Philippa Kaur

1.
Holland, K. N. & Grubbs, R. D. Fish visitors to seamounts: Tunas and billfish at seamounts. In Seamounts: Ecology, Fisheries and Conservation (eds Pitcher, T. J. et al.) 89–201 (Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, 2007).
Google Scholar 
2.
Pitcher, T. J. et al. Seamounts: Ecology, Fisheries & Conservation (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2008). .
Google Scholar 

3.
Pazmiño, D. A. et al. Strong trans-Pacific break and local conservation units in the Galapagos shark (Carcharhinus galapagensis) revealed by genome-wide cytonuclear markers. Heredity 120, 407–421 (2018).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

4.
Berrisford, C. D. Biology and zoogeography of Vema Seamount: A report on the first biological collection made on the summit. Trans. R. Soc. S. Afr. 38, 387–398 (1969).
Article  Google Scholar 

5.
Collette, B. B. & Parin, N. V. Shallow-water fishes of Walters Shoals Madagascar Ridge. Bull. Mar. Sci. 48, 1–22 (1991).
Google Scholar 

6.
Baxter, J. L. A. study of the yellowtail Seriola dorsalis (Gill). State of California department of fish and game. Mol. Biol. Ecol. 110, 96 (1960).
Google Scholar 

7.
Gillanders, B. M., Ferrell, D. J. & Andrew, N. L. Size at maturity and seasonal changes in gonad activity of yellowtail kingfish (Seriola lalandi; Carangidae) in New South Wales, Australia, New Zealand. Mol. Biol. Ecol. 33, 457–468 (1999).
Google Scholar 

8.
Shiraishi, T., Ohshimo, S. & Yukami, R. Age, growth and reproductive characteristics of gold striped amberjack Seriola lalandi in the waters off western Kyushu Japan. Mol. Biol. Ecol. 44, 117–127 (2010).
CAS  Google Scholar 

9.
Miranda, I. T. & Peet, C. Farmed Yellowtail Seriola spp. Japan and Australia. Final Report, October 22, 2008 (2008)

10.
Griffiths, M. H. Long-trends in catch and effort of commercial linefish off South Africa’s Cape Province: Snapshots of the 20th century. S. Afr. J. Marine Sci. 22, 81–110 (2000).
Article  Google Scholar 

11.
Kerwath and Wilke. Yellowtail (Seriola lalandi). In: Southern African Marine Linefish Species Profiles (ed. Mann BQ, Special Publication, Oceanographic Research Institute, Durban 9, 23–24, 2013).

12.
Penney, A. The southern Cape yellowtail fishery—a research perspective and preliminary results. Internal Report, Sea Fisheries Research Institute South Africa 08: 19 pp (1982)

13.
Wilke, C. G. & Griffiths, M. H. Movement patterns of offshore linefish based on tagging results. SANCOR Occ. Rep. 5, 98–107 (1999).
Google Scholar 

14.
Gillanders, B. M., Ferrell, D. J. & Andrew, N. L. Estimates of movement and life-history parameters of yellowtail kingfish (Seriola lalandi): How useful are data from a cooperative tagging programme?. Mol. Biol. Ecol. 52, 179–192 (2001).
Google Scholar 

15.
Holdsworth, J. C., McKenzie, J. R., Walsh, C., van der Straten, K.M. & Ó Maolagáin, C. Catch-at-age of yellowtail kingfish (Seriola lalandi) caught by recreational fishers in KIN 1, New Zealand. New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Report 2013/3. 31 p. (2013).

16.
Dunn, K. The diet, reproductive biology age and growth of yellowtail, Seriola lalandi, in South Africa. Unpublished MSc thesis, University of Cape Town (2014).

17.
Gilchrist, J. D. F. The development of the South African fishes Part-1. Mar. Investig. South Africa 2, 181–201 (1903).
Google Scholar 

18.
Martinez-Takeshita, N. et al. A tale of three tails: Cryptic speciation in a globally distributed marine fish of the genus Seriola. Copeia 103, 357–368 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

19.
Swart, B. L., Bester-van der Merwe, A. E., Kerwath, S. E. & Roodt-Wilding, R. Phylogeography of the pelagic fish Seriola lalandi at different scales: confirmation of interocean population structure and evaluation of southern African genetic diversity. Afr. J. Mar. Sci. 38, 513–524 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

20.
Rogers, A. D. The biology of seamounts. Adv. Mar. Biol. 30, 304–360 (1994).
Google Scholar 

21.
Samadi, S. et al. Seamount endemism questioned by the geographical distribution and population genetic structure of marine invertebrates. Mar. Biol. 149, 1463–1475 (2006).
Article  Google Scholar 

22.
Clark, M. R. et al. The ecology of seamounts: Structure, function, and human impacts. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 2, 253–278 (2010).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

23.
Cho, W. & Shank, T. M. Incongruent patterns of genetic connectivity among four ophiuroid species with differing coral host specificity on North Atlantic seamounts. Mar. Ecol. 31, 121–143 (2010).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

24.
Shank, T. M. Deep-ocean laboratories of faunal connectivity, evolution, and endemism. Oceanography 23, 108–122 (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

25.
Bradbury, I. R., Laurel, B., Snelgrove, P. V. R., Bentzen, P. & Campana, S. E. Global patterns in marine dispersal estimates: the influence of geography, taxonomic category and life history. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. Biol. Sci. 275, 1803–1809 (2008).
Google Scholar 

26.
Diggles, B. K. Import risk assessment: juvenile yellowtail kingfish (Seriola lalandi) from Spencer Gulf aquaculture, South Australia. Client Report No. WLG 2002/03. National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) Ltd, Kilbirnie, Wellington, New Zealand (2002).

27.
Bang, N. D. Dynamic interpretations of a detailed Surface temperature chart of the Agulhas Current retroflexion and fragmentation area. S. Afr. Geogr. J. 52, 67–76 (1970).
Article  Google Scholar 

28.
Lutjeharms, J. R. E. & Gordon, A. L. Shedding of an Agulhas Ring observed at sea. Nat. Lond. 325, 138–140 (1987).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

29.
Duncombe Rae, C. M. Agulhas retroflection rings in the South Atlantic Ocean: An overview. S. Afr. J. Marine Sci. 11, 327–344 (1991).
Article  Google Scholar 

30.
Lutjeharms, J. R. E. The exchange of water between the South Indian and the South Atlantic. In The South Atlantic: Present and Past Circulation (eds Wefer, G. et al.) 125–162 (Springer, Berlin, 1996).
Google Scholar 

31.
Martin, A. P., Humphreys, R. & Palumbi, S. R. Population genetic-structure of the armorhead, Pseudopentaceros wheeleri, in the North Pacific Ocean: Application of the polymerase chain reaction to fisheries problems. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 49, 2386–2391 (1992).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

32.
Hoarau, G. & Borsa, P. Extensive gene flow within sibling species in the deep-sea fish Beryx splendens. CR Acad. Sci. III Vie 323, 315–325 (2000).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

33.
Smith, P. J. et al. Genetic and meristic variation in black and smooth oreos in the New Zealand EEZ. Mol. Biol. Ecol. 36, 737–750 (2002).
CAS  Google Scholar 

34.
Levy-Hartmann, L., Roussel, V., Letourneur, Y. & Sellos, D. Y. Global and New Caledonian patterns of population genetic variation in the deep-sea splendid alfonsino, Beryx splendens, inferred from mtDNA. Genetica 139, 1349–1365 (2011).
PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

35.
Catarino, D., Stefanni, S. & Menezes, G. M. Size distribution and genetic diversity of the offshore rockfish (Pontinus kuhlii) from three Atlantic archipelagos and seamounts. Deep-Sea Res. Pt. II(98), 160–169 (2013).
Article  Google Scholar 

36.
Varela, A. I., Ritchie, P. A. & Smith, P. J. Global genetic population structure in the commercially exploited deep-sea teleost orange roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus) based on microsatellite DNA analyses. Fish. Res. 140, 83–90 (2013).
Article  Google Scholar 

37.
Aboim, M. A., Menezes, G. M., Schlitt, T. & Rogers, A. D. Genetic structure and history of populations of the deep-sea fish Helicolenus dactylopterus (Delaroche, 1809) inferred from mtDNA sequence analysis. Mol. Ecol. 14, 1343–1354 (2005).
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

38.
Stockley, B. M., Menezes, G., Pinho, M. R. & Rogers, A. D. Genetic population structure of the black-spot sea bream (Pagellus bogaraveo) from the NE Atlantic. Mar. Biol. 146, 793–804 (2005).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

39.
Rogers, A. D., Morley, S., Fitzcharles, E., Jarvis, K. & Belchier, M. Genetic structure of Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) populations on the Patagonian Shelf and Atlantic and western Indian Ocean sectors of the Southern Ocean. Mar. Biol. 149, 915–924 (2006).
Article  Google Scholar 

40.
Hutchings, L. et al. The Benguela Current: An ecosystem of four components. Progr. Oceanogr. 83(1–4), 15–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2009.07.046 (2009).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

41.
Nepgen, C. S. Diet of predatory and reef fish in False Bay and possible effects of pelagic purse-seining on their food supply. Mol. Biol. Ecol. 16, 75–93 (1982).
Google Scholar 

42.
Massias, A. & Becker, P. H. Nutritive value of food and growth in Common Tern Sterna hirundo chicks. Ornis Scand. 1, 187–194 (1990).
Article  Google Scholar 

43.
Stearns, S. C. The Evolution of Life Histories 249 (Oxford University Press, New York, 1992).
Google Scholar 

44.
Stearns, S. C. & Koella, J. C. The evolution of phenotypic plasticity in life-history traits: Predictions of reaction norms for age and size at maturity. Evolution 40, 893–913 (1986).
PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

45.
Shuter, B. J. et al. Optimal life histories and food web position: Linkages among somatic growth, reproductive investment, and mortality. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 62, 738–746 (2005).
Article  Google Scholar 

46.
Jensen, A. Beverton and Holt life history invariants result from optimal trade-off of reproduction and survival. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53, 820–822 (1996).
Article  Google Scholar 

47.
Winemiller, K. O. & Rose, K. A. Patterns of life-history diversification in North American fishes: Implications for population regulation. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 49, 2196–2218 (1992).
Article  Google Scholar 

48.
Law, R. Fishing, selection, and phenotypic evolution. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 57, 659–668 (2000).
Article  Google Scholar 

49.
Heydorn, A. E. F. Research on the Vema Seamount. Afr. Ship. News Fish. Ind. Rev 12, 79–83 (1967).
Google Scholar 

50.
Bergstad, Odd Aksel, Åge Sigurd Høines, Roberto Sarralde, G. Campanis, M. Gil, Fran Ramil, E. Maletzky, E. Mostarda, Larvika Singh, and M. A. António. “Bathymetry, substrate and fishing areas of Southeast Atlantic high-seas seamounts.” African J. of Marine Science 41, no. 1 (2019): 11–28.

51.
Hutchings, L. et al. Spawning on the edge: Spawning grounds and nursery areas around the southern African coastline. Mol. Biol. Ecol. 53, 307–318 (2002).
Google Scholar 

52.
Doyle, J. J. & Doyle, J. L. A rapid DNA isolation procedure for small quantities of fresh leaf tissue. Phytochem. Bull. 19, 11–15 (1987).
Google Scholar 

53.
Doyle, J. J. & Doyle, J. L. Isolation of plant DNA from fresh tissue. Focus 12, 13–15 (1990).
Google Scholar 

54.
Palero, F., González-Candelas, F. & Pascual, M. MICROSATELIGHT—Pipeline to expedite microsatellite analysis. J. Hered. 102, 247–249 (2011).
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

55.
Van Oosterhout, C., Hutchison, W. F., Shipley, P. & Wills, D. P. M. Micro-Checker: Software for identifying and correcting genotyping errors in microsatellite data. Mol. Ecol. 4, 535–538 (2004).
Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

56.
Belkhir, K., Borsa, P., Goudet, J., Chikhi, L. & Bonhomme, F. GENETIX, logiciel sous Window TM pour la génétique des populations. Laboratoire Génome et Populations, Montpellier, France. (2000) http://kimura.univ-montp2.fr/genetix/

57.
Goudet, J. FSTAT, a Program to estimate and test gene diversities and fixation indices version 2.9.3. (2001). http://www.unil.ch/izea/softwares/fstat.html

58.
Ryman, N. & Palm, S. POWSIM: A computer program for assessing statistical power when testing for genetic differentiation. Mol. Ecol. 6, 600–602 (2006).
Article  Google Scholar 

59.
Weir, B. S. & Cockerham, C. C. Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution 38, 1358–1370 (1984).
CAS  Google Scholar 

60.
Holsinger, K. E. & Weir, B. S. Genetics in geographically structured populations: Defining, estimating and interpreting FST. Nat. Rev. Genet. 10, 639–650 (2009).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

61.
Nei, M. Estimation of average heterozygosity and genetic distance from a small number of individuals. Genetics 89, 583–659 (1978).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

62.
Rousset, F. Genepop’007: A complete re-implementation of the genepop software for Windows and Linux. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 8, 103–106 (2008).
PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

63.
Meirmans, P. G. & Hedrick, P. W. Assessing population structure: FST and related measures. Mol. Ecol. Resourc. 11, 5–18 (2011).
Article  Google Scholar 

64.
Jost, L. GST and its relatives do not measure differentiation. Mol. Ecol. 17, 4015–4026 (2008).
PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

65.
Peakall, R. & Smouse, P. E. GenAlEx 6.5: genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research-an update. Bioinformatics 28, 2537–2539 (2012).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

66.
Peakall, R. & Smouse, P. E. GenAlEx 6: Genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research. Mol. Ecol. Notes. 6, 288–295 (2006).
Article  Google Scholar 

67.
Jombart, T., Devillard, S. & Balloux, F. Discriminant analysis of principal components: A new method for the analysis of genetically structured populations. BMC Genet. 11, 94 (2010).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

68.
Jombart, T. Adegenet: A R package for the multivariate analysis of genetic markers. Bioinformatics 24, 1403–1405 (2008).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

69.
R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. (2013)

70.
Pritchard, J. K., Stephens, M. & Donnelly, P. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155, 945–959 (2000).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

71.
Bester-van der Merwe, A. E. et al. Population genetics of Southern Hemisphere tope shark (Galeorhinus galeus): Intercontinental divergence and constrained gene flow at different geographical scales. PLoS ONE 12(9), e0184481 (2017).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

72.
Earl, D. A. & Vonholdt, B. M. STRUCTURE HARVESTER: A website and program for visualizing STRUCTURE output and implementing the Evanno method. Conserv. Genet. Resour. 4(2), 359–361 (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 

73.
Evanno, G., Regnaut, S. & Goudet, J. Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software STRUCTURE: A simulation study. Mol. Ecol. 14, 2611–2620 (2005).
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

74.
Jakobsson, M. & Rosenberg, N. A. CLUMPP: A cluster matching and permutation program for dealing with label switching and multimodality in analysis of population structure. Bioinformatics 23, 1801–1806 (2007).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

