More stories

  • in

    A rigorous assessment and comparison of enumeration methods for environmental viruses

    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

  • in

    Anemonefish facilitate bleaching recovery in a host sea anemone

    1.
    Muscatine, L. & Porter, J. W. Reef corals: Mutualistic symbioses adapted to nutrient-poor environments. Bioscience 27, 454–460 (1977).
    Google Scholar 
    2.
    Smith, D. C. & Douglas, A. E. The Biology of Symbiosis (Edward Arnold Ltd., London, 1987).
    Google Scholar 

    3.
    Rao, H. Interorganizational Ecology: Haygreeva. In The Blackwell Companion to Organisations (ed. Baum, J. A.) 541–556 (Backwell, Oxford, 2017).
    Google Scholar 

    4.
    Martínez-García, L. B., De Deyn, G. B., Pugnaire, F. I., Kothamasi, D. & van der Heijden, M. G. Symbiotic soil fungi enhance ecosystem resilience to climate change. Glob. Chang. Biol. 23, 5228–5236 (2017).
    ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    5.
    Compant, S., Van Der Heijden, M. G. & Sessitsch, A. Climate change effects on beneficial plant–microorganism interactions. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 73, 197–214 (2010).
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    6.
    Chase, T., Pratchett, M., Frank, G. & Hoogenboom, M. Coral-dwelling fish moderate bleaching susceptibility of coral hosts. PLoS ONE 13, e0208545 (2018).
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    7.
    Redman, R. S. et al. Increased fitness of rice plants to abiotic stress via habitat adapted symbiosis: A strategy for mitigating impacts of climate change. PLoS ONE 6, e14823 (2011).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    8.
    Stewart, H. L., Holbrook, S. J., Schmitt, R. J. & Brooks, A. J. Symbiotic crabs maintain coral health by clearing sediments. Coral Reefs 25, 609–615 (2006).
    ADS  Google Scholar 

    9.
    Pachauri, R. K. et al. Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (IPCC, Switzerland, 2014).

    10.
    Hoegh-Guldberg, O. Climate change, coral bleaching and the future of the world’s coral reefs. Mar. Freshw. Res. 50, 839–866 (1999).
    Google Scholar 

    11.
    Mieog, J. C. et al. The roles and interactions of symbiont, host and environment in defining coral fitness. PLoS ONE 4(7), e6364 (2009).
    ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    12.
    Davies, P. S. The role of zooxanthellae in the nutritional energy requirements of Pocillopora eydouxi. Coral Reefs 2, 181–186 (1984).
    ADS  Google Scholar 

    13.
    Cook, C., D’Elia, C. & Muller-Parker, G. Host feeding and nutrient sufficiency for zooxanthellae in the sea anemone Aiptasia pallida. Mar. Biol. 98, 253–262 (1988).
    CAS  Google Scholar 

    14.
    Roopin, M., Henry, R. P. & Chadwick, N. E. Nutrient transfer in a marine mutualism: Patterns of ammonia excretion by anemonefish and uptake by giant sea anemones. Mar. Biol. 154, 547–556 (2008).
    CAS  Google Scholar 

    15.
    Delia, C., Domotor, S. & Webb, K. Nutrient uptake kinetics of freshly isolated zooxanthellae. Mar. Biol. 75, 157–167 (1983).
    CAS  Google Scholar 

    16.
    Steen, R. G. & Muscatine, L. Low temperature evokes rapid exocytosis of symbiotic algae by a sea anemone. Biol. Bull. 172, 246–263 (1987).
    Google Scholar 

    17.
    Roopin, M. & Chadwick, N. E. Benefits to host sea anemones from ammonia contributions of resident anemonefish. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 370, 27–34 (2009).
    CAS  Google Scholar 

    18.
    Brown, B. E. Coral bleaching: Causes and consequences. Coral Reefs 16, 129–138 (1997).
    Google Scholar 

    19.
    Glynn, P. W. Widespread coral mortality and the 1982–83 El Niño warming event. Environ. Conserv. 11, 133–146 (1984).
    Google Scholar 

    20.
    McClanahan, T. R., Ateweberhan, M., Muhando, C. A., Maina, J. & Mohammed, M. S. Effects of climate and seawater temperature variation on coral bleaching and mortality. Ecol. Monogr. 77, 503–525 (2007).
    Google Scholar 

    21.
    Vinoth, R., Gopi, M., Kumar, T. T. A., Thangaradjou, T. & Balasubramanian, T. Coral reef bleaching at Agatti Island of Lakshadweep Atolls India. J. Ocean Univ. China 11, 105–110 (2012).
    ADS  Google Scholar 

    22.
    Hughes, T. P. et al. Global warming transforms coral reef assemblages. Nat. 556, 492–496 (2018).
    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

    23.
    Death, G., Fabricius, K. E., Sweatman, H. & Puotinen, M. The 27-year decline of coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef and its causes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109, 17995–17999 (2012).
    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

    24.
    Hughes, T. P. Catastrophes, phase shifts, and large-scale degradation of a Caribbean coral reef. Science 265, 1547–1551 (1994).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    25.
    McManus, J. W. & Polsenberg, J. F. Coral–algal phase shifts on coral reefs: Ecological and environmental aspects. Prog. Oceanogr. 60, 263–279 (2004).
    ADS  Google Scholar 

    26.
    Hughes, T. P., Graham, N. A., Jackson, J. B., Mumby, P. J. & Steneck, R. S. Rising to the challenge of sustaining coral reef resilience. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 633–642 (2010).
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    27.
    Garpe, K. C., Yahya, S. A., Lindahl, U. & Öhman, M. C. Long-term effects of the 1998 coral bleaching event on reef fish assemblages. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 315, 237–247 (2006).
    ADS  Google Scholar 

    28.
    Pratchett, M. S. et al. Effects of climate-induced coral bleaching on coral-reef fishes—ecological and economic consequences. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. 46, 257–302 (2008).
    Google Scholar 

    29.
    Pratchett, M. S., Hoey, A. S., Wilson, S. K., Messmer, V. & Graham, N. A. Changes in biodiversity and functioning of reef fish assemblages following coral bleaching and coral loss. Divers. 3, 424–452 (2011).
    Google Scholar 

    30.
    Dunn, D. F. The clownfish sea anemones: Stichodactylidae (Coelenterata: Actiniaria) and other sea anemones symbiotic with pomacentrid fishes. Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. 71, 3–115 (1981).
    Google Scholar 

    31.
    Jones, A., Gardner, S. & Sinclair, W. Losing “Nemo”: Bleaching and collection appear to reduce inshore populations of anemonefishes. J. Fish Biol. 73, 753–761 (2008).
    Google Scholar 

    32.
    Scott, A. & Hoey, A. S. Severe consequences for anemonefishes and their host sea anemones during the 2016 bleaching event at Lizard Island, Great Barrier Reef. Coral Reefs 36, 873–873 (2017).
    ADS  Google Scholar 

    33.
    Hobbs, J. P. A. et al. Taxonomic, spatial and temporal patterns of bleaching in anemones inhabited by anemonefishes. PLoS ONE 8, e70966 (2013).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    34.
    Hattori, A. Small and large anemonefishes can coexist using the same patchy resources on a coral reef, before habitat destruction. J. Anim. Ecol. 71, 824–831 (2002).
    Google Scholar 

    35.
    Weis, V. M. Cellular mechanisms of Cnidarian bleaching: Stress causes the collapse of symbiosis. J. Exp. Biol. 211, 3059–3066 (2008).
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    36.
    Saenz-Agudelo, P., Jones, G., Thorrold, S. & Planes, S. Detrimental effects of host anemone bleaching on anemonefish populations. Coral Reefs 30, 497–506 (2011).
    ADS  Google Scholar 

    37.
    Lönnstedt, O. M. & Frisch, A. J. Habitat bleaching disrupts threat responses and persistence in anemonefish. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 517, 265–270 (2014).
    ADS  Google Scholar 

    38.
    Beldade, R., Blandin, A., O’Donnell, R. & Mills, S. C. Cascading effects of thermally-induced anemone bleaching on associated anemonefish hormonal stress response and reproduction. Nat. Commun. 8, 716 (2017).
    ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    39.
    Hoegh-Guldberg, O. & Smith, G. J. Influence of the population density of zooxanthellae and supply of ammonium on the biomass and metabolic characteristics of the reef corals Seriatopora hystrix and Stylophora pistillata. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2, 173–186 (1989).
    ADS  Google Scholar 

    40.
    Holbrook, S. J. & Schmitt, R. J. Growth, reproduction and survival of a tropical sea anemone (Actiniaria): Benefits of hosting anemonefish. Coral Reefs 24, 67–73 (2005).
    Google Scholar 

    41.
    Porat, D. & Chadwick-Furman, N. Effects of anemonefish on giant sea anemones: Expansion behavior, growth, and survival. Hydrobiologia 530, 513–520 (2004).
    Google Scholar 

    42.
    Cleveland, A., Verde, E. A. & Lee, R. W. Nutritional exchange in a tropical tripartite symbiosis: Direct evidence for the transfer of nutrients from anemonefish to host anemone and zooxanthellae. Mar. Biol. 158, 589–602 (2011).
    Google Scholar 

    43.
    Fautin, D. G. & Allen, G. R. Field Guide to Anemonefishes and Their Host Sea Anemones (Western Australian Museum, Perth, 1992).
    Google Scholar 

