Philippa Kaur

1.
Salam N, Jiao J-Y, Zhang X-T, Li W-J. Update on the classification of higher ranks in the phylum Actinobacteria. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2020;70:1331–55.
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 
2.
Ningsih F, et al. Gandjariella thermophila gen. nov., sp. nov., a new member of the family Pseudonocardiaceae, isolated from forest soil in a geothermal area. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2019;69:3080–6.
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

3.
Nouioui I, et al. Genome-based taxonomic classification of the phylum Actinobacteria. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:2007.
Article  Google Scholar 

4.
Parte AC. LPSN—list of prokaryotic names with standing in nomenclature (bacterio.net), 20 years on. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2018;68:1825–9.
Article  Google Scholar 

5.
Alanjary M, Steinke K, Ziemert N. AutoMLST: an automated web server for generating multi-locus species trees highlighting natural product potential. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47:W276–82.
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

6.
Teo WFA, Srisuk N, Duangmal K. Amycolatopsis acidicola sp. nov., isolated from peat swamp forest soil. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2020;70:1547–54.
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

7.
Niu M-M, et al. Amycolatopsis nivea sp. nov., isolated from a Yellow River sample. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2020;70:3084–90.
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

8.
Narsing Rao MP, et al. Amycolatopsis alkalitolerans sp. nov., isolated from Gastrodia elata Blume. J Antibiot. 2020;73:35–39.
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

9.
Mingma R, Inahashi Y, Matsumoto A, Takahashi Y, Duangmal K. Amycolatopsis pithecelloba sp. nov., a novel actinomycete isolated from roots of Pithecellobium dulce in Thailand. J Antibiot. 2020;73:230–5.
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

10.
Wang H-F, et al. Amycolatopsis anabasis sp. nov., a novel endophytic actinobacterium isolated from roots of Anabasis elatior. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2020;70:3391–8.
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

11.
Sangal V, et al. Revisiting the taxonomic status of the biomedically and industrially important genus Amycolatopsis, using a phylogenomic approach. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:2281.
Article  Google Scholar 

12.
Adamek M, et al. Comparative genomics reveals phylogenetic distribution patterns of secondary metabolites in Amycolatopsis species. BMC Genomics. 2018;19:426.
Article  Google Scholar 

13.
Waksman SA. The Actinomycetes: their nature, occurrence, activities, and importance. Waltham, Massachusetts: Chronica Botanica Company; 1950.

14.
Donadio S, Cavaletti L, Monciardini P. Genus I Actinospica Cavaletti, Monciardini, Schumann, Rohde, Bamonte, Busti, Sosio and Donadio 2006, 1751VP. In: Goodfellow M, et al., editors. Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology. 2nd. New York: Springer; 2012. p. 232–4.

15.
Shirling EB, Gottlieb D. Methods for characterization of Streptomyces species. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1966;16:313–40.
Article  Google Scholar 

16.
Tan GYA, Ward AC, Goodfellow M. Exploration of Amycolatopsis diversity in soil using genus-specific primers and novel selective media. Syst Appl Microbiol. 2006;29:557–69.
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

17.
Williams ST, Davies FL, Mayfield CI, Khan MR. Studies on the ecology of actinomycetes in soil—II: The pH requirements of streptomycetes from two acid soils. Soil Biol Biochem. 1971;3:187–95.
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

18.
Flowers TH, Williams ST. Nutritional requirements of acidophilic streptomycetes. Soil Biol Biochem. 1977;9:225–6.
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

19.
Becker B, Lechevalier MP, Lechevalier HA. Chemical composition of cell-wall preparations from strains of various form-genera of aerobic actinomycetes. Appl Microbiol. 1965;13:236–43.
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

20.
Hasegawa T, Takizawa M, Tanida S. A rapid analysis for chemical grouping of aerobic actinomycetes. J Gen Appl Microbiol. 1983;29:319–22.
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

21.
Staneck JL, Roberts GD. Simplified approach to identification of aerobic actinomycetes by thin-layer chromatography. Appl Microbiol. 1974;28:226–31.
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

22.
Tomiyasu I. Mycolic acid composition and thermally adaptative changes in Nocardia asteroides. J Bacteriol. 1982;151:828–37.
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

23.
Minnikin DE, Patel PV, Alshamaony L, Goodfellow M. Polar lipid composition in the classification of nocardia and related bacteria. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 1977;27:104–17.
CAS  Google Scholar 

24.
Kieser T, Bibb MJ, Buttner MJ, Chater KF, Hopwood DA. Practical Streptomyces Genetics. Norwich: John Innes Foundation; 2000.

25.
Bankevich A, et al. SPAdes: a new genome assembly algorithm and its applications to single-cell sequencing. J Comput Biol. 2012;19:455–77.
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

26.
Gurevich A, Saveliev V, Vyahhi N, Tesler G. QUAST: quality assessment tool for genome assemblies. Bioinformatics. 2013;29:1072–5.
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

27.
Tatusova T, et al. NCBI prokaryotic genome annotation pipeline. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44:6614–24.
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

28.
Cosentino S, Voldby Larsen M, Møller Aarestrup F, Lund O. PathogenFinder—distinguishing friend from foe using bacterial whole genome sequence data. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e77302.
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

29.
Blin K, et al. AntiSMASH 5.0: updates to the secondary metabolite genome mining pipeline. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47:W81–7.
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

30.
Chun J, et al. Proposed minimal standards for the use of genome data for the taxonomy of prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2018;68:461–6.
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

31.
Yoon S-H, et al. Introducing EzBioCloud: a taxonomically united database of 16S rRNA gene sequences and whole-genome assemblies. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2017;67:1613–7.
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

32.
Tarlachkov SV, Starodumova IP. TaxonDC: calculating the similarity value of the 16S rRNA gene sequences of prokaryotes or ITS regions of fungi. J Bioinf Genom. 2017;3:1–4.
Google Scholar 

33.
Richter M, Rosselló-Móra R, Oliver Glöckner F, Peplies J. JSpeciesWS: a web server for prokaryotic species circumscription based on pairwise genome comparison. Bioinformatics. 2016;32:929–31.
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

34.
Meier-Kolthoff JP, Auch AF, Klenk H-P, Göker M. Genome sequence-based species delimitation with confidence intervals and improved distance functions. BMC Bioinform. 2013;14:1–14.
Article  Google Scholar 

35.
Kumar S, Stecher G, Tamura K. MEGA7: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 7.0 for bigger datasets. Mol Biol Evol. 2017;33:1870–4.
Article  Google Scholar 

36.
Meier-Kolthoff JP, Göker M. TYGS is an automated high-throughput platform for state-of-the-art genome-based taxonomy. Nat Commun. 2019;10:2182.
Article  Google Scholar 

37.
Lechevalier MP, De Bievre C, Lechevalier H. Chemotaxonomy of aerobic actinomycetes: phospholipid composition. Biochem Syst Ecol. 1977;5:249–60.
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

38.
Lechevalier MP, Lechevalier H. Chemical composition as a criterion in the classification of aerobic actinomycetes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 1970;20:435–43.
CAS  Google Scholar 

39.
Seyedsayamdost MR, Traxler MF, Zheng S-L, Kolter R, Clardy J. Structure and biosynthesis of amychelin, an unusual mixed-ligand siderophore from Amycolatopsis sp. AA4. J Am Chem Soc. 2011;133:11434–7.
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

40.
Kodani S, Komaki H, Suzuki M, Hemmi H, Ohnishi-Kameyama M. Isolation and structure determination of new siderophore albachelin from Amycolatopsis alba. BioMetals. 2015;28:381–9.
CAS  Article  Google Scholar  More

1.
Holling, C. S. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 4, 1–23 (1973).
Article  Google Scholar 
2.
Dai, L., Korolev, K. S. & Gore, J. Relation between stability and resilience determines the performance of early warning signals under different environmental drivers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112, 10056–10061 (2015).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

3.
Dakos, V., Carpenter, S. R., van Nes, E. H. & Scheffer, M. Resilience indicators: Prospects and limitations for early warnings of regime shifts. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 370, 20130263–20130263 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

4.
Colchero, F. et al. The diversity of population responses to environmental change. Ecol. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13195 (2018).
Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

5.
Coulson, T. et al. Data from: Modeling adaptive and nonadaptive responses of populations to environmental change. Am. Nat. https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.4c117 (2017).
Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

6.
Donohue, I. et al. Navigating the complexity of ecological stability. Ecol. Lett. 19, 1172–1185 (2016).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

7.
Fernández-Chacón, A. et al. When to stay, when to disperse and where to go: Survival and dispersal patterns in a spatially structured seabird population. Ecography 36, 1117–1126 (2013).
Article  Google Scholar 

8.
Sterk, M., van de Leemput, I. A. & Peeters, E. T. How to conceptualize and operationalize resilience in socio-ecological systems?. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 28, 108–113 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

9.
Brand, F. S. & Jax, K. Focusing the meaning(s) of resilience: Resilience as a descriptive concept and a boundary object. Ecol. Soc. 12, 23 (2007).
Article  Google Scholar 

10.
Barrett, L., Henzi, S. P. & Lusseau, D. Taking sociality seriously: The structure of multi-dimensional social networks as a source of information for individuals. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 367, 2108–2118 (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 

11.
Centola, D. How Behavior Spreads: The Science of Complex Contagions. (2018).

12.
Firth, J. A. Considering complexity: Animal social networks and behavioural contagions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 35, 100–104 (2020).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

13.
Kerth, G., Perony, N. & Schweitzer, F. Bats are able to maintain long-term social relationships despite the high fission–fusion dynamics of their groups. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 278, 2761–2767 (2011).
Article  Google Scholar 

14.
Rosenthal, S. B., Twomey, C. R., Hartnett, A. T., Wu, H. S. & Couzin, I. D. Revealing the hidden networks of interaction in mobile animal groups allows prediction of complex behavioral contagion. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112, 4690–4695 (2015).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

15.
Snijders, L., Blumstein, D. T., Stanley, C. R. & Franks, D. W. Animal social network theory can help wildlife conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 32, 567–577 (2017).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

16.
Webber, Q. M. R. & Vander Wal, E. An evolutionary framework outlining the integration of individual social and spatial ecology. J. Anim. Ecol. 87, 113–127 (2018).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

17.
Sueur, C. & Mery, F. Social Interaction in Animals: Linking Experimental Approach and Social Network Analysis (Frontiers Media SA, Lausanne, 2017).
Google Scholar 

18.
LaBarge, L. R., Allan, A. T. L., Berman, C. M., Margulis, S. W. & Hill, R. A. Reactive and pre-emptive spatial cohesion in a social primate. Anim. Behav. 163, 115–126 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

19.
Firth, J. A. et al. Wild birds respond to flockmate loss by increasing their social network associations to others. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 284, 20170299 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

20.
Farine, D. R. Structural trade-offs can predict rewiring in shrinking social networks. J. Anim. Ecol. 1365–2656, 13140. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.13140 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

21.
Maldonado-Chaparro, A. A., Alarcón-Nieto, G., Klarevas-Irby, J. A. & Farine, D. R. Experimental disturbances reveal group-level costs of social instability. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 285, 20181577 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

22.
Puga-Gonzalez, I., Sosa, S. & Sueur, C. Social style and resilience of macaques’ networks, a theoretical investigation. Primates 60, 233–246 (2019).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

23.
Williams, R. & Lusseau, D. A killer whale social network is vulnerable to targeted removals. Biol. Lett. 2, 497–500 (2006).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

24.
Oro, D. Perturbation, Social Feedbacks, and Population Dynamics in Social Animals (Oxford Univerity Press, Oxford, 2020).
Google Scholar 

25.
Firth, J. A. & Sheldon, B. C. Experimental manipulation of avian social structure reveals segregation is carried over across contexts. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 282, 20142350–20142350 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

26.
Genton, C. et al. How Ebola impacts social dynamics in gorillas: A multistate modelling approach. J. Anim. Ecol. 84, 166–176 (2015).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

27.
Leu, S. T., Farine, D. R., Wey, T. W., Sih, A. & Bull, C. M. Environment modulates population social structure: Experimental evidence from replicated social networks of wild lizards. Anim. Behav. 111, 23–31 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

28.
Silk, J., Cheney, D. & Seyfarth, R. A practical guide to the study of social relationships: A practical guide to the study of social relationships. Evol. Anthropol. Issues News Rev. 22, 213–225 (2013).
Article  Google Scholar 

29.
Brown, C. R. The ecology and evolution of colony-size variation. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 70, 1613–1632 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

30.
Rolland, C., Danchin, E. & de Fraipont, M. The evolution of coloniality in birds in relation to food, habitat, predation, and life-history traits: A comparative analysis. Am. Nat. 151, 514–529 (1998).
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

31.
Shizuka, D. et al. Across-year social stability shapes network structure in wintering migrant sparrows. Ecol. Lett. 17, 998–1007 (2014).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

32.
Brandl, H. B., Griffith, S. C., Farine, D. R. & Schuett, W. Wild zebra finches that nest synchronously have long-term stable social ties. J. Anim. Ecol. 1365–2656, 13082. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.13082 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

33.
Moreno, J. L. Who Shall Survive?: A New Approach to the Problem of Human Interrelations (Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing Co, New York, 1934). .