75.
Rosenberg, N. A. DISTRUCT: a program for the graphical display of population structure. Mol. Ecol. Notes 4, 137–138 (2004).
Article  Google Scholar 

76.
Froese, B. R. Cube law, condition factor and weight—length relationships: History, meta-analysis and recommendations. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 22, 241–253 (2006).
Article  Google Scholar  More

1.
Faridah-Hanum, I. et al. Development of a comprehensive mangrove quality index (MQI) in Matang Mangrove: assessing mangrove ecosystem health. Ecol. Ind. 102, 103–117 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 
2.
Spalding, M. World Atlas of Mangroves (Routledge, New York, 2010).
Google Scholar 

3.
Himes-Cornell, A., Grose, S. O. & Pendleton, L. Mangrove ecosystem service values and methodological approaches to valuation: where do we stand?. Front. Mar. Sci. 5, 376 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

4.
Wu, Y., Ricklefs, R. E., Huang, Z., Zan, Q. & Yu, S. Winter temperature structures mangrove species distributions and assemblage composition in China. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 27, 1492–1506 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

5.
Das, S. S., Das, S. & Ghosh, P. Phylogenetic relationships among the mangrove species of Acanthaceae found in Indian Sundarban, as revealed by RAPD analysis. Adv. Appl. Sci. Res 6, 179–184 (2015).
CAS  Google Scholar 

6.
Kathiresan, K. & Bingham, B. L. Biology of mangroves and mangrove ecosystems. Adv. Mar. Biol. 40, 84–254 (2001).
Google Scholar 

7.
Sannigrahi, S. et al. Responses of ecosystem services to natural and anthropogenic forcings: a spatial regression based assessment in the world’s largest mangrove ecosystem. Sci. Total Environ. 715, 137004 (2020).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

8.
dos Santos, N. M. & Lana, P. Present and past uses of mangrove wood in the subtropical Bay of Paranaguá (Paraná, Brazil). Ocean Coast. Manag. 148, 97–103 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

9.
Jusoff, K. Malaysian mangrove forests and their significance to the coastal marine environment. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 22, 979–1005 (2013).
Google Scholar 

10.
Duke, N. C., Lo, E. & Sun, M. Global distribution and genetic discontinuities of mangroves–emerging patterns in the evolution of Rhizophora. Trees 16, 65–79 (2002).
Article  Google Scholar 

11.
Nagelkerken, I. et al. The habitat function of mangroves for terrestrial and marine fauna: a review. Aquat. Bot. 89, 155–185 (2008).
Article  Google Scholar 

12.
Tomlinson, P. B. The Botany of Mangroves (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2016).
Google Scholar 

13.
Dahdouh-Guebas, F. et al. How effective were mangroves as a defence against the recent tsunami?. Curr. Biol. 15, R443–R447 (2005).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

14.
Saenger, P. Mangrove Ecology, Silviculture and Conservation (Springer, Berlin, 2002).
Google Scholar 

15.
Lakshmi, M., Parani, M. & Parida, A. Molecular phylogeny of mangroves IX: molecular marker assisted intra-specific variation and species relationships in the Indian mangrove tribe Rhizophoreae. Aquat. Bot. 74, 201–217 (2002).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

16.
Grover, A. & Sharma, P. Development and use of molecular markers: past and present. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 36, 290–302 (2016).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

17.
Adsul, G. G., Chaurasia, A. K., Dhake, A. V. & Kothari, R. M. RAPD analysis of phylogenetic relationships and genetic variations in genus Allium. Biochem. Indian J. 3, 1–5 (2015).
Google Scholar 

18.
Xu, K. et al. Identification of tuna species (Thunnini tribe) by PCR-RFLP analysis of mitochondrial DNA fragments. Food Agric. Immunol. 27, 301–313 (2016).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

19.
Wambugu, P. W., Brozynska, M., Furtado, A., Waters, D. L. & Henry, R. J. Relationships of wild and domesticated rices (Oryza AA genome species) based upon whole chloroplast genome sequences. Sci. Rep. 5, 1–9 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

20.
Middleton, C. P. et al. Sequencing of chloroplast genomes from wheat, barley, rye and their relatives provides a detailed insight into the evolution of the Triticeae tribe. PLoS ONE 9, e85761 (2014).
ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

21.
Raman, G. & Park, S. The complete chloroplast genome sequence of Ampelopsis: gene organization, comparative analysis, and phylogenetic relationships to other angiosperms. Front. Plant Sci. 7, 341 (2016).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

22.
Yang, J. B., Li, D. Z. & Li, H. T. Highly effective sequencing whole chloroplast genomes of angiosperms by nine novel universal primer pairs. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 14, 1024–1031 (2014).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

23.
Su, H.-J., Hogenhout, S. A., Al-Sadi, A. M. & Kuo, C.-H. Complete chloroplast genome sequence of Omani lime (Citrus aurantiifolia) and comparative analysis within the rosids. PLoS ONE 9, e113049 (2014).
ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

24.
Hu, S. Phylogeny and Chloroplast Evolution in BRASSICACEAE, University of Trento, (2016).

25.
Santos, C. G. Development of new tools for the identification of plants using chloroplast DNA sequences. (2018).

26.
Singh, B. P., Kumar, A., Kaur, H., Singh, H. & Nagpal, A. K. CpGDB: A comprehensive database of chloroplast genomes. Bioinformation 16, 171 (2020).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

27.
Wu, Z. The new completed genome of purple willow (Salix purpurea) and conserved chloroplast genome structure of Salicaceae. J. Nat. Sci 1, e49 (2015).
Google Scholar 

28.
Wu, Z. The whole chloroplast genome of shrub willows (Salix suchowensis). Mitochondrial DNA Part A 27, 2153–2154 (2016).
CAS  Google Scholar 

29.
Egamberdiev, S. S. et al. Comparative assessment of genetic diversity in cytoplasmic and nuclear genome of upland cotton. Genetica 144, 289–306 (2016).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

30.
Williams, A. V., Miller, J. T., Small, I., Nevill, P. G. & Boykin, L. M. Integration of complete chloroplast genome sequences with small amplicon datasets improves phylogenetic resolution in Acacia. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 96, 1–8 (2016).
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

31.
Fučíková, K. et al. New phylogenetic hypotheses for the core Chlorophyta based on chloroplast sequence data. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2, 63 (2014).
Google Scholar 

32.
Friis, G. et al. A high-quality genome assembly and annotation of the gray mangrove, Avicennia marina. bioRxiv (2020).

33.
Asaf, S. et al. Complete chloroplast genome of Nicotiana otophora and its comparison with related species. Front. Plant Sci. 7, 843 (2016).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

34.
Asaf, S., Khan, A. L., Khan, A. & Al-Harrasi, A. Unraveling the chloroplast genomes of two prosopis species to identify its genomic information, comparative analyses and phylogenetic relationship. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 21, 3280 (2020).
CAS  PubMed Central  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

35.
Souladeth, P., Tagane, S., Zhang, M., Okabe, N. & Yahara, T. Flora of Nam Kading National Protected Area I: a new species of yellow-flowered Strobilanthes (Acanthaceae), S. namkadingensis. PhytoKeys 81, 11 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

36.
Yang, L. et al. The complete chloroplast genome of Swertia tetraptera and phylogenetic analysis. Mitochondrial DNA Part B 5, 164–165 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

37.
Biju, V. C. et al. The complete chloroplast genome of Trichopus zeylanicus, and phylogenetic analysis with dioscoreales. Plant Genome 12, 190032 (2019).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

38.
Silva, S. R. et al. The chloroplast genome of Utricularia reniformis sheds light on the evolution of the ndh gene complex of terrestrial carnivorous plants from the Lentibulariaceae family. PLoS ONE 11, e0165176 (2016).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

39.
Zuo, L.-H. et al. The first complete chloroplast genome sequences of Ulmus species by de novo sequencing: Genome comparative and taxonomic position analysis. PLoS ONE 12, e0171264 (2017).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

40.
Niu, Z., Huang, S., Deng, Y. & Chen, X. The complete chloroplast genome of Justicia leptostachya (Acanthaceae). Mitochondrial DNA Part B 4, 1114–1115 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

41.
Chen, H. et al. Sequencing and analysis of Strobilanthes cusia (Nees) Kuntze chloroplast Genome revealed the rare simultaneous contraction and expansion of the inverted repeat region in Angiosperm. Front. Plant Sci. 9, 324 (2018).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

42.
Ding, P. et al. The complete chloroplast genome sequence of the medicinal plant Andrographis paniculata. Mitochondrial DNA Part A 27, 2347–2348 (2016).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

43.
Yaradua, S. S., Alzahrani, D. A., Albokhary, E. J., Abba, A. & Bello, A. Complete chloroplast genome sequence of Justicia flava: genome comparative analysis and phylogenetic relationships among Acanthaceae. BioMed Res. Int. 2019, 4370258 (2019).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

44.
Huang, S., Deng, Y. & Ge, X. The complete chloroplast genome of Aphelandra knappiae (Acanthaceae). Mitochondrial DNA Part B 4, 273–274 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

45.
Li, M.-N. et al. Complete plastome sequence of Clinacanthus nutans (Acanthaceae): a medicinal species in Southern China. Mitochondrial DNA Part B 4, 118–119 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

46.
Jiang, M., Wang, J. & Zhang, H. Characterization and phylogenetic analysis of the complete chloroplast genome sequence of Disanthus cercidifolius subsp. longipes (Hamamelidaceae), a rare and endangered wild plant species in China. Mitochondrial DNA Part B 5, 1206–1207 (2020).
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

47.
Steane, D. A. Complete nucleotide sequence of the chloroplast genome from the Tasmanian blue gum, Eucalyptus globulus (Myrtaceae). DNA Res. 12, 215–220 (2005).
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

48.
Park, J., Kim, Y., Xi, H. & Heo, K.-I. The complete chloroplast genome of ornamental coffee tree, Coffea arabica L. (Rubiaceae). Mitochondrial DNA Part B 4, 1059–1060 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

49.
Park, J. et al. The complete chloroplast genome of common camellia tree, Camellia japonica L. (Theaceae), adapted to cold environment in Korea. Mitochondrial DNA Part B 4, 1038–1040 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

50.
Arif Khan, S. A. et al. First complete chloroplast genomics and comparative phylogenetic analysis of Commiphora gileadensis and C. foliacea: Myrrh producing trees. PLoS ONE 14, e0225469 (2019).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

51.
Xu, J. et al. The first intron of rice EPSP synthase enhances expression of foreign gene. Sci. China Ser. C Life Sci. 46, 561 (2003).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

52.
Kelchner, S. A. The evolution of non-coding chloroplast DNA and its application in plant systematics. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 87, 482–498 (2000).
Article  Google Scholar 

53.
Khan, A. et al. Complete chloroplast genomes of medicinally important Teucrium species and comparative analyses with related species from Lamiaceae. PeerJ 7, e7260 (2019).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

54.
Asaf, S., Khan, A., Khan, A. L., Al-Harrasi, A. & Al-Rawahi, A. Complete chloroplast genomes of Vachellia nilotica and Senegalia senegal: comparative genomics and phylogenomic placement in a new generic system. PLoS ONE 14, e0225469 (2019).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

55.
Su, Y., He, Z., Wang, Z., Hong, Y. & Wang, T. Characterization of the complete chloroplast genome of Leptochilus decurrens (Polypodiaceae), a least concern folk medicinal fern. Mitochondrial DNA Part B 4, 3346–3347 (2019).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

56.
Kumar, S. & Shanker, A. In silico comparative analysis of simple sequence repeats in chloroplast genomes of genus nymphaea. J. Sci. Res. 64, 186–192 (2020).
Google Scholar 

57.
Asaf, S. et al. The complete chloroplast genome of wild rice (Oryza minuta) and its comparison to related species. Front. Plant Sci. 8, 304 (2017).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

58.
Asaf, S. et al. Complete chloroplast genome sequence and comparative analysis of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) with related species. PLoS ONE 13, e0192966 (2018).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

59.
Khan, A. L. et al. The first chloroplast genome sequence of Boswellia sacra, a resin-producing plant in Oman. PLoS ONE 12, e0169794 (2017).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

60.
Asaf, S. et al. Comparative analysis of complete plastid genomes from wild soybean (Glycine soja) and nine other Glycine species. PLoS ONE 12, e0182281 (2017).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

61.
Qian, J. et al. The complete chloroplast genome sequence of the medicinal plant Salvia miltiorrhiza. PLoS ONE 8, e57607 (2013).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

62.
Wang, W. & Messing, J. High-throughput sequencing of three Lemnoideae (duckweeds) chloroplast genomes from total DNA. PLoS ONE 6, e24670 (2011).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

63.
Shen, X. et al. Complete chloroplast genome sequence and phylogenetic analysis of the medicinal plant Artemisia annua. Molecules 22, 1330 (2017).
ADS  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

64.
Liu, M. et al. The complete chloroplast genome sequence of Tartary Buckwheat Cultivar Miqiao 1 (Fagopyrum tataricum Gaertn.). Mitochondrial DNA Part B 1, 577–578 (2016).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

65.
Fu, P.-C., Zhang, Y.-Z., Geng, H.-M. & Chen, S.-L. The complete chloroplast genome sequence of Gentiana lawrencei var. farreri (Gentianaceae) and comparative analysis with its congeneric species. PeerJ 4, e2540 (2016).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

66.
Choi, K. S., Chung, M. G. & Park, S. The complete chloroplast genome sequences of three Veroniceae species (Plantaginaceae): comparative analysis and highly divergent regions. Front. Plant Sci. 7, 355 (2016).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

67.
Cheon, K.-S., Kim, K.-A., Kwak, M., Lee, B. & Yoo, K.-O. The complete chloroplast genome sequences of four Viola species (Violaceae) and comparative analyses with its congeneric species. PLoS ONE 14, e0214162 (2019).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

68.
Munyao, J. N. et al. Complete chloroplast genomes of chlorophytum comosum and chlorophytum gallabatense: genome structures, comparative and phylogenetic analysis. Plants 9, 296 (2020).
CAS  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

69.
Yu, T., Huang, B.-H., Zhang, Y., Liao, P.-C. & Li, J.-Q. Chloroplast genome of an extremely endangered conifer Thuja sutchuenensis Franch.: gene organization, comparative and phylogenetic analysis. Physiol. Mol. Biol. Plants 1–10 (2020).

70.
Sabri, D. M., El-Hussieny, S. A. & Elnwishy, N. Genotypic Variations of Mangrove (Avicennia marina) in Nabq Protectorate, South Sinai Egypt. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 20, 637–646 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

71.
71Basyuni, M., Baba, S. & Oku, H. in IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. 012247 (IOP Publishing).

