{j}^{P}| }{N}end{array}$$
(4)
where (S{U}_{j}^{C}) and (S{U}_{j}^{P}) are the census grazing value and the predicted grazing value for county j, respectively; (overline{S{U}^{C}}) is the average census data for all counties; and N is the number of all counties.Table 2 The proposed methods and their descriptions.Full size tableStep 4: Correcting grazing spatialization dataset(i) Correcting residuals of datasetCorrecting residuals is necessary to obtain datasets with higher accuracy45,46, because propagating the cross-scale relationship in the RF models will inevitably generate errors47. The residuals, calculated by the difference between the average census grazing and predicted grazing values at the administrative level, were used to calibrate the errors related to all pixels within this county. The revised dataset after residual correction is the final product provided in this study. The residual correction method is expressed by Eq. (5), and the process is shown in the fourth step in Fig. 2.$$S{U}_{i}^{RP}=S{U}_{i}^{P}+{R}_{j}$$
(5)
where (S{U}_{i}^{RP}) denotes the predicted grazing value revised by the residuals for pixel i, (S{U}_{i}^{P}) denotes the predicted grazing for pixel i, and Rj denotes the residuals calculated from the difference between census grazing and predicted grazing data for county j.(ii) Validating the accuracy of datasetTwo goodness-of-fit indexes were used to validate the consistency of spatial distribution and the temporal trend between predicted grazing data and census grazing data. Generally, the coefficient of determination (R2), defined in Eq. (4), is used to verify the consistency of spatial distribution, and the Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE, Eq. (6)) is used to verify the consistency of temporal trend. An index value closer to 1 corresponds to a more accurate dataset. Meanwhile, we also collected field grazing data from 56 sites to further validate the spatial accuracy of the dataset, and it measured using the R2 in Eq. (4).$$NSE=1-frac{{sum }_{t=1}^{T}{left(S{U}_{t}^{RP}-S{U}_{t}^{C}right)}^{2}}{{sum }_{t=1}^{T}{left(S{U}_{t}^{C}-overline{S{U}^{{C}^{{prime} }}}right)}^{2}}$$
(6)
where (S{U}_{t}^{RP}) and (S{U}_{t}^{C}) are the predicted grazing value revised by residuals and the census grazing value of all counties in year t, respectively; (overline{S{U}^{{C}^{{prime} }}}) is the average census grazing value of all years; and T is the number of time steps.(iii) Identifying uncertainties associated with datasetThe uncertainties associated with the dataset originate from the following two aspects: First, the unreasonableness of our method, owing to the errors related to cross-scale modeling or the inappropriate selection of influencing factors, is an important source of uncertainties. Second, the incompleteness of auxiliary variables also introduces uncertainties. In this instance, grassland-free areas are not accurately identified in some counties, but livestock animals are raised in these counties. These counties have no effective value for livestock density prediction. Overall, the uncertainties can be identified in terms of the mean relative error (MRE) in Eq. (7).$$MRE=frac{{sum }_{j=1}^{N}left|frac{S{U}_{j}^{C}-S{U}_{j}^{RP}}{S{U}_{j}^{C}}right|}{N}ast 100 % $$
(7)
where (S{U}_{j}^{C}) is the census grazing value for county j, (S{U}_{j}^{RP}) is the predicted grazing value revised by residuals for county j, and N is the number of counties.Data sourceCensus grazing data at county levelEight types of livestock, namely cattle, yaks, horses, donkeys, mules, camels, goats, and sheep, were considered according to the regional characteristics, and livestock stocking quantity at the end of year for each county can be determined from statistical yearbooks. However, the numbers of livestock at the county level for some years between 1982 and 2015 were not recorded. The missing data were indirectly approximated from city- or provincial-level data (e.g., interpolation using their temporal trends). Each type of livestock stocking quantity was converted into standard sheep unit (SU) according to the national standards using Eq. (8)48, namely the calculation of rangeland carrying capacity (NY/T 635-2015). Of the 244 counties of the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau, only 242 counties were considered, as the census grazing data for the other 2 counties were unavailable. The unit of grazing statistics data at the county level is defined as SU per county per year (SU·county−1·year−1).$$begin{array}{l}SU={N}_{sheep}+0.8times {N}_{goats}+5times {N}_{cattle}+5times {N}_{yaks+}+\ 6times {N}_{horses}+3times {N}_{donkeys}+6times {N}_{mules}+7times {N}_{camels}end{array}$$