34.
Scott, J. Social network analysis. Sociology 22, 109–127 (1988).
Article  Google Scholar 

35.
Croft, D. P., James, R. & Krause, J. Exploring Animal Social Networks (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2008).
Google Scholar 

36.
Farine, D. R. & Whitehead, H. Constructing, conducting and interpreting animal social network analysis. J. Anim. Ecol. 84, 1144–1163 (2015).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

37.
Ward, A. & Webster, M. Sociality: The Behaviour of Group-Living Animals (Springer, New York, 2016).
Google Scholar 

38.
Whitehead, H. Analyzing Animal Societies Quantitative Methods for Vertebrate Social Analysis. (2014).

39.
James, R., Croft, D. P. & Krause, J. Potential banana skins in animal social network analysis. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 63, 989–997 (2009).
Article  Google Scholar 

40.
Hasenjager, M. J. & Dugatkin, L. A. Chapter three—social network analysis in behavioral ecology. In Advances in the Study of Behavior (ed. Naguib, M.) 47, 39–114 (Academic Press, New York, 2015).
Google Scholar 

41.
Payo-Payo, A. et al. Predator arrival elicits differential dispersal, change in age structure and reproductive performance in a prey population. Sci. Rep. 8, 1971 (2018).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

42.
Martínez-Abraín, A., Oro, D., Forero, M. G. & Conesa, D. Modeling temporal and spatial colony-site dynamics in a long-lived seabird. Popul. Ecol. 45, 133–139 (2003).
Article  Google Scholar 

43.
Genovart, M., Oro, D. & Tenan, S. Immature survival, fertility, and density dependence drive global population dynamics in a long-lived species. Ecology 99, 2823–2832 (2018).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

44.
Almaraz, P. & Oro, D. Size-mediated non-trophic interactions and stochastic predation drive assembly and dynamics in a seabird community. Ecology 92, 1948–1958 (2011).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

45.
Shizuka, D. & Johnson, A. E. How demographic processes shape animal social networks. Behav. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arz083 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

46.
Francesiaz, C. et al. Familiarity drives social philopatry in an obligate colonial breeder with weak interannual breeding-site fidelity. Anim. Behav. 124, 125–133 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

47.
Cantor, M. & Farine, D. R. Simple foraging rules in competitive environments can generate socially structured populations. Ecol. Evol. 8, 4978–4991 (2018).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

48.
Cantor, M. et al. Animal social networks: Revealing the causes and implications of social structure in ecology and evolution. https://osf.io/m62gb (2019). https://doi.org/10.32942/osf.io/m62gb.

49.
Anderson, D. J. & Hodum, P. J. Predator behavior favors clumped nesting in an oceanic seabird. Ecology 74, 2462–2464 (1993).
Article  Google Scholar 

50.
Oro, D. Colonial seabird nesting in dense and small sub-colonies: An advantage against aerial predation. Condor 98, 848–850 (1996).
Article  Google Scholar 

51.
Gil, M. A., Hein, A. M., Spiegel, O., Baskett, M. L. & Sih, A. Social information links individual behavior to population and community dynamics. Trends Ecol. Evol. 33, 535–548 (2018).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

52.
Lewanzik, D., Sundaramurthy, A. K. & Goerlitz, H. R. Insectivorous bats integrate social information about species identity, conspecific activity and prey abundance to estimate cost–benefit ratio of interactions. J. Anim. Ecol. 88, 1462–1473 (2019).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

53.
Doligez, B. Public information and breeding habitat selection in a wild bird population. Science 297, 1168–1170 (2002).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

54.
Payo-Payo, A. et al. Colonisation in social species: The importance of breeding experience for dispersal in overcoming information barriers. Sci. Rep. 7, 20 (2017).
ADS  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

55.
Arganda, S., Pérez-Escudero, A. & de Polavieja, G. G. A common rule for decision making in animal collectives across species. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109, 20508–20513 (2012).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

56.
Pérez-Escudero, A. & de Polavieja, G. G. Adversity magnifies the importance of social information in decision-making. J. R. Soc. Interface 14, 20170748 (2017).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

57.
Maldonado-Chaparro, A. A., Blumstein, D. T., Armitage, K. B. & Childs, D. Z. Transient LTRE analysis reveals the demographic and trait-mediated processes that buffer population growth. Ecol. Lett. 21, 1693–1703 (2018).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

58.
Pruitt, J. N. et al. Social tipping points in animal societies. Proc. R. Soc. B 285, 20181282 (2018).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

59.
Dall, S. R. X., Houston, A. I. & McNamara, J. M. The behavioural ecology of personality: Consistent individual differences from an adaptive perspective. Ecol. Lett. 7, 734–739 (2004).
Article  Google Scholar 

60.
Doering, G. N., Scharf, I., Moeller, H. V. & Pruitt, J. N. Social tipping points in animal societies in response to heat stress. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1298–1305 (2018).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

61.
Wolf, M., van Doorn, G. S., Leimar, O. & Weissing, F. J. Life-history trade-offs favour the evolution of animal personalities. Nature 447, 581–584 (2007).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

62.
Clobert, J., Le Galliard, J.-F., Cote, J., Meylan, S. & Massot, M. Informed dispersal, heterogeneity in animal dispersal syndromes and the dynamics of spatially structured populations. Ecol. Lett. 12, 197–209 (2009).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

63.
Cote, J., Clobert, J., Brodin, T., Fogarty, S. & Sih, A. Personality-dependent dispersal: Characterization, ontogeny and consequences for spatially structured populations. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 365, 4065–4076 (2010).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

64.
Fogarty, S., Cote, J. & Sih, A. Social personality polymorphism and the spread of invasive species: A model. Am. Nat. 177, 273–287 (2011).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

65.
O’Shea-Wheller, T. A., Masuda, N., Sendova-Franks, A. B. & Franks, N. R. Variability in individual assessment behaviour and its implications for collective decision-making. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 284, 20162237 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

66.
Nimmo, D. G., Mac Nally, R., Cunningham, S. C., Haslem, A. & Bennett, A. F. Vive la résistance: Reviving resistance for 21st century conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 516–523 (2015).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

67.
IUCN. Larus audouinii: BirdLife International: The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018: e.T22694313A132541241. (2018). https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-2.RLTS.T22694313A132541241.en.

68.
Martínez-Abraín, A., Jiménez, J. & Oro, D. Pax Romana: ‘refuge abandonment’ and spread of fearless behavior in a reconciling world. Anim. Conserv. 22, 3–13 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

69.
Genovart, M., Jover, L., Ruiz, X. & Oro, D. Offspring sex ratios in subcolonies of Audouin’s gull, Larus audouinii, with differential breeding performance. Can. J. Zool. 81, 905–910 (2003).
Article  Google Scholar 

70.
Oro, D. Audouin’s gull account. In The Birds of Western Palearctic (ed. Ogilvie, M. A.) 47–61 (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1998).
Google Scholar 

71.
Genovart, M., Pradel, R. & Oro, D. Exploiting uncertain ecological fieldwork data with multi-event capture-recapture modelling: An example with bird sex assignment. J. Anim. Ecol. 81, 970–977 (2012).
PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

72.
Oro, D., Tavecchia, G. & Genovart, M. Comparing demographic parameters for philopatric and immigrant individuals in a long-lived bird adapted to unstable habitats. Oecologia 165, 935–945 (2010).
ADS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

73.
Hoff, P. D. Additive and multiplicative effects network models. arXiv:180708038 Stat (2018).

74.
Minhas, S., Hoff, P. D. & Ward, M. D. Inferential approaches for network analyses: AMEN for latent factor models. arXiv:161100460 Stat (2016).

75.
Warner, R. M., Kenny, D. A. & Stoto, M. A new round robin analysis of variance for social interaction data. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 37, 1742–1757 (1979).
Article  Google Scholar 

76.
Gimenez, O. et al. Inferring animal social networks with imperfect detection. Ecol. Model. 401, 69–74 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

77.
Hoppitt, W. J. E. & Farine, D. R. Association indices for quantifying social relationships: How to deal with missing observations of individuals or groups. Anim. Behav. 136, 227–238 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

78.
Farine, D. R. Animal social network inference and permutations for ecologists in R using asnipe. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4, 1187–1194 (2013).
Article  Google Scholar 

79.
Warnes,GR, Bolker, G, Gorjanc, G & Grothendieck, G. gdata: Various R programming tools for data manipulation. R package version (2014).

80.
Csardi, G. & Nepusz, T. The igraph software package for complex network research. InterJournal 20, 20 (2006).
Google Scholar 

81.
Farine, D. R. A guide to null models for animal social network analysis. Methods Ecol. Evol. 8, 1309–1320 (2017).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

82.
Ginsberg, J. R. & Young, T. P. Measuring association between individuals or groups in behavioural studies. Anim. Behav. 44, 377–379 (1992).
Article  Google Scholar 

83.
Cairns, S. J. & Schwager, S. J. A comparison of association indices. Anim. Behav. 35, 1454–1469 (1987).
Article  Google Scholar  More

Barton N (1998) The effect of hitchhiking on neutral genealogies. Genet Res 72:123–133
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Barton N (2000) Genetic hitchhiking. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 355:1553–1562
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Barton NH, Etheridge AM, Véber A (2010) A new model for evolution in a spatial continuum. Electron J Probab 15:162–216
Article  Google Scholar 

Beaumont M, Cornuet JM, Marin JM, Robert C (2009) Adaptive approximate Bayesian computation. Biometrika 96:983–990
Article  Google Scholar 

Beaumont M, Zhang W, Balding D (2002) Approximate Bayesian computation in population genetics. Genetics 162:2025–2035
Google Scholar 

Bedford T, Cobey S, Pascual M (2011) Strength and tempo of selection revealed in viral gene geneaologies. BMC Evol Biol 11:220
Article  Google Scholar 

Beichman A, Huerta-Sanchez E, Lohmuller K (2018) Using genomic data to infer historic population dynamics of nonmodel organisms. Annu Rev Ecol, Evol Syst 49:433–456
Article  Google Scholar 

Blancas, AB, Duchamps, JJ, Lambert, A, Siri-Jégousse, A (2018) Trees within trees: simple nested coalescents. Electron J Probab. 23:1–27

Blancas, AB, Gufler, S, Kliem, S, Tran, V, Wakolbinger, A (2020) Evolving genealogies for branching populations under selection and competition. In preparation

Bentley G, Goldberg T, ska G (1993) The fertility of agricultural and non-agricultural traditional societies. Popul Stud 47:269–281
Article  Google Scholar 

Billiard S, Ferrière R, Méléard S, Tran V (2015) Stochastic dynamics of adaptive trait and neutral marker driven by eco-evolutionary feedbacks. J Math Biol 71:1211–1242
Article  Google Scholar 

Blum M (2010) Approximate Bayesian Computation: a non-parametric perspective. J Am Stat Assoc 105:1178–1187
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Blum M, François O (2005) On statistical tests of phylogenetic tree imbalance: the Sackin and other indices revisited. Math Biosci 195:141–153
Article  Google Scholar 

Blum M, François O (2010) Non-linear regression models for Approximate Bayesian Computation. Stat Comput 20:63–73
Article  Google Scholar 

Blum M, Tran V (2010) HIV with contact-tracing: a case study in Approximate Bayesian Computation. Biostatistics 11:644–660
Article  Google Scholar 

Chaix R, Quintana-Murci L, Hegay T, Hammer M, Mobasher Z, Austerlitz F et al. (2007) From social to genetic structures in Central Asia. Curr Biol 17:43–48
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Champagnat N (2006) A microscopic interpretation for adaptative dynamics trait substitution sequence models. Stoch Processes Appl 116:1127–1160
Article  Google Scholar 

Champagnat N, Ferrière R, Méléard S (2006) Unifying evolutionary dynamics: from individual stochastic processes to macroscopic models via timescale separation. Theor Popul Biol 69:297–321
Article  Google Scholar 

Champagnat N, Jabin PE, Raoul G (2010) Convergence to equilibrium in competitive Lotka-Volterra and chemostat systems. Comptes-Rendus Mathématiques de laAcadémie des Sciences de Paris 348:1267–1272
Google Scholar 

Champagnat N, Méléard S (2007) Invasion and adaptive evolution for individual-based spatially structured populations. J Math Biol 55:147–188
Article  Google Scholar 

Champagnat N, Méléard S (2011) Polymorphic evolution sequence and evolutionary branching. Probab Theory Relat Fields 151:45–94
Article  Google Scholar 

Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D, Barton NH (2003) The effects of genetic and geographic structure on neutral variation. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:99–125
Article  Google Scholar 

Csillery, K, Francois, O, Blum, MGB (2012) abc: an r package for Approximate Bayesian Computation (ABC). Methods in ecology and evolution.

Dawson D, Hochberg K (1982) Wandering random measures in the Fleming-Viot model. Ann Probab 10:554–580
Article  Google Scholar 

Dawson, DA (1993) Mesure-valued Markov processes. In: Springer (ed.), Ecole d’Eté de probabilités de Saint-Flour XXI. New York, Lectures Notes in Math, 1541, p. 1–260

Dieckmann U, Doebeli M (1999) On the origin of species by sympatric speciation. Nature 400:354–357
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Donnelly P, Kurtz T (1996) A countable representation of the Fleming-Viot measure-valued diffusion. Ann Probab 24:698–742
Article  Google Scholar 

Donnelly P, Kurtz T (1999) Particle representations for measure-valued population models. Ann Probab 27:166–205
Article  Google Scholar 

Duchamps, JJ (2020) Trees within trees ii: nested fragmentations. Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Probab. Statist. 56:1203–1229

Durrett R, Schweinsberg J (2004) Approximating selective sweeps. Theoret Popul Biol 66:129–138
Article  Google Scholar 

Durrett R, Schweinsberg J (2005) Random partitions approximating the coalescence of lineages during a selective sweep. Ann Appl Probab 15:1591–1651
Article  Google Scholar 

Etheridge, A (2000) An introduction to superprocesses, University Lecture Series, vol. 20, American Mathematical Society, Providence.