72.
Sahu, S. K., Singh, R. & Kathiresan, K. Multi-gene phylogenetic analysis reveals the multiple origin and evolution of mangrove physiological traits through exaptation. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 183, 41–51 (2016).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

73.
Khan, A. et al. First complete chloroplast genomics and comparative phylogenetic analysis of Commiphora gileadensis and C. foliacea: Myrrh producing trees. PLoS ONE 14, e0208511 (2019).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

74.
Arif, M. F., Aristya, G. R., Subositi, D., Sari, A. N. & Kasiamdari, R. S. rbcL and matK chloroplast DNA composition of green chireta (Andrographis paniculata) from Indonesia. Biodivers. J. Biol. Divers. 20, 3575–3583 (2019).
Google Scholar 

75.
Langdon, W. B. Performance of genetic programming optimised Bowtie2 on genome comparison and analytic testing (GCAT) benchmarks. BioData Min. 8, 1 (2015).
MathSciNet  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

76.
Kearse, M. et al. Geneious Basic: an integrated and extendable desktop software platform for the organization and analysis of sequence data. Bioinformatics 28, 1647–1649 (2012).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

77.
Gan, H. M., Schultz, M. B. & Austin, C. M. Integrated shotgun sequencing and bioinformatics pipeline allows ultra-fast mitogenome recovery and confirms substantial gene rearrangements in Australian freshwater crayfishes. BMC Evol. Biol. 14, 19 (2014).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

78.
Feng, G., Yang, J. & Peng, F.-R. Characterization of complete chloroplast genome of artificial hybrid passion fruit ‘Ziyan’, Passiflora edulis Sims× P. edulis f. edulis Sims (Passifloraceae). Mitochondrial DNA Part B 5, 1720–1721 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

79.
Brown, J., Pirrung, M. & McCue, L. A. FQC Dashboard: integrates FastQC results into a web-based, interactive, and extensible FASTQ quality control tool. Bioinformatics 33, 3137–3139 (2017).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

80.
Bolger, A. M., Lohse, M. & Usadel, B. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 30, 2114–2120 (2014).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

81.
Wyman, S. K., Jansen, R. K. & Boore, J. L. Automatic annotation of organellar genomes with DOGMA. Bioinformatics 20, 3252–3255 (2004).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

82.
Schattner, P., Brooks, A. N. & Lowe, T. M. The tRNAscan-SE, snoscan and snoGPS web servers for the detection of tRNAs and snoRNAs. Nucleic Acids Res. 33, W686–W689 (2005).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

83.
Lohse, M., Drechsel, O. & Bock, R. OrganellarGenomeDRAW (OGDRAW): a tool for the easy generation of high-quality custom graphical maps of plastid and mitochondrial genomes. Curr. Genet. 52, 267–274 (2007).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

84.
Kumar, S., Stecher, G., Li, M., Knyaz, C. & Tamura, K. MEGA X: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis across computing platforms. Mol. Biol. Evol. 35, 1547–1549 (2018).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

85.
Frazer, K. A., Pachter, L., Poliakov, A., Rubin, E. M. & Dubchak, I. VISTA: computational tools for comparative genomics. Nucleic Acids Res. 32, W273–W279 (2004).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

86.
Kurtz, S. et al. REPuter: the manifold applications of repeat analysis on a genomic scale. Nucleic Acids Res. 29, 4633–4642 (2001).
MathSciNet  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

87.
Beier, S., Thiel, T., Münch, T., Scholz, U. & Mascher, M. MISA-web: a web server for microsatellite prediction. Bioinformatics 33, 2583–2585 (2017).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

88.
Wirawan, A., Kwoh, C. K., Hsu, L. Y. & Koh, T. H. in International Conference on Computational Systems-Biology and Bioinformatics. 151–164 (Springer).

89.
Katoh, K. & Standley, D. M. MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: improvements in performance and usability. Mol. Biol. Evol. 30, 772–780 (2013).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

90.
Srivathsan, A. & Meier, R. On the inappropriate use of Kimura-2-parameter (K2P) divergences in the DNA-barcoding literature. Cladistics 28, 190–194 (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 

91.
Kumar, S., Nei, M., Dudley, J. & Tamura, K. MEGA: a biologist-centric software for evolutionary analysis of DNA and protein sequences. Brief. Bioinf. 9, 299–306 (2008).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

92.
Swofford, D. L. Paup*: Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (and other methods) 4.0. B5. (2001).

93.
Wu, Z., Tembrock, L. R. & Ge, S. Are differences in genomic data sets due to true biological variants or errors in genome assembly: an example from two chloroplast genomes. PLoS ONE 10, e0118019 (2015).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar  More

1.
Ceballos, G. et al. Accelerated modern human-induced species losses: entering the sixth mass extinction. Sci. Adv. 1, e1400253 (2015).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 
2.
De Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L. & Willemen, L. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol. Complex. 7, 260–272 (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

3.
Tilman, D. et al. Future threats to biodiversity and pathways to their prevention. Nature 546, 73–81 (2017).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

4.
Protected Planet Report 2016 (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2016).

5.
Barnes, M. D., Glew, L., Wyborn, C. & Craigie, I. D. Prevent perverse outcomes from global protected area policy. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 759–762 (2018).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

6.
Jones, K. R. et al. One-third of global protected land is under intense human pressure. Science 360, 788–791 (2018).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

7.
Geldmann, J. et al. Effectiveness of terrestrial protected areas in reducing habitat loss and population declines. Biol. Conserv. 161, 230–238 (2013).
Article  Google Scholar 

8.
The State of the World’s Forests 2020 (FAO and UNEP, 2020).

9.
Betts, M. G. et al. Global forest loss disproportionately erodes biodiversity in intact landscapes. Nature 547, 441–444 (2017).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

10.
Griscom, B. W. et al. Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 11645–11650 (2017).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

11.
Gray, C. L. et al. Local biodiversity is higher inside than outside terrestrial protected areas worldwide. Nat. Commun. 7, 12306 (2016).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

12.
Coetzee, B. W., Gaston, K. J. & Chown, S. L. Local scale comparisons of biodiversity as a test for global protected area ecological performance: a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 9, e105824 (2014).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

13.
Hansen, M. C. et al. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 342, 850–853 (2013).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

14.
Nelson, A. & Chomitz, K. M. Effectiveness of strict vs. multiple use protected areas in reducing tropical forest fires: a global analysis using matching methods. PLoS ONE 6, e22722 (2011).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

15.
Nolte, C., Agrawal, A., Silvius, K. M. & Soares-Filho, B. S. Governance regime and location influence avoided deforestation success of protected areas in the Brazilian Amazon. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 4956–4961 (2013).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

16.
Spracklen, B., Kalamandeen, M., Galbraith, D., Gloor, E. & Spracklen, D. V. A global analysis of deforestation in moist tropical forest protected areas. PLoS ONE 10, e0143886 (2015).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

17.
Geldmann, J., Manica, A., Burgess, N. D., Coad, L. & Balmford, A. A global-level assessment of the effectiveness of protected areas at resisting anthropogenic pressures. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 23209–23215 (2019).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

18.
Ewers, R. M. & Rodrigues, A. S. Estimates of reserve effectiveness are confounded by leakage. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23, 113–116 (2008).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

19.
Fuller, C., Ondei, S., Brook, B. W. & Buettel, J. C. First, do no harm: a systematic review of deforestation spillovers from protected areas. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 18, e00591 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

20.
Stolton, S. et al. in Protected Area Governance and Management (eds Worboys, G. L. et al.) 145–168 (ANU Press, 2015).

21.
Scharlemann, J. P. et al. Securing tropical forest carbon: the contribution of protected areas to REDD. Oryx 44, 352–357 (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

22.
Barnes, M. D. et al. Wildlife population trends in protected areas predicted by national socio-economic metrics and body size. Nat. Commun. 7, 12747 (2016).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

23.
Geldmann, J. et al. A global analysis of management capacity and ecological outcomes in terrestrial protected areas. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12434 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

24.
Amano, T. et al. Successful conservation of global waterbird populations depends on effective governance. Nature 553, 199–202 (2018).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

25.
Leader-Williams, N. & Albon, S. Allocation of resources for conservation. Nature 336, 533–535 (1988).
Article  Google Scholar 

26.
Jachmann, H. Monitoring law-enforcement performance in nine protected areas in Ghana. Biol. Conserv. 141, 89–99 (2008).
Article  Google Scholar 

27.
Critchlow, R. et al. Improving law-enforcement effectiveness and efficiency in protected areas using ranger-collected monitoring data. Conserv. Lett. 10, 572–580 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

28.
Coad, L. et al. Widespread shortfalls in protected area resourcing undermine efforts to conserve biodiversity. Front. Ecol. Environ. 17, 259–264 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

29.
Waldron, A. et al. Targeting global conservation funding to limit immediate biodiversity declines. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 12144–12148 (2013).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

30.
Watson, J. E., Dudley, N., Segan, D. B. & Hockings, M. The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature 515, 67–73 (2014).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

31.
Bruner, A. G., Gullison, R. E. & Balmford, A. Financial costs and shortfalls of managing and expanding protected-area systems in developing countries. BioScience 54, 1119–1126 (2004).
Article  Google Scholar 

32.
Pan, Y. et al. A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science 333, 988–993 (2011).

33.
Report of the Conference of the Parties on its Sixteenth Session, held in Cancun from 29 November to 10 December 2010. Addendum. Part Two: Action Taken by the Conference of the Parties at its Sixteenth Session Report FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1 (UNFCCC, 2011).

34.
Fletcher, R., Dressler, W., Büscher, B. & Anderson, Z. R. Questioning REDD+ and the future of market-based conservation. Conserv. Biol. 30, 673–675 (2016).
PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

35.
Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible, Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt Política Nacional para la Gestión Integral de la Biodiversidad y Sus Servicios Ecosistémicos (MADS, 2012).

36.
Sims, K. R. E. & Alix-Garcia, J. M. Parks versus PES: evaluating direct and incentive-based land conservation in Mexico. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 86, 8–28 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

37.
James, A. N., Green, M. J. B. & Paine, J. R. A Global Review of Protected Area Budgets and Staff WCMC Biodiversity Series No.10 (World Conservation Press, 1999).

38.
Walker, S., Price, R., Rutledge, D., Stephens, R. T. & Lee, W. G. Recent loss of indigenous cover in New Zealand. New Zeal. J. Ecol. 30, 169–177 (2006).
Google Scholar 

39.
Ewers, R. M. et al. Past and future trajectories of forest loss in New Zealand. Biol. Conserv. 133, 312–325 (2006).
Article  Google Scholar 

40.
Sodhi, N. S. et al. The state and conservation of Southeast Asian biodiversity. Biodivers. Conserv. 19, 317–328 (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

41.
Grossman, G. M. & Krueger, A. B. Environmental Impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement (National Bureau of Economic Research, 1991).

42.
Locke, H. et al. Three global conditions for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use: an implementation framework. Natl Sci. Rev. 6, 1080–1082 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

43.
Lenzen, M. et al. International trade drives biodiversity threats in developing nations. Nature 486, 109–112 (2012).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

44.
Walker, N., Patel, S., Davies, F., Milledge, S. & Hulse, J. Demand-Side Interventions to Reduce Deforestation and Forest Degradation (International Institute for Environment and Development, 2013).

45.
Marie-Vivien, D., Garcia, C. A., Kushalappa, C. G. & Vaast, P. Trademarks, geographical indications and environmental labelling to promote biodiversity: the case of agroforestry coffee in India. Dev. Policy Rev. 32, 379–398 (2014).
Google Scholar 

46.
Symes, W. S., Rao, M., Mascia, M. B. & Carrasco, L. R. Why do we lose protected areas? Factors influencing protected area downgrading, downsizing and degazettement in the tropics and subtropics. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 656–665 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

47.
Adams, W. M. et al. Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of poverty. Science 306, 1146–1149 (2004).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

48.
Belle, E. et al. Protected Planet Report 2018 (UNEP-WCMC, IUCN and NGS, 2018).

49.
Geldmann, J. et al. Essential indicators for measuring area-based conservation effectiveness in the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202003.0370.v1 (2020).

50.
Protected Areas Management Effectiveness Methodologies (Protected Planet 2020); http://go.nature.com/3ptIPHA

51.
Ervin, J. Rapid assessment of protected area management effectiveness in four countries. BioScience 53, 833–841 (2003).
Article  Google Scholar 

52.
Conservancy, N. Conservation Action Planning: Developing Strategies, Taking Action, and Measuring Success at any Scale: Overview of Basic Practices (Nature Conservancy, 2007).

53.
Hockings, M. et al. The World Heritage Management Effectiveness Workbook: 2007 Edition: How to Build Monitoring, Assessment and Reporting Systems to Improve the Management Effectiveness of Natural World Heritage Sites 3rd draft (Univ. Queensland, 2007).

54.
Moomaw, W. R., Masino, S. A. & Faison, E. K. Intact forests in the United States: proforestation mitigates climate change and serves the greatest good. Front. For. Glob. Change 2, 27 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

55.
Stolton, S., Hockings, M., Dudley, N., MacKinnon, K. & Whitten, T. Reporting Progress in Protected Areas: A Site-Level Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (World Bank/WWF Alliance for Forest Conservation and Sustainable Use, 2003).

56.
Hockings, M. et al. The IUCN green list of protected and conserved areas: setting the standard for effective area-based conservation. Parks 25, 57–66 (2019).
Google Scholar 

57.
Locke, H. Nature needs half: a necessary and hopeful new agenda for protected areas. Nat. N. South Wales 58, 7–17 (2014).
Google Scholar 

58.
Wilson, E. O. Half-Earth: Our Planet’s Fight for Life (WW Norton & Company, 2016).

59.
The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) (IUCN and UNEP-WCMC, accessed 1 January 2020); https://www.protectedplanet.net/

60.
Iacus, S. M., King, G. & Porro, G. Causal inference without balance checking: coarsened exact matching. Polit. Anal. 20, 1–24 (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 

61.
Stuart, E. A. Matching methods for causal inference: a review and a look forward. Stat. Sci. 25, 1–21 (2010).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

62.
Schleicher, J. et al. Statistical matching for conservation science. Conserv. Biol. 34, 538–549 (2019).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

63.
Weiss, D. J. et al. A global map of travel time to cities to assess inequalities in accessibility in 2015. Nature 553, 333–336 (2018).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

64.
Gridded Population of the World, Version 4 (GPWv4): Population Density, Revision 11 (Columbia Univ. Center for International Earth Science Information Network, 2018).