    44.
    Hill, R. & Scott, A. The influence of irradiance on the severity of thermal bleaching in sea anemones that host anemonefish. Coral Reefs 31, 273–284 (2012).
    ADS  Google Scholar 

    45.
    Roughgarden, J. Evolution of marine symbiosis—a simple cost-benefit model. Ecology 56, 1201–1208 (1975).
    Google Scholar 

    46.
    Hobbs, J., Neilson, J. & Gilligan, J. Distribution, abundance, habitat association and extinction risk of marine fishes endemic to the Lord Howe Island region (Report to Lord Howe Island Marine Park (James Cook University, Townsville, 2009).
    Google Scholar 

    47.
    Porat, D. & Chadwick-Furman, N. Effects of anemonefish on giant sea anemones: Ammonium uptake, zooxanthella content and tissue regeneration. Mar. Freshw. Behav. Physiol. 38, 43–51 (2005).
    CAS  Google Scholar 

    48.
    Grottoli, A. G., Rodrigues, L. J. & Palardy, J. E. Heterotrophic plasticity and resilience in bleached corals. Nature 440, 1186–1189 (2006).
    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

    49.
    Borell, E. M. & Bischof, K. Feeding sustains photosynthetic quantum yield of a scleractinian coral during thermal stress. Oecologia 157, 593 (2008).
    ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    50.
    Borell, E. M., Yuliantri, A. R., Bischof, K. & Richter, C. The effect of heterotrophy on photosynthesis and tissue composition of two scleractinian corals under elevated temperature. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 364, 116–123 (2008).
    Google Scholar 

    51.
    Nakamura, T. & Van Woesik, R. Water-flow rates and passive diffusion partially explain differential survival of corals during the 1998 bleaching event. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 212, 301–304 (2001).
    ADS  Google Scholar 

    52.
    Gleason, D. F. & Wellington, G. M. Ultraviolet radiation and coral bleaching. Nature 365, 836 (1993).
    ADS  Google Scholar 

    53.
    Zepp, R. G. et al. Spatial and temporal variability of solar ultraviolet exposure of coral assemblages in the Florida Keys: Importance of colored dissolved organic matter. Limnol. Oceanogr. 53, 1909–1922 (2008).
    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

    54.
    Minasian, L. L. Jr. The relationship of size and biomass to fission rate in a clone of the sea anemone, Haliplanella luciae (Verrill). J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 58, 151–162 (1982).
    Google Scholar 

    55.
    Miyawaki, M. Temperature as a factor influencing upon the fission of the orange-striped sea-anemone, Diadumene luciae. Zool. 11, 77–80 (1952).
    Google Scholar 

    56.
    Atoda, K. Pedal laceration of the sea anemone, Haliplanella luciae. Pub. Seto Mar. Biol. Lab. 20, 299–313 (1973).
    Google Scholar 

    57.
    Minasian, L. L. Jr. & Mariscal, R. N. Characteristics and regulation of fission activity in clonal cultures of the cosmopolitan sea anemone, Haliplanella luciae (Verrill). Biol. Bull. 157, 478–493 (1979).
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    58.
    Holbrook, S. J., Brooks, A. J., Schmitt, R. J. & Stewart, H. L. Effects of sheltering fish on growth of their host corals. Mar. Biol. 155, 521–530 (2008).
    Google Scholar 

    59.
    Johnson, L. L. & Shick, J. M. Effects of fluctuating temperature and immersion on asexual reproduction in the intertidal sea anemone Hauplanella luciae (Verrill) in laboratory culture. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 28, 141–149 (1977).
    Google Scholar 

    60.
    Hand, C. & Uhlinger, K. R. Asexual reproduction by transverse fission and some anomalies in the sea anemone Nematostella vectensis. Invertebr. Biol. 2, 9–18 (1995).
    Google Scholar 

    61.
    Tsuchida, C. B. & Potts, D. C. The effects of illumination, food and symbionts on growth of the sea anemone Anthopleura elegantissima (Brandt, 1835). II. Clonal growth. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 183, 243–258 (1994).
    Google Scholar 

    62.
    Hughes, T. P. et al. Global warming and recurrent mass bleaching of corals. Nature 543, 373–377 (2017).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    63.
    Holbrook, S. J., Forrester, G. E. & Schmitt, R. J. Spatial patterns in abundance of a damselfish reflect availability of suitable habitat. Oecologia 122, 109–120 (2000).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    64.
    Munday, P. L. Interactions between habitat use and patterns of abundance in coral-dwelling fishes of the genus Gobiodon. Environ. Biol. Fish. 58, 355–369 (2000).
    Google Scholar 

    65.
    Pontasch, S. et al. Photochemical efficiency and antioxidant capacity in relation to Symbiodinium genotype and host phenotype in a symbiotic cnidarian. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 516, 195–208 (2014).
    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

    66.
    IPCC. Climate Change 2014–Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Regional Aspect (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2014).
    Google Scholar 

    67.
    Siebeck, U., Marshall, N., Klüter, A. & Hoegh-Guldberg, O. Monitoring coral bleaching using a colour reference card. Coral Reefs 25, 453–460 (2006).
    ADS  Google Scholar 

    68.
    Marshall, N. J., Kleine, D. A. & Dean, A. J. CoralWatch: Education, monitoring, and sustainability through citizen science. Front Ecol Environ 10, 332–334 (2012).
    Google Scholar 

    69.
    Association, A. P. H. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (American Public Health Association, Washington, 2005).
    Google Scholar 

    70.
    AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International (Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Rockville, 2000).
    Google Scholar 

    71.
    Jeffrey, S. T. & Humphrey, G. F. New spectrophotometric equations for determining chlorophylls a, b, c1 and c2 in higher plants, algae and natural phytoplankton. Biochemie und physiologie der pflanzen 167, 191–194 (1974).
    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    These bizarre ancient species are rewriting animal evolution

    The revolutionary animal lived and died in the muck. In its final hours, it inched across the sea floor, leaving a track like a tyre print, and finally went still. Then geology set to work. Over the next half a billion years, sediment turned to stone, preserving the deathbed scene. The fossilized creature looks like a piece of frayed rope measuring just a few centimetres wide. But it was a trailblazer among living things.
    This was the earliest-known animal to show unequivocal evidence of two momentous innovations packaged together: the ability to roam the ocean floor, and a body built from segments. It was also among the oldest known to have clear front and back ends, and a left side that mirrored its right. Those same features are found today in animals from flies to flying foxes, from lobsters to lions.
    Palaeontologist Shuhai Xiao marvels at the tracks left by this creature, Yilingia spiciformis, and how they captured evidence of its movement. In his cluttered office at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, he shows off a slab of beige resin — a reproduction of the fossil, which was found in China’s Yangtze Gorges region and is now kept in a Chinese research institute. The replica captures a snapshot of a moment from 550 million years ago. Xiao, whose team formally described Yilingia last year1, traces the bumpy tracks it made immediately before its death. “It was just moving around, and it died suddenly,” he says.

    A fossil from South China shows the worm-like creature Yilingia spiciformis (right) at the end of a track that it made in the sea floor.Credit: Zhe Chen/Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, and Shuhai Xiao/Virginia Tech

    But that’s not the end of this creature’s story. Although nobody knows which category of life it belonged to — the group that includes earthworms is one possibility — Yilingia is helping to fill in key details about the evolution of animals. Most importantly, Yilingia shows that some quintessential animal traits had appeared half a billion years ago, earlier than previous definitive evidence, Xiao says.
    Yilingia is not the only creature from that region to provide some of the earliest fossil evidence for an important animal feature. In 2018, Xiao and his team reported2 on tracks found in the Yangtze Gorges consisting of two parallel rows of dimples. The researchers propose that the trails were made by an animal from 550 million years ago that might have been able to burrow and had multiple pairs of appendages — which would make it one of the earliest-known animals with legs.
    These Chinese fossils hail from a time right before the Cambrian explosion, the evolutionary transformation when most of the animal groups that populate the planet today first made their appearance in the fossil record. Scientists long regarded the boundary between the Cambrian period and the Precambrian as a dividing point in evolution — a transition from a world in which simple, strange organisms flourished, to a time when the seas teemed with complex creatures that are the forebears of nearly everything that followed.

    The worm-like animal Yilingia spiciformis crawls across the sea floor in this artist’s reconstruction that also shows a fossil of the creature (left).Credit: Zhe Chen/Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, and Shuhai Xiao/Virginia Tech

    But a growing number of findings reveal that the time slice just before the Cambrian, known as the Ediacaran (635 million to 541 million years ago), was a pivot point of animal evolution — a period that includes the earliest fossil records of anatomical innovations, such as guts and legs, and the first appearance of complex behaviours such as burrowing. The insights into the Ediacarans’ powers lend support to a provocative idea: that the Cambrian explosion, that iconic evolutionary burst, was actually less revolutionary than many had thought.
    The Cambrian explosion “is just another phase of evolution”, says palaeobiologist Rachel Wood at the University of Edinburgh, UK. “It’s not a single flash event. It could not have happened without previous waves of innovation.”
    Tumultuous times
    The Ediacarans’ innovations came against a backdrop of planetary cataclysms. During this time, Earth was still recovering from a long, shivery chapter when ice covered much of the seas. A gigantic meteor slammed into what is now Australia and probably kicked up enough dust to trigger catastrophic changes around the globe. The planet’s very surface was splitting: during the Ediacaran, one supercontinent broke apart and another took shape as land masses smashed together. On the continents, no plants grew. In the ocean, oxygen levels swung wildly.
    Scientists once thought that complex life did not start until after all this tumult. In Charles Darwin’s day, no fossils had been found below the rock layers documenting the Cambrian explosion. That blank rock record troubled Darwin, who reasoned that if his theory of evolution were correct, there must have been life before the Cambrian’s riches. “The case at present must remain inexplicable,” he wrote in On the Origin of Species in 1859.