(8)
where Nsheep, Ngoats, Ncattle, Nyaks, Nhorses, Ndonkeys, Nmules, Ncamels are the number of sheep, goats, cattle, yaks, horses, donkeys, mules, and camels at the year-end, respectively. SU denotes the standard sheep unit (SU·county−1·year−1).Data of grazing influencing factors at pixel levelThe types of features affecting grazing were obtained from the first step described in Methods, and the detailed information, such as original spatiotemporal resolution, format, and source, is shown in Table 3. The format (i.e., GeoTIFF), spatial resolution (i.e., 0.083°), and the number of rows and columns of the gridded features were leveraged to further produce a high-resolution grazing dataset.Table 3 Data source of grazing influence factors.Full size table More

Data were analyzed from samples collected, processed, and published previously [21, 25, 29] and have been summarized here. The present analysis, which consisted of sequence data processing, the calculation of taxon-specific isotopic signatures, and subsequent analyses, reflects original work.Sample collection and isotope incubationTo generate experimental data, three replicate soil samples were collected from the top 10 cm of plant-free patches in four ecosystems along the C. Hart Merriam elevation gradient in Northern Arizona. From low to high elevation, these sites are located in the following environments: desert grassland (GL; 1760 m), piñon-pine juniper woodland (PJ; 2020 m), ponderosa pine forest (PP; 2344 m), and mixed conifer forest (MC; 2620 m). Soil samples were air-dried for 24 h at room temperature, homogenized, and passed through a 2 mm sieve before being stored at 4 °C for another 24 h. This produced three distinct but homogenous soil samples from each of the four ecosystems that were subject to experimental treatments. Three treatments were applied to bring soils to 70% water-holding capacity: water alone (control), water with glucose (C treatment; 1000 µg C g−1 dry soil), or water with glucose and a nitrogen source (CN treatment; [NH4]2SO4 at 100 µg N g−1 dry soil). To track growth through isotope assimilation, both 18O-enriched water (97 atom %) and 13C-enriched glucose (99 atom %) were used. In all treatments isotopically heavy samples were paired with matching “light” samples that received water with a natural abundance isotope signatures. For 18O incubations, this design resulted in three soil samples per ecosystem per treatment (across four ecosystems and three treatments, n = 36) while 13C incubations were limited to only C and CN treatments (n = 24). Previous analyses suggest that three replicates is sufficient to detect growth of 10 atom % 18O in microbial DNA with a power of 0.6 and a growth of 5 atom % 18O with a power of 0.3 (12 and 6 atom % respectively for 13C) [30]. All soils were incubated in the dark for one week. Following incubation, soils were frozen at −80 °C for one week prior to DNA extraction.Quantitative stable isotope probingThe procedure of qSIP (quantitative stable isotope probing) is described here but has been applied to these samples as previously published [17, 21, 25]. DNA extraction was performed on soils using a DNeasy PowerSoil HTP 96 Kit (MoBio Laboratories, Carlsbad, CA, USA) and following manufacturer’s protocol. Briefly, 0.25 g of soils from each sample were carefully added to deep, 96-well plates containing zirconium dioxide beads and a cell lysis solution with sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) and shaken for 20 min. Following cell lysis, supernatant was collected and centrifuged three times in fresh 96-well plates with reagents separating DNA from non-DNA organic and inorganic materials. Lastly, DNA samples were collected on silica filter plates, rinsed with ethanol and eluted into 100 µL of a 10 mM Tris buffer in clean 96-well plates. To quantify the degree of 18O or 13C isotope incorporation into bacterial DNA (excess atom fraction or EAF), the qSIP protocol [31] was used, though modified slightly as reported previously [21, 24, 32]. Briefly, microbial growth was quantified as the change in DNA buoyant density due to incorporation of the 18O or 13C isotopes through the method of density fractionation by adding 1 µg of DNA to 2.6 mL of saturated CsCl solution in combination with a gradient buffer (200 mM Tris, 200 mM KCL, 2 mM EDTA) in a 3.3 mL OptiSeal ultracentrifuge tube (Beckman