65.
Olson, D. M. et al. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on earth a new global map of terrestrial ecoregions provides an innovative tool for conserving biodiversity. BioScience 51, 933–938 (2001).
Article  Google Scholar 

66.
Curtis, P. G., Slay, C. M., Harris, N. L., Tyukavina, A. & Hansen, M. C. Classifying drivers of global forest loss. Science 361, 1108–1111 (2018).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

67.
Bode, M., Tulloch, A. I., Mills, M., Venter, O. & Ando, W. A. A conservation planning approach to mitigate the impacts of leakage from protected area networks. Conserv. Biol. 29, 765–774 (2015).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

68.
Carranza, T., Balmford, A., Kapos, V. & Manica, A. Protected area effectiveness in reducing conversion in a rapidly vanishing ecosystem: the Brazilian Cerrado. Conserv. Lett. 7, 216–223 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

69.
Ferraro, P. J. Counterfactual thinking and impact evaluation in environmental policy. New Dir. Eval. 2009, 75–84 (2009).
Article  Google Scholar 

70.
Joppa, L. N. & Pfaff, A. Global protected area impacts. Proc. R. Soc. B 278, 1633–1638 (2010).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

71.
Iacus, S. M., King, G. & Porro, G. CEM: software for coarsened exact matching. J. Stat. Softw. 30, 1–27 (2009).
Article  Google Scholar 

72.
Rosenbaum, P. R. Sensitivity analysis for m-estimates, tests, and confidence intervals in matched observational studies. Biometrics 63, 456–464 (2007).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

73.
Keele, L. An Overview of rbounds: an R Package for Rosenbaum Bounds Sensitivity Analysis with Matched Data White Paper, Columbus 1–15 (2010); https://go.nature.com/2M5DKXM

74.
Keele, L. J. rbounds: Perform Rosenbaum Bounds Sensitivity Tests for Matched and Unmatched Data. R Package (2014); https://cran.r-project.org/package=rbounds

75.
World Development Indicators 2018 (World Bank, 2018).

76.
Conner, M. M., Saunders, W. C., Bouwes, N. & Jordan, C. Evaluating impacts using a BACI design, ratios, and a Bayesian approach with a focus on restoration. Environ. Monit. Assess. 188, 555 (2016).
PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

77.
Murakami, D. spmoran (ver. 0.2.0): an R package for Moran eigenvector-based scalable spatial additive mixed modeling. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.04467v9 (2017).

78.
Murakami, D. & Griffith, D. A. Spatially varying coefficient modeling for large datasets: eliminating N from spatial regressions. Spat. Stat. 30, 39–64 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

79.
Murakami, D. & Griffith, D. A. Balancing spatial and non-spatial variation in varying coefficient modeling: a remedy for spurious correlation. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.09981 (2020).

80.
Walker, W. et al. Forest carbon in Amazonia: the unrecognized contribution of Indigenous territories and protected natural areas. Carbon Manag. 5, 479–485 (2014).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

81.
Robinson, E. J., Albers, H. J. & Busby, G. M. The impact of buffer zone size and management on illegal extraction, park protection, and enforcement. Ecol. Econ. 92, 96–103 (2013).
Article  Google Scholar 

82.
Koop, G. & Tole, L. Is there an environmental Kuznets curve for deforestation? J. Dev. Econ. 58, 231–244 (1999).
Article  Google Scholar 

83.
Barnes, M. D., Craigie, I. D., Dudley, N. & Hockings, M. Understanding local-scale drivers of biodiversity outcomes in terrestrial protected areas. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 1399, 42–60 (2017).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

84.
Chamberlin, T. C. The method of multiple working hypotheses. Science 15, 92–96 (1890).
Google Scholar  More

Del Mar methane seep carbonate community analyses
The carbonate rock sample used for microbial community analyses was collected from Del Mar East Seep, Dive SO 177, (32°54.25456764 N, 117°46.9408327 W) at a depth of 1032.06 m. The site is in the northern portion of the San Diego Trough, about 50 km west of San Diego, California. Visible features of the seep include carbonate boulders and pavements colonized by orange and white bacterial mats, possible subsurface methane hydrate (large pits and craters), clam beds, and curtains of methane bubbles [20]. For a more in-depth discussion of the Del Mar Methane Seep, please see Grupe et al., (2015). A small chunk of the rock was sealed in a Mylar bag and shipped on dry ice to the University of Minnesota (Twin Cities). Upon arrival, the carbonate sample was temporarily stored at −80 °C until sampling for DNA extractions. All tools used for sampling biomass were autoclave-sterilized prior to use, and all work was performed in a LabConco A2 biological safety cabinet. Sterile aluminum foil was placed over ice packs to provide a cold and clean working environment. Three tubes were designated for the top of the rock, and three tubes were designated for the bottom of the rock. Biomass was scraped from the respective positions and placed in tubes. Top sample tubes had a biomass weight between 76.5–97.6 mg, and bottom sample tubes had a biomass weight between 30.7–59.3 mg. DNA was extracted from the seep samples using the ZymoBIOMICS DNA miniprep kit (Zymo, Irvine, CA). Nuclease-free water from the kit was processed alongside the samples as a negative control for iTag sequence analyses. The amplification of DNA and the generation iTag libraries of the V4 hypervariable region was performed by the University of Minnesota Genomics Center as previously described [21]. The samples and negative control were sequenced on ¼ of a lane of MiSeq for paired end 2×300 bp reads. Primers and adapters were removed with Cutadapt v. 2.10 [22]. The paired end reads were processed and assembled using DADA2 v1.16.0 [23]. The maximum expected error rate was 2 and reads detected as phiX were removed prior to error detection, merging of pairs and chimera detection. Taxonomic assignment was performed using the Silva database v. 138 [24]. Bioinformatic and statistical analyses was performed using tools in PhyloSeq 1.32.0 [25]. R package Decontam 1.8.0 [26] identified contaminating amplicon sequence variants (ASVs). Thus, ASVs of the genera Escherichia/Shigella, Haemophilus, Streptococcus, and the clade Chloroflexi S085 were bioinformatically removed from analyses. ASVs with statistically different abundances between the top and bottom surfaces were detected with DESeq2 v. 1.28.0.
Scanning electron microscopy of seep carbonates
The carbonate rock sample used for SEM imaging was collected from the Lasuen Knoll Seep (Dive SO 170, 33°23.57489996 N, 118°0.39814252 W) at a depth of 279.705 meters. A small chunk of carbonate rock with filtered bottom water and 25% vol/vol glutaraldehyde was stored at 4 °C, shipped on ice to the University of Minnesota (Twin Cities), and then stored at 4 °C. Several small pieces of the carbonate rock were broken off and placed in an 8-well plate. The carbonate pieces in the 8-well plate were rinsed, and subjected to an ethanol dehydration series as follows: 50% for 2 h, 70% over night, 80% for 15 min, 95% (x2) for 15 min, and 100% (x2) for 15 min. Carbonate samples were then subjected to critical point drying on a Tousimis Model 780 A Critical-Point-Dryer following standard procedures, followed by sputter coating 1–2 nm Iridium in a Leica ACE600 Sputter Coater. Lastly, carbonate samples were visualized at 1.0 kV on a Hitachi SU8230 Field Emission Gun Scanning Electron Microscope.
Continuous flow bioreactor experiments
To investigate the potential for sulfur-oxidizing bacteria to dissolve carbonate minerals, we used flow-through biofilm reactors (herein referred to as bioreactors: CDC; CBR 90–3 CDC Biofilm Reactor). Bioreactors contained eight polypropylene coupon holder rods that each accommodate three 12.7 mm diameter coupons. The lid and coupon holder rods were mounted in a 1 L glass vessel with side-arm discharge port at ~400 mL. A liquid medium (described below and Supplementary Table 1) was circulated through the bioreactor, while mixing was generated by a magnetic stir bar at 80 RPM. Sampling of the coupons was conducted aseptically by removing individual coupon holders and harvesting the coupons, while replacing the removed coupon holder with a sterile rubber plug. Experiments were 21 days in duration. On the final day of bioreactor experiments, one coupon was transferred to a treatment imaging flow cell (herein referred to as flow cell: BioSurface Technologies; Model FC 310 Treatment Imaging Flow Cell) in order to visualize and measure the in vivo pH of the biofilm. The flow cell is an autoclavable polycarbonate plastic cell with a recessed inner circle for installing coupons with biofilms grown in CDC Biofilm Reactors, and is equipped with barbed influent and effluent connectors, and topped with a coverslip for in vivo imaging.
The bioreactor medium consisted of two solutions, salt solution 1 & 2, and six additional components: vitamin solution, trace element solution, yeast extract, sodium bicarbonate, sodium thiosulfate, and sodium metasilicate. One 10 L carboy was prepared by autoclaving 5 L of salt solution 1 and one 10 L carboy was prepared by autoclaving 4.1 L (with an additional 839 mL ddH2O) of salt solution 2 at 121 °C for 80 min. The salt solutions were then aseptically pumped together, followed by the addition of sterile stocks of 10 mL 1000X vitamin solution, 10 mL 1000X trace element solution, 10 mL (1000 g/L) yeast extract, 11 mL 1 M NaHCO3, 10 mL 1 M Na2S2O3, and 20 mL 100 mM NaSiO3 through a 0.2 μM filter.
The final medium had a pH of ~7.85 and contained approximately 1.1 mM HCO3-, 1 mM S2O32-, and 9.14 mM Ca2+, with a saturation state with respect to aragonite (Ωaragonite) of ~0.5, similar to that measured near the sediment/water interface in certain seep environments where carbonate dissolution was observed to occur [7, 27]. The saturation state of aragonite was calculated using CO2SYS_v2.1 [28]. Ingredients for both salt solutions and the additional components added to the medium are presented in Supplementary Table 1. Measured saturation indices throughout bioreactor experiments are presented in Supplementary Table 2.
Mineral preparation for bioreactor experiments
Bulk mineral specimens of aragonite were obtained from D.J. Minerals (Butte, Montana). X-ray powder diffraction (XRD) of the aragonite sample, and peak matching indicates the mineral is nearly 100% aragonite. Samples used for the bioreactor were cored with a diamond coring bit on a drill press, cut to ~1–3 mm thickness and smoothed with a diamond saw. Coupons were then scored with a diamond tipped scribe pen to assign a reference code. After scoring, coupons were placed in a muffle furnace (NEY 2-525 Series II) at 500 °C for 4 h to remove residual organic matter, followed by weighing to 0.01 mg (CAHN 29 Automatic Electrobalance) and stored in a desiccator until being mounted in coupon holder rods.
Assembling the bioreactor
Weighed coupons were mounted in coupon holder rods, and fastened in place with plastic screws to avoid mineral chipping, as occurred with the stock metal screws. The bioreactor lid was equipped with a bubble trap on the media inflow port, a 0.45 μm airport, and a lure-lock covered in foil for inoculating via syringe. The entire bioreactor was autoclaved at 121 °C for 45 min.
Microbial inoculant
Celeribacter baekdonensis strain LH4 was used as the pure-culture inoculant for the bioreactor experiments. C. baekdonensis strain LH4 is a colorless, chemolithoheterotrophic, sulfur-oxidizing bacterium, belonging to the Rhodobacterales within the Alphaproteobacteria. It was isolated from marine sediments collected from a methane seep/brine pool at Green Canyon Block 233 [29] (Lat/Long: 27° 43.4392’ N, 91° 16.7638’ W, Depth: 648 m) in the Gulf of Mexico. Strain LH4 produces acid from thiosulfate oxidation, likely via the sox pathway (soxABCDXYZ) [30]. Strain LH4 also contains other genes related to sulfur oxidation, including four copies of sulfide quinone oxidoreductase ORFs and three copies that encode flavocytochrome c oxidases. Strain LH4 was grown up in the final medium, centrifuged at 10,000 G for 10 min, and washed 2X. OD590 for experiments was on average ~0.07 (~2.3•108 cells/mL based on cell counts and growth curves yielding the equation y = 3•109(x) + 2•107 where y equals cells/mL, and x equals OD590) with an inoculum volume of 20 mL.
Bioreactor experiments
Experiments were run to measure the dissolution of aragonite in a medium with a saturation state of 0.5 with respect to aragonite, similar to that measured near the sediment/water interface in seep environments [27]. Unlike in the sediments where AOM-generated alkalinity is high and carbonate actively precipitates, at the sediment/water interface previous studies have measured a notable drop in alkalinity [11, 31,32,33,34,35,36] and carbonate dissolution was observed to occur [7,8,9, 11, 27]. In total, six continuous -flow bioreactor experiments were run: three biotic experiments under identical conditions at 10 °C, pH ~7.85, 1.1 mM HCO3-, 1 mM S2O32-, and yeast extract; two uninoculated controls run under the same conditions as above to obtain an abiotic dissolution rate in undersaturated conditions; and one biotic experiment was run under identical conditions, minus the addition of S2O32- to elucidate the impact of heterotrophy on mineral stability.
10 L carboys containing the final medium and sterile bioreactors were assembled aseptically in a class A2 biological safety bench. Approximately 325 mL of the media was pumped into the bioreactor, followed by inoculating with 20 mL of pure culture and ~600 μL 1 M HCO3-. The luer-lock was removed and a 0.2 μM filter was added in its place. Bioreactors were then placed in a 10 °C refrigerator on a stir plate at 80 RPM.
Inoculated bioreactors were run in batch phase for 4 h to promote ample attachment of cells to aragonite coupon surfaces. Following the batch phase, the bioreactor was moved back to the clean hood where one coupon holder rod was removed and replaced with a sterile rubber stopper. Two coupons were placed in the incinerator at 500 °C for 4 h, followed by weighing for mass loss. The additional coupon was fixed in 4% PFA for 2 h, washed, and stained with DAPI [4,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole] for 30 min. Stained coupons were washed and mounted on coverslips (0.17 mm thickness) with DPX mountant for cell counting. After batch phase harvesting, the pump was turned on to the max flow rate (31 mL/min) and the first 100 mL out of the reactor was collected to measure pH, alkalinity, [Ca2+], and OD590. pH and alkalinity were measured using a Hanna Instruments total alkalinity mini titrator (HI-84431) and pH meter (HI 1131B) following the manufacturers protocol (Hanna Instruments, Woonsocket, RI, USA). [Ca2+] was measured using a Hach hardness test kit (product #2063900) following to the manufacturer’s protocol (Hach, Loveland, CO, USA). OD590 was measured on a Thermo Scientific Spectronic 20D + (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA), where 1 mL of sterile medium was added to a cuvette to blank the spectrophotometer, and then 1 mL of the collected outflow was placed in a cuvette and measured. The pump was kept at the max flow rate for approximately 3–4 h after batch phase to remove planktonic cells and the additional HCO3- added during batch phase. Directly after flushing the bioreactor, water chemistry measurements were taken as they were above, and then the flow rate was dropped to 10 mL/min. Henceforth, the flow rate was only adjusted to keep the bulk fluid at approximately the pH and alkalinity of the starting conditions (max flow rate of 21 mL/min during week 3). To ensure consistency of the bulk fluid chemistry, pH and alkalinity measurements were taken twice daily (8–12 h intervals), just before changing carboys. Carboys were changed about every 8–12 h, depending on the current flow rate. To change carboys, the following steps were taken: (1) The pump was briefly turned off, and sterile aluminum foil was wrapped around the outflow tubing. (2) The bioreactor and currently connected carboy were moved to the biological safety bench on a roll cart. (3) Tubing that connected the carboy to the bioreactor was disconnected, and the male-port of the tubing still connected to the bioreactor was submerged in sterile 70% EtOH. (4) A new 10 L carboy containing the final medium was removed from the 10 °C refrigerator. (5) Aluminum foil covering the female-port of the tubing on the carboy was removed, and sprayed with sterile 70% EtOH. (6) Tubing from the bioreactor and carboy were then connected and placed on the roll cart, and moved back to the 10 °C refrigerator. (7) The pump was turned back on and flow resumed. One coupon holder rod was harvested every four days for 21 days, where two coupons were incinerated and weighed for mass loss and one coupon was fixed and stained for cell counting as described above. Surface area of aragonite coupons were estimated using the diameter of the coupon, the density of aragonite (2.93 g/cm3), and the mass of the coupon before and after bioreactor experiments. Density and mass were used to estimate the volume of the coupon, followed by deriving an estimated surface area. Using the mass of coupons before and after experiments, we calculated the total number of moles lost per unit area. Averaging these data out over time we were able to determine a dissolution rate in units of μmol CaCO3 • cm−2 • hr−1, which we then converted to μmol CaCO3 • cm−2 • yr−1 (8,760 h/year).
Confocal microscopy
We utilized the flow cell in conjunction with the ratiometric dye C-SNAFL-1 [5-[6]-carboxyseminaphthofluorescein] and Hoechst 33342 for measuring the in vivo pH of 21-day-old biofilms, and visualizing the biofilm, respectively. Coupons transferred to the flow cell were connected to a peristaltic pump at 3 mL/min until imaging occurred.
Spectrofluorometric assays
To calibrate C-SNAFL-1 photon excitations and to evaluate the dye’s potential use in measuring pH in biofilms, 1 mL aliquots of the final media with 10 mM HEPES buffer were adjusted to pH 5.0, 5.2, 5.6, 6.0, 6.4, 6.8, 7.2, 7.6, and 8.0. The final probe concentration was ~1.09 μM of C-SNAFL-1. Additional calibrations were performed with the addition of 4% (vol/vol) C. baekdonensis strain LH4.