    ‘Darwin’s dilemma’ would remain unsolved for a century. In the 1930s and 1940s, researchers found intriguing imprints in rocks in Australia and elsewhere, but those rocks were not definitively Precambrian. Then, several English schoolchildren finally gave the Ediacarans their big break in 1957. Scrambling through a local quarry, the students noticed a leaf-shaped imprint in the ancient stone. Geologist Trevor Ford at the University of Leicester, UK, went to see it — and recognized that it had been made by a living thing. Ford’s paper3 about the imprint provided definitive evidence that large, complex species lived in the Precambrian. He ventured that the type of organism was probably “an algal frond”.
    It almost certainly wasn’t. Ford’s proposal was among the first in a long list of mistaken ideas about the identity of Ediacaran organisms. As more were discovered, scientists tried valiantly to place them on the tree of life. Some of the fossils were towering structures that stood one metre tall; others resembled deflated air mattresses. They have been called lichens and algae, fungi and bacterial colonies. “Basically any interpretation you can name has been suggested,” says geobiologist Lidya Tarhan at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut.
    Finally, an audacious theory broke through the welter of competing claims. In the 1980s and 1990s, palaeontologist Adolf Seilacher at the University of Tübingen in Germany proposed4,5 that many Ediacaran life forms were not animals, but instead belonged to a single, bizarre group that he called the Vendobionta. These organisms were “an evolutionary experiment that failed” when formidable predators arrived on the scene, Seilacher wrote. His ideas have fallen out of favour, but they challenged researchers to question their assumptions. “At the time it was brilliant thinking,” says geobiologist Simon Darroch at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. “Before that, everyone assumed they were all jellyfish, which was even more wrong.”

    Now, most scientists are reaching agreement that the Ediacarans were a grab bag of disparate life forms, rather than the self-contained group proposed by Seilacher. “It’s inappropriate to consider them a failed experiment,” says palaeontologist Frances Dunn at the University of Oxford, UK. “They represent the ancestors, probably, of lots of different things.” Many scientists — although not all — are also signing up to the idea that some fraction of the Ediacaran organisms were probably animals, including some that don’t look like any animal alive today.
    That idea dovetails with genetic evidence that animals, or metazoans, first appeared more than 600 million years ago, well before the Ediacaran. There are no definitive fossils to illustrate the dawn of the animals, but the early metazoans were probably small, soft, simple things, including ancestors of modern creatures such as sponges and corals. Eventually, animals developed left–right symmetry, which is packaged with a gut, mouth and anus.
    But it’s not easy to define which fossils are animals and which are not. “Would we know the first metazoan if we tripped over it?” Wood wonders. “Is our search image correct?” Those questions still dog scientists.
    Insight from imprints
    Although the Ediacaran fossils have bedevilled researchers for decades, new techniques are coaxing fresh insights out of previously intractable imprints. Take the baffling organisms in the genus Dickinsonia. Rounded and flat, they resembled segmented bath mats only a few millimetres thick, although they could reach nearly 1.5 metres in length. Their strange construction spawned theories that they were protists — a diverse group of mostly single-celled organisms that includes protozoa and some algae — or lichens, although many researchers suspected that they were animals.
    To try to settle the long-standing dispute, geobiologist Ilya Bobrovskiy, now at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, and his colleagues took a biochemical approach. Bobrovskiy used tweezers to harvest thin films of organic matter — the remnants of Dickinsonia specimens that lived more than 550 million years ago. Analysis of the fat molecules in these biofilms showed that they were breakdown products of cholesterol, which is found in animals’ cell membranes6. “Dickinsonia was indeed an animal,” Bobrovskiy says.

    Evidence indicates that Dickinsonia, an iconic organism of the Ediacaran period, was an animal.Credit: Zeytun Travel Images/Alamy

    Dickinsonia was a rather simple animal: it showed no evidence of a mouth or a gut. But earlier this year, scientists detailed what might be the oldest-known animal that had both. Called Ikaria wariootia, it lived at roughly the same time as the Dickinsonia specimens that Bobrovskiy’s team studied, or perhaps earlier7.
    This discovery resolves a long-standing Ediacaran whodunnit: what made the narrow, twisting burrows that cut through Ediacaran sediments? They are among the most common Ediacaran calling cards, but are so small — only 1.5–2 millimetres wide — that they must have been created by an elusively tiny organism. “We never thought we’d see it,” says palaeontologist Mary Droser at the University of California, Riverside. Then she got her hands on a 3D laser scanner.
    Droser and her colleagues used the scanner to image hundreds of tiny blobs found near the twisting burrows. The team’s high-resolution 3D reconstructions show that the blobs were, in fact, organisms7. They were smaller than grains of rice, but they had left–right symmetry and both a front and back end, and features of the burrows suggest that the creatures could control where they moved. Previous analysis showed that some burrows wend into and out of the buried bodies of larger organisms, implying that Ikaria was a scavenger — the earliest known. Droser’s team suggests that, to support Ikaria’s burrowing and scavenging habits, the tiny animal probably had a mouth, anus and gut.

    Ikaria wariootia was smaller than a grain of rice, but its trails suggest that the burrowing creature was capable of relatively sophisticated behaviours, such as feasting on other organisms.Credit: Sohail Wasif/UCR

    More evidence that Ediacarans had guts comes from tubular organisms called cloudinids that arose around 550 million years ago. Using high-resolution X-ray imaging to peer inside cloudinids’ outer tubes, researchers saw a long, cylindrical feature, which the authors say is the oldest gut in the fossil record8. The team found this feature in a cloudinid that most probably belonged to the genus Saarina, and it bolsters the case that some cloudinids were animals with left–right symmetry8, says palaeobiologist and study co-author Jim Schiffbauer at the University of Missouri, Columbia. The gut’s shape and other clues hint that Saarina could be an early annelid, an animal grouping that includes modern earthworms.
    Alien animals
    New approaches are producing evidence that even the most alien-looking Ediacarans might have been animals. Take the ‘frondose’ Ediacarans, which were built from collections of miniature branches reminiscent of a fern’s lacy foliage. Some frondose organisms resembled heads of lettuce, whereas the organism Charnia masoni looked like a palm branch stuck into the sea floor. Charnia and its close relatives had a ‘pseudo-fractal’ organization like that of no living creature: the fronds were made up of branches, which were made up of sub-branches, which were made up of still-smaller branches.

    Dunn and her colleagues borrowed tools from developmental biology to understand these oddities. The researchers noted that Charnia’s fronds invariably have the same outline: widest at the bottom, smallest at the tip, with no short branches in the middle. This uniformity, a product of how the organism grows, is not seen in plants or algae9. Despite the other-worldly appearance of Charnia and its kin, “they’re more closely related to animals than they are to anything else”, Dunn says.
    Researchers studying the Ediacaran have revealed other frondose quirks by turning to the tools of modern ecology. One such technique is spatial analysis, which involves ultra-precise mapping of a large set of organisms that are preserved precisely where they lived — information that is rarely available in palaeontology. But scientists have exactly such an array at their disposal in Newfoundland, Canada, which has thousands of frondose imprints. Among them are examples that date back 571 million years, making them the oldest-known organisms that are big enough to be seen without magnification.
    Some of Newfoundland’s most abundant residents from around this time belong to the genus Fractofusus, whose members looked like mounds of fronds in the shape of an overturned saucer. Like its cousin Charnia, Fractofusus might have been an animal with no modern analogue. Spatial analysis showed that many large Fractofusus specimens are surrounded by clusters of small ones10. “Children,” says palaeobiologist Charlotte Kenchington at the University of Cambridge, UK, who was a member of the team that published the findings10 in 2015. This pattern suggests that Fractofusus multiplied in part by shooting out long runners on which its young developed.

    Rocks in Newfoundland, Canada, preserve some of the oldest Ediacaran species, including ones that resembled the fronds of a fern.Credit: Alicejmichel (CC BY-SA 4.0)

    In a paper11 published earlier this year, scientists describe long, thin, fossilized threads, some stretching 4 metres, between frondose organisms in Newfoundland. These threads might have been reproductive runners, and could also have been used for nutrient transport or communication. Perhaps these organisms were “acting in each other’s best interests rather than just for themselves”, says palaeobiologist Alex Liu at the University of Cambridge, who co-wrote the paper11.
    Before the Big Bang
    As evidence mounts for Ediacaran innovation, a group of researchers is using these finds to question an icon of evolutionary history: the Cambrian explosion. In the past, researchers often spoke of this event as the Big Bang of evolution — a single, supreme episode that had no prelude and suddenly changed everything. But some researchers take the view that Ediacaran organisms were the founders of this revolution. The burst of new species in the Cambrian “didn’t just come out of thin air”, says Wood. “It must have been derived from something in the Ediacaran.”
    A common view holds that many Ediacaran organisms vanished at the Ediacaran–Cambrian boundary some 540 million years ago. But while excavating in a remote spot in Siberia, Wood and her team found Cambrian-type fossils, such as animals that lived in mineral-laden, tube-shaped shells, in Ediacaran-age rock12.