Etheridge A, Pfaffelhuber P, Wakolbinger A (2006) An approximate sampling formula under genetic hitchhiking. Ann Appl Probab 16:685–729
Article  Google Scholar 

Ethier S, Kurtz T (1986) Markov processus, characterization and convergence. John Wiley, Sons, New York
Google Scholar 

Felsenstein J (1975) A pain in the torus: some difficulties with the model of isolation by distance. Am Nat 109:359–368
Article  Google Scholar 

Fournier N, Méléard S (2004) A microscopic probabilistic description of a locally regulated population and macroscopic approximations. Ann Appl Probab 14:1880–1919
Article  Google Scholar 

Frost S, Pybus O, Gog J, Viboud C, Bonhoeffer S, Bedford T (2015) Eight challenges in phylodynamic inference. Epidemics 10:88–92
Article  Google Scholar 

Fu YX, Li WH (1993) Statistical tests of neutrality of mutations. Genetics 133:693–709
CAS  Google Scholar 

Gallieni L (2017) Intransitive competition and its effects on community functional diversity. Oikos 126:615–623
Article  Google Scholar 

Goldstein D, Chikhi L (2002) Human migrations and population structure: what we know and why it matters. Annu Rev Genom Hum Genet 3:129–152
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Grelaud A, Robert C, Marin J, Rodolphe F, Taly J (2009) ABC likelihood-free methods for model choice in Gibbs random fields. Bayesian Anal 4:317–336
Article  Google Scholar 

Haller BC, Messer PW (2019) SLiM 3: forward genetic simulations beyond the Wright-Fisher model. Mol Biol Evol 36(3):632–637
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Heyer E, Brandenburg JT, Leonardi M, Toupance B, Balaresque P, Hegay T et al. (2015) Patrilineal populations show more male transmission of reproductive success than cognatic populations in Central Asia, which reduces their genetic diversity. Am J Phys Anthropol 157:537–543
Article  Google Scholar 

Jansen S, Kurt N (2014) On the notion(s) of duality for Markov processes. Probab Surveys 11:59–120
Article  Google Scholar 

Janson S, Kersting G (2011) On the total external length of the kingman coalescent. Electron J Probab 16:2203–2218
Article  Google Scholar 

Johri, P, Riall, K, Jensen, JD (2020) The impact of purifying and background selection on the inference of population history: problems and prospects. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.28.066365

Legendre S, Clobert J (1995) ULM, a software for conservation and evolutionary biologists. J Appl Stat 22:817–834
Article  Google Scholar 

Marin JM, Pudlo P, Robert C, Ryder R (2012) Approximate Bayesian computation methods. Stat Comput 22:1167–1180
Article  Google Scholar 

Metz J, Geritz S, Meszéna G, Jacobs F, Heerwaarden JV (1996) Adaptative dynamics, a geometrical study of the consequences of nearly faithful reproduction. In: Van Strien SJ, Verduyn Lunel SM (eds) Stochastic and spatial structures of dynamical systems. pp 183–231

Müller N, Rasmussen DA, Stadler T (2017) The structured coalescent and its approximations. Mol Biol Evol 34:2970–2981
Article  Google Scholar 

Neher R, Bedford T (2015) nextflu: real-time tracking of seasonal influenza virus evolution in humans. Bioinformatics 31:3546–8
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Pitman J (1999) Coalescents with multiple collisions. Ann Probab 27:1870–1902
Article  Google Scholar 

Prangle, D, Fearnhead, P, Cox, M, Biggs, P, French, N (2013) Semi-automatic selection of summary statistics for abc model choice. Stat Appl Genet Mol Biol pp. 1–16

Pudlo P, Marin J, Estoup A, Cornuet J, Gautier M, Robert C (2016) Reliable ABC model choice via random forests. Bioinformatics 32:859–866
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Rasmussen D, Stadler T (2019) Coupling adaptive molecular evolution to phylodynamics using fitness-dependent birth-death models. eLife 8:e45562
Article  Google Scholar 

Ross CT, Mulder MB, Winterhalder B, Uehara R, Headland J, Headland T (2016) Evidence for quantity-quality trade-offs, sex-specific parental investment, and variance compensation in colonized agta foragers undergoing demographic transition. Evol Hum Behav 37:350–365
Article  Google Scholar 

Roughgarden J (1979) Theory of population genetics and evolutionary ecology: an introduction. Macmillan, New York
Google Scholar 

Sagitov S (1999) The general coalescent with asynchronous mergers of ancestral lines. J Appl Probab 36:1116–1125
Article  Google Scholar 

Sellen D, Mace R (1997) Fertility and mode of subsistence: a phylogenetic analysis. Curr Anthropol 38:878–889
Article  Google Scholar 

Spor A, Nidelet T, Simon J, Bourgais A, de Vienne D, Sicard D (2009) Niche-driven evolution of metabolic and life-history strategies in natural and domesticated populations of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. BMC Evol Biol 9:296
Article  Google Scholar 

Stephan W (2016) Signatures of positive selection: from selective sweeps at individual loci to subtle allele frequency changes in polygenic adaptation. Mol Ecol 25:79–88
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Stoehr J, Pudlo P, Cucala L (2015) Adaptive ABC model choice and geometric summary statistics for hidden Gibbs random fields. Stat Comput 25:129–141
Article  Google Scholar 

Strelkowa N, Lässing M (2012) Clonal interference in the evolution of influenza. Genetics 192:671–682
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Verdu P, Austerlitz F, Estoup A, Vitalis R, Georges M, Théry S et al. (2009) Origins and genetic diversity of pygmy hunter-gatherers from western central africa. Curr Biol 19:312–318
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Zeeman M (1993) Hopf bifurcations in competitive three-dimensional Lotka-Volterra systems. Dynam Stab Syst 8:189–217
Google Scholar  More

1.
Alexander, M. A. et al. Projected sea surface temperatures over the 21st century: changes in the mean, variability and extremes for large marine ecosystem regions of Northern Oceans. Elem. Sci. Anth. 6, 9 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 
2.
National Snow & Ice Data Center. State of the cryosphere: is the cryosphere sending signals about climate change? https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html (2020). Accessed 24 Apr 2020.

3.
Michel, C. et al. Biodiversity of Arctic marine ecosystems and responses to climate change. Biodiversity 13, 200–214 (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 

4.
Hauser, D. D. W., Laidre, K. L. & Stern, H. L. Vulnerability of Arctic marine mammals to vessel traffic in the increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage and Northern Sea Route. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 115, 7617–7622 (2018).
PubMed  Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

5.
Albouy, C. et al. Global vulnerability of marine mammals to global warming. Sci. Rep. 10, 1–12 (2020).
Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

6.
Dietz, R., Heide-Jørgensen, M. P., Glahder, C. & Born, E. Occurrence of narwhals (Monodon monoceros) and white whales (Delphinapterus leucas) in East Greenland. Meddr. Grønl. Biosci. 39, 69–86 (1994).
Google Scholar 

7.
Dietz, R., Heide-Jørgensen, M. P., Richard, P. R. & Acquarone, M. Summer and Fall Movements of Narwhals (Monodon monoceros) from Northeastern Baffin Island Towards Northern Davis Strait. Arctic 54, 244–261 (2001).
Article  Google Scholar 

8.
Richard, P., Weaver, P., Dueck, L. & Barber, D. Distribution and numbers of Canadian High Arctic narwhals (Monodon monoceros) in August 1984. Meddr. Grønl. Biosci. 39, 41–50 (1994).
Google Scholar 

9.
Dietz, R. & Heide-Jørgensen, M. P. Movements and swimming speed of narwhals, Monodon monoceros, equipped with satellite transmitters in Melville Bay, northwest Greenland. Can. J. Zool. 73, 2106–2119 (1995).
Article  Google Scholar 

10.
Belikov, S. E. & Boltunov, A. N. Distribution and migrations of cetaceans in the Russian Arctic according to observations from aerial ice reconnaissance. NAMMCO Sci. Publ. 4, 69–86 (2002).
Article  Google Scholar 

11.
Vacquié-Garcia, J. et al. Late summer distribution and abundance of ice-associated whales in the Norwegian High Arctic. Endanger. Species Res. 32, 59–70 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

12.
Heide-Jørgensen, M., Richard, P. R., Dietz, R. & Laidre, K. L. A metapopulation model for Canadian and West Greenland narwhals. Anim. Conserv. 16, 331–343 (2013).
Article  Google Scholar 

13.
Hobbs, R. C. et al. Global review of the conservation status of Monodontid stocks. Mar. Fish. Rev. 81, 1–41 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

14.
Kovacs, K. M. & Lydersen, C. Climate change impacts on seals and whales in the North Atlantic Arctic and adjacent shelf seas. Sci. Prog. 91, 117–150 (2008).
PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

15.
Laidre, K. L. et al. Quantifying the sensitivity of Arctic marine mammals to climate-induced habitat change. Ecol. Appl. 18, S97–S125 (2008).
PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

16.
Heide-Jørgensen, M. et al. Abundance of narwhals (Monodon monoceros) on the hunting grounds in Greenland. J. Mammal. 91, 1135–1151 (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

17.
Doniol-Valcroze, T. et al. Abundance Estimates of Narwhal Stocks in the Canadian High Arctic in 2013 (NAMMCO Sci. Publ. 11, in press).

18.
Münchow, A., Falkner, K. K. & Melling, H. Baffin Island and West Greenland Current Systems in northern Baffin Bay. Prog. Oceanogr. 132, 305–317 (2015).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

19.
Sutherland, D. A. & Pickart, R. S. The East Greenland coastal current: structure, variability, and forcing. Prog. Oceanogr. 78, 58–77 (2008).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

20.
Håvik, L. et al. Structure and variability of the Shelfbreak East Greenland current North of Denmark Strait. J. Phys. Oceanogr. 47, 2631–2646 (2017).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

21.
Heide-Jørgensen, M. P. et al. Some like it cold: temperature-dependent habitat selection by narwhals. Ecol. Evol. 10, 8073–8090 (2020).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

22.
Heide-Jørgensen, M. P. et al. The migratory behaviour of narwhals (Monodon monoceros). Can. J. Zool. 81, 1298–1305 (2003).
Article  Google Scholar 

23.
Dietz, R. et al. Movements of narwhals (Monodon monoceros) from Admiralty Inlet monitored by satellite telemetry. Polar Biol. 31, 1295–1306 (2008).
Article  Google Scholar 

24.
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/ (2018). Accessed 24 Apr 2019.

25.
Albertsen, C. M., Whoriskey, K., Yurkowski, D., Nielsen, A. & Flemming, J. M. Fast fitting of non-Gaussian state-space models to animal movement data via template model builder. Ecology 96, 2598–2604 (2015).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

26.
Albertsen, C. M. argosTrack: Fit Movement Models to Argos Data for Marine Animals. R package version 1.2.2. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1420418, https://github.com/calbertsen/argosTrack/tree/v1.2.2 (2018). Accessed 20 Aug 2019.

27.
Bryant, E. 2D Location Accuracy Statistics for Fastloc® Cores Running Firmware Versions 2.2 & 2.3. (2007).

28.
Tomkiewicz, S. M., Fuller, M. R., Kie, J. G. & Bates, K. K. Global positioning system and associated technologies in animal behaviour and ecological research. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 365, 2163–2176 (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

29.
Pohlert, T. Trend: non-parametric trend tests and change-point detection. R package version, 1(0). https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/trend/trend.pdf (2018). Accessed 10 Aug 2019.

30.
Heide-Jørgensen, M., Richard, P., Dietz, R. & Laidre, K. A metapopulation model for Canadian and West Greenland narwhals. Anim. Conserv. 16, 331–343 (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 

31.
Komsta, L. & Komsta, M. L. Package ‘mblm’. https://cran.pau.edu.tr/web/packages/mblm/mblm.pdf (2013). Accessed 10 Aug 2019.

32.
Chambault, P. et al. Sea surface temperature predicts the movements of an Arctic cetacean: the bowhead whale. Sci. Rep. 8, 9658 (2018).
ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

33.
Heide-Jørgensen, L. M. P. & Nielsen, T. G. Role of the bowhead whale as a predator in West Greenland. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 346, 285–297 (2008).
Google Scholar 

34.
Laidre, K. L. & Heide-Jørgensen, M. P. Winter feeding intensity of narwhals (Monodon monoceros). Mar. Mammal. Sci. 21, 45–57 (2005).
Article  Google Scholar 

35.
Forster, C. Spatial Patterns, Environmental Correlates, and Potential Seasonal Migration Triangle of Arctic cod (Boreogadus saida) Distribution in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas (2019).

36.
Laurel, B. J., Copeman, L. A., Spencer, M. & Iseri, P. Temperature-dependent growth as a function of size and age in juvenile Arctic cod (Boreogadus saida). ICES J. Mar. Sci. 74, 1614–1621 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

37.
Laidre, K. L. et al. Seasonal narwhal habitat associations in the high Arctic. Mar. Biol. 145, 821–831 (2004).
Google Scholar 

38.
Schmidt-Nielsen, K. Animal Physiology: Adaptation and Environment (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997).
Google Scholar 

39.
Castellini, M. Thermoregulation. in Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (eds Perrin, W. F. et al.) 1166–1171 (Academic Press, Cambridge, 2009).
Google Scholar 

40.
Kanwisher, J. W. & Ridgway, S. H. The physiological ecology of Whales and Porpoises. Sci. Am. 248, 110–121 (1983).
Article  Google Scholar 

41.
Williams, T. M., Noren, S. R. & Glenn, M. Extreme physiological adaptations as predictors of climate-change sensitivity in the narwhal Monodon monoceros. Mar. Mammal Sci. 27, 334–349 (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

42.
McLaughlin, F. A., Carmack, E. C., Ingram, R. G., Williams, W. & Michel, C. Oceanography of the Northwest Passage. in The Sea 26 (ed. Banville, J.) 1211–1242 (President and Fellows of Harvard College, Boston, 2004).
Google Scholar 

43.
Kern, S., Kaleschke, L. & Spreen, G. Climatology of the Nordic (Irminger, Greenland, Barents, Kara and White/Pechora) Seas ice cover based on 85 GHz satellite microwave radiometry: 1992–2008. Tellus Dyn. Meteorol. Oceanogr. 62, 411–434 (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

44.
Hansen, R. G., Borchers, D. L. & Heide-Jørgensen, M. P. Abundance of narwhals summering in East Greenland and narwhals wintering in the North Water and Northeast Water polynyas. J. Mammal. 91, 1135–1151 (2019).
Google Scholar 

45.
Riewe, R. Inuit land in the high Canadian Arctic. in Report Inuit land use and occupancy project 173–184 (1976).

46.
Riewe, R. The utilisation of wildlife in the Jones Sound region by Grise Fjord Inuit. in Truelove Lowland, Devon Island, Canada: A high Arctic Ecosystem 623–644 (1977).