$${mathrm{Ratio}} = left( {{mathrm{Ex}}_{488} – {mathrm{Ex}}_{488{mathrm{,bkgd}}}} right)/left( {{mathrm{Ex}}_{561} – {mathrm{Ex}}_{561{mathrm{,bkgd}}}} right)$$
(IV)

Confocal scanning laser microscopy
All biofilm images, pH and ratio calibrations in the flow cell were collected using a Nikon TiE inverted microscope equipped with an A1Rsi confocal scan head (Nikon). Hoechst 33342 fluorescence was excited with a 405 nm laser and collected between 425 and 475 nm using a regular PMT to visualize the biofilm. SNAFL emission was collected between 570 and 620 nm with a GaAsP PMT alternating excitation with the 488 and 561 nm lasers to obtain a ratiometric image. This image was used to calculate the pH across the field (below). 10X/0.45 PlanApo and 20X/0.75 PlanApo VC objectives were used to collect 512- by 512-bit resolution z-stacks. Depths in this paper are the distance from the substratum (base of biofilm) to the focal plane (distance furthest from the biofilm).
To visualize the biofilms, flow was suspended and coupons were stained with Hoechst 33342 (2 drops/mL medium) for 15 min and then flushed. C-SNAFL-1 was added to the medium at a final concentration of 20 μM. Flow resumed with C-SNAFL-1 in the medium and then was suspended for no more than 15 min to minimize the accumulation of acidic metabolites, which could artificially modify the local pH. Image planes were set up to visualize the coupon-attached biofilm and the bulk media adjacent to the coupon in the same image. Biofilms were excited at 405 nm, and emission was detected between 425 and 475 nm. pH microenvironment images were captured using dual excitation at 488 nm and 561 nm, and single emission at 600 nm. To determine the z-stack image parameters, we first excited the sample at 405 nm to visualize the base of the biofilm, and then switched to the dual excitation channels to determine the end of the focal plane (e.g. the coverslip; point furthest away from the biofilm in the z-dimension where the signal diminishes). After determining the z-distance to image, we imaged the biofilm at 405 nm, and then the pH of the microenvironment at 488/561 nm. The pH of the microenvironment was determined by calculating the ratio of excitation intensities (i.e., pixel values) between the two channels (Ex488 nm/ Ex561 nm). All intensities were determined using NIS Elements software.
Calibration standards for CSLM were performed in the flow cell with a sterile aragonite coupon and media with 20 μM C-SNAFL-1 and 10 mM HEPES buffer at pH 8.0, 7.8, 7.7, 7.55, 7.2, 7.0, and 6.8. Calibrations were performed with identical microscope settings as in the experiment above. Titration curves of pH versus ratios were calculated using NIS Elements software according to Eq. IV and were used to convert C-SNAFL-1 excitation ratios to pH values.
Image analysis
pH gradients within the biofilm and surrounding microenvironment were evaluated with NIS Elements software by using kymographs on the ratio images (Ex488 nm/ Ex561 nm). Each kymograph was ~500 μm in length (xy) and ~100 μm in depth (z). The resulting kymograph image had 4–5 regions of interest selected, including 2–3 spanning the biofilm into the bulk fluid directly above, and 2-3 in the bulk fluid adjacent to the biofilm. Regions of interest varied in z-depth depending on the thickness of the biofilm, though all were 13 μm in width (xy).
Estimation of CaCO3 dissolved from various seep locations
Seep locations
PDC1 – Dive, SO 162; Site, Point Dume; Feature, Chimney complex 1; Latitude, 33 56.45753693; Longitude, 118 50.70879299; Depth (m), 729.522
PDC2 – Dive, SO 164; Site, Point Dume; Feature, Chimney complex 2; Latitude, 33 56.50074983; Longitude, 118 50.64165898; Depth (m), 725.723
PDC3 – Dive, SO 164; Site, Point Dume; Feature, Chimney complex 3; Latitude, 33 56.45417243; Longitude, 118 50.70728425; Depth (m), 728.966
Determining total surface area
Each image taken by submersible at Point Dume had two scale bars generated at the time of imaging, one in the background and one in the foreground, with each representing 10 cm. These two scale bars, in conjunction with a designed macro in Fiji/ImageJ were used to interpolate the total surface area within each image. The macro is based on the equation y-y1 = m(x-x1). The slope, m, was determined using the equation ((y2-y1)/(x2-x1)), where y2 = 10 cm/(length in pixels of the foreground scale bar), y1 = 10 cm/(length in pixels of the distant scale bar), x2 = (y-coordinate of the foreground scale bar), x1 = (y-coordinate of the distant scale bar). Each image was imported into Fiji/ImageJ, and scaled to 1333 × 750 pixels. All scales were removed to put all measurements in pixel values. Centroid and integrated density were added to set measurements. Each image was duplicated and the duplicated images were changed to 32-bit images. The macro was then run on each respective image. A polygon was then drawn around the visible area within each image, and added to the ROI manager. The ROIs were added to their respective duplicate and measured. These data gave us the total visible surface area present in each image.
Determining surface area of exposed carbonates and carbonated-attached bacterial mats
Polygons were drawn around all exposed carbonates within the visible region. These ROIs were then added to their respective duplicated image, and the total area of exposed carbonates was measured. Carbonate ROIs that contained small regions in which bacterial mats were not visible had “negative” ROIs drawn around them. When applicable, these negative ROIs were subtracted from the total exposed carbonate measurement, resulting in the total mat-on-rock surface area measurement. It is likely that bacteria are also colonizing the surfaces on which no obvious mat can be observed, but removal of these areas from consideration was done to provide a conservative lower estimate of bacterial coverage.
Moles of carbonate rock dissolved was calculated as follows
Experimentally-derived carbonate dissolution rate = 1773.97 μmol CaCO3 • cm−2 • yr−1.
Apply dissolution rate to seep surface area covered by rock (e.g. Hydrate Ridge) to obtain the annual dissolution; 17.7397 mol CaCO3 • m−2 • yr−1 * 3.00E + 05 m2 = 5.32E + 06 mol CaCO3 • yr−1.
Apply 92.77% average carbonate-attached bacterial mat percent coverage (Supplementary Table 3) to annual dissolution; (5.32E + 06 mol CaCO3 • yr−1) • (0.9277) = 4.94E + 06 mol CaCO3 • yr−1.
We then applied these calculations to the remaining five seep sites in Table 1 to obtain the annual amount of carbonate dissolved per seep.
Table 1 Estimation of moles of carbon potentially released to the ocean/atmosphere system from the weathering of carbonate rocks via lithotrophic sulfur-oxidation at seep sites where carbonate coverage has been estimated.
Full size table More

We used high-throughput qPCR to screen for 58 infective agents in four Atlantic salmon farm cohorts from British Columbia throughout their production cycles. We measured presence and copy number for target genetic sequences, characteristic of specific viral, bacterial, and eukaryotic agents, including several recently discovered viruses30,31, known or suspected to cause disease in salmon. These agents displayed various temporal patterns of prevalence and intensity, with several displaying elevated levels in dead and dying fish.
The data and analyses we have presented provide a unique look into the epidemiology of farmed salmon populations, and wildlife/livestock diseases generally. No past studies have had access to multiple farmed-salmon cohorts, throughout their production cycles, with the capacity to molecularly screen for a large suite of infectious agents. Other work has reported agent data for dead-sampled fish collected in BC as part of Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s farm audit program40, but such analyses lack the time-series nature of the results we have presented. To our knowledge, no other studies have provided such detailed, comprehensive information for infective agents in domestic or wild populations over time. This study, therefore, presents a substantial step toward effectively monitoring shared wildlife/livestock diseases, made possible by cutting-edge technology, as predicted previously22.
While our findings offer specific insight to salmon farmers, aquaculture managers, and those concerned with the disease ecology of sympatric wild salmon, we caution that results remain correlative, and relevant patterns (e.g. apparent mortality signatures) require further investigation. Unfortunately, a lack of regular testing of dead and dying fish (collection was opportunistic, at farms’ discretion) resulted in potential for associated patterns to be obscured. Due to this potential bias in the sampling design, we are unable to draw conclusions related to farm-level mortality rates, but several agents showed patterns of note, including elevated levels in dead and dying fish.
Agent patterns
Perhaps the clearest single-agent pattern—the elevated load of T. maritimum in dead and dying fish (Fig. 3B)—matches generally accepted patterns in aquaculture. Induced tenacibaculosis can be responsible for substantial on-farm mortality worldwide41, and mouthrot resulting from T. maritimum in the east Pacific causes substantial losses42. In our study, mouthrot was noted during veterinarians’ sample processing for cohorts one, three, and four in the months after ocean entry. We note that elevated levels in dead and dying fish could represent the bacterium’s acknowledged role as an opportunistic pathogen41, rather than a direct cause of mortality. We also note the positive correlations between T. maritimum load and that of a number of different agents (Fig. 5), consistent with the view that T. maritimum may facilitate co-infections43. Given its high overall prevalence in fish (Table 3), secondary factors—such as co-infections—might exacerbate infection with T. maritimum, playing a role in mortality.
K. thyrsites intensity was elevated in dead and dying fish for cohorts three and four, around the time they were transferred to their final marine locations (Fig. S8). In both cases, the cohorts finished their production cycles in farms on the central east coast of Vancouver Island (Fig. 1), a region in which the risk of K. thyrsites infection is acknowledged to be high44. This myxozoan parasite is economically important due to post-mortem myoliquefaction seen in infected fish, but it is not considered a pathogen45, and it is unclear why higher gene-copy levels would be observed in dead/dying fish. K. thyrsites may merely replicate faster in stressed fish (in this case due to transport). Our surveillance of pathogens did not include skeletal muscle tissue, where K. thyrsites spores develop, but it did include heart, which can be infected by the parasite46. We note that K. thyrsites was correlated with PRV, with both agents known to infect muscle tissue (although red blood cells are the primary infective tissue for PRV). Follow-up histopathological investigation may provide some insight into K. thyrsites distribution and any associations with pathology or patterns of co-infection.
PRV, which is the causative agent of Heart and Skeletal Muscle Inflammation (HSMI)47 and has recently generated controversy in BC28,29,48, shows several patterns of note. PRV prevalence increased to near ubiquity over time (Fig. 2D), concurrent with an increase, peak, slight decline, and then stabilisation of intensity (Fig. 3B). Although our perspective is limited to sampled fish, with a noted potential for bias, the observed PRV trends were consistent across all four cohorts, and the intensity patterns are consistent with previously reported dissemination, peak replication, and long-term persistence phases of the virus within hosts29,48. Past findings suggest that PRV may induce an antiviral response in hosts that can protect them against certain co-infections49,50. Perhaps counter to the generality of this claim, PRV and ASCV exhibited the strongest load correlation out of any we observed across our data set (Fig. 4). ASCV was originally isolated from salmon with HSMI, and was initially thought to play a role in the disease51. Other work has found no relationship between ASCV and PRV infections or HSMI52. In the case of a related baitfish calicivirus, however, there is evidence that viral co-infection is linked to disease manifestation53, so further work is needed to tease these relationships apart. In general, dead and dying Atlantic salmon in our study did not show elevated prevalence or intensity of PRV, except shortly after ocean entry in cohort one (Figs. 2D, 3B). This mortality signature corresponds to the onset of lesions diagnostic of HSMI in cohort one, which subsequently spread to affect the majority of that farm population for most of a year29.
The gill chlamydia bacterium, C. Syngnamydia salmonis, showed a consistent trend towards elevated prevalence in dead and dying salmon (Fig. 2B). Observed intensity was low, however, often averaging approximately a single copy (Fig. S15). Sequencing has validated past detections of this agent on the Fluidigm BioMark™, and has also revealed SNP diversity within the primer-binding region, resulting in potential underdetection (Miller et al. unpublished). Given a putative mortality signature and the lack of prior epidemiological study of this recently discovered agent54,55, we would suggest further work on C. Syngnamydia salmonis.
Ephemeral mortality signatures appeared for several agents. F. psychrophilum was clearly elevated in dead and dying fish in-hatchery, although we only had access to two hatchery cohorts and cannot draw general conclusions. Intensity of both the ASCV and CTV-2 were elevated in sampled dead and dying fish from at least one cohort shortly after ocean entry (Figs. 3A, S2). Both viruses were also present in-hatchery. The previously reported Cutthroat trout virus appears to be apathogenic56 in trout, and has been detected in Atlantic salmon57. Little is known about the novel variant for which we screened, although in situ hybridisation has revealed that infection can be systemic and extensive in the brain (Mordecai et al. 2020). As for the ASCV, associated pathology was found to be likely due to PRV contamination51. Extremely limited information about these two viruses, paired with our findings, warrants further investigation (e.g. with histopathology and in situ hybridisation) to determine if either virus is linked with pathology. As both these viruses were detected in Chinook salmon (Mordecai et al. 2020), and considering their high prevalence in Atlantic salmon farms, the potential risk they pose to wild Pacific salmon populations should be a priority for future research.
Infectious agent levels overall, as measured by relative infectious burden, showed a clear trend in smolts coming out of freshwater hatcheries for cohorts three and four. There, infectious burden was much higher (in one case 10 000 times higher) in dead and dying fish than in live-sampled fish. While the effect dissipated once fish entered the marine environment, it is clear that hatchery fish are dying with—or of—elevated levels of infection. The patterns we observed likely reflect the transition from freshwater to saltwater, with a coincident shift in infective-agent communities58. Smoltification has also been associated with immune depression59, and elevated infectious burden around the time of ocean entry may reflect this. Where we had dead/dying hatchery samples, however, infectious burden was elevated weeks before ocean entry, hinting at the potential for problems in-hatchery.
Across all agents, we observed apparent coinfection signals that clearly differed from random chance (Figs. 5, S21). We point out, however, that due to the longitudinal nature of our study and cursory investigation of agent correlations, the correlation results almost certainly indicate shared temporal trends that may or may not indicate underlying interactions. For example, Candidatus Branchiomonas cysticola and Flavobacterium psychrophilum were positively correlated with each other, but negatively correlated with a number of other agents. This could be due to both agents being common in-hatchery but not in the marine environment (Figs. S3, S6), counter to many other agents’ patterns. Alternatively, the correlation could be due to a biological relationship, perhaps in relation to gill health. We intend to follow up on a number of correlational patterns.
Agent idiosyncrasies
Several agents showed unexpected patterns, or patterns that may be connected to their particular biology.
The putative Narna-like virus, a recently discovered agent31, showed elevated prevalence in dead and dying fish (Fig. S9). This pattern was mainly due to over-representation in dead-sampled fish, as we detected the agent in 13.2% of dead fish, 1.6% of moribund fish, and 0.4% of live-sampled fish in saltwater. Given that Narnaviridae, of which the putative Narna-like virus is a member, is thought mainly to infect fungi60, this virus may be associated with a fungal decomposer. This is speculative, however, and recent genomic evidence from across taxa suggests that the Narnaviridae may be much more widespread than previously thought61.
Counter to the common trend, P. pseudobranchicola tended to be less common in dead and dying fish than in live-sampled fish (Fig. 2C), with dead fish, in particular, tending to exhibit the lowest levels (results not shown). P. pseudobranchicola primarily infects the pseudobranch62, a structure near the gills involved in oxygenating blood in the eye. Infection also occurs in tissue collected for this study, especially gill63, and we speculate that loads in dead fish could be reduced due to myxospore release or degradation of delicate gill tissue after host death. Given that we did not sample the pseudobranch, it is likely that our data underestimates the load of this organism.
The sampling environments (freshwater or marine) of several detections were unexpected. In particular, we detected K. thyrsites and T. maritimum (Fig. 3C) in freshwater hatcheries, although these agents are considered marine species64,65. It is possible that these hatcheries introduced saltwater in the weeks before ocean transfer, to prepare smolts for release. We also detected F. psychrophilum, considered a freshwater bacterium66, in marine net pens (Fig. 2A). The bacterium is known to survive in brackish water67, however, and this is not the first time it has been detected in a marine setting40,68.
Broader connections
Not all infective agents cause disease, and even agents that do can be present long before—or long after—clinical symptoms. Our work presents only a piece of the puzzle in what is a multifaceted, complex scenario of shared wildlife/livestock disease in salmon aquaculture. The controversy surrounding PRV in BC, as an example, illustrates this complexity. While conventional lab challenges using PRV from BC sources have failed to reproduce in BC fish the extent of HSMI lesions observed on Norwegian farms48,69, work related to our study has been able to identify and shed light on HSMI, and related jaundice/anemia in Chinook salmon, in BC salmon farms28,29. While we saw a putative mortality signature in one cohort during this study, the normal course of PRV infection was not always associated with mortality (e.g. Figs. 2D, 3B). More work will be required to elucidate the nuances of PRV infection, factors that induce associated disease, and possible resultant mortality. A fruitful place to start would be to carry out sampling and diagnostics of dead and dying fish in farms and pens experiencing elevated mortality.
Although we have shown putative mortality signatures for several infective agents in farmed Atlantic salmon, these are not necessarily the agents that pose the greatest risk to wild salmon. For one thing, a given agent need not produce the same effects in different species28,70. For another, contact between populations may not coincide with infection maxima. Depending on when farm smolts enter the marine environment, for example, PRV could be at low prevalence in the spring, when a number of wild Pacific salmon species migrate as juveniles15. Other times of year would be more relevant for interactions with other wild species, and there is much scope for transfer between farmed and wild environments. In addressing shared wildlife/livestock disease, we need to consider both wildlife and livestock as populations that serve as potential reservoirs of disease agents, and are susceptible to outbreaks71. In this context, surveillance and monitoring are essential facets of disease management23, providing raw material to develop understanding of disease and build effective management strategies. Parallel work is monitoring wild populations for the same agents we have investigated here, with the prospect of cross-referencing patterns and impacts72,73,74.
The ubiquity of infectious agents on the farms leads naturally to discussion of potential control strategies, which present a variety of challenges in aquaculture. Vaccination has proven successful at times, but the salmon aquaculture industry has a somewhat chequered history with uptake, since vaccination can affect host growth, and thus the bottom line13. In addition, vaccines have only been developed for a handful of agents. Reducing translocations can be an effective control strategy on land20,78, but transmissive properties of the marine environment and highly mobile marine carrier hosts pose challenges to isolating host populations geographically (Krkosek 2015). Our findings provide circumstantial evidence that some agents (e.g. K. thyrsites) respond to translocations. The fact that two of our four focal cohorts moved substantial distances throughout their respective marine production may be cause for concern, considering the infective-agent populations we have shown those cohorts to have harboured. In general, aquaculture-associated disease and related management decisions have a history of generating political controversy75. Infective-agent monitoring and analyses are critical for designing, implementing, and evaluating effective disease-control measures, and for bridging divides in debate surrounding aquaculture.
With respect to the aquaculture industry, the tools we employed in this study may prove useful for disease management and fish health. We have shown that for many agents, patterns of infection in dead and dying fish mirror those in live fish. By integrating high-throughput infectious-agent screening with existing monitoring of dead fish, farm vets and managers could access a wealth of otherwise unavailable or costly information. Combining such results with strategic sacrificial sampling of live fish during mortality peaks could allow additional insight into which agents may be driving mortality. Protecting the ‘herd’ (and its wild neighbours) may justify such mortal sampling. Furthermore, in other ongoing work, we have seen that much infective-agent information is accessible via nonlethal gill biopsy, which also enables high-throughput screening for gene expression patterns associated with various patterns of stress76 and disease77. Used appropriately, such a combination of tools could be very powerful.
Disease monitoring is never complete, and detection always lags behind pathogen spread78, but new technologies—such as those we employed here – can facilitate efficient, lower-cost surveillance and monitoring. Surveillance for existing pathogens and identification of previously unknown pathogens is part of the integrative approach required to understand and control existing and emerging infectious diseases22. Here, we have further demonstrated the utility of high-throughput, modern genetic techniques for monitoring known infective agents and for generating information about previously under-studied agents26,29,30,31,37,38. Further work will target the risk of transfer between wild and farmed hosts and prioritize threats to salmon, farmed and wild. More