    Wood and her co-authors cited these fossils in a provocative 2019 paper13, which also noted that Ediacaran animals capable of burrowing into sediments survived into the Cambrian period. The ability to burrow is a hallmark of that time, when animals dug so enthusiastically that they tore up the sea floor, creating new ecological niches. But the Ediacarans took the first step, the authors say. The vaunted Cambrian explosion, “was simply one phase” in the rise of animal diversity, they contend.
    All of these findings tell a new story of animal evolution — but it is not yet clear whether the revision will stick. Some palaeontologists say that Wood’s argument, in trying to give the Ediacaran its due, gives short shrift to the Cambrian explosion — which marked the appearance of a vast number of creatures that fit clearly into modern animal groups. Xiao agrees that some Ediacaran animals survived into the Cambrian, but he argues that the big picture shows a mass die-off at the boundary between the two periods. And invertebrate palaeontologist Jean-Bernard Caron at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, Canada, questions Wood’s tally of Ediacaran species that survived into the Cambrian. “We don’t really have the fossil record to support that,” he says. Wood responds that although the critique is fair, it’s clear that multiple Cambrian-style creatures first appeared in the Ediacaran.
    For all the contention, however, some researchers think that answers are just around the corner. Continued work on biomarkers could pin down whether various Ediacaran organisms were, in fact, animals. And palaeontologists are excavating new Ediacaran finds in places such as Iran and Russia, Darroch says. The latest approaches, such as spatial analysis, hold promise too, says Xiao. These could flesh out — at long last — what was going on in the oceans during the pivotal Ediacaran period.
    “I would just love to be swimming over these communities and see, finally, how are they really growing? What on Earth are they?” Wood says. “So much would become obvious.” More

  • in

    Co-haplotyping symbiont and host to unravel invasion pathways of the exotic pest Halyomorpha halys in Italy

    1.
    Lashkari, M. et al. Global genetic variation in the Asian citrus psyllid Diaphorina citri (Hemiptera: Liviidae) and the endosymbiont Wolbachia: links between Iran and the USA detected. Pest Manag. Sci. 70, 1033–1040 (2014).
    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 
    2.
    Wang, Y. et al. Phylogeography of Diaphorina citri (Hemiptera: Liviidae) and its primary endosymbiont, ‘Candidatus Carsonella ruddii’: An evolutionary approach to host–endosymbiont interaction. Pest Manag. Sci. 74, 2185–2194 (2018).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    3.
    Otero-Bravo, A. & Sabree, Z. L. Comparing the utility of host and primary endosymbiont loci for predicting global invasive insect genetic structuring and migration patterns. Biol. Control. 116, 1016 (2018).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    4.
    Savio, C. et al. Evidence of two lineages of the symbiont ‘Candidatus Erwinia dacicola’ in Italian populations of Bactrocera oleae (Rossi) based on 16S rRNA gene sequences. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Micr. 62, 179–187 (2012).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    5.
    Funk, D. J., Helbling, L., Wernegreen, J. J. & Moran, N. A. Intraspecific phylogenetic congruence among multiple symbiont genomes. P. Roy Soc. B-Biol. Sci. 267, 2517–2521 (2000).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    6.
    Criscione, C. D., Cooper, B. & Blouin, M. S. Parasite genotypes identify source populations of migratory fish more accurately than fish genotypes. Ecology 87, 823–828 (2006).
    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    7.
    Brown, J. E. et al. Aedes aegypti mosquitoes imported into the Netherlands, 2010. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 17, 2335 (2011).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

    8.
    Simberloff, D. et al. Impacts of biological invasions: What’s what and the way forward. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 58–66 (2013).
    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    9.
    Maynard, A. J. et al. Tiger on the prowl: Invasion history and spatio-temporal genetic structure of the Asian tiger mosquito Aedes albopictus (Skuse 1894) in the Indo-Pacific. PLoS Neglect. Trop. D. 11, e0005546 (2017).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    10.
    Bansal, R., Michel, A. & Sabree, Z. The crypt-dwelling primary bacterial symbiont of the polyphagous pentatomid pest Halyomorpha halys (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae). Environ. Entomol. 43, 617–625 (2014).
    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    11.
    Kenyon, L. J., Meulia, T. & Sabree, Z. L. Habitat visualization and genomic analysis of “Candidatus Pantoea carbekii”, the primary symbiont of the brown marmorated stink bug. Genome Biol. Evol. 7, 620–635 (2015).
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

    12.
    Leskey, T. C. & Nielsen, A. L. Impact of the invasive brown marmorated stink bug in North America and Europe: History, biology, ecology, and management. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 63, 599–618 (2018).
    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    13.
    Moore, L. et al. Characterizing damage potential of the brown marmorated stink bug in cherry orchards in Italy. Entomol. Gen. 3–4, 271–283 (2019).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    14.
    Rice, K. B. et al. Biology, ecology, and management of brown marmorated stink bug (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae). J. Integr. Pest Manag. 5, 1–13 (2014).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    15.
    Wermelinger, B., Wyniger, D. & Forster, B. First records of an invasive bug in Europe: Halyomorpha halys Stål (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae), a new pest on woody ornamentals and fruit trees?. Mitt. Schweiz. Entomol. Ges. 81, 1–8 (2008).
    Google Scholar 

    16.
    Arnold, K. Halyomorpha halys (Stål, 1855), Eine fur die europaische Fauna neu nachgewiesene Wanzenart (Insecta: Heteroptera: Pentatomidae: Cappaeini). Mitt. Thür. Entomologogenverbande. 16, 19 (2009).
    Google Scholar 

    17.
    Heckmann, R. Erster nachweis von Halyomorpha halys (Stål, 1855) (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae) für deutschland. Heteropteron 36, 17–18 (2012).
    Google Scholar 

    18.
    Callot, H. & Brua, C. Halyomorpha halys (Stål, 1855), la Punaise diabolique, nouvelle espece pour la faune de France (Heteroptera Pentatomidae). Entomologiste. 69, 69–71 (2013).
    Google Scholar 

    19.
    Maistrello, L. et al. First records in Italy of the Asian stinkbug Halyomorpha halys a new threat to fruit crops. Atti Giornate Fitopatologiche. 1, 283–288 (2014).
    Google Scholar 

    20.
    Gariepy, T. D., Haye, T., Fraser, H. & Zhang, J. Occurrence, genetic diversity, and potential pathways of entry of Halyomorpha halys in newly invaded areas of Canada and Switzerland. J. Pest Sci. 87, 17–28 (2014).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    21.
    Milonas, P. G. & Partsinevelos, G. K. First report of brown marmorated stink bug Halyomorpha halys Stål (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) in Greece. EPPO Bull. 44, 183–186 (2014).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    22.
    Vétek, G., Papp, V., Haltrich, A. & Rédei, D. First record of the brown marmorated stink bug, Halyomorpha halys (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Pentatomidae), in Hungary, with description of the genitalia of both sexes. Zootaxa. 3780, 194–200 (2014).
    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    23.
    Cesari, M. et al. A pest alien invasion in progress: potential pathways of origin of the brown marmorated stink bug Halyomorpha halys populations in Italy. J. Pest Sci. 88, 1–7 (2015).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    24.
    Macavei, L. et al. First detection of Halyomorpha halys, a new invasive species with a high potential of damage on agricultural crops in Romania. Lucr. Stiint. Ser. Agron. 58, 105–108 (2015).
    Google Scholar 

    25.
    Rabitsch, W. & Griebe, G. J. From the west and from the east? First records of Halyomorpha halys (Stål, 1855) (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Pentatomidae) in Vorarlberg and Vienna, Austria. Beitr. Entomof. 16, 115–139 (2015).
    Google Scholar 

    26.
    Šeat, J. Halyomorpha halys (Stål, 1855) (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae) a new invasive species in Serbia. Acta Entomol. Serbica. 20, 167–171 (2015).
    Google Scholar 

    27.
    Maurel, J. P., Blaye, G., Valladares, L., Roinel, É. & Cochard, P. O. Halyomorpha halys (Stål, 1855), la punaise diabolique en France, a Toulouse (Heteroptera; Pentatomidae). Carnets Nat. 3, 2125 (2016).
    Google Scholar 

    28.
    Dioli, P., Leo, P. & Maistrello, L. Prime segnalazioni in Spagna e in Sardegna della specie aliena Halyomorpha halys (Stål, 1855) e note sulla sua distribuzione in Europa (Hemiptera, Pentatomidae). Rev. gaditana Entomol. 7, 539–548 (2016).
    Google Scholar 

    29.
    Simov, N. The invasive brown marmorated stink bug Halyomorpha halys (Stål, 1855) (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae) already in Bulgaria. Ecol. Montenegrina. 9, 51–53 (2016).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    30.
    Hemala, V. & Kment, P. First record of Halyomorpha halys and mass occurrence of Nezara viridula in Slovakia. Plant Prot. Sci. 53, 1–7 (2017).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    31.
    Claerebout, S., Haye, T., Olafsson, E., Pannier, E. & Bultot, J. Premières occurrences de Halyomorpha halys (Stål, 1855) pour la Belgique et actualisation de sa répartition en Europe (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Pentatomidae). Bull. Soc. R. belge entomolog. 154, 205–227 (2019).
    Google Scholar 

    32.
    Tassini, C. & Mifsud, D. The brown marmorated stink bug, Halyomorpha halys (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Pentatomidae) in Malta. EPPO Bull. 49, 132–136 (2019).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    33.
    Zovko, M., Ostojić, I., Jurković, D., & Karić, N. (2019). First report of the brown marmorated stink bug, Halyomorpha halys (Stål, 1855) in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Radovi Poljoprivredno Prehrambenog Fakulteta Univerziteta u SarajevuWorks of the Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences University of Sarajevo. 64, 68–78 (2019).