47.
Riewe, R. Nunavut atlas. Canadian Circumpolar Institute and Tungavik Federation of Nunavut (1992).

48.
Watt, C. A., Doniol-Valcroze, T., Witting, L., Hobbs, R. C., Hansen, R. G., Lee, D. S., … & Heide-Jorgensen, M. P. (2019). Hunt allocation modeling for migrating animals: The case of Baffin Bay narwhal, Monodon monoceros. Mar. Fish. Rev, 81(3–4), 125–136.

49.
Witting, L., Doniol-Valcroze, T., Hobbs, R. C., Ditlevsen, S. & Heide-Jørgensen, M. Meta-population modelling of narwhals, Monodon monoceros, in East Canada and West Greenland. Mar. Fish. Rev. 81, 116–138 (2019) (in press).
Google Scholar 

50.
NAMMCO. Report of the Ad hoc Working Group on Narwhal in East Greenland. https://nammco.no/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/report-global-review-of-monodontids-nammco-2018_after-erratum-060518_with-appendices_2.pdf (2019). Accessed 10 Aug 2019.

51.
Kvadsheim, P. H. & Folkow, L. P. Blubber and flipper heat transfer in harp seals. Acta Physiol. Scand. 161, 385–395 (1997).
PubMed  Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

52.
Kvadsheim, P. H., Gotaas, A. R. L., Folkow, L. P. & Blix, A. S. An Experimental validation of heat loss models for marine mammals. J. Theor. Biol. 184, 15–23 (1997).
Article  Google Scholar 

53.
Scholander, P. Evolution of climatic adaptation in homeotherms. Evolution 9, 15–26 (1955).
Article  Google Scholar 

54.
Noren, D. P., Williams, T. M., Berry, P. & Butler, E. Thermoregulation during swimming and diving in bottlenose dolphins Tursiops truncatus. J. Comp. Physiol. B 169, 93–99 (1999).
PubMed  Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

55.
Innes, S. et al. Surveys of belugas and narwhals in the Canadian High Arctic in 1996. NAMMCO Sci. Publ. 4, 169–190 (2002).
Article  Google Scholar 

56.
Richard, P. et al. Baffin Bay Narwhal population distribution and numbers: aerial surveys in the Canadian high Arctic, 2002–04. Arctic 63, 85–99 (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

57.
Asselin, N. C. & Richard, P. Results of narwhal (Monodon monoceros) aerial surveys in Admiralty Inlet (2011).

58.
Hansen, R. et al. Abundance of narwhals in Melville Bay in 2012 and 2014. (2015).

59.
Hansen, R. & Heide-Jørgensen, M. P. Re-calculations of abundance of narwhals to three management units in East Greenland (2019). More

1.
Hewitt, G. M. Some genetic consequences of ice ages, and their role in divergence and speciation. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 58, 247–276. https://doi.org/10.1006/bijl.1996.0035 (1996).
Article  Google Scholar 
2.
Hewitt, G. M. Genetic consequences of climatic oscillations in the quaternary. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 359, 183–195. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2003.1388 (2004).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

3.
Patton, H. et al. Deglaciation of the Eurasian ice sheet complex. Quat. Sci. Rev. 169, 148–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2017.05.019 (2017).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

4.
Hewitt, G. M. Postglacial re-colonisation of European biota. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 68, 87–112 (1999).
Article  Google Scholar 

5.
Sworobowicz, L. et al. Revisiting the phylogeography of Asellus aquaticus in Europe: insights into cryptic diversity and spatiotemporal diversification. Freshw. Biol. 60, 1824–1840. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12613 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

6.
Schmitt, T. & Varga, Z. Extra-Mediterranean refugia: the rule and not the exception?. Front. Zool. 9, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-9994-9-22 (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 

7.
Verovnik, R., Sket, B. & Trontelj, P. The colonization of Europe by the freshwater crustacean Asellus aquaticus (Crustacea: Isopoda) proceeded from ancient refugia and was directed by habitat connectivity. Mol. Ecol. 14, 4355–4369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2005.02745.x (2005).
CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

8.
Sworobowicz, L., Mamos, T., Grabowski, M. & Wysocka, A. Lasting through the ice age: the role of the proglacial refugia in the maintenance of genetic diversity, population growth, and high dispersal rate in a widespread freshwater crustacean. Freshw. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.13487 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

9.
Neumann, K. et al. Genetic spatial structure of European common hamsters (Cricetus cricetus)—a result of repeated range expansion and demographic bottlenecks. Mol. Ecol. 14, 1473–1483. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2005.02519.x (2005).
CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

10.
Fussi, B., Lexer, C. & Heinze, B. Phylogeography of Populus alba (L.) and Populus tremula (L.) in Central Europe: secondary contact and hybridisation during recolonisation from disconnected refugia. Tree Genet. Genomes 6, 439–450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11295-009-0262-5 (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

11.
Grabowski, M., Mamos, T., Bącela-Spychalska, K., Rewicz, T. & Wattier, R. A. Neogene paleogeography provides context for understanding the origin and spatial distribution of cryptic diversity in a widespread Balkan freshwater amphipod. PeerJ 5, e3016. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3016 (2017).
Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

12.
Hou, Z., Sket, B., Fiser, C. & Li, S. Eocene habitat shift from saline to freshwater promoted Tethyan amphipod diversification. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108, 14533–14538. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1104636108 (2011).
ADS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

13.
Mamos, T., Wattier, R., Burzyński, A. & Grabowski, M. The legacy of a vanished sea: a high level of diversification within a European freshwater amphipod species complex driven by 15 My of Paratethys regression. Mol. Ecol. 25, 795–810. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13499 (2016).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

14.
Perea, S. et al. Phylogenetic relationships and biogeographical patterns in Circum-Mediterranean subfamily Leuciscinae (Teleostei, Cyprinidae) inferred from both mitochondrial and nuclear data. BMC Evol. Biol. 10, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-10-265 (2010).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

15.
Saito, T. et al. Phylogeography of freshwater planorbid snails reveals diversification patterns in Eurasian continental islands. BMC Evol. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-018-1273-3 (2018).
Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

16.
Utevsky, S. & Trontelj, P. Phylogeography of the southern medicinal leech, Hirudo verbana: a response to Živić et al. (2015). Aquat. Ecol. 50, 97–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10452-015-9553-0 (2016).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

17.
Grabowski, M., Jażdżewski, K. & Konopacka, A. Alien crustacea in polish waters—Amphipoda. Aquat. Invas. 2, 25–38. https://doi.org/10.3391/ai.2007.2.1.3 (2007).
Article  Google Scholar 

18.
Kontula, T. & Väinölä, R. Postglacial colonization of Northern Europe by distinct phylogeographic lineages of the bullhead, Cottus gobio. Mol. Ecol. 10, 1983–2002. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294X.2001.01328.x (2001).
CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

19.
Mateus, C. S., Almeida, P. R., Mesquita, N., Quintella, B. R. & Alves, M. J. European lampreys: new insights on postglacial colonization, gene flow and speciation. PLoS ONE 11, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148107 (2016).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

20.
Jażdżewski, K. Range extensions of some gammaridean species in European inland waters caused by human activity. 10–16 (1980).

21.
Bij de Vaate, A., Jażdżewski, K., Ketelaars, H. A. M., Gollasch, S. & Van der Velde, G. Geographical patterns in range extension of Ponto-Caspian macroinvertebrate species in Europe. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 59, 1159–1174. https://doi.org/10.1139/f02-098 (2002).
Article  Google Scholar 

22.
Panov, V. E. et al. Assessing the risks of aquatic species invasions via European inland waterways: from concepts to environmental indicators. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 5, 110–126. https://doi.org/10.1897/IEAM_2008-034.1 (2009).
CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

23.
Väinölä, R. et al. Global diversity of amphipods (Amphipoda; Crustacea) in freshwater. Hydrobiologia 595, 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-007-9020-6 (2008).
Article  Google Scholar 

24.
Weiss, M. & Leese, F. Widely distributed and regionally isolated! Drivers of genetic structure in Gammarus fossarum in a human-impacted landscape. BMC Evol. Biol. 16, 153. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-016-0723-z (2016).
CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

25.
Weigand, A. M., Michler-Kozma, D., Kuemmerlen, M. & Jourdan, J. Substantial differences in genetic diversity and spatial structuring among (cryptic) amphipod species in a mountainous river basin. Freshw. Biol. 65, 1641–1656. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.13529 (2020).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

26.
Rachalewski, M., Banha, F., Grabowski, M. & Anastácio, P. M. Ectozoochory as a possible vector enhancing the spread of an alien amphipod Crangonyx pseudogracilis. Hydrobiologia 717, 109–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-013-1577-7 (2013).
Article  Google Scholar 

27.
Peck, S. B. Amphipod dispersal in the fur of aquatic mammals. Can. F. Nat. 89, 181–182 (1975).
Google Scholar 

28.
Sainte-Marie, B. A review of the reproductive bionomics of aquatic gammaridean amphipods: variation of life history traits with latitude, depth, salinity and superfamily. Hydrobiologia 223, 189–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00047641 (1991).
Article  Google Scholar 

29.
Rewicz, T., Grabowski, M., MacNeil, C. & Bącela-Spychalska, K. The profile of a ‘perfect’ invader—the case of killer shrimp, Dikerogammarus villosus. Aquat. Invas. 9, 267–288. https://doi.org/10.3391/ai.2014.9.3.04 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

30.
Vader, W. & Tandberg, A. H. S. Gammarid amphipods (Crustacea) in Norway, with a key to the species. Fauna Nor. 39, 12–25. https://doi.org/10.5324/fn.v39i0.2873 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

31.
Macdonald, K. S., Yampolsky, L. & Duffy, J. E. Molecular and morphological evolution of the amphipod radiation of Lake Baikal. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 35, 323–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2005.01.013 (2005).
CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

32.
Grabowski, M., Wysocka, A. & Mamos, T. Molecular species delimitation methods provide new insight into taxonomy of the endemic gammarid species flock from the ancient Lake Ohrid. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 181, 272–285. https://doi.org/10.1093/zoolinnean/zlw025 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

33.
Jabłońska, A., Wrzesińska, W., Zawal, A., Pešić, V. & Grabowski, M. Long-term within-basin isolation patterns, different conservation units, and interspecific mitochondrial DNA introgression in an amphipod endemic to the ancient Lake Skadar system, Balkan Peninsula. Freshw. Biol. 65, 209–225. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.13414 (2020).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

34.
Copilaş-Ciocianu, D. & Petrusek, A. The southwestern Carpathians as an ancient centre of diversity of freshwater gammarid amphipods: insights from the Gammarus fossarum species complex. Mol. Ecol. 24, 3980–3992. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13286 (2015).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

35.
Copilaş-Ciocianu, D. & Petrusek, A. Phylogeography of a freshwater crustacean species complex reflects a long-gone archipelago. J. Biogeogr. 44, 421–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.12853 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

36.
Leuven, R. S. E. W. et al. The river Rhine: a global highway for dispersal of aquatic invasive species. Biol. Invas. 11, 1989–2008. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-009-9491-7 (2009).
Article  Google Scholar 

37.
Kelly, D. W., Muirhead, J. R., Heath, D. D. & Macisaac, H. J. Contrasting patterns in genetic diversity following multiple invasions of fresh and brackish waters. Mol. Ecol. 15, 3641–3653. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2006.03012.x (2006).
CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

38.
Panov, V. & Berezina, N. Invasive aquatic species of Europe. Distribution, impacts and management. Invas. Aquat. Species Eur. Distrib. Impacts Manag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9956-6 (2002).
Article  Google Scholar 

39.
Csabai, Z. et al. Mass appearance of the Ponto-Caspian invader Pontogammarus robustoides in the River Tisza catchment: bypass in the southern invasion corridor?. Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst. https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2020003 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

40.
Rewicz, T., Wattier, R., Grabowski, M., Rigaud, T. & Bącela-Spychalska, K. Out of the Black sea: phylogeography of the invasive killer shrimp Dikerogammarus villosus across Europe. PLoS ONE 10, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118121 (2015).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

41.
Rewicz, T. et al. The killer shrimp, Dikerogammarus villosus, invading European Alpine Lakes: a single main source but independent founder events with an overall loss of genetic diversity. Freshw. Biol. 62, 1036–1051. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12923 (2017).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

42.
Jażdżewska, A. M. et al. Cryptic diversity and mtDNA phylogeography of the invasive demon shrimp, Dikerogammarus haemobaphes (Eichwald, 1841), in Europe. NeoBiota 57, 53–86. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.57.46699 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

43.
Jażdżewski, K. & Roux, A. L. Biogéographie de Gammarus roeseli Gervais en Europe, en particulier répartition en France et en Pologne (1988).

44.
Piscart, C. & Bollache, L. Crustacés amphipodes de surface : gammares d’eau douce.. Association Française de Limnologie, Introduction pratique à la systématique des organismes des eaux continentales de France (2012).