1.
Celli, G. & Maccagnani, B. Honey bees as bioindicators of environmental pollution. Bull. Insectol. 56, 1–3 (2003).
Google Scholar 
2.
Quigley, T. P., Amdam, G. V. & Harwood, G. H. Honey bees as bioindicators of changing global agricultural landscapes. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 35, 132–137 (2019).
PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

3.
Hung, K.-L.J., Kingston, J. M., Albrecht, M., Holway, D. A. & Kohn, J. R. The worldwide importance of honey bees as pollinators in natural habitats. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 285, 20172140 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

4.
Giannini, T. C., Cordeiro, G. D., Freitas, B. M., Saraiva, A. M. & Imperatriz-Fonseca, V. L. The dependence of crops for pollinators and the economic value of pollination in Brazil. J. Econ. Entomol. 108, 849–857 (2015).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

5.
Garibaldi, L. A. et al. Mutually beneficial pollinator diversity and crop yield outcomes in small and large farms. Science 351, 388–391 (2016).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

6.
Miñarro, M., García, D. & Martínez-Sastre, R. Los insectos polinizadores en la agricultura: importancia y gestión de su biodiversidad. Ecosistemas Rev. Científica Ecol. y Medio Ambient. 27, 81–90 (2018).
Google Scholar 

7.
Calderone, N. W. Insect pollinated crops, insect pollinators and US agriculture: trend analysis of aggregate data for the period 1992–2009. PLoS ONE 7, 24–28 (2012).
Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

8.
Kaplan, J. K. Colony collapse disorder: an incomplete puzzle. Agric. Res. Mag. 60, 2489 (2012).
Google Scholar 

9.
VanEngelsdorp, D. et al. Colony collapse disorder: a descriptive study. PLoS ONE 4, 1–17 (2009).
Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

10.
Sanchez-Bayo, F. & Goka, K. Pesticide residues and bees: a risk assessment. PLoS ONE 9, e94482 (2014).
ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

11.
Sindiveg, S. N. da I. de P. para D. V. Mapeamento De Abelhas Participativo (MAP). Relatório 3 anos (2014-2017). Colmeia Viva (2017). 61p. https://www.colmeiaviva.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/RelatorioMAP.pdf

12.
Wolff, L. F. & Santos, R. S. S. Abelhas melíferas: bioindicadores de qualidade ambiental e de sustentabilidade da agricultura familiar de base ecológica. Embrapa Clima Temperado-Documentos https://www.infoteca.cnptia.embrapa.br/infoteca/bitstream/doc/543990/1/documento244.pdf (2008).

13.
Amaro, P. & Godinho, J. Pesticidas e abelhas. Rev. Ciências Agrárias 35, 53–62 (2012).
Google Scholar 

14.
Tosi, S. & Nieh, J. C. A common neonicotinoid pesticide, thiamethoxam, alters honey bee activity, motor functions, and movement to light. Sci. Rep. 7, 1–13 (2017).
Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

15.
Catae, A. F. et al. MALDI-imaging analyses of honeybee brains exposed to a neonicotinoid insecticide. Pest Manag. Sci. 75, 607–615 (2019).
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

16.
Alves, S. Controle Microbiano de Insetos (FEALQ, Piracicaba, 1998).
Google Scholar 

17.
Hajek, A. E. & Eilenberg, J. Natural Enemies: An Introduction to Biological Control (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2018).
Google Scholar 

18.
Lacey, L. A. et al. Insect pathogens as biological control agents: back to the future. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 132, 1–41 (2015).
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

19.
Melo, A. L. D. A., Soccol, V. T. & Soccol, C. R. Bacillus thuringiensis: mechanism of action, resistance, and new applications: a review. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 36, 317–326 (2014).
PubMed  Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

20.
Eski, A., Demir, İ, Sezen, K. & Demirbağ, Z. A new biopesticide from a local Bacillus thuringiensis var. tenebrionis (Xd3) against alder leaf beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 33, 35 (2017).
Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

21.
Göktürk, T. Pyrethrum ve Bacillus thuringiensis biyopestisitlerinin Pristiphora abietina (Christ, 1791) (Hymenoptera: Tenthredinidae) üzerindeki etkisi. Artvin Çoruh Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Derg. 18, 83–87 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

22.
MAPA, M. da A. P. e A. Agrofit. MAPA http://agrofit.agricultura.gov.br/agrofit_cons/principal_agrofit_cons (2019).

23.
Konecka, E., Kaznowski, A., Stachowiak, M. & Maciąg, M. Activity of spore-crystal mixtures of new Bacillus thuringiensis strains against Dendrolimus pini (Lepidoptera: Lasiocampidae) and Spodoptera exigua (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Folia For. Pol. Ser. A 60, 91–98 (2018).
Google Scholar 

24.
Gupta, S. & Dikshit, A. K. Biopesticides: an ecofriendly approach for pest control. J. Biopestic. 3, 186–188 (2010).
Google Scholar 

25.
Habid, M. E. M. & Andrade, C. F. S. Bactérias entomopatogênicas. in Controle microbiano de insetos (ed Alves, S. B.) 384–446 (FEALQ, Piracicaba, 1998).

26.
Bravo, A., Gill, S. S. & Soberón, M. Mode of action of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry and Cyt toxins and their potential for insect control. Toxicon 49, 423–435 (2007).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

27.
Slessor, K. N., Winston, M. L. & Conte, Y. L. Pheromone communication in the honeybee (Apis mellifera L.). J. Chem. Ecol. 31, 2731–2745 (2005).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

28.
Lugtenberg, B. Principles of Plant-Microbe Interactions (Springer, Berlin, 2015).
Google Scholar 

29.
Palma, L. & Berry, C. Understanding the structure and function of Bacillus thuringiensis toxins. Toxicon 109, 1–3 (2016).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

30.
Malone, L. A. et al. Effects of ingestion of a Bacillus thuringiensis toxin and a trypsin inhibitor on honey bee flight activity and longevity. Apidologie 32, 57–68 (2001).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

31.
Yi, D., Fang, Z. & Yang, L. Effects of Bt cabbage pollen on the honeybee Apis mellifera L. Sci. Rep. 8, 1–6 (2018).
Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

32.
D’Urso, V. et al. Observations on midgut of Apis mellifera workers (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) under controlled acute exposures to a Bacillus thuringiensis-based biopesticide. Apidologie 48, 51–62 (2017).
Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

33.
Libardoni, G. et al. Effect of different Bacillus thuringiensis strains on the longevity of Africanized honey bee. Semin. Agrar. 39, 329–338 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

34.
Zhu, Y. C., Wang, Y., Portilla, M., Parys, K. & Li, W. Risk and toxicity assessment of a potential natural insecticide, methyl benzoate, in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.). Insects 10, 1–17 (2019).
Google Scholar 

35.
Hesselbach, H., Seeger, J., Schilcher, F., Ankenbrand, M. & Scheiner, R. Chronic exposure to the pesticide flupyradifurone can lead to premature onset of foraging in honeybees Apis mellifera. J. Appl. Ecol. 57, 609–618 (2020).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

36.
Gomes, I. N., Vieira, K. I. C., Gontijo, L. M. & Resende, H. C. Honeybee survival and flight capacity are compromised by insecticides used for controlling melon pests in Brazil. Ecotoxicology 29, 97–107 (2020).
Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

37.
Alquisira-Ramírez, E. V., Paredes-Gonzalez, J. R., Hernández-Velázquez, V. M., Ramírez-Trujillo, J. A. & Peña-Chora, G. In vitro susceptibility of Varroa destructor and Apis mellifera to native strains of Bacillus thuringiensis. Apidologie 45, 707–718 (2014).
Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

38.
Fagúndez, G. A., Blettler, D. C., Krumrick, C. G., Bertos, M. A. & Trujillo, C. G. Do agrochemicals used during soybean flowering affect the visits of Apis mellifera L.?. Span. J. Agric. Res. 14, 7 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

39.
Alquisira-Ramírez, E. V. et al. Effects of Bacillus thuringiensis strains virulent to Varroa destructor on larvae and adults of Apis mellifera. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 142, 69–78 (2017).
PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

40.
Horta, A. B., Pannuti, L., Baldin, E. L. L. & Furtado, E. L. Toxinas inseticidas de Bacillus thuringiensis. In Biotecnologia Aplicada à Agro&Indústria (ed. Resende, R. R.) 737–773 (Blucher, Erkrath, 2017). https://doi.org/10.5151/9788521211150-21.
Google Scholar 