    34.
    Gapon, D. A. First records of the brown marmorated stink bug, Halyomorpha halys (Stål, 1855) (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae) in Russia, Abkhazia, and Georgia. Entomol. Rev. 96, 1086–1088 (2016).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    35.
    Musolin, D. L. et al. Invasive brown marmorated stink bug Halyomorpha halys (Stål) (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae) in Russia, Abkhazia, and Serbia: history of invasion, range expansion, early stages of establishment, and first records of damage to local crops. Arthropod.-Plant Interact. 12, 517–529 (2018).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    36.
    Kriticos, D. J. The potential global distribution of the brown marmorated stink bug, Halyomorpha halys, a critical threat to plant biosecurity. J. Pest Sci. 90, 1033–1043 (2017).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    37.
    Kapantaidaki, D. E. et al. Halyomorpha halys (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) genetic diversity in North America and Europe. Insects 10, 174. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects10060174 (2019).
    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    38.
    Xu, J., Fonseca, D. M., Hamilton, G. C., Hoelmer, K. A. & Nielsen, A. L. Tracing the origin of US brown marmorated stink bugs, Halyomorpha halys. Biol. Invas. 16, 153–166 (2014).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    39.
    Cesari, M. et al. Genetic diversity of the brown marmorated stink bug Halyomorpha halys in the invaded territories of Europe and its patterns of diffusion in Italy. Biol. Invas. 20, 1073–1092 (2018).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    40.
    Zhu, G. P. et al. Range wide molecular data and niche modeling revealed the Pleistocene history of a global invader (Halyomorpha halys). Sci. Rep. 6, 23192 (2016).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

    41.
    Valentin, R. E., Nielsen, A. L., Wiman, N. G., Lee, D. H. & Fonseca, D. M. Global invasion network of the brown marmorated stink bug, Halyomorpha halys. Sci. Rep. 7, 9866 (2017).
    ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

    42.
    Lee, W. et al. Genetic diversity of Halyomorpha halys (Hemiptera, Pentatomidae) in South Korea and comparison with COI sequence datasets from East Asia, Europe, and North America. Fla. Entomol. 101, 49–55 (2018).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    43.
    Morrison, W. R. et al. Attraction of Halyomorpha halys (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) haplotypes in North America and Europe to baited traps. Sci. Rep. 7, 16941. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-17233-0 (2017).
    ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    44.
    Dlugosch, K. M. & Parker, I. M. Founding events in species invasions: Genetic variation, adaptive evolution, and the role of multiple introductions. Mol. Ecol. 17, 431–449 (2008).
    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    45.
    Freers, A. Blinde Passagiere: Stinkwanzen, Marmorierte Baumwanze—Halyomorpha halys. https://ssl.bremen.de/lmtvet/sixcms/media.php/13/Blinde_Passagiere_Stinkwanze_3_2012.pdf. (2012).

    46.
    Gariepy, T. D., Bruin, A., Haye, T., Milonas, P. & Vétek, G. Occurrence and genetic diversity of new populations of Halyomorpha halys in Europe. J. Pest Sci. 88, 451–460 (2015).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    47.
    Croteau, E. K. Causes and consequences of dispersal in plants and animals. Nat. Educ. Know. 3, 12 (2010).
    Google Scholar 

    48.
    Schellhorn, N. A., Bianchi, F. J. J. A. & Hsu, C. L. Movement of entomophagous arthropods in agricultural landscapes: Links to pest suppression. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 59, 559–581 (2014).
    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    49.
    Rassati, D., Faccoli, M., Petrucco Toffolo, E., Battisti, A. & Marini, L. Improving the early detection of alien wood-boring beetles in ports and surrounding forests. J. Appl. Ecol. 52, 50–58 (2015).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    50.
    Duthie, C., Michael, T., Stephenson, B., Yamoah, E. & McDonald, B. Risk analysis of Halyomorpha halys (brown marmorated stink bug) on all pathways (Ministry for Primary Industries, Wellington, 2012).
    Google Scholar 

    51.
    Haye, T. et al. Range expansion of the invasive brown marmorated stinkbug, Halyomorpha halys: an increasing threat to field, fruit and vegetable crops worldwide. J. Pest Sci. 88, 665–673 (2015).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    52.
    Vandervoet, T. F., Bellamy, D. E., Anderson, D. & MacLellan, R. Trapping for early detection of the brown marmorated stink bug, Halyomorpha halys, New Zealand. N. Z. Plant Prot. 72, 36–43 (2019).
    Google Scholar 

    53.
    Hosokawa, T., Matsuura, Y., Kikuchi, Y. & Fukatsu, T. Recurrent evolution of gut symbiotic bacteria in pentatomid stinkbugs. Zool. Let. 2, 24 (2016).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    54.
    Allen, J. M., Light, J. E., Perotti, M. A., Braig, H. R. & Reed, D. L. Mutational meltdown in primary endosymbionts: Selection limits Muller’s ratchet. PLoS ONE 4, 2 (2009).
    Google Scholar 

    55.
    Perotti, M. A., Allen, J. M., Reed, D. L. & Braig, H. R. Host-symbiont interactions of the primary endosymbiont of human head and body lice. FASEB J. 21, 1058–1066 (2007).
    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    56.
    Ohbayashi, T. et al. Insect’s intestinal organ for symbiont sorting. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112, E5179–E5188 (2015).
    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    57.
    Liu, Q. et al. A chromosomal-level genome assembly for the insect vector for Chagas disease, Triatoma rubrofasciata. GigaScience 8, 89 (2019).
    ADS  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

    58.
    Maistrello, L., Dioli, P., Bariselli, M., Mazzoli, G. L. & Giacalone-Forini, I. Citizen science and early detection of invasive species: Phenology of first occurrences of Halyomorpha halys in Southern Europe. Biol. Invas. 18, 3109–3116 (2016).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    59.
    Folmer, O., Black, M., Hoeh, W., Lutz, R. & Vrijenhoek, R. DNA primers for amplification of mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I from diverse metazoan invertebrates. Mol. Mar. Biol. Biotechnol. 3, 294–299 (1994).
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    60.
    Kearse, M. et al. Geneious basic: An integrated and extendable desktop software platform for the organization and analysis of sequence data. Bioinformatics 28, 1647–1649 (2012).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

    61.
    Kumar, S., Stecher, G., Li, M., Knyaz, C. & Tamura, K. MEGA X: Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis across computing platforms. Mol. Biol. Evol. 35, 1547–1549 (2018).
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

    62.
    Schloss, P. D., Delalibera, I., Handelsman, J. & Raffa, K. F. Bacteria associated with the guts of two wood-boring beetles: Anoplophora glabripennis and Saperda vestita (Cerambycidae). Environ. Entomol. 35, 625–629 (2006).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    63.
    Excoffier, L. & Lischer, H. E. L. Arlequin suite ver 35: A new series of programs to perform population genetics analyses under Linux and Windows. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 10, 564–567 (2010).
    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    64.
    Leigh, J. W. & Bryant, D. POPART: Full-feature software for haplotype network construction. Methods Ecol. Evol. 6, 1110–1116 (2015).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    65.
    Clement, M., Posada, D. & Crandall, K. A. TCS: A computer program to estimate gene genealogies. Mol. Ecol. 9, 1657–1659 (2000).
    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    66.
    Blüthgen, N., Menzel, F. & Blüthgen, N. Measuring specialization in species interaction networks. BMC Ecol. 6, 9 (2006).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

    67.
    Dáttilo, W. Different tolerances of symbiotic and nonsymbiotic ant-plant networks to species extinctions. Netw. Biol. 2, 127 (2012).
    Google Scholar 

    68.
    Almeida-Neto, M., Guimaraes, P., Guimaraes, P. R. Jr., Loyola, R. D. & Ulrich, W. A consistent metric for nestedness analysis in ecological systems: Reconciling concept and measurement. Oikos 117, 1227–1239 (2008).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    69.
    Dormann, C. F., Gruber, B. & Fründ, J. Introducing the bipartite package: Analysing ecological networks. R news 8, 8–11 (2008).
    Google Scholar 

    70.
    Tillman, P. G., Greenstone, M. H. & Hu, J. S. Predation of stink bugs (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) by a complex of predators in cotton and adjoining soybean habitats in Georgia, USA. Fla. Entomol. 2, 1114–1126 (2015).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    71.
    Šapina, I. & Jelaska, L. Š. First report of invasive brown marmorated stink bug Halyomorpha halys (Stål, 1855) in Croatia. EPPO Bull. 48, 138–143 (2018).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    72.
    Dhami, M. K., Dsouza, M., Waite, D. W., Anderson, D. & Li, D. Real-Time PCR assay for the identification of the Brown Marmorated Stink Bug (Halyomorpha halys). Front. Mol. Biosci. 3, 5 (2016).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Treeline ecotones shape the distribution of avian species richness and functional diversity in south temperate mountains