45.
Paganelli, D., Gazzola, A., Marchini, A. & Sconfietti, R. The increasing distribution of Gammarus roeselii Gervais, 1835: first record of the non-indigenous freshwater amphipod in the sub-lacustrine Ticino River basin (Lombardy, Italy). Bioinvas. Rec. 4, 37–41. https://doi.org/10.3391/bir.2015.4.1.06 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

46.
Karaman, G. S. & Pinkster, S. Freshwater gammarus species from Europe, North Africa and adjacent regions of Asia (Crustacea-Amphipoda) Part II. Gammarus roeseli-group and related species. Bijdragen tot de dierkunde 57, 207–260. https://doi.org/10.1163/26660644-05702005 (1977).
Article  Google Scholar 

47.
Moret, Y., Bollache, L., Wattier, R. & Rigaud, T. Is the host or the parasite the most locally adapted in an amphipod-acanthocephalan relationship? A case study in a biological invasion context. Int. J. Parasitol. 37, 637–644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpara.2006.12.006 (2007).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

48.
Copilaş-Ciocianu, D., Borza, P. & Petrusek, A. Extensive variation in the morphological anti-predator defense mechanism of Gammarus roeselii Gervais, 1835 (Crustacea:Amphipoda). Freshw. Sci. 39, 47–55. https://doi.org/10.1086/707259 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

49.
Miller, B. J., von der Heyden, S. & Gibbons, M. J. Significant population genetic structuring of the holoplanktic scyphozoan Pelagia noctiluca in the Atlantic Ocean. Afr. J. Mar. Sci. 34, 425–430. https://doi.org/10.2989/1814232X.2012.726646 (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 

50.
Brown, W. M., George, M. Jr. & Wilson, A. C. Rapid evolution of animal mitochondrial DNA. Genetics 76, 1967–1971. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-4555(199706)28:6%3c433::aid-jrs125%3e3.3.co;2-5 (1979).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

51.
Kázmér, M. Birth, life and death of the Pannonian Lake. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 79, 171–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-0182(90)90111-J (1990).
Article  Google Scholar 

52.
Hewitt, G. M. Post-glacial re-colonization of European biota. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 68, 87–112. https://doi.org/10.1006/bijl.1999.0332 (1999).
Article  Google Scholar 

53.
Rudolph, K., Coleman, C. O., Mamos, T. & Grabowski, M. Description and post-glacial demography of Gammarus jazdzewskii sp. nov. (Crustacea: Amphipoda) from Central Europe. Syst. Biodivers. 16, 587–603. https://doi.org/10.1080/14772000.2018.1470118 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

54.
Copilaş-Ciocianu, D., Fišer, C., Borza, P. & Petrusek, A. Is subterranean lifestyle reversible? Independent and recent large-scale dispersal into surface waters by two species of the groundwater amphipod genus Niphargus. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 119, 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2017.10.023 (2018).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

55.
Antal, L. et al. Phylogenetic evidence for a new species of Barbus in the Danube River basin. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 96, 187–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2015.11.023 (2016).
CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

56.
Walker, M. J. C. Climatic changes in Europe during the last glacial/interglacial transition. Quat. Int. 28, 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/1040-6182(95)00030-M (1995).
Article  Google Scholar 

57.
Pawłowski, D. et al. The response of flood-plain ecosystems to the Late Glacial and Early Holocene hydrological changes: a case study from a small Central European river valley. CATENA 147, 411–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2016.07.034 (2016).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

58.
Notebaert, B. & Verstraeten, G. Sensitivity of West and Central European river systems to environmental changes during the Holocene: a review. Earth Sci. Rev. 103, 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2010.09.009 (2010).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

59.
Gibling, M. R. River systems and the anthropocene: a late pleistocene and holocene timeline for human influence. Quaternary 1, 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/quat1030021 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

60.
Gherardi, F. Biological invaders in inland waters: profiles, distribution, and threats. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6029-8 (2007).

61.
Jazdzewski, K., Konopacka, A. & Grabowski, M. Recent drastic changes in the gammarid fauna (Crustacea, Amphipoda) of the Vistula River deltaic system in Poland caused by alien invaders. Divers. Distrib. 10, 81–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1366-9516.2004.00062.x (2004).
Article  Google Scholar 

62.
Jourdan, J., Piro, K., Weigand, A. & Plath, M. Small-scale phenotypic differentiation along complex stream gradients in a non-native amphipod. Front. Zool. 16, 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12983-019-0327-8 (2019).
CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

63.
Mauchart, P., Bereczki, C., Ortmann-Ajkai, A., Csabai, Z. & Szivák, I. Niche segregation between two closely related Gammarids (Crustacea, Amphipoda)—native vs. naturalised non-native species. Crustaceana 87, 1296–1314. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685403-00003355 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

64.
Lagrue, C. et al. Interspecific differences in drift behaviour between the native Gammarus pulex and the exotic Gammarus roeseli and possible implications for the invader’s success. Biol. Invas. 13, 1409–1421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-010-9899-0 (2011).
Article  Google Scholar 

65.
Pöckl, M. & Humpesch, U. H. Intra- and inter-specific variations in egg survival and brood development time for Austrian populations of Gammarus fossarum and G. roeseli (Crustacea: Amphipoda). Freshw. Biol. 23, 441–455. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.1990.tb00286.x (1990).
Article  Google Scholar 

66.
Pöckl, M. Effects of temperature, age and body size on moulting and growth in the freshwater amphipods Gammarus fossarum and G. roeseli. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.1992.tb00534.x (1992).

67.
Pöckl, M. Reproductive potential and lifetime potential fecundity of the freshwater amphipods Gammarus fossarum and G. roeseli in Austrian streams and rivers. Freshw. Biol. 30, 73–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.1993.tb00790.x (1993).
Article  Google Scholar 

68.
Pöckl, M., Webb, B. W. & Sutcliffe, D. W. Life history and reproductive capacity of Gammarus fossarum and G. roeseli (Crustacea: Amphipoda) under naturally fluctuating water temperatures: a simulation study. Freshw. Biol. 48, 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.2003.00967.x (2003).
Article  Google Scholar 

69.
Aguilera-Muñoz, F., Lafarga-Cruz, F. & Gallardo-Escárate, C. Molecular analysis in Chilean commercial gastropods based on 16S rRNA, COI and ITS1-5.8S rDNA-ITS2 sequences. Gayana (Concepción) 73, 17–27. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0717-65382009000100003 (2009).
Article  Google Scholar 

70.
Alvarez, J. M. & Hoy, M. A. Evaluation of the ribosomal ITS2 DNA sequences in separating closely related populations of the Parasitoid Ageniaspis (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) article. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. https://doi.org/10.1603/0013-8746(2002)095 (2002).
Article  Google Scholar 

71.
Wesson, D. M., McLain, D. K., Oliver, J. H., Piesman, J. & Collins, F. H. Investigation of the validity of species status of Ixodes dammini (Acari: Ixodidae) using rDNA. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 90, 10221–10225. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.90.21.10221 (1993).
ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

72.
Tang, J., Toè, L., Back, C. & Unnasch, T. R. Intra-specific heterogeneity of the rDNA internal transcribed spacer in the Simulium damnosum (Diptera: Simuliidae) complex. Mol. Biol. Evol. 13, 244–252. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a025561 (1996).
CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

73.
Palandačić, A., Bravničar, J., Zupančić, P., Šanda, R. & Snoj, A. Molecular data suggest a multispecies complex of Phoxinus (Cyprinidae) in the Western Balkan Peninsula. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2015.05.024 (2015).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

74.
Vucić, M., Jelić, D., Žutinić, P., Grandjean, F. & Jelić, M. Distribution of Eurasian minnows (Phoxinus : Cypriniformes) in the Western Balkans. Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst. 419, 11. https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2017051 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

75.
Buj, I. et al. Peculiar occurrence of Cobitis bilineata Canestrini, 1865 and Sabanejewia larvata (De Filippi, 1859) (Cobitidae, Actinopteri) in the Danube River basin in Croatia. Fundam. Appl. Limnol. https://doi.org/10.1127/fal/2020/1272 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

76.
Manning, J. T. Male discrimination and investment in Asellus aquaticus (L.) and A. meridianus Racovitsza (Crustacea: Isopoda). Behaviour 55(1–2), 1–14 (1975).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

77.
Bollache, L. & Cézilly, F. Sexual selection on male body size and assortative pairing in Gammarus pulex (Crustacea: Amphipoda): field surveys and laboratory experiments. J. Zool. 264, 135–141. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952836904005643 (2004).
Article  Google Scholar 

78.
Cornet, S., Luquet, G. & Bollache, L. Influence of female moulting status on pairing decisions and size-assortative mating in amphipods. J. Zool. 286, 312–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2011.00882.x (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 

79.
Grabner, D. S. et al. Invaders, natives and their enemies: distribution patterns of amphipods and their microsporidian parasites in the Ruhr Metropolis, Germany. Parasites Vectors https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-015-1036-6 (2015).
Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

80.
Karaman, G. S. & Pinkster, S. Freshwater gammarus species from Europe, North Africa and adjacent regions of Asia (Crustacea-Amphipoda) Part I. Gammarus pulex—group and related species (1977).

81.
Karaman, G. S. & Pinkster, S. Freshwater gammarus species from Europe, North Africa and adjacent regions of Asia (Crustacea-Amphipoda). Part III. Gammarus balcanicus—group and related species (1987).

82.
Hillis, D. M. & Moritz, C. Molecular Systematics (Sinauer Associates Inc., Sunderland, 1996).
Google Scholar 

83.
Altschul, S. F., Gish, W., Miller, W., Myers, E. W. & Lipman, D. J. Basic local alignment search tool. J. Mol. Biol. 215, 403–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-2836(05)80360-2 (1990).
CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

84.
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. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bts199 (2012).
Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

85.
Sequencher version 5.4.6 DNA sequence analysis software, Gene Codes Corporation, Ann Arbor, MI USA https://www.genecodes.com.

86.
Rozas, J. et al. DnaSP 6: DNA sequence polymorphism analysis of large data sets. Mol. Biol. Evol. 34, 3299–3302. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msx248 (2017).
CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

87.
Ratnasingham, S. & Hebert, P. D. N. The barcode of life data system. Mol. Ecol. Notes 7, 355–364. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2006.01678.x (2007).
CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

88.
Bouckaert, R. et al. BEAST 2: a software platform for bayesian evolutionary analysis. PLoS Comput. Biol. 10, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003537 (2014).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

89.
Bouckaert, R. R. & Drummond, A. J. bModelTest: Bayesian phylogenetic site model averaging and model comparison. BMC Evol. Biol. 17, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-017-0890-6 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

90.
Rambaut, A., Suchard, M. A., Xie, D. & Drummond, A. J. Tracer v1.6. Available at https://beast.bio.ed.ac.uk/Tracer (2014).

91.
Kumar, S., Stecher, G. & Tamura, K. MEGA7: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 7.0 for bigger datasets. Mol. Biol. Evol. 33, 1870–1874. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msw054 (2016).
CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

92.
Leigh, J. W. & Bryant, D. POPART: full-feature software for haplotype network construction. Methods Ecol. Evol. 6, 1110–1116. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12410 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

93.
Tajima, F. Statistical Method for Testing the Neutral Mutation Hypothesis by DNA Polymorphism. (1989).

94.
Fu, Y. X. New statistical tests of neutrality for DNA samples from a population. Genetics 143, 557–570 (1996).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

95.
Excoffier, L. & Lischer, H. E. L. Arlequin suite ver 3.5: a new series of programs to perform population genetics analyses under Linux and Windows. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 10, 564–567. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2010.02847.x (2010).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

96.
Copilaş-Ciocianu, D., Grabowski, M., Parvulescu, L. & Petrusek, A. Zoogeography of epigean freshwater Amphipoda (Crustacea) in Romania: fragmented distributions and wide altitudinal variability. Zootaxa 3893, 243. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3893.2.5 (2014).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  More