41.
Malone, L. A., Burgess, E. P. J. & Stefanovic, D. Effects of a Bacillus thuringiensis toxin, two Bacillus thuringiensis biopesticide formulations, and a soybean trypsin inhibitor on honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) survival and food consumption. Apidologie 30, 465–473 (1999).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

42.
Potrich, M. et al. Effect of entomopathogens on Africanized Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Rev. Bras. Entomol. 22, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbe.2017.12.002 (2018).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

43.
Wang, Y. Y. et al. Toxicological, biochemical, and histopathological analyses demonstrating that Cry1C and Cry2A are not toxic to larvae of the honeybee Apis mellifera. J. Agric. Food Chem. 63, 6126–6132 (2015).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

44.
Renzi, M. T. et al. Chronic toxicity and physiological changes induced in the honey bee by the exposure to fi pronil and Bacillus thuringiensis spores alone or combined. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 127, 205–213 (2016).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

45.
Hendriksma, H. P. et al. Effect of stacked insecticidal cry proteins from maize pollen on nurse bees (Apis mellifera carnica) and their gut bacteria. PLoS ONE 8, 1–11 (2013).
Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

46.
Jia, H. R. et al. The effects of Bt Cry1Ie toxin on bacterial diversity in the midgut of Apis mellifera ligustica (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Sci. Rep. 6, 1–8 (2016).
Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

47.
Jia, H.-R. et al. No effect of Bt Cry1Ie toxin on bacterial diversity in the midgut of the Chinese honey bees, Apis cerana cerana (Hymenoptera, Apidae). Sci. Rep. 7, 1–10 (2017).
Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

48.
Dai, P. et al. The effect of Bt Cry9Ee toxin on honey bee brood and adults reared in vitro, Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 181, 381–387 (2019).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

49.
Baptista, A. P. M., Carvalho, G. A., Carvalho, S. M., Carvalho, C. F. & de Bueno Filho, J. S. S. Toxicidade produtos fitossanitários utilizados em citros para Apis mellifera. Ciência Rural 39, 955–961 (2009).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

50.
Tomé, H. V. V., Barbosa, W. F., Martins, G. F. & Guedes, R. N. C. Spinosad in the native stingless bee Melipona quadrifasciata: regrettable non-target toxicity of a bioinsecticide. Chemosphere 124, 103–109 (2015).
ADS  PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

51.
Kaplan, E. L. & Meier, P. Non parametric estimation from incomplete observation. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 53, 457–481 (1958).
MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

52.
Therneau, T. M. A Package for Survival Analysis in R. R package version 3.2-7. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=survival (2020).

53.
Agresti, A. Categorical Data Analysis (Wiley, New York, 2002).
Google Scholar 

54.
Christensen, R. H. B. Ordinal-Regression Models for Ordinal Data. R package version 2019.12-10. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ordina (2019).

55.
Russell, L. R Package ’emmeans’: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. https://github.com/rvlenth/emmeans (2020). More

1.
Henriksen, J. B. Case study 7. Key principles in implementing ILO convention no. 169. in Research on Best Practices for the Implementation of the Principles of ILO Convention No. 169 (Programme to Promote ILO Convention No. 169, 2008).
2.
MacKay, F. Addressing Past Wrongs: Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas: The Right to Restitution of Lands and Resources. (Forest Peoples Programme, 2002).

3.
Hunter-gatherers of the Congo Basin: cultures, histories and biology of African Pygmies. (Transaction Publishers, 2014).

4.
Robillard, M. & Bahuchet, S. Les Pygmées et les autres: terminologie, catégorisation et politique. J. Afr. 82, 15–51 (2012).
Google Scholar 

5.
Joiris, D. V. La chasse, la chance, le chant: aspect du systeme ritual des Baka du Cameroun. (Université Libre de Bruxelles, 1998).

6.
Rupp, S. Interethnic Relations in Southeastern Cameroon: Challenging the” Hunter-Gatherer”–” Farmer” Dichotomy. Afr. Study Monogr. 28, 37–56 (2003).
Google Scholar 

7.
Bahuchet, S. Dans la Forêt D’Afrique Centrale: Les Pygmées Aka Et Baka. (PEETERS-SELAF, 1992).

8.
Yasuoka, H. Long-term foraging expeditions (Molongo) among the Baka Hunter-Gatherers in the Northwestern Congo Basin, with Special Reference to the “Wild Yam Question”. Hum. Ecol. 34, 275–296 (2006).
Article  Google Scholar 

9.
Gallois, S. & Duda, R. Beyond productivity: The socio-cultural role of fishing among the Baka of southeastern Cameroon. Revue d’ethnoécologie [En ligne], (2016).

10.
Yasuoka, H. Snare hunting among Baka hunter-gatherers: Implications for sustainable wildlife management. Afr. Study Monogr. 49, 115–136 (2014).
Google Scholar 

11.
Hayashi, K. Hunting activities in forest camps among the Baka hunter-gatherers of Southeastern Cameroon. Afr. Study Monogr. 29, 73–92 (2008).
Google Scholar 

12.
Duda, R., Gallois, S. & Reyes-Garcia, V. Hunting techniques, wildlife offtake and market integration. A perspective from individual variations among the Baka (Cameroon). Afr. Study Monogr. 38, 97–118 (2017).

13.
Pemunta, N. V. Fortress conservation, wildlife legislation and the Baka Pygmies of southeast Cameroon. GeoJournal 84, 1035–1055 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

14.
Dounias, E. & Leclerc, C. Spatial shifts and migration time scales among the Baka Pygmies of Cameroon and the Punan of Borneo. in The social ecology of tropical forest: Migration, populations and frontiers (eds. de Jong, W., Lye, T. P. & Ken-Chi, A.) 147–173 (University Press and Trans Pacific Press, 2006).

15.
Leclerc, C. L’adoption de l’agriculture chez les Pygmées Baka du Cameroun. (Editions Quae, 2012).

16.
Gallois, S. Dynamics of Local ecological knowledge among the Baka children from southeastern Cameroon. (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 2015).

17.
Coquery-Vidrovitch, C. Le Congo au temps des grandes compagnies concessionnaires 1898–1930. (Mouton & Co, 2017).

18.
Pourtier, R. Le Gabon: etat et developpement. vol. Tome 2 (l’Harmattan, 1989).

19.
Jean, S. Les jachères en Afrique tropicale: interprétation technique et foncière. (Musée de l’Homme, 1975).

20.
Bailey, R. C., Bahuchet, S. & Hewlett, B. S. Development in the Central African rainforest: concern for forest peoples. in Conservation of West and Central African Rainforest (ed. Cleaver, K. M.) 202–211 (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resource, 1992).

21.
Bahuchet, S., McKey, D. & de Garine, I. Wild yams revisited: Is independence from agriculture possible for rain forest hunter-gatherers?. Hum. Ecol. 19, 213–243 (1991).
Article  Google Scholar 

22.
Froment, A. Human biology and the health of African rainforest inhabitants. in Hunter-gatherers of the Congo basin 117–164 (Transaction Publishers, 2014).

23.
Althabe, G. Changements sociaux chez les Pygmées Baka de l’Est-Cameroun. Cahiers d’études africaines 561–592 (1965).

24.
Kitanishi, K. Cultivation by the Baka hunter-gatherers in the tropical rain forest of central Africa. Afr. Study Monogr. 28, 143–157 (2003).
Google Scholar 

25.
Knight, J. Relocated to the roadside: preliminary observations on the forest Peoples of Gabon. Afr. Study Monogr. 28, 81–121 (2003).
Google Scholar 

26.
Yasuoka, H. Fledging agriculturalists? Rethinking the adoption of cultivation by the Baka hunter-gatherers. Afr. Study Monogr. 43, 85–114 (2012).
Google Scholar 

27.
Duda, R. Ethnoecology of hunting in an empty forest: practices, local perceptions and social change among the Baka (Cameroon). (Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, 2017).

28.
Reyes-García, V. et al. Dietary transitions among three contemporary hunter-gatherers across the tropics. Food Secur. 11, 109–122 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

29.
Gallois, S., Heger, T., van Andel, T., Sonké, B. & Henry, A. G. From bush mangoes to bouillon cubes: wild plants and diet among the Baka, forager-horticulturalists from Southeast Cameroon. Econ. Bot. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12231-020-09489-x (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

30.
Fa, J. E. et al. Differences between pygmy and non-pygmy hunting in Congo Basin Forests. PLoS ONE 11, e0161703 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

31.
Dounias, E. & Froment, A. When forest-based hunter-gatherers become sedentary: consequences for diet and health. Unasylva 57, 8 (2006).
Google Scholar 

32.
Hagino, I., Sato, H. & Yamauchi, T. The demographic characteristics and nutritional status for a hunter-gatherer society with social transitions in southeastern Cameroon. Afr. Study Monogr. 45–57 (2014).

33.
Mertens, B. & Lambin, E. F. Spatial modelling of deforestation in southern Cameroon: spatial disaggregation of diverse deforestation processes. Appl. Geogr. 17, 143–162 (1997).
Article  Google Scholar 

34.
Mertens, B. & Lambin, E. F. Land-cover-change trajectories in Southern Cameroon. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 90, 467–494 (2000).
Article  Google Scholar 

35.
Ndoye, O. & Kaimowitz, D. Macro-economics, markets and the humid forests of Cameroon, 1967–1997. J. Mod. Afr. Stud. 38, 225–253 (2000).
Article  Google Scholar 

36.
Geist, H. J. & Lambin, E. F. Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation. Bioscience 52, 143 (2002).
Article  Google Scholar 

37.
Messerli, P., Giger, M., Dwyer, M. B., Breu, T. & Eckert, S. The geography of large-scale land acquisitions: Analysing socio-ecological patterns of target contexts in the global South. Appl. Geogr. 53, 449–459 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

38.
Seaquist, J. W., Li Johansson, E. & Nicholas, K. A. Architecture of the global land acquisition system: Applying the tools of network science to identify key vulnerabilities. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 114006 (2014).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

39.
Yasuoka, H. et al. Changes in the composition of hunting catches in southeastern Cameroon: a promising approach for collaborative wildlife management between ecologists and local hunters. E&S 20, art25 (2015).

40.
Ohl-Schacherer, J. et al. The Sustainability of subsistence hunting by Matsigenka native communities in Manu National Park Peru. Conserv. Biol. 21, 1174–1185 (2007).
Article  Google Scholar 

41.
Parry, L., Barlow, J. & Peres, C. A. Hunting for sustainability in tropical secondary forests. Conserv. Biol. 23, 1270–1280 (2009).
Article  Google Scholar 

42.
Kümpel, N. F., Milner-Gulland, E. J., Rowcliffe, J. M. & Cowlishaw, G. Impact of gun-hunting on diurnal primates in continental Equatorial Guinea. Int. J. Primatol. 29, 1065–1082 (2008).
Article  Google Scholar 

43.
Coad, L. et al. Social and ecological change over a decade in a village hunting system, central Gabon. Conserv. Biol. 27, 270–280 (2013).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

44.
Walters, G., Schleicher, J., Hymas, O. & Coad, L. Evolving hunting practices in Gabon: Lessons for community-based conservation interventions. E&S 20, art31 (2015).

45.
Zerca y Lejos. Soberanía alimentaria y medios de vida (Baka food security). https://zercaylejos.org/proyectos/soberania-alimentaria/ (2020).

46.
Zerca y Lejos. Educación. https://zercaylejos.org/proyectos/educacion/ (2020).

47.
Ávila Martin, E. et al. Wild meat hunting and use by sedentarised Baka Pygmies in southeastern Cameroon. PeerJ 8, e9906 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

48.
Ndameau, B. Case Study 7: Cameroon – Boumba Bek – Protected areas and indigenous peoples: The paradox of conservation and survival of the Baka in Moloundou region (south-east Cameroon). in Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas in Africa: From Principles to Practice (eds. Nelson, J. & Hossack, L.) 215–241 (Forest Peoples Programme, 2001).

49.
Egbe, S. E. et al. The Law, Communities and Wildlife Management in Cameroon. in Cameroon Rural Development Forestry Network. Network Paper (Overseas Development Institute, 2001).

50.
World Weather Online. Djoum Monthly Climate Averages. https://www.worldweatheronline.com/djoum-weather-averages/sud/cm.aspx (2020).

51.
Letouzey, R. Notice phytogéographique du Cameroun au 1:500000. (1985).

52.
Global Forest Watch. An overview of logging in Cameroon. (World Resources Institute (WRI), 2000).

53.
Morgan, D. et al. Impacts of selective logging and associated anthropogenic disturbance on intact forest landscapes and apes of Northern Congo. Front. For. Glob. Change 2, 28 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

54.
Ichikawa, M. Problems in the conservation of rainforests in Cameroon. Afr. Study Monogr. 33, 3–20 (2006).
Google Scholar 

55.
Ichikawa, M. Forest Conservation and Indigenous Peoples in The Congo Basin: New Trends toward Reconciliation between Global Issues and Local Interest. in Hunter-gatherers of the Congo Basin: cultures, histories and biology of African Pygmies (ed. Hewlett, B. S.) 321–342 (Transaction Publishers, 2014).

56.
Hattori, S. Current issues facing the forest people in southeastern Cameroon: the dynamics of Baka life and their ethnic relationship with farmers. Afr. Study Monogr. 47, 97–119 (2014).
Google Scholar 

57.
United Nations. Free, Prior and Informed Consent of Indigenous Peoples. https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/ipeoples/freepriorandinformedconsent.pdf (2013).

58.
Darwin Initiative. Project 24029: Enabling Baka attain food security, improved health and sustain biodiversity. (2020).

59.
Remote Pixel. Remote Pixel—Satellite Imagery Search. https://remotepixel.ca/ (2018).

60.
European Space Agency. Sentinel online. https://sentinel.esa.int/web/sentinel/missions/sentinel-2 (2020).

61.
System for Automated Geoscientific Analyses (SAGA). SAGA – System for Automated Geoscientific Analyses. http://www.saga-gis.org/en/index.html (2020).

62.
Global Forest Watch. Cameroon forest management units (last updated 2018). https://data.globalforestwatch.org/datasets/cameroon-forest-management-units (2020).

63.
Global Forest Watch. Cameroon community forests (last updated 2018). http://data.globalforestwatch.org/datasets/cameroon-community-forests?geometry=6.430%2C5.125%2C17.724%2C8.941 (2020).

64.
Calenge, C. & Fortmann-Roe, S. Package ‘adehabitatHR’. (2020).

65.
Benhamou, S. & Cornélis, D. Incorporating movement behavior and barriers to improve kernel home range space use estimates. J. Wildl. Manag. 74, 1353–1360 (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

66.
Benhamou, S. & Riotte-Lambert, L. Beyond the Utilization Distribution: Identifying home range areas that are intensively exploited or repeatedly visited. Ecol. Model. 227, 112–116 (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 

67.
Lechowicz, M. J. The sampling characteristics of electivity indices. Oecologia 52, 22–30 (1982).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

68.
R Foundation for Statistical Computing. R. (2018).

69.
Jarque, C. M. & Bera, A. K. A test for normality of observations and regression residuals. Int. Stat. Rev. 55, 163 (1987).
MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

70.
Gavrilov, I. & Pusev, R. Package ‘normtest’. (2015).

71.
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B. & Christensen, R. H. B. lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. J. Stat. Soft. 82, (2017).

72.
Gockowski, J. et al. The forest margins of Cameroon. in Slash-and-burn Agriculture: The Search for Alternatives (eds. Palm, C. A., Vosti, A. S., Sanchez, A. P. & Polly, J. E.) 305–331 (Columbia University Press, 2005).

73.
Nounamo, L. & Yemefack, M. Shifting cultivation practices and sustainable forestland use in the evergreen forest of Cameroon. in Seminar proceedings ‘Sustainable management of African rain forest’, held inKribi, Cameroon, November 1999. Part II. (eds. Jonkers, W. B. J., Foahom, B. & Schmidt, P.) (The Tropenbos Foundation, 2001).

74.
Chapin, M., Lamb, Z. & Threlkeld, B. Mapping indigenous lands. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 34, 619–638 (2005).
Article  Google Scholar 

75.
Rainforest Foundation UK. Mapping for rights: Putting communities on the map. Mapping for rights. https://www.mappingforrights.org/index (2020).

76.
Fisher, R., Heckbert, S., León Villalobos, J. M. & Sutton, S. Augmenting physical 3D models with projected information to support environmental knowledge exchange. Appl. Geogr. 112, 102095 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

77.
Njounan Tegomo, O., Defo, L. & Usongo, L. Mapping of resource use area by the Baka Pygmies inside and around Boumba-Bek National Park in Southeast Cameroon, with special reference to Baka’s customary rights. Afr. Study Monogr. 43, 45–59 (2012).

78.
Bobo, K. S., Kamgaing, T. O. W., Kamdoum, E. C. & Dzefack, Z. C. B. Bushmeat hunting in southeastern Cameroon: magnitude and impact on duikers (Cephalophus spp.). African Study Monographs Suppl. 51, 119–141 (2015).

79.
Constantino, P. de A. L. Dynamics of hunting territories and prey distribution in Amazonian Indigenous Lands. Appl. Geogr. 56, 222–231 (2015).

80.
Read, J. M. et al. Space, place, and hunting patterns among Indigenous Peoples of the Guyanese Rupununi region. Journal of Latin American Geography 9, 213–243 (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

81.
Smith, D. A. The spatial patterns of indigenous wildlife use in western Panama: Implications for conservation management. Biol. Cons. 141, 925–937 (2008).
Article  Google Scholar 

82.
Pangau-Adam, M., Noske, R. & Muehlenberg, M. Wildmeat or bushmeat? Subsistence hunting and commercial harvesting in Papua (West New Guinea) Indonesia. Hum. Ecol. 40, 611–621 (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 

83.
Kümpel, N. F. Incentives for sustainable hunting of bushmeat in Río Muni, Equatorial Guinea. (Imperial college London, 2006).

84.
Benítez-López, A. et al. The impact of hunting on tropical mammal and bird populations. Science 356, 180–183 (2017).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

85.
Benítez-López, A., Alkemade, R. & Verweij, P. A. The impacts of roads and other infrastructure on mammal and bird populations: A meta-analysis. Biol. Cons. 143, 1307–1316 (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

86.
World Land Trust. Area converter. https://www.worldlandtrust.org/get-involved/educational-resources/area-converter/ (2020).

87.
Billong Fils, P. E. et al. Ethnobotanical survey of wild edible plants used by Baka People in southeastern Cameroon. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 16 (2020).

88.
Garnett, S. T. et al. A spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous lands for conservation. Nat. Sustain. 1, 369–374 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

89.
Bruce, T. et al. Faunal Inventory of the Dja Faunal Reserve, Cameroon—2018. 62 (2018). More

1.
Bruno, J. F. & Valdivia, A. Coral reef degradation is not correlated with local human population density. Sci. Rep. 6, 1–8 (2016).
Article  CAS  Google Scholar 
2.
Hughes, T. P. et al. Global warming transforms coral reef assemblages. Nature 556, 492–496 (2018).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

3.
Mollica, N. R. et al. Ocean acidification affects coral growth by reducing skeletal density. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 115, 1754–1759 (2018).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

4.
Mumby, P. J. Stratifying herbivore fisheries by habitat to avoid ecosystem overfishing of coral reefs. Fish Fish. 17, 266–278 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

5.
Silbiger, N. J. et al. Nutrient pollution disrupts key ecosystem functions on coral reefs. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 285, 1–9 (2018).
Google Scholar 

6.
Hughes, T. P. Catastrophes, phase shifts, and large-scale degradation of a caribbean coral reef. Science (80-. ). 265, 1547–1551 (1994).

7.
Pandolfi, J. M. et al. Global trajectories of the long-term decline of coral reef ecosystems. Science 301, 955–958 (2003).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

8.
Spalding, M. D. & Brown, B. E. Warm-water coral reefs and climate change. Science (80-. ). 350, 769–771 (2015).

9.
Rogers, A., Blanchard, J. L. & Mumby, P. J. Fisheries productivity under progressive coral reef degradation. J. Appl. Ecol. 55, 1041–1049 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

10.
Weijerman, M. et al. Evaluating management strategies to optimise coral reef ecosystem services. J. Appl. Ecol. 55, 1823–1833 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

11.
Jackson, J., Donovan, M., Cramer, K., Lam, V. & (editors). Status and Trends of Caribbean Coral Reefs: 1970–2012. (2014).

12.
Gardner, T. A., Cote, I. M., Gill, J. A., Grant, A. & Watkinson, A. R. Long-term region-wide declines in caribbean corals. Science (80-. ). 301, 958–961 (2003).

13.
Aronson, R., Bruckner, A., Moore, J., Precht, B. & Weil, E. Acropora palmata: The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008: e.T133006A3536699. (2008). https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T133006A3536699.en.

14.
Aronson, R., Bruckner, A., Moore, J., Precht, B. & Weil, E. Acropora cervicornis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008: e.T133381A3716457. (2008). https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T133381A3716457.en.

15.
Porto-Hannes, I. et al. Population structure of the corals Orbicella faveolata and Acropora palmata in the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System with comparisons over Caribbean basin-wide spatial scale. Mar. Biol. 162, 81–98 (2015).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

16.
Keck, J., Houston, R. S., Purkis, S. & Riegl, B. M. Unexpectedly high cover of Acropora cervicornis on offshore reefs in Roatan (Honduras). Coral Reefs 24, 509 (2005).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

17.
Japaud, A., Bouchon, C., Manceau, J.-L. & Fauvelot, C. High clonality in Acropora palmata and Acropora cervicornis populations of Guadeloupe French Lesser Antilles. Mar. Freshw. Res. 66(847), 851 (2015).
Google Scholar 

18.
Baums, I. B., Miller, M. W. & Hellberg, M. E. Regionally isolated populations of an imperiled Caribbean coral Acropora palmata. Mol. Ecol. 14(1377), 1390 (2005).
Google Scholar 

19.
Lasker, H. R. & Coffroth, M. A. Responses of clonal reef taxa to environmental change. Am. Zool. 39, 92–103 (1999).
Article  Google Scholar 

20.
Honnay, O. & Bossuyt, B. Prolonged clonal growth: escape route or route to extinction?. Oikos 108, 427–432 (2005).
Article  Google Scholar 

21.
Teo, A. & Todd, P. A. Simulating the effects of colony density and intercolonial distance on fertilisation success in broadcast spawning scleractinian corals. Coral Reefs 37, 891–900 (2018).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

22.
Baums, I. B., Miller, M. W. & Hellberg, M. E. Geographic variation in clonal structure in a reef-building Caribbean coral Acropora palmata. Ecol. Monogr. 76(503), 519 (2006).
Google Scholar 

23.
Drury, C., Paris, C. B., Vassiliki, H. K. & Lirman, D. Dispersal capacity and genetic relatedness in Acropora cervicornis on the Florida Reef Tract. Coral Reefs 37, 585–596 (2018).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

24.
Reusch, T. B. H., Ehlers, A., Hämmerli, A. & Worm, B. Ecosystem recovery after climatic extremes enhanced by genotypic diversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102, 2826–2831 (2005).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

25.
Booth, R. E. & Grime, J. P. Effects of genetic impoverishment on plant community diversity. J. Ecol. 91, 721–730 (2003).
Article  Google Scholar 

26.
Drury, C., Greer, J. B., Baums, I., Gintert, B. & Lirman, D. Clonal diversity impacts coral cover in Acropora cervicornis thickets: Potential relationships between density, growth, and polymorphisms. Ecol. Evol. 9, 4518–4531 (2019).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

27.
Neigel, J. E. & Avise, J. C. Clonal diversity and population structure in a reef-building coral, acropora cervicornis: self-recognition analysis and demographic interpretation. Evolution (N. Y). 37, 437–453 (1983).

28.
Hughes, T. P. et al. Coral reefs in the anthropocene. Nature 546, 82–90 (2017).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

29.
Evensen, N., Doropoulos, C., Morrow, K., Motti, C. & Mumby, P. Inhibition of coral settlement at multiple spatial scales by a pervasive algal competitor. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 612, 29–42 (2019).
ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

30.
Goreau, T. J. & Hilbertz, W. Marine ecosystems restoration: costs and benefits for coral reefs. World Resour. Rev. 17, 375–409 (2005).
Google Scholar 

31.
Vollmer, S. V. & Kline, D. I. Natural disease resistance in threatened staghorn corals. PLoS ONE 3, 1–5 (2008).
Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

32.
Baums, I. B. A restoration genetics guide for coral reef conservation. Mol. Ecol. 17, 2796–2811 (2008).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

33.
Schopmeyer, S. A. et al. In situ coral nurseries serve as genetic repositories for coral reef restoration after an extreme cold-water event. Restor. Ecol. 20, 696–703 (2011).
Article  Google Scholar 

34.
Young, C. N., Schopmeyer, S. A. & Lirman, D. A review of reef restoration and coral propogation using the threatened genus Acropora in the Caribbean and Western Atlantic. Bull. Mar. Sci. 88, 1075–1098 (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 

35.
ICF. Instituto de Conservacion Forestal. Declaracion de Banco Cordelia Sitio de Importancia para la Vida Silvestre. Gaceta No. 32,816, 10 Mayo Del 2012. Acuerdo No. 021–2012. (2012).

36.
Riegl, B., Purkis, S. J., Keck, J. & Rowlands, G. P. Monitored and modeled coral population dynamics and the refuge concept. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 58, 24–38 (2009).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

37.
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing (2020). https://www.R-project.org/.

38.
Soong, K. & Lang, J. C. Reproductive integration in reef corals. Biol. Bull. 183, 418–431 (1992).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

39.
Baums, I. B., Hughes, C. R. & Hellberg, M. E. Mendelian microsatellite loci for the Caribbean coral Acropora palmata. Mar. Ecol. Ser. 288, 115–127 (2005).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

40.
Baums, I. B., Devlin-Durante, K., Brown, L. & Pinzon, J. H. Nine novel, ploymorphic microsatellite markers for the study of threatened caribbean acroporid corals. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 9, 1155–1158 (2009).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

41.
Alberto, F. MsatAllele-1.0: An R package to visualize the binning of microsatellite alleles. J. Hered. 100, 394–397 (2009).

42.
Meirmans, P. G. & Van Tienderen, P. H. GENOTYPE and GENODIVE: Two programs for the analysis of genetic diversity of asexual organisms. Mol. Ecol. Notes 4, 792–794 (2004).
Article  Google Scholar 

43.
Peakall, R. & Smouse, P. E. GenAlEx 6.5: genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research—an update. Bioinformatics 28, 2537–2539 (2012).

44.
Pritchard, J. K., Stephens, M. & Donnelly, P. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155, 945–959 (2000).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

45.
Earl, D. A. & vonHoldt, B. M. STRUCTURE HARVESTER: A website and program for visualizing STRUCTURE output and implementing the Evanno method. Conserv. Genet. Resour. 4, 359–361 (2012).

46.
Oksanen, J. et al. The Vegan Package. (2007).

47.
Vollmer, S. V. & Palumbi, S. R. Restricted gene flow in the Caribbean staghorn coral Acropora cervicornis: implications for the recovery of endangered reefs. J. Hered. 98, 40–50 (2007).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

48.
Van Woesik, R., Lacharmoise, F. & Köksal, S. Annual cycles of solar insolation predict spawning times of Caribbean corals. Ecol. Lett. 9, 390–398 (2006).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

49.
Fogarty, N. D., Vollmer, S. V. & Levitan, D. R. Weak prezygotic isolating mechanisms in threatened caribbean Acropora corals. PLoS One 7, (2012).

50.
Rodríguez-Martínez, R. E., Banaszak, A. T., McField, M. D., Beltrán-Torres, A. U. & Álvarez-Filip, L. Assessment of Acropora palmata in the mesoamerican reef system. PLoS ONE 9, 1–7 (2014).
Google Scholar 

51.
Aronson, J. & Alexander, S. Ecosystem restoration is now a global priority: time to roll up our sleeves. Restor. Ecol. 21, 293–296 (2013).
Article  Google Scholar 

52.
Perring, M. P. et al. Advances in restoration ecology: rising to the challenges of the coming decades. Ecosphere 6, 480–493 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

53.
Lirman, D. & Schopmeyer, S. Ecological solutions to reef degradation: optimizing coral reef restoration in the Caribbean and Western Atlantic. PeerJ 4, e2597 (2016).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

54.
Boström-Einarsson, L. et al. Coral restoration—a systematic review of current methods, successes, failures and future directions. PLoS ONE 15, 1–24 (2020).
Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

55.
Mijangos, J. L., Pacioni, C., Spencer, P. B. S. & Craig, M. D. Contribution of genetics to ecological restoration. Mol. Ecol. 24, 22–37 (2015).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

56.
Ladd, M. C., Miller, M. W., Hunt, J. H., Sharp, W. C. & Burkepile, D. E. Harnessing ecological processes to facilitate coral restoration. Front. Ecol. Environ. 16, 239–247 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

57.
Granado, R., Neta, L. C. P., Nunes-Freitas, A. F., Voloch, C. M. & Lira, C. F. Assessing genetic diversity after mangrove restoration in Brazil: Why is it so important? Diversity 10, (2018).

58.
Johnson, M. E. et al. Caribbean Acropora Restoration Guide: Best Practices for Propagation and Population Enhancement. (2011).

59.
Bland, L. M. et al. Using multiple lines of evidence to assess the risk of ecosystem collapse. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 284, 1–10 (2017).
Google Scholar 

60.
ICF. Plan de Gestión para el Manejo del Sitio de Importancia para la Vida Silvestre Banco Cordelia el Parque nacional Marino de Islas de la Bahia. Inst. Nac. Conserv. y Desarro. For. Areas Protegidas y Vida Silv. 111 (2013).

61.
Mcleod, E. et al. The future of resilience-based management in coral reef ecosystems. J. Environ. Manage. 233, 291–301 (2019).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

62.
Crouzeilles, R. et al. Ecological restoration success is higher for natural regeneration than for active restoration in tropical forests. Sci. Adv. 3, 1–8 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar  More