    1.
    Pearse, W. D. et al. Building up biogeography: pattern to process. J. Biogeogr. 45, 1223–1230 (2018).
    Article  Google Scholar 
    2.
    Wiens, J. J. The niche, biogeography and species interactions. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. 366, 2336–2350 (2011).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    3.
    Blyth, S., Groombridge, B., Lysenko, I., Miles, L. & Newton, A. Mountain watch: environmental change and sustainable developmental in mountains. UNEP World Conserv. Monit. Centre https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.44936 (2002).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    4.
    Nagy, L. & Grabherr, G. The Biology of Alpine Habitats (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009).
    Google Scholar 

    5.
    Boyle, W. A., Sandercock, B. K. & Martin, K. Patterns and drivers of intraspecific variation in avian life history along elevational gradients: a meta-analysis. Biol. Rev. 91, 469–482 (2016).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    6.
    Martin, K. et al. Effects of severe weather on reproduction for sympatric songbirds in an alpine environment: interactions of climate extremes influence nesting success. Auk 134, 696–709 (2017).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    7.
    Freeman, B. G., Lee-Yaw, J. A., Sunday, J. M. & Hargreaves, A. L. Expanding, shifting and shrinking: the impact of global warming on species’ elevational distributions. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12774 (2018).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    8.
    Scridel, D. et al. A review and meta-analysis of the effects of climate change on Holarctic mountain and upland bird populations. Ibis (Lond. 1859) 160, 489–515 (2018).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    9.
    Rabosky, D. L. & Hurlbert, A. H. Species richness at continental scales is dominated by ecological limits. Am. Nat. 185, 572–583 (2015).
    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    10.
    Ibarra, J. T. & Martin, K. Biotic homogenization: loss of avian functional richness and habitat specialists in disturbed Andean temperate forests. Biol. Conserv. 192, 418–427 (2015).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    11.
    MacArthur, R. H. & MacArthur, J. W. On bird species diversity. Ecology 42, 594–598 (1961).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    12.
    Terborgh, J. Distribution on environmental gradients: theory and a preliminary interpretation of distributional patterns in the avifauna of the cordillera vilcabamba, Peru. Ecology 52, 23–40 (1971).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    13.
    Ghalambor, C. K., Huey, R. B., Martin, P. R., Tewksbury, J. J. & Wang, G. Are mountain passes higher in the tropics? Janzen’s hypothesis revisited. Integr. Comp. Biol. 46, 5–17 (2006).
    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    14.
    Jankowski, J. E., Ciecka, A. L., Meyer, N. Y. & Rabenold, K. N. Beta diversity along environmental gradients: Implications of habitat specialization in tropical montane landscapes. J. Anim. Ecol. 78, 315–327 (2009).
    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    15.
    Jankowski, J. E. et al. The relationship of tropical bird communities to tree species composition and vegetation structure along an Andean elevational gradient. J. Biogeogr. 40, 950–962 (2013).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    16.
    Janzen, D. H. Why mountain passes are higher in the tropics?. Am. Nat. 101, 233–249 (1967).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    17.
    Freeman, B. G. Lower elevation animal species do not tend to be better competitors than their higher elevation relatives. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.13014 (2019).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    18.
    He, X., Luo, K., Brown, C. & Lin, L. A taxonomic, functional, and phylogenetic perspective on the community assembly of passerine birds along an elevational gradient in southwest China. Ecol. Evol. 8, 2712–2720 (2018).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

    19.
    Terborgh, J. & Weske, J. S. The role of competition in the distribution of Andean birds. Ecology 56, 562–576 (1975).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    20.
    Vuilleumier, F. Forest birds of patagonia: ecological geography, speciation, endemism, and faunal history. Ornithol. Monogr. https://doi.org/10.2307/40168287 (1985).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    21.
    Estades, C. F., Condor, T. & Aug, N. Bird-habitat relationships in a vegetational gradient in the andes of central Chile. Condor 99, 719–727 (1997).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    22.
    Meynard, C. N. & Quinn, J. F. Bird metacommunities in temperate South American forest: vegetation structure, area, and climate effects. Ecology 89, 981–990 (2008).
    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    23.
    Devictor, V. et al. Spatial mismatch and congruence between taxonomic, phylogenetic and functional diversity: the need for integrative conservation strategies in a changing world. Ecol. Lett. 13, 1030–1040 (2010).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    24.
    Díaz, S. & Cabido, M. Vive la différence: plant functional diversity matters to ecosystem processes. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16, 646–655 (2001).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    25.
    Cadotte, M. W., Carscadden, K. & Mirotchnick, N. Beyond species: functional diversity and the maintenance of ecological processes and services. J. Appl. Ecol. 48, 1079–1087 (2011).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    26.
    Flynn, D. F. B. et al. Loss of functional diversity under land use intensification across multiple taxa. Ecol. Lett. 12, 22–33 (2009).
    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    27.
    Mayfield, M. M. et al. What does species richness tell us about functional trait diversity? Predictions and evidence for responses of species and functional trait diversity to land-use change. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 19, 423–431 (2010).
    Google Scholar 

    28.
    Boersma, K. S. et al. Linking multidimensional functional diversity to quantitative methods: a graphical hypothesis-evaluation framework. Ecology 97, 583–593 (2016).
    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    29.
    Borges, S. H. et al. Dissecting bird diversity in the Pantepui area of endemism, northern South America. J. Ornithol. 159, 1073–1086 (2018).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    30.
    Herzog, S. K., Kessler, M. & Bach, K. The elevational gradient in Andean bird species richness at the local scale: a foothill peak and a high-elevation plateau. Ecography (Cop.) 28, 209–222 (2005).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    31.
    Araneda, P., Sielfeld, W., Bonacic, C. & Ibarra, J. T. Bird diversity along elevational gradients in the Dry Tropical Andes of northern Chile: the potential role of Aymara indigenous traditional agriculture. PLoS ONE 13, e0207544 (2018).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

    32.
    Caviedes, J. & Ibarra, J. T. Influence of anthropogenic disturbances on stand structural complexity in Andean temperate forests: implications for managing key habitat for biodiversity. PLoS ONE 12, e0169450 (2017).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

    33.
    Altamirano, T. A., Ibarra, J. T., Martin, K. & Bonacic, C. The conservation value of tree decay processes as a key driver structuring tree cavity nest webs in South American temperate rainforests. Biodivers. Conserv. 26, 2453–2472 (2017).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    34.
    Blake, J. G. & Loiselle, B. A. Diversity of birds along an elevational gradient in the Cordillera Central, Costa Rica. Auk 117, 663–686 (2000).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    35.
    Ibarra, J. T., Martin, M., Cockle, K. L. & Martin, K. Maintaining ecosystem resilience: Functional responses of tree cavity nesters to logging in temperate forests of the Americas. Sci. Rep. 7, 1–9 (2017).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    36.
    Ibarra, J. T. et al. Seasonal dynamics of avian guilds inside and outside core protected areas in an Andean Biosphere Reserve of southern Chile. Bird Study 64, 410 (2017).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    37.
    Lindenmayer, D. B. Conserving large old trees as small natural features. Biol. Conserv. 211, 51–59 (2017).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    38.
    Salguero-Gómez, R., Violle, C., Gimenez, O. & Childs, D. Delivering the promises of trait-based approaches to the needs of demographic approaches, and vice versa. Funct. Ecol. 32, 1424–1435. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13148 (2018).
    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    39.
    Stork, N. E. et al. Consistency of effects of tropical-forest disturbance on species composition and richness relative to use of indicator taxa. Conserv. Biol. 31, 924–933 (2017).
    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    40.
    Ibarra, J. T. & Martin, K. Beyond species richness: an empirical test of top predators as surrogates for functional diversity and endemism. Ecosphere 6, 1–15 (2015).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    41.
    Jankowski, J. E., Robinson, S. K. & Levey, D. J. Squeezed at the top: interspecific aggression may constrain elevational ranges in tropical birds. Ecology 91, 1877–1884 (2010).
    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    42.
    Mouchet, M. A., Villéger, S., Mason, N. W. H. & Mouillot, D. Functional diversity measures: an overview of their redundancy and their ability to discriminate community assembly rules. Funct. Ecol. 24, 867–876 (2010).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    43.
    Huey, R. B., Hertz, P. E. & Sinervo, B. Behavioral drive versus behavioral inertia in evolution: a null model approach. Am. Nat. 161, 357–366 (2003).
    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    44.
    Martin, T. E. Evolutionary determinants of clutch size in cavity-nesting birds: nest predation or limited breeding opportunities?. Am. Nat. 142, 937–946 (1993).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    45.
    Jackson, M. M., Gergel, S. E. & Martin, K. Effects of climate change on habitat availability and configuration for an endemic coastal alpine bird. PLoS ONE 10(11), e0142110. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146838 (2015).
    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    46.
    Martin, K. The ecological values of mountain environments and wildlife. In The Impacts of Skiing and Related Winter Recreational Activities on Mountain Environments (eds Rixen, C. & Rolando, A.) 3–29 (Bentham Science Publishers, Sharjah, 2013). https://doi.org/10.2174/9781608054886113010004.
    Google Scholar 