Study animals
Between June and August 2014, male and female Gerris latiabdominis were collected using insect nets from small ponds and an old swimming pool at Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea. The number of water strider collected weekly varied depending on the current experimental requirements. In total, we collected near 100 individuals and used 62 of them in the experiments reported here. Collected water striders were housed in plastic containers (52 × 42 × 18 cm, 2–4 individuals/container) with aerated water, foam resting platforms, and two frozen large crickets per container per day. Each water strider’s thorax was marked with three unique color-coded dots using enamel paints. Females and males were housed separately.
Experiments
Effect of weight addition on the performance of first jumps
Experimental design is graphically summarized in Fig. 1b (also see Supplementary Materials PART 4). To determine the effect of increase in body mass on the behaviour, we tested water striders in two conditions of the Additional weight treatment: weight-added (11 females and 16 males) and weight-not-added (20 females and 15 males). After measuring the weight with an Ohaus electronic scale with the precision of 0.1 mg, the water striders were randomly assigned to either of the treatment group. In weight-added group, a flat coiled aluminum wire (~ 7.5 mg weight in males, ~ 10.5 mg weight in females) was secured to the backs of water striders with a tiny drop of non-water soluble glue gel (applied only on top of thorax). Added weights caused an increase of body mass by about 50% (54.5% ± 9.2 (mean ± SD) in males and 52.8% ± 5.7 in females). The body weight of a male is about 70% of female body weight on average (similar based on median or average body weights). Preliminary theoretical calculations using the model of surface-tension dominated jumping3 suggested that an average female with the extra weight equivalent to the average male body mass would be able to jump and to achieve take-off velocity of about 0.75 m/s for the leg angular velocity of about 40 rad/s. However, based on our observations, when a male sits on the female’s back during copulation and mate guarding the male’s hindlegs are always on the water, probably adding to the support for the mating pair on the water surface. The tips of male midlegs can also be on the water surface, possibly also helping in support on the water surface. All evidence suggests that the male’s support on the water surface contributes to some extent to the forces maintaining the mating pair on the surface of water. Hence, the female does not perceive the full body weight of the mating male. Our preliminary trials with additional weight of different masses indicated that the weight similar to the male body mass is too heavy for the purpose of our experiments because some females were not able to stay on the surface for extended time periods. This was not observed for the extra weights used in our experiments.
After the weight was added to the water strider, the animal was allowed to rest with 2–3 other individuals of the same sex in a container filled with water (20 × 14 × 10 cm). After three hours, the water strider was placed in a box where the 3-D slow motion movie of the jump was recorded (labeled as the First jump; see below for the details). In weight-not-added group the individuals were treated similarly and handled for similar duration but no extra weight (neither wire nor the glue) was put on their backs. Triggering repeated jumps successively many times in the small container in which they were filmed likely leads to changes in performance due to repeated jumps within relatively short time and due to accumulated effect of the heat of the lights needed for high speed filming. We decided to use the design in which we took one jump per individual. The final sample sizes differ between treatments because some movies were discarded at the analysis stage for technical reasons.
Effect of jumping experience on adjustment of jumping performance
In order to test the effect of individual’s experience on adjustments of jumping behaviour we subjected the males and females from the preceding First jump to two conditions of Jumping experience [JE] treatment: presence and absence of frequent jumping during a three-day period (Fig. 1). For three days following the filming of First jump, water striders were kept in groups of 3–4 individuals per container (20 × 14 × 10 cm; filled with aerated water) and fed two frozen crickets per day. Each container was assigned to either JE-present or JE-absent treatment. In the former, we used an aluminum wire bent in the shape of a hook to touch or poke the insect’s underside in order to trigger 3–5 jumps/hour over 5 h/day. Jumps provide individuals with repeated experience of their jumping performance and the opportunity to adjust jumping behaviour. In the latter, individuals were not exposed to these procedures. At the end of the three days, the jumps (Second jump) were recorded in the same manner as for First jump. Sample sizes (listed in caption to Fig. 3 and in Supplementary Table 7 in Supplementary Materials PART 4) differ between treatments because some movies were discarded for technical reasons (see below) and some animals escaped or died.
High speed filming of jumps
We used three synchronized high-speed cameras (FasTec Troubleshooter Model #: TS1000ME), with lens axes perpendicular to one another (Supplementary Fig. 2b in Supplementary Materials PART 4). Lights (Photon Super Energy Light, Aurora CCD-250 W, and PLTHINK Photo Light Think with Metal Halide bulbs) were placed directly opposite to each camera lens (Supplementary Fig. 2b). At the center of the setup was a 10 × 10 × 10 cm clear Plexiglas box filled with water. The jumps were invoked by an aluminum wire bent in the shape of a hook underneath the water surface. Jumps were recorded at 500 frames per second. Clips with insects that were accidentally pushed upward by the wire were excluded from the analyses. Examples of jumps extracted for the movies are shown in the Supplementary Movie.
Variables extracted from the videos
We tracked the locations of body parts of water striders frame by frame in a three dimensional x, y, z, coordinate system (x, y are horizontal axes, z-coordinates are on the vertical axis, and origin is located at the level of undisturbed water surface) using video tracking software MaxTRAQ 3D (Innovision Systems). We tracked three markers; body center (defined as point between midleg and hindlegs), right midleg dimple depth, and left midleg dimple depth. Dimple depth is the deepest point of water surface deflection under the pressure from a midleg. From this data we calculated upward (vertical) and forward (horizontal) body velocities. For each pair of consecutive frames, we calculated the raw upward velocity of body center (along the vertical axis z) by dividing the vertical shift of body center (vertical distance between z coordinates of body center in the two consecutive frames) by the duration (2 ms between frames in 500 fps movie). Then, we calculated smoothed vertical velocity (m/s) by using rolling three-point average of three successive velocities. In an analogical manner we calculated the values of smoothed horizontal velocity (m/s) during a jump. From the data we extracted four variables used in analyses:
Angular leg speed (rad/s): Legs move downward as a result of downward angular femur movement powered by insect’s muscles, and the rotational rate of the leg downward movement is termed Angular leg speed (rad/s). To match the angular leg speed calculations in the theoretical model3, we calculated the Angular leg speed in several steps using empirical data and theoretical formulas from the existing model3. The coordinate system included vertical axis (z) with origin (z = 0) at the level of undisturbed water surface. First, for each frame we calculated average dimple depth as an average z from the left and right dimple depths’ z values, and the downward leg reach as the distance between body center’s z and the average dimple depth. Then, for each pair of consecutive frames, we calculated the downward velocity of dimple depth relative to body center (along the vertical axis z) by dividing the change in the downward leg reach between two consecutive frames by the duration (2 ms between frames in 500 fps movie). By using rolling three-point average from three successive downward velocities we obtained smoothed leg speed (m/s). Finally, we calculated the maximal downward speed of legs vs,max (m/s) as an average from the three largest smoothed velocity values. The downward Angular leg speed (ω) was calculated according to Yang et al.3 by approximation starting from the previously approved formula3 for the maximal downward speed of legs vs,max containing leg length ll: (v_{s,max } approx omega *left( { l_{l} – y_{i} } right)*sin left( {2omega t} right)) (yi indicates distance from the surface to insect body at rest and t indicates time during jump). See “Physical constraint from water surface: theoretical upper threshold of performance” below for more details about the model. The calculations resulted in the variable (Angular leg speed) that was directly relevant to the theoretical predictions of the optimal jumping behaviour3.
Take-off angle (deg): We defined take-off angle (deg) as the angle of trajectory to the water surface when the water strider leaves the surface of water. Takeoff angle was calculated from the ratio of horizontal and vertical vectors of the smoothed body center velocities.
Take-off velocity (m/s): Take-off velocity (m/s) is the vertical velocity of body center when the water strider leaves the surface of water. We determined the moment of leaving the water surface as the frame when legs disengage from the surface. Vertical velocity indicates how fast the animal removes itself from surface of water. A high take-off velocity is important when predators attack from underneath the water surface. This variable is a crucial component of the theoretical model of optimal jumping performance by water striders3.
Meniscus breaking (binary): Sometimes jumping water striders break the water surface. When left or right midleg pierced the water surface by more than a quarter of its full leg length the jump was categorized as a jump with meniscus breaking-present. Otherwise the jump was categorized as a jump with meniscus breaking-absent.
Statistical analyses
Effect of weight addition on jumping performance—To analyze the effect of Additional weight on jumping performance of First jumps, we used Wilcoxon rank sum tests (Mann–Whitney test) to compare weight-added with weight-not-added groups for each sex separately. We used nonparametric statistical methods here because of small sample size that does not allow to confirm the parametric methods’ assumptions with high reliability (nevertheless the tests indicated that the parametric assumptions were probably met and in Supplementary Materials PART 1we also provide results from parametric comparisons: t-tests and Welch’s t-tests. In order to investigate whether Additional weight effect is statistically significantly different between sexes we switched to parametric analyses and run two-way ANOVA tests including the interaction effect between two independent variables (Additional weight and Sex) separately for the three dependent variables: Angular leg speed, Take-off angle and Take-off velocity.
Effect of jumping experience on adjustments of jumping performance—For each individual, we calculated three indices of adjustment (change) in performance between First and Second jumps. For each of the three dependent variables, we subtracted the value at First jump from the value at Second jump (for analysis of Second jump solely—see Supplementary Materials PART 3). Linear regression model was used to investigate the effect of Jumping experience and Additional weight treatments on jumping adjustments. Because of the small sample sizes, estimates and 95% confidence intervals of regression coefficients were reported using nonparametric bootstrap procedure with 10,000 replications of each linear model (‘boot’ package in R).
Meniscus breaking—To analyze the effect of Jumping experience and Additional weight treatments on the probability of breaking of the water surface (Meniscus breaking-present) we used Fisher’s exact test. To determine the effect of Meniscus breaking on Take-off velocity we used Wilcoxon rank sum test separately for males and females. All statistical analyses were performed using R (version 3.3.2;43).
Physical constraint from water surface: theoretical upper threshold of performance
During a water strider’s jump, the water surface can be pushed downward only so much before breaking. Thus, a theoretical upper threshold of performance exists. The mathematical model of surface tension dominated jumping3 allows to predict the moment of surface breaking and the optimal behaviour of vertically jumping water striders without surface breaking. The model contains a non-dimensional variable: ΩM1/2. Its value depends, among others, on the Angular leg speed used by water striders during jump and on morphology: body mass and midleg’s tibia and tarsus length—the leg parts on which water strider’s body is supported on the water surface. The theory predicts that for a given total length of midlegs there is a threshold value of ΩM1/2 above which surface breaking will occur and the jump will be inefficient. We determined if water striders used Angular leg speed values that resulted in theoretical values of ΩM1/2 below this critical threshold. In order to more precisely predict the theoretical threshold value of ΩM1/2we modified the original model3. The original model used a simple average length of all four legs (mid-legs and hind-legs) and did not reflect a difference between the length of hind and mid legs. We changed the original equation into systems of differential equations using information about midlegs and hindlegs separately. Modified predicted threshold values of ΩM1/2 were compared with empirically observed values of ΩM1/2in order to determine if the observed adjustments of leg speed by water striders lie within the theoretical limit of performance set by physical properties of water. We used the same parameters as in3 for, lc, capillary length, g, gravitational acceleration, ρ, density of water. Because of the short length of legs, we approximated C, flexibility factor, as 1. Downward angular velocity of leg rotation, ω, was calculated by approximation, (v_{s,max} approx omega {Delta }lsin left( {2omega t} right)). The averaged length of femur, tibia and tarsus were measured from 24 individuals of each sex in G. latiabdominis and yi, the distance from body center to the undisturbed water surface in the resting position of the water strider was measured from 4 movie clips of each sex. Measured variables were averaged (Supplementary Table 8 in Supplementary Materials Part 4) and used to determine lt, average length of tibia plus tarsus, ll, average leg length, and Δl = ll − yi, maximal reach of the leg. Note that, the average length of tibia plus tarsus of hind and mid legs, lth, ltm, and the average length of maximal reach of leg of hind and mid legs, Δlh, Δlm, can be represented as:

$$l_{th} = 0.77l_{t} ,l_{tm} = 1.23l_{t} ,Delta l_{h} = 0.84Delta l,Delta l_{m} = 1.16Delta l$$

$$ frac{{d^{2} H_{m} }}{{dleft( {omega t} right)^{2} }} + frac{4 cdot 1.23}{{{Omega }^{2} M}}H_{m} left( {1 – H_{m}^{2} /4} right)^{1/2} + frac{4 cdot 0.77}{{{Omega }^{2} M}}H_{h} left( {1 – H_{h}^{2} /4} right)^{1/2} – 2 cdot 1.16Lcos left( {2omega t} right) = 0, $$
(1)

$$ frac{{d^{2} H_{h} }}{{dleft( {omega t} right)^{2} }} + frac{4 cdot 1.23}{{{Omega }^{2} M}}H_{m} left( {1 – H_{m}^{2} /4} right)^{1/2} + frac{4 cdot 0.77}{{{Omega }^{2} M}}H_{h} left( {1 – H_{h}^{2} /4} right)^{1/2} – 2 cdot 0.84Lcos left( {2omega t} right) = 0, $$
(2)

where (H_{m} = h_{m} /l_{c} ) is the dimensionless dimple depth of mid legs (hm, dimple depth of mid legs), (H_{h} = h_{h} /l_{c}) is the dimensionless dimple depth of hind legs (h1, dimple depth of hind legs), ({Omega } = omega left( {l_{c} /g} right)^{1/2}) is the dimensionless angular velocity of leg rotation, (M = m/left( {rho l_{c}^{2} Cl_{t} } right)) is the dimensionless index of insect body mass (m, insect body mass), and (L = {Delta }l/l_{c}) is the dimensionless maximum downward reach of leg. The variable ΩM1/2 is calculated, as the name suggests, by multiplying the above-defined Ω by square root of M3. For a given L, the optimal value of ΩM1/2 for maximal take-off velocity is achieved when the maximal hm is equal to the critical depth, (sqrt 2 l_{C}), just before meniscus breaking. Wetted leg length, ls, was measured from 24 individuals of each sex in G. latiabdominis and initial height, yi, was measured from 12 recorded videos of females (6 individuals) and 9 recorded videos of males (5 individuals) (Supplementary Table 8 in Supplementary Materials Part 4). The ode45 function in Matlab was used to solve Eqs. (1) and (2) to get the optimal ΩM1/2 of male and female water striders (red lines in Fig. 4). More

1.
Solomon, S., Manning, M., Marquis, M. & Qin, D. Climate Change 2007-the Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC Vol 4 (Cambridge university Press, 2007).
2.
Parliament, E. Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. Off. J. Eur. Union Belgium 20, 20 (2009).
Google Scholar 

3.
Parliament, E. Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources. Off. J. Eur Union Belgium 20, 2 (2018).
Google Scholar 

4.
United Nations Climate Change Conference. Paris Agreement (2015).

5.
Eurostat. Supply, transformation and consumption of renewable energies: Annual data. Eurostat Website. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/energy/data/database (2019).

6.
European Commission. National renewable energy action plans 2020. https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/renewable-energy/national-renewable-energy-action-plans-2020 (2020).

7.
Camia, A. et al. Biomass production, supply, uses and flows in the European Union. 1–126 (2018) https://doi.org/10.2760/181536.

8.
Evans, A., Strezov, V. & Evans, T. J. Biomass Processing Technologies (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2014). https://doi.org/10.1201/b17093.
Google Scholar 

9.
Goerndt, M. E., Aguilar, F. X. & Skog, K. Resource potential for renewable energy generation from co-firing of woody biomass with coal in the Northern US. Biomass Bioenergy 59, 348–361 (2013).
Article  Google Scholar 

10.
Spelter, H. & Toth, D. North America’s Wood Pellet Sector. USDA, Forest Products Laboratory. https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/35060 (2009). https://doi.org/10.2737/FPL-RP-656.

11.
Eurostat. International trade, EU trade since 1988 by HS6. Product 440131. Eurostat Website. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/international-trade-in-goods/data/database (2019).

12.
Proskurina, S., Junginger, M., Heinimö, J., Tekinel, B. & Vakkilainen, E. Global biomass trade for energy—Part 2: Production and trade streams of wood pellets, liquid biofuels, charcoal, industrial roundwood and emerging energy biomass. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefining 13, 371–387 (2019).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

13.
Abt, K. L., Abt, R. C., Galik, C. S. & Skog, K. E. Effect of policies on pellet production and forests in the US South: A technical document supporting the forest service update of the 2010 RPA assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-202 Asheville NC US Dep. Agric. For. Serv. South. Res. Stn. 202, 33 (2014).
Google Scholar 

14.
Dale, V. H., Parish, E., Kline, K. L. & Tobin, E. How is wood-based pellet production affecting forest conditions in the southeastern United States?. For. Ecol. Manag. 396, 143–149 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

15.
Singh, D., Cubbage, F., Gonzalez, R. & Abt, R. Locational determinants for wood pellet plants: A review and case study of North and South America. BioResources 11, 7928–7952 (2016).
Google Scholar 

16.
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Monthly Densified Biomass Fuel Report. https://www.eia.gov/biofuels/biomass/#dashboard (2019).

17.
Birdsey, R. et al. Climate, economic, and environmental impacts of producing wood for bioenergy. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 050201 (2018).
ADS  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

18.
Strange Olesen, A., Bager, L., Kittler, B., Price, W. & Aguilar, F. Environmental implications of increased reliance of the EU on biomass from the south east US. Brussels DG Environ. https://doi.org/10.2779/30897 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

19.
Duden, A. S. et al. Modeling the impacts of wood pellet demand on forest dynamics in southeastern United States. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefining 11, 1007–1029 (2017).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

20.
Sedjo, R. & Tian, X. Does wood bioenergy increase carbon stocks in forests?. J. For. 110, 304–311 (2012).
Google Scholar 

21.
de Oliveira Garcia, W., Amann, T. & Hartmann, J. Increasing biomass demand enlarges negative forest nutrient budget areas in wood export regions. Sci. Rep. 8, 5280 (2018).
ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

22.
Searchinger, T. D. et al. Europe’s renewable energy directive poised to harm global forests. Nat. Commun. 9, 3741 (2018).
ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

23.
Galik, C. S. & Abt, R. C. Sustainability guidelines and forest market response: An assessment of European Union pellet demand in the southeastern United States. GCB Bioenergy 8, 658–669 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

24.
FORISK. Global Industrial Wood Pellet Demand Forecast and U.S. Wood Bioenergy Update: Q3 2017. https://forisk.com/blog/2017/08/08/global-industrial-wood-pellet-demand-forecast-u-s-wood-bioenergy-update-q3-2017/ (2017).

25.
Aguilar, F. X., Song, N. & Shifley, S. Review of consumption trends and public policies promoting woody biomass as an energy feedstock in the US. Biomass Bioenergy 35, 3708–3718 (2011).
Article  Google Scholar 

26.
Robinson, G., McNulty, J. E. & Krasno, J. S. Observing the counterfactual? The search for political experiments in nature. Polit. Anal. 17, 341–357 (2009).
Article  Google Scholar 

27.
Romijn, E. et al. Assessing change in national forest monitoring capacities of 99 tropical countries. For. Ecol. Manag. 352, 109–123 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

28.
Cornwall, W. Is wood a green source of energy? Scientists are divided. Science (80) 355, 18–21 (2017).
ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

29.
Glasenapp, S. & McCusker, A. Wood energy data: The joint wood energy enquiry. in Wood Energy in the ECE Region Data, Trends and Outlook in Europe, the Commonwealth of Independent States and North America 12 (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, 2017).

30.
Wackernagel, M. & Yount, J. D. The ecological footprint: An indicator of progress toward regional sustainability. Environ. Monit. Assess. 51, 511–529 (1998).
Article  Google Scholar 

31.
McCann, P. The Economics of Industrial Location: A Logistics-Costs Approach (Springer, Berlin, 2013).
Google Scholar 

32.
Goerndt, M. E., Aguilar, F. X. & Skog, K. Drivers of biomass co-firing in US coal-fired power plants. Biomass Bioenergy 58, 158–167 (2013).
Article  Google Scholar 

33.
Perez-Verdin, G., Grebner, D. L., Munn, I. A., Sun, C. & Grado, S. C. Economic impacts of woody biomass utilization for bioenergy in Mississippi. For. Prod. J. 58, 75–83 (2008).
Google Scholar 

34.
European Commission Joint Research Centre. Renewable Energy—Recast to 2030 (RED II). https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/jec/renewable-energy-recast-2030-red-ii (2019).

35.
FORISK. U.S. Wood Bioenergy Database: Q1 2018. https://forisk.com/ (2018).

36.
U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). Domestic Exports 2012–2018 for HS 44 and HS 440131. https://dataweb.usitc.gov/trade (2019).

37.
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). Major Ports. https://data-usdot.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/major-ports (2019).

38.
Blackman, A., Corral, L., Lima, E. S. & Asner, G. P. Titling indigenous communities protects forests in the Peruvian Amazon. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114, 4123–4128 (2017).
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

39.
Mohebalian, P. M. & Aguilar, F. X. Beneath the canopy: Tropical forests enrolled in conservation payments reveal evidence of less degradation. Ecol. Econ. 143, 64–73 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

40.
Burrill, E. A. et al. The Forest Inventory and Analysis Database: Database description and user guide version 8.0 for Phase 2. US Dep. Agric. For. Serv. 946, 20 (2018).
Google Scholar 

41.
Guldin, R. W., King, S. L. & Scott, C. T. Vision for the Future of FIA: Paean to Progress, Possibilities, and Partners. Proceedings of Sixth Annual For. Invent. Anal. Symp. 2004 Sept. 21–24; Denver, CO. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-70. Washington, DC U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Serv. 20090, 126 (2006).

42.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Forest Inventory and Analysis National Program. https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/tools-data/ (2019).

43.
Bechtold, W. A. & Patterson, P. L. The Enhanced Forest Inventory and Analysis Program—National Sampling Design and Estimation Procedures. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-80. Asheville, NC: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 85 vol. 80. https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/20371 (2015).

44.
Barbe, G. Methods of transporting timber in the southern United States. Rep. to Louisiana For. Prod. Dev. Cent. (1993).

45.
Ferraro, P. J. Counterfactual thinking and impact evaluation in environmental policy. New Dir. Eval. 2009, 75–84 (2009).
Article  Google Scholar 

46.
Dundar, B., McGarvey, R. G. & Aguilar, F. X. Identifying Optimal Multi-state collaborations for reducing CO2 emissions by co-firing biomass in coal-burning power plants. Comput. Ind. Eng. 101, 403–415 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

47.
Woodall, C. W. et al. An overview of the forest products sector downturn in the United States. For. Prod. J. 61, 595–603 (2011).
Google Scholar 

48.
U.S. Drought Monitor. GIS Data Files. https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Data/GISData.aspx (2019).

49.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. U.S. Forest Change Assessment Viewer ForWarn. https://forwarn.forestthreats.org/fcav2/ (2019).

50.
Fisher, M., Chaudhury, M. & McCusker, B. Do forests help rural households adapt to climate variability? Evidence from Southern Malawi. World Dev. 38, 1241–1250 (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

51.
Wooldridge, J. M. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data (MIT Press, London, 2010).
Google Scholar 

52.
Millo, G. & Piras, G. splm: Spatial panel data models in R. J. Stat. Softw. 47, 1–38 (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 

53.
Kapoor, M., Kelejian, H. H. & Prucha, I. R. Panel data models with spatially correlated error components. J. Econom. 140, 97–130 (2007).
MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

54.
Baltagi, B. Econometric Analysis of Panel Data (Wiley, Oxford, 2008).
Google Scholar 

55.
Hausman, J. A. Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica 46, 1251 (1978).
MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

56.
Crouchet, S. E., Jensen, J., Schwartz, B. F. & Schwinning, S. Tree mortality after a hot drought: Distinguishing density-dependent and -independent drivers and why it matters. Front. For. Glob. Chang. 2, 21 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

57.
European Commission. Directorate General for Energy. https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/renewable-energy/biomass (2019).

58.
European Commission. Memo: The Revised Renewable Energy Directive. https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/technical_memo_renewables.pdf (2016).

59.
The Sustainable Biomass Program. Standards. https://sbp-cert.org/documents/standards-documents/standards (2015).

60.
Stephens, S. L. et al. The effects of forest fuel-reduction treatments in the United States. Bioscience 62, 549–560 (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 

61.
Berger, A. L. et al. Ecological impacts of energy-wood harvests: Lessons from whole-tree harvesting and natural disturbance. J. For. 111, 139–153 (2013).
Google Scholar 

62.
Janowiak, M. & Webster, C. Promoting ecological sustainability in woody biomass harvesting. J. For. 108, 16–23 (2010).
Google Scholar 

63.
Powers, R. F. et al. The North American long-term soil productivity experiment: Findings from the first decade of research. For. Ecol. Manag. 220, 31–50 (2005).
Article  Google Scholar 

64.
Parliament, E. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/807 of 13 March 2019 supplementing Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the determination of high indirect land-use change-risk feedstock for which a significant expans. Off. J. Eur Union Belgium 20, 20 (2019).
Google Scholar 

65.
Hanssen, S. V., Duden, A. S., Junginger, M., Dale, V. H. & van der Hilst, F. Wood pellets, what else? Greenhouse gas parity times of European electricity from wood pellets produced in the south-eastern United States using different softwood feedstocks. GCB Bioenergy 9, 1406–1422 (2017).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

66.
Wang, W., Dwivedi, P., Abt, R. & Khanna, M. Carbon savings with transatlantic trade in pellets: Accounting for market-driven effects. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 114019 (2015).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

67.
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Monthly Energy Review: Renewable Energy Consumption: Electric power sector (Wood Energy Consumed by the Electric Power Sector). https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/#renewable (2019).

68.
Sedjo, R. A. The biomass crop assistance program (BCAP): Some implications for the forest industry. SSRN Electron. J. 20, 10–22. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1581551 (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

69.
Evans, A. M., Perschel, R. T. & Kittler, B. A. Overview of forest biomass harvesting guidelines. J. Sustain. For. 32, 89–107 (2013).
Article  Google Scholar 

70.
Flach, B., Lieberz, S. & Bolla, S. Report: Biofuels Annual. US Foreign Agricultural Service. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/Report/DownloadReportByFileName?fileName=BiofuelsAnnual_TheHague_EuropeanUnion_06-29-2020.(2020).

71.
European Environment Agency. Renewable Energy in Europe: Key for Climate Objectives, But Air Pollution Needs Attention. https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/energy/renewable-energy/renewable-energy-in-europe-key (2019).

72.
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Annual Energy Outlook 2018 Table: Renewable Energy Generation by Fuel Case: Reference Case|Region: United States. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=67-AEO2018&linechart=~ref2018-d121317a.9-67-AEO2018.3-0 (2018).

73.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Emissions and Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID). https://www.epa.gov/energy/emissions-generation-resource-integrated-database-egrid. (2019).

74.
National Conference of State Legislatures. State Renewable Portfolio Standards and Goals. https://www.ncsl.org/research/energy/renewable-portfolio-standards.aspx (2018).

75.
Shifley, S. R. et al. Five anthropogenic factors that will radically alter forest conditions and management needs in the Northern United States. For. Sci. 60, 914–925 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

76.
Wear, D. N. & Greis, J. G. The Southern Forest Futures Project : Summary report/David N. Wear and John G. Greis. General technical report SRS: 168 vol. 168. https://proxy-remote.galib.uga.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsgpr&AN=gprocn839703115&site=eds-live. https://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtrsrs168.pdf (2012).

77.
Ruta, G. Monitoring Environmental Sustainability (World Bank, Geneva, 2010). https://doi.org/10.1596/27445.
Google Scholar 

78.
European Commission. A Sustainable Bioeconomy for Europe: Strengthening the Connection Between Economy, Society and the Environment. https://ec.europa.eu/research/bioeconomy/pdf/ec_bioeconomy_strategy_2018.pdf (2018).

79.
Council of the European Communities & Commission of the European Communities. Treaty on European Union-Maastricht Treaty. 253 (1993).

80.
European Union. Treaty of Amsterdam. 144 (1997).

81.
Dyer, J. M. Revisiting the deciduous forests of eastern North America. Bioscience 56, 341–352 (2006).
Article  Google Scholar 

82.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. From EIA-860 Detailed Data with Previous form Data (EIA-860A/860B). https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia860/ (2019).

83.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. Form EIA-923 Detailed Data with Previous form Data (EIA-906/920). https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia923/ (2019).

84.
Gray, J. A., Bentley, J. W., Cooper, J. A. & Wall, D. J. United States Department of Agriculture Southern Pulpwood Production, 2016. e-Resource Bulletin SRS–222. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/56531 (2018).

85.
Piva, R. J., Bentley, J. W. & Hayes, S. W. National pulpwood production, 2010. Resour. Bull. NRS-89. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/45928 (2014). https://doi.org/10.2737/NRS-RB-89.

86.
Prestemon, J. et al. Locations of Wood-Using Mills in the Continental U.S. https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/econ/data/mills/ (2005).

87.
Johnson, T. G. & Steppleton, C. D. United States Department of Agriculture Southern Pulpwood Production, 2005. Resour. Bull. SRS-116. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/27728 (2007).

88.
Johnson, T. G., Steppleton, C. D. & Bentley, J. W. United States Department of Agriculture Southern Pulpwood Production, 2008. Resour. Bull. SRS–165. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/34565 (2010).

89.
Bentley, J. W. & Steppleton, C. D. Southern pulpwood production, 2011. Resour. Bull. SRS-RB-194. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/43626 (2013).

90.
Gray, J. A., Bentley, J. W., Cooper, J. A. & Wall, D. J. United States Department of Agriculture Southern Pulpwood Production, 2014. e-Resource Bulletin SRS–219. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/56235 (2018).

91.
U.S. Census Bureau. Cartographic Boundary Files. https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files/time-series/geo/carto-boundary-file.html (2019).

92.
U.S. Census Bureau. County Population Totals. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-counties-total.html (2020).

93.
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org/ (2019).

94.
Pebesma, E. Simple features for R: Standardized support for spatial vector data. R J. 10, 439 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

95.
Flowerdew, R. & Green, M. Areal interpolation and types of data. In Spatial Analysis and GIS (eds Fotheringham, S. & Rogerson, P.) 73–75 (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2014).
Google Scholar 

96.
Goerndt, M. E., Wilson, B. T. & Aguilar, F. X. Comparison of small area estimation methods applied to biopower feedstock supply in the Northern US region. Biomass Bioenergy 121, 64–77 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar  More

Bacteriophages
Four lytic E. coli-specific phages were used in the present study: MS2 (DSM 13767), T4 (DSM 4505), T7 (DSM 4623), and ϕX174 (DSM 4497). The genomic and structural properties of the phages as well as their bacterial hosts are listed in Table 2. For preparation of the virus isolate stocks, the respective bacterial host was grown in sterile LB medium (LB broth Miller, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, Missouri) until an optical density of 0.3 measured at 600 nm was reached, then inoculated with phages at a virus-to-bacteria-ratio of 0.1, followed by overnight incubation. Remaining bacterial cells were killed by the addition of 1/10 volume of chloroform for 1 h. After separation from the bacterial cell debris, virus stocks were filtered with 0.22 µm syringe filters (Millex-GP, Merck-Millipore, Billerica, Massachusetts) and filtration was repeated prior preparation of samples for measurements.
Environmental samples
Environmental samples were collected from four different aquatic habitats: the income water tank of a wastewater treatment plant (Gut Großlappen, Munich, Germany), an on-site groundwater collection well (48°13′25.8″ N 11°35′45.4″ E, Munich, Germany), a lake (Feldmochinger See; 48°12′56.0″ N 11°30′49.4″ E, Munich, Germany), and a river (Isar; 48°32′59.3″ N, 12°10′42.4″ E, Landshut, Germany). To remove particles the size of bacteria and larger, all water samples were filtered with 0.22 µm syringe filters (Millex-GP). Measurements with flow cytometer and nanoparticle tracking analysis were performed simultaneously and on the sampling day. Quantification with epifluorescence microscopy as well as DNA extraction was conducted on the next day. Samples were stored in 4 °C.
Additionally, a mixed water sample (lake and wastewater) with an approximate concentration of 108 virus-like particles per mL (VLP mL–1) was prepared. This sample was spiked with 1× 108, 5× 108 and 1× 109 T4 particles mL−1. Before the addition, phage T4 stock has been quantified with qPCR.
Viral quantification
All measurements were performed in biological and technical duplicates.
Plaque assay (PA)
The PA was performed using a soft agar overlay technique as described elsewhere24. Briefly, 0.5 mL of appropriate dilutions of phages were mixed with an equal volume of fresh cultures of the corresponding hosts, grown overnight (incubated in LB medium at 37 °C until an optical density of 0.3 measured at 600 nm was reached). The phage-bacteria-suspension was mixed with 3 mL warm soft agar (0.75% w/v agar and 2.5% w/v LB) and gently poured on a petri dish already containing an LB agar layer (1.5% w/v agar and 2.5% w/v LB) in biological and technical replicates. Upon solidification, the petri dishes were incubated bottom up for overnight at 37 °C. After 15–20 h, depending on the bacterial growth efficiency, the plaques formed were manually counted and the phage titers as plaque-forming units per mL (PFU mL–1) were calculated.
Flow cytometry (FCM)
All samples were prepared as described previously with some adaptations14. We decided on these modifications based on the publications of Tomaru and Nagasaki (2007) and Brum and colleagues (2013). More precisely, samples were not fixed with glutaraldehyde after sampling as this may decrease the fluorescence intensity as well as the viral counts. Tomaru and Nagasaki concluded, that a fixation does not necessarily improve the staining ability of the virus particles20. Besides, our samples were measured immediately on the day of sampling, thus a preservation of the viral particles was not necessary. Another step recommended by Brussaard (2004) we did not follow is the flash freezing of the viral sample in liquid nitrogen. It has been shown that nitrogen fixation hampers the preparation procedure for TEM resulting inter alia in morphology changes25. To what extent particles would be enumerated correctly after fixation and nitrogen treatment with nanoparticle tracking analysis where particle integrity would certainly play a role during the enumeration process, is also debatable. As consequence, we decided, to omit this step in order to maintain a consistent sample handling and accomplish comparable conditions for all methods.
In brief, samples were diluted appropriately with sterile, filtered PBS buffer (0.02 µm Anotop 25 syringe filter, Whatman, Maidstone, UK; Sigma Aldrich) to fulfill the instrument’s optimal concentration requirements of approximately 106 VLP mL–1 (Table 1). Fluorescent TRUCOUNT beads (BD, Becton, Dickinson and Company, Franklin Lakes, New Jersey) were added to each sample as an internal reference. The samples were stained with 1 × SYBR gold nucleic acid stain (Thermo Fisher, Waltham, Massachusetts) and incubated either for 10 min at 80 °C (FCM80) or for 1 h at 30 °C (FCM30) prior to measurement. Tomaru & Nagasaki recommended an incubation at room temperature, as higher temperatures reduced the viral counts. We chose therefore two staining temperatures, one at 80 °C, following the suggestion of Brussaard14 and one at 30 °C, following the reference of Tomaru & Nagasaki20.
All samples were measured with a FC500 flow cytometer equipped with an air-cooled 488 nm Argon ion laser (Beckman Coulter, Brea, California) in biological and technical replicates. Analysis and evaluation of the samples was performed using StemCXP Cytometer software (v2.2).
Nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA)
Viral isolate samples were diluted appropriately with sterile phage buffer (10 mM Tris [pH 7.5], 10 mM MgSO4, and 0.4% w/v NaCl) to obtain the optimal concentration range of 107–109 VLP mL–1 (Table 1). Afterwards, samples were either untreated or stained with 1 × SYBR gold for 10 min at 80 °C or 1 h at 30 °C (NTA80 or NTA30, respectively). Each sample was injected manually into the machine’s specimen chamber with a sterile 1 mL syringe (Braun, Melsungen, Germany), and measured three times for 20 sec at room temperature in three independent preparations. Samples were measured using a NanoSight NS300 (Malvern Pananalytical Ltd., Malvern, United Kingdom) equipped with a B488 nm laser module and a sCMOS camera, following the manufacturer’s protocol. Analysis was performed with the NTA 3.1 Analytical software (release version build 3.1.45).
Epifluorescence microscopy (EPI)
Staining of the samples was carried out as described by Patel et al.26. Briefly, all samples were diluted appropriately with 0.02 µm filtered 1 × TE buffer (pH 7.5, AppliChem, Darmstadt, Germany) to a concentration of 107 particles mL–1. For environmental samples with lower concentrations, a volume of 10 mL was used.
Then, 1 mL of each diluted sample (10 mL of environmental samples) was passed through a 0.02 µm Anodisc filter (Whatman) in duplicates. After complete desiccation, the filter was stained using a drop of 2 × SYBR gold dye (Thermo Fisher) with the virus side up, and incubated at room temperature for 15 min in the dark. Stained filters were mounted on a glass slide with 20 µL antifade solution (Thermo Fisher). Slides were analyzed using an Axiolab fluorescence microscope (Carl Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany) equipped with a 488 nm laser. A camera was used to take ten pictures per sample, which were analyzed using ImageJ (version 1.50i). Numbers of particles on the whole filter were calculated by multiplying the counts with the quotient of the area of the filter by area of the pictures.
Quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR)
Prior to the DNA extraction 1 mL of sample has been treated with DNase as described previously with a modified incubation procedure for one hour at 37 °C27. The DNA extraction has been conducted from the complete volume after DNase treatment using the Wizard® PCR Preps DNA Purification Resin and Minicolumns (Promega, Madison, Wisconsin) as previously described28. RNA was extracted with a QIAmp MinElute Virus Spin Kit (total volume of 1 mL sample) (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) and cDNA was synthesized using a DyNAmo cDNA Synthesis Kit (Thermo Fisher) according to the manufacturers protocols. For all samples, DNA or RNA was isolated in duplicates.
T4 was quantified using primers amplifying a 163 bp region of the gp18 tail protein (T4F 5′-AAGCGAAAGAAGTCGGTGAA-3′ and T4R 5′-CGCTGTCATAGCAGCTTCAG-3′)29. For T7, primers amplifying a 555 bp segment of gene 1 (T7_4453F 5′-CTGTGTCAATGTTCAACCCG-3′ and T7_5008R 5 ‘-GTGCCCAGCTTGACTTTCTC-3′)30. ϕX174 was quantified using primers specific for the capsid protein F (ϕX174F 5′-ACAAAGTTTGGATTGCTACTGACC-3′ and ϕX174R 5′-CGGCAGCAATAAACTCAACAGG-3′) resulting in a 122 bp fragment31. For MS2, primers amplifying a 314-bp fragment (MS2_2717F 5′-CTGGGCAATAGTCAAA-3′ and MS2_3031R 5′-CGTGGATCTGACATAC-3′) were used32. Quantitative PCR was performed in a total volume of 20 µL consisting of 10 µL Brilliant III Ultra-Fast QPCR Master Mix (Agilent, Santa Clara, California), 5 µL DNA template or PCR-grade water as a negative control, as well as the following optimized primer concentrations (supporting information): 0.5 µM primers T4F and T4R, 0.8 µM primers T7_4453F and T7_5008R, 0.6 µM primers ϕX174F and ϕX174R, or 0.3 µM primers MS2_2717F and MS2_3031R, respectively. The amplifications were run on a Mx3000P qPCR system (FAM/SYBR® Green I filter [492 nm–516 nm], OS v7.10, Stratagene, San Diego, California) with the following cycling conditions: T4: 95 °C for 10 min, (95 °C for 15 sec, 60 °C for 1 min, 72 °C for 1 min) for a total of 45 cycles, T7: 95 °C for 12 min, (95 °C for 30 sec, 58 °C for 30 sec, 72 °C for 1 min) for a total of 30 cycles, ϕX174: 94 °C for 3 min, (94 °C for 15 sec, 60 °C for 1 min) for a total of 40 cycles, and MS2: 95 °C for 10 min, (95 °C for 15 sec, 50 °C for 30 sec, 72 °C for 30 sec) for a total of 45 cycles. Each replicate was measured four times. Analysis of the melting curves confirmed the specificity of the chosen primer as no variations compared to the standard melting curves could be observed. Standard curves were prepared using the appropriate dilutions of gblocks gene fragments (IDT, Coralville, Iowa) of the respective viral DNA in PCR-grade water (supporting information, Tables S1 and S2). Data analysis was performed using the manufacturer’s MxPro Mx3000P software (v4.10).
TEM preparation
Although TEM may be used for quantification, only the virus morphology and integrity upon applying the staining conditions were monitored. Therefore, the phages MS2 and T7 were either incubated for 10 min at 80 °C or further processed without any temperature treatment. Ten µL of the sample were then applied to the carbon side of a carbon-coated copper grid. Excessive water was blotted dry with a filter paper and washed two times with double-distilled water. After each washing step grids were again blotted dry onto a filter paper before negative staining with 2% uranyl acetate for 20 sec. The staining liquid was blotted onto a filter paper and the grids were air-dried as described previously33. Transmission electron microscopy was carried out using a Zeiss EM 912 with an integrated OMEGA filter in zero-loss mode. The acceleration voltage was set to 80 kV and images were recorded using a Tröndle 2 k × 2 k slow-scan CCD camera (Tröndle Restlichtverstärker Systeme, Moorenweis, Germany).
Sample stability test
In order to substantiate our decision of omitting a fixative step for FCM measurements and to confirm a certain stability of the virus concentration over a short time range (few days), phage T4 and wastewater samples were measured with FCM at time 0, after 24 h and after 48 h. The samples were either kept in 4 °C or were fixed with 0.5% glutaraldehyde for 30 min in 4 °C followed by freezing in liquid nitrogen with adjacent storage at -80 °C, as suggested by Brussaard (2004). At each time point, samples were prepared for FCM as described above with two different staining procedures (30 °C and 80 °C). Additionally, a fixed T4 phage sample was prepared for NTA measurements in the same way in order to test the usability of glutaraldehyde fixation. For phage T4, measurements of the 4 °C, unfixed samples were mostly slightly higher compared to the fixed samples (Fig. S6a,b). Comparing the initial quantification with the results after 48 h, the decrease in counted particles was minor. For the wastewater samples, viral numbers of the unfixed samples were marginally lower, however, a general decline in particle numbers over time could be observed (Fig. S6c,d). This decline was in all cases less than one order of magnitude. As both, fixed and unfixed samples declined only to a small extent and no trend of a stronger decrease of viral particles in the unfixed samples could be observed, omitting the fixation with glutaraldehyde and liquid nitrogen is not supposed to have a wide influence on the enumeration within 48 h.
Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis was carried out in R (v3.4.3) and RStudio (v1.1.383). Data were log transformed and analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted. Normal distribution of data was confirmed by density plots and quantile–quantile plots; homogeneity of variances was confirmed with Levene’s test. Afterwards, multiple pairwise comparisons were calculated with a post-hoc Tukey honest significant differences test. In addition, similarities in viral isolate quantification methods were assessed using principal coordinate analysis. More