Coulter, Fullerton, CA, USA). The solution was centrifuged to produce a gradient of increasingly labeled (heavier) DNA in an Optima Max bench top ultracentrifuge (Beckman Coulter, Brea, CA, USA) with a Beckman TLN-100 rotor (127,000 × g for 72 h) at 18 °C. Each post-incubation sample was thus converted from a continuous gradient into approximately 20 fractions (150 µL) using a modified fraction recovery system (Beckman Coulter). The density of each fraction was measured with a Reichart AR200 digital refractometer (Reichert Analytical Instruments, Depew, NY, USA). Fractions with densities between 1.640 and 1.735 g cm−3 were retained as densities outside this range generally did not contain DNA. In all retained fractions, DNA was cleaned and purified using isopropanol precipitation and the abundance of bacterial 16S rRNA gene copies was quantified with qPCR using primers specific to bacterial 16S rRNA genes (Eub 515F: AAT GAT ACG GCG ACC ACC GAG TGC CAG CMG CCG CGG TAA, 806R: CAA GCA GAA GAC GGC ATA CGA GGA CTA CVS GGG TAT CTA AT). Triplicate reactions were 8 µL consisting of 0.2 mM of each primer, 0.01 U µL−1 Phusion HotStart II Polymerase (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA), 1× Phusion HF buffer (Thermo Fisher Scientific), 3.0 mM MgCl2, 6% glycerol, and 200 µL of dNTPs. Reactions were performed on a CFX384 Touch Real-Time PCR Detection System (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, USA) under the following cycling conditions: 95 °C at 1 min and 44 cycles at 95 °C (30 s), 64.5 °C (30 s), and 72 °C (1 min). Separate from qPCR, retained sample-fractions were subject to a similar amplification step of the 16S rRNA gene V4 region (515F: GTG YCA GCM GCC GCG GTA A, 806R: GGA CTA CNV GGG TWT CTA AT) in preparation for sequencing with the same reaction mix but differing cycle conditions – 95 °C for 2 min followed by 15 cycles at 95 °C (30 s), 55 °C (30 s), and 60 °C (4 min). The resulting 16S rRNA gene V4 amplicons were sequenced on a MiSeq sequencing platform (Illumina, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA). DNA sequence data and sample metadata have been deposited in the NCBI Sequence Read Archive under the project ID PRJNA521534.Sequence processing and qSIP analysisIndependently from previous publications, we processed raw sequence data of forward and reverse reads (FASTQ) within the QIIME2 environment [33] (release 2018.6) and denoised sequences within QIIME2 using the DADA2 pipeline [34]. We clustered the remaining sequences into amplicon sequence variants (ASVs, at 100% sequence identity) against the SILVA 138 database [35] using a pre-trained open-reference Naïve Bayes feature classifier [36]. We removed samples with less than 3000 sequence reads, non-bacterial lineages, and global singletons and doubletons. We converted ASV sequencing abundances in each fraction to the number of 16S rRNA gene copies per gram dry soil based on qPCR abundances and the known amount of dry soil equivalent added to the initial extraction. This allowed us to express absolute population densities, rather than relative abundances. Across all replicates, we identified 114 543 unique bacterial ASVs.We calculated the 18O and 13C excess atom fraction (EAF) for each bacterial ASV using R version 4.0.3 [37] and data.table [38] with custom scripts available at https://www.github.com/bramstone/. Negative enrichment values were corrected using previously published methods [17]. ASVs that appeared in less than two of the three replicates of an ecosystem-treatment combination (n = 3) and less than three density fractions within those two replicates were removed to avoid assigning spurious estimates of isotope enrichment to infrequent taxa. Any ASVs filtered out of one ecosystem-treatment group were allowed to be present in another if they met the frequency threshold. Applying these filtering criteria, we limited our analysis towards 3759 unique bacterial ASVs which accounted for a small proportion of the total diversity but represented 68.0% of all sequence reads, and encompassed most major bacterial groups (Supplementary Fig. 1).Analysis of life history strategies and nutrient responseAll statistical tests were conducted in R version 4.0.3 [37]. We assessed the ability of phylum-level assignment of life history strategy to predict growth in response to C and N addition, as proxied by the incorporation of heavy isotope during DNA replication [39, 40]. Phylum-level assignments (Table 1) were based on the most frequently observed behavior of lineages with a representative phylum (or subphylum) as compiled previously [23]. We averaged 18O EAF values of bacterial taxa for each treatment and ecosystem and then subtracted the values in control soils from values in C-amended soils to determine C response (∆18O EAFC) and from the 18O EAF of bacteria in CN-amended soils to determine C and N response (Δ18O EAFCN). Because an ASV must have a measurable EAF in both the control and treatment for a valid Δ18O EAF to be calculated, we were only able to resolve the nutrient response for 2044 bacterial ASVs – 1906 in response to C addition and 1427 in response to CN addition.We used Gaussian finite mixture modeling, as implemented by the mclust R package [41], to demarcate plausible multi-isotopic signatures for oligotrophs and copiotrophs. For each treatment, we calculated average per-taxon 13C and 18O EAF values. To compare both isotopes directly, we divided 18O EAF values by 0.6 based on the estimate that this value (designated as µ) represents the fraction of oxygen atoms in DNA derived from the 18O-water, rather than from 16O within available C sources [42]. Two mixture components, corresponding to oligotrophic and copiotrophic growth modes, were defined using the Mclust function using ellipsoids of equal volume and shape. We observed several microorganisms with high 18O enrichment but comparatively low 13C enrichment, potentially indicating growth following the depletion of the added glucose, and that were reasonably clustered as oligotrophs in our mixture model.We tested how frequently mixture model clustering of each microorganism’s growth (based on average 18O–13C EAF in a treatment) could predict its growth across replicates (n = 12 in each treatment—although individual). We applied the treatment-level mixture models defined above to the per-taxon isotope values in each replicate, recording when a microorganism’s life history strategy in a replicate agreed with the treatment-level cluster, and when it didn’t. We used exact binomial tests to test whether the number of “successes” (defined as a microorganism being grouped in the same life history category as its treatment-level cluster) was statistically significant. To account for type I error across all individual tests (one per ASV per treatment), we adjusted P values in each treatment using the false-discovery rate (FDR) method [43].To determine the extent that life history categorizations may be appropriately applied at finer levels of taxonomic resolution, we constructed several hierarchical linear models using the lmer function in the nlme package version 3.1-149 [44]. To condense growth information from both isotopes into a single analysis, 18O and 13C EAF values were combined into a single variable using principal components analysis separately for each treatment. Across the C and CN treatments, the first principal component (PC1) was able to explain – respectively – 86% and 91% of joint variation of 18O and 13C EAF values. In all cases, we applied PC1 as the response variable and treated taxonomy and ecosystem as random model terms to limit the potential of pseudo-replication to bias significance values. We used likelihood ratio analysis and Akaike information criterion (AIC) values to compare models where life history strategy was determined based on observed nutrient responses at different taxonomic levels (Eq. 1) against a model with the same random terms but without any life history strategy data (Eq. 2). Separate models were applied to each treatment. To reduce model overfitting, we removed families represented by fewer than three bacterial ASVs as well as phyla represented by only one order. In addition, we removed bacterial ASVs with unknown taxonomic assignments (following Morrissey et al. [21]). This limited our analysis to 1 049 ASVs in the C amendment and 984 in the CN amendment.$${{{{{rm{PC}}}}}}{1}_{{18{{{{{rm{O}}}}}} – 13{{{{{rm{C}}}}}}}}sim {{{{{rm{strategy}}}}}} + 1|{{{{{rm{phylum}}}}}}/{{{{{rm{class}}}}}}/{{{{{rm{order}}}}}}/{{{{{rm{family}}}}}}/{{{{{rm{genus}}}}}}/{{{{{rm{eco}}}}}}$$
(1)
$${{{{{rm{PC}}}}}}{1}_{{18{{{{{rm{O}}}}}} – 13{{{{{rm{C}}}}}}}}sim 1 + 1|{{{{{rm{phylum}}}}}}/{{{{{rm{class}}}}}}/{{{{{rm{order}}}}}}/{{{{{rm{family}}}}}}/{{{{{rm{genus}}}}}}/{{{{{rm{eco}}}}}}$$
(2)
Here, life history strategy was defined at each taxonomic level using the mixture models above and based on the mean 18O and 13C EAF values of each bacterial lineage (Supplemental Fig. 2). We compared these models with the no-strategy model (Eq. 2) directly using likelihood ratio testing. More