    47.
    Chen, I.-C., Hill, J. K., Ohlemüller, R., Roy, D. B. & Thomas, C. D. Rapid range shifts of species associated with high levels of climate warming. Science (80-.) 333, 1024–1026 (2011).
    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    48.
    Harsch, M. A., Hulme, P. E., McGlone, M. S. & Duncan, R. P. Are treelines advancing? A global meta-analysis of treeline response to climate warming. Ecol. Lett. 12, 1040–1049 (2009).
    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    49.
    Braunisch, V. et al. Temperate mountain forest biodiversity under climate change: Compensating negative effects by increasing structural complexity. PLoS ONE 9, e97718 (2014).
    ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

    50.
    Boyle, W. A. & Martin, K. The conservation value of high elevation habitats to North American migrant birds. Biol. Conserv. 192, 461–476 (2015).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    51.
    Buckland, S. T. et al. Introduction to Distance Sampling: Estimating Abundance of Biological Populations (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001).
    Google Scholar 

    52.
    Bibby, C. J., Burgess, N. D., Hill, D. A. & Mustoe, S. Bird Census Techniques (Academic Press, Cambridge, 2000).
    Google Scholar 

    53.
    Petchey, O. L. & Gaston, K. J. Functional diversity: back to basics and looking forward. Ecol. Lett. 9, 741–758 (2006).
    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    54.
    Laiolo, P., Pato, J. & Obeso, J. R. Ecological and evolutionary drivers of the elevational gradient of diversity. Ecol. Lett. 21, 1022–1032 (2018).
    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    55.
    Ikin, K. et al. Avian functional responses to landscape recovery. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 286, 20190114 (2019).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    56.
    Barbe, L., Morel, R., Rantier, Y., Lebas, J. F. & Butet, A. Bird communities of a temperate forest: spatio-temporal partitioning between resident and migratory species. J. Ornithol. 159, 457–469 (2018).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    57.
    Luck, G. W., Carter, A. & Smallbone, L. Changes in bird functional diversity across multiple land uses: interpretations of functional redundancy depend on functional group identity. PLoS ONE 8, e63671 (2013).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

    58.
    Brown, J. H., Gillooly, J. F., Allen, A. P., Savage, V. M. & West, G. B. Toward a metabolic theory of ecology. Ecology 85, 1771–1789 (2004).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    59.
    Woodward, G. et al. Body size in ecological networks. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20, 402–409 (2005).
    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    60.
    Royle, J. A., Dawson, D. K. & Bates, S. Modelling abundance effects in distance sampling. Ecology 85, 1591–1597 (2004).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    61.
    Marques, T. A., Thomas, L., Fancy, S. G. & Buckland, S. T. Improving estimates of bird density using multiple-covariate distance sampling. Auk 124, 1229–1243 (2007).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    62.
    Chandler, R. Distance Sampling Analysis in Unmarked (ISGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, 2014).
    Google Scholar 

    63.
    Harrison, X. A. et al. A brief introduction to mixed effects modelling and multi-model inference in ecology. PeerJ 6, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4794 (2018).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    64.
    Drever, M. C. & Martin, K. Response of woodpeckers to changes in forest health and harvest: Implications for conservation of avian biodiversity. For. Ecol. Manage. 259, 958–966 (2010).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    65.
    Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach. Ecological Modelling Vol. 172 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2002).
    Google Scholar 

    66.
    Mason, N. W. H., Mouillot, D., Lee, W. G. & Wilson, J. B. Functional richness, functional evenness and functional divergence: the primary components of functional diversity. Oikos 111, 112–118 (2005).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    67.
    De Cáceres, M., Legendre, P. & He, F. Dissimilarity measurements and the size structure of ecological communities. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4, 1167–1177 (2013).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    68.
    Anderson, M. J. Distance-based tests for homogeneity of multivariate dispersions. Biometrics 62, 245–253 (2006).
    MathSciNet  PubMed  MATH  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    69.
    Laliberté, E. & Legendre, P. A distance-based framework for measuring functional diversity from multiple traits. Ecology 91, 299–305 (2010).
    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    70.
    R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing (2018).

    71.
    Jaksic, F. M. & Feinsinger, P. Bird assemblages in temperate forests of North and South America: a comparison of diversity, dynamics, guild structure, and resource use. Rev. Chil. Hist. Nat. 64, 491–510 (1991).
    Google Scholar 

    72.
    Martínez, D. & González, G. Aves de Chile. Guías de campo y breve historia natural (Ediciones del Naturalista, Madrid, 2017).
    Google Scholar 

    73.
    Altamirano, T. A. et al. Hábitos de nidificación de las aves del bosque templado andino de Chile (2012).

    74.
    Jaramillo, A., Burke, P. & Beadle, D. Birds of Chile (Christopher Helm, London, 2003).
    Google Scholar 

    75.
    Altamirano, T. A., Ibarra, J. T., de la Maza, M., Navarrete, S. A. & Bonacic, C. Reproductive life-history variation in a secondary cavity-nester across an elevational gradient in Andean temperate ecosystems. Auk 132, 826–835 (2015).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    76.
    Medrano, F., Barros, R., Norambuena, H. V., Matus, R. & Schmitt, F. Atlas de las aves nidificantes de Chile (Red de Observadores de Aves y Vida Silvestre de Chile, Chile, 2018).
    Google Scholar 

    77.
    del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A., Sargatal, J., Christie, D. A. & Kirwan, G. Handbook of the birds of the World Alive (Lynx Editions, Barcelona, 2019).
    Google Scholar 

    78.
    Dunning, J. B. CRC Handbook of Avian Body Masses (CRC Press, London, 2007).
    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Drivers of tropical soil invertebrate community composition and richness across tropical secondary forests using DNA metasystematics

    1.
    Trumbore, S., Brando, P. & Hartmann, H. Forest health and global change. Science 349, 814–818 (2015).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 
    2.
    Gibbs, H. K. et al. Tropical forests were the primary sources of new agricultural land in the 1980s and 1990s. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107, 16732–16737 (2010).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    3.
    Laurance, W. F. Have we overstated the tropical biodiversity crisis?. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 65–70 (2007).
    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    4.
    Brienen, R. J. W. et al. Long-term decline of the Amazon carbon sink. Nature 519, 344–348 (2015).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    5.
    Nottingham, A. T. et al. Climate warming and soil carbon in tropical forests: insights from an elevation gradient in the Peruvian Andes. Bioscience 65, 906–921 (2015).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

    6.
    Seymour, F. & Busch, J. Why Forests? Why Now? The Science, Economics and Politics of Tropical Forests and Climate Change 1–450 (Center for Global Development, Washington, 2016).
    Google Scholar 

    7.
    de Quadros, P. D. et al. Coal mining practices reduce the microbial biomass, richness and diversity of soil. Appl. Soil Ecol. 98, 195–203 (2016).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    8.
    Beer, C. et al. Terrestrial gross carbon dioxide uptake: global distribution and covariation with climate. Science 329, 834–838 (2010).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    9.
    Jobbágy, E. G. & Jackson, R. B. The vertical distribution of soil organic carbon and its relation to climate and vegetation. Ecol. Appl. 10, 423–426 (2000).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    10.
    Chazdon, R. L. et al. Carbon sequestration potential of second-growth forest regeneration in the Latin American tropics. Sci. Adv. 2, e1501639–e1501639 (2016).
    ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

    11.
    Chazdon, R. L. Beyond deforestation: restoring forests and ecosystem services on degraded lands. Science 320, 1458–1460 (2008).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    12.
    Chazdon, R. L. Tropical forest recovery: legacies of human impact and natural disturbances. Perspect. Plant Ecol. 6, 51–71 (2003).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    13.
    Arroyo-Rodríguez, V. et al. Multiple successional pathways in human-modified tropical landscapes: new insights from forest succession, forest fragmentation and landscape ecology research. Biol. Rev. 92, 326–340 (2017).
    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    14.
    Vashum, K. T., Kasomwoshi, T. & Jayakumar, S. Soil organic carbon sequestration potential of primary and secondary forests in Northeast India. Proc. Int. Acad. Ecol. Environ. Sci. 6, 67 (2016).
    CAS  Google Scholar 

    15.
    Uriarte, M. et al. Natural disturbance and human land use as determinants of tropical forest dynamics: results from a forest simulator. New Phytol. 79, 423–443 (2009).
    Google Scholar 

    16.
    Calderón, K. et al. Effectiveness of ecological rescue for altered soil microbial communities and functions. ISME J. 11, 272–283 (2017).
    PubMed  Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    17.
    Rodrigues, J. L. M. et al. Conversion of the Amazon rainforest to agriculture results in biotic homogenization of soil bacterial communities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, 988–993 (2013).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    18.
    Coyle, D. R. et al. Soil fauna responses to natural disturbances, invasive species, and global climate change: current state of the science and a call to action. Soil Biol. Biochem. 110, 116–133 (2017).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    19.
    Brussaard, L. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in soil. Ambio 26, 563–570 (1997).
    Google Scholar 

    20.
    Brussaard, L., de Ruiter, P. C. & Brown, G. G. Soil biodiversity for agricultural sustainability. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 121, 233–244 (2007).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    21.
    Lavelle, P. et al. Soil invertebrates and ecosystem services. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 42, S3–S15 (2006).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    22.
    Martin, M. Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet J. 17, 10–12 (2011).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    23.
    Eisenhauer, N., Sabais, A. C. W. & Scheu, S. Collembola species composition and diversity effects on ecosystem functioning vary with plant functional group identity. Soil Biol. Biochem. 43, 1697–1704 (2011).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    24.
    Griffiths, B. S., de Groot, G. A., Laros, I., Stone, D. & Geisen, S. The need for standardisation: exemplified by a description of the diversity, community structure and ecological indices of soil nematodes. Ecol. Indic. 87, 43–46 (2018).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    25.
    Mulder, C. Driving forces from soil invertebrates to ecosystem functioning: the allometric perspective. Naturwissenschaften 93, 467–479 (2006).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    26.
    Menta, C. Soil fauna diversity. In Biodiversity Conservation and Utilization in a Diverse World (ed. Lameed, G. A.) (InTech, London, 2012). https://doi.org/10.5772/51091.
    Google Scholar 

    27.
    Errington, I. et al. The influence of vegetation and soil properties on springtail communities in a diesel-contaminated soil. Sci. Total Environ. 619–620, 1098–1104 (2018).
    ADS  PubMed  Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    28.
    Korboulewsky, N., Perez, G. & Chauvat, M. How tree diversity affects soil fauna diversity: a review. Soil Biol. Biochem. 94, 94–106 (2016).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    29.
    Beng, K. C. et al. The utility of DNA metabarcoding for studying the response of arthropod diversity and composition to land-use change in the tropics. Sci. Rep. 6, 1–13 (2016).
    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

    30.
    McGee, K. M., Robinson, C. V. & Hajibabaei, M. Gaps in DNA-based biomonitoring across the globe. Front. Ecol. Evolut. 7, 337 (2019).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    31.
    Ji, Y. et al. Reliable, verifiable and efficient monitoring of biodiversity via metabarcoding. Ecol. Lett. 16, 1245–1257 (2013).
    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    32.
    Liu, S. et al. SOAP Barcode: revealing arthropod biodiversity through assembly of Illumina shotgun sequences of PCR amplicons. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4, 1142–1150 (2013).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    33.
    Bienert, F. et al. Tracking earthworm communities from soil DNA: tracking earthworm communities from soil DNA. Mol. Ecol. 21, 2017–2030 (2012).
    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    34.
    Dell’Anno, A., Carugati, L., Corinaldesi, C., Riccioni, G. & Danovaro, R. Unveiling the biodiversity of deep-sea nematodes through metabarcoding: are we ready to bypass the classical taxonomy?. PLoS ONE 10, e0144928 (2015).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

    35.
    Fonseca, V. G. et al. Metagenetic analysis of patterns of distribution and diversity of marine meiobenthic eukaryotes: macroecology of microscopic marine eukaryotes. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 23, 1293–1302 (2014).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    36.
    Pansu, J. et al. Landscape-scale distribution patterns of earthworms inferred from soil DNA. Soil Biol. Biochem. 83, 100–105 (2015).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    37.
    Saitoh, S. et al. A quantitative protocol for DNA metabarcoding of springtails (Collembola). Genome 59, 705–723 (2016).
    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    38.
    Baird, D. J. & Hajibabaei, M. Biomonitoring 2.0: a new paradigm in ecosystem assessment made possible by next-generation DNA sequencing: news and views: opinion. Mol. Ecol. 21, 2039–2044 (2012).
    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    39.
    Edge, T. A. et al. The ecobiomics project: advancing metagenomics assessment of soil health and freshwater quality in Canada. Sci. Total Environ. 710, 135906 (2020).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    40.
    Porter, T. M. & Hajibabaei, M. Scaling up: a guide to high-throughput genomic approaches for biodiversity analysis. Mol. Ecol. 27, 313–338 (2018).
    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    41.
    Porter, T. M. & Hajibabaei, M. Automated high throughput animal CO1 metabarcode classification. Sci. Rep. 8, 1–10 (2018).
    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

    42.
    Porter, T. M. & Hajibabaei, M. Over 2.5 million COI sequences in GenBank and growing. PLoS ONE 13, e0200177 (2018).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

    43.
    Fernandes, K. et al. DNA metabarcoding-a new approach to fauna monitoring in mine site restoration. Restor. Ecol. 26, 1098–1107 (2018).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    44.
    Gibson, J. F. et al. Large-scale biomonitoring of remote and threatened ecosystems via high-throughput sequencing. PLoS ONE 10, e0138432-e138515 (2015).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

    45.
    Martin, G. K., Adamowicz, S. J. & Cottenie, K. Taxonomic resolution based on DNA barcoding affects environmental signal in metacommunity structure. Freshw. Sci. 35, 701–711 (2016).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    46.
    Banerjee, S. et al. Determinants of bacterial communities in Canadian agroforestry systems. Environ. Microbiol. 18, 1805–1816 (2016).
    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    47.
    Chikoski, J. M., Ferguson, S. H. & Meyer, L. Effects of water addition on soil arthropods and soil characteristics in a precipitation-limited environment. Acta Oecologica 30, 203–211 (2006).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    48.
    Wall, D. H. et al. Soil Ecology and Ecosystem Services (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012).
    Google Scholar 

    49.
    Yu, Y. et al. Shifts in microbial community function and structure along the successional gradient of coastal wetlands in Yellow River Estuary. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 49, 12–21 (2012).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    50.
    Convey, P., Block, W. & Peat, H. J. Soil arthropods as indicators of water stress in Antarctic terrestrial habitats?. Glob. Change Biol. 9, 1718–1730 (2003).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    51.
    Marra, J. L. & Edmonds, R. L. Soil arthropod responses to different patch types in a mixed-conifer forest of the Sierra Nevada. For. Sci. 51, 255–265 (1998).
    Google Scholar 

    52.
    McCluney, K. E. & Sabo, J. L. Sensitivity and tolerance of riparian arthropod communities to altered water resources along a drying river. PLoS ONE 9, e109276 (2014).
    ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

    53.
    Villani, M. G. & Wright, R. J. Environmental influences on soil macroarthropod behavior in agricultural systems 35, 249–269 (1990).
    Google Scholar 

    54.
    Zahran, H. H., Moharram, A. M. & Mohammad, H. A. Some ecological and physiological studies on bacteria isolated from salt-affected soils of Egypt. J. Basic Microbiol. 32, 405–413 (1992).
    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    55.
    McGee, K. M., Eaton, W. D., Shokralla, S. & Hajibabaei, M. Determinants of soil bacterial and fungal community composition toward carbon-use efficiency across primary and secondary forests in a costa rican conservation area. Microb. Ecol. 10, 423 (2018).
    Google Scholar 

    56.
    Oba, Y., Ôhira, H., Murase, Y., Moriyama, A. & Kumazawa, Y. DNA barcoding of Japanese click beetles (Coleoptera, Elateridae). PLoS ONE 10, e0116612 (2015).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

    57.
    Ensafi, P. et al. Soil type mediates the effectiveness of biological control against Limonius californicus (Coleoptera: Elateridae). J. Econ. Entomol. 111, 2053–2058 (2018).
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    58.
    Poggi, S. et al. Relative influence of climate and agroenvironmental factors on wireworm damage risk in maize crops. J. Pest. Sci. 91, 585–599 (2018).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    59.
    Di, S., Huang, L., Diao, J. & Zhou, Z. Selective bioaccumulation and elimination of hexachlorocyclohexane isomers in Tubifex tubifex (Oligochaeta, Tubificidae). Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 23, 6990–6998 (2016).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    60.
    Pelegrí, S. & Blackburn, T. H. Effects of Tubifex tubifex (Oligochaeta:Tubificidae) on N-mineralization in freshwater sediments, measured with 15-N isotopes. Aquat. Microb. Ecol. 9, 289–294 (1995).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    61.
    Saaltink, R. M. Respiration and aeration by bioturbating Tubificidae alter biogeochemical processes in aquatic sediment. Aquat. Sci. 81, 1–13 (2019).
    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

    62.
    Booth, M. S., Stark, J. M. & Rastetter, E. Controls on nitrogen cycling in terrestrial ecosystems: a synthetic analysis of literature data. New Phytol. 75, 139–157 (2005).
    Google Scholar 

    63.
    Feldpausch, T. R., Rondon, M. A., Fernandes, E. C. M., Riha, S. J. & Wandelli, E. Carbon and nutrient accumulation in secondary forests regenerating on pastures in central Amazonia. Ecol. Appl. 14, 164–176 (2004).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    64.
    Gehring, C., Vlek, P. L. G., de Souza, L. A. G. & Denich, M. Biological nitrogen fixation in secondary regrowth and mature rainforest of central Amazonia. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 111, 237–252 (2005).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    65.
    Guariguata, M. R. & Ostertag, R. Neotropical secondary forest succession: changes in structural and functional characteristics. For. Ecol. Manag. 148, 185–206 (2001).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    66.
    Chassot, O. & Monge, G. Connectivity conservation of the great green macaw’s landscape in costa rica and nicaragua (1994–2012). Parks 18, 1–10 (2012).
    Google Scholar 

    67.
    Hartshorn, G. S. et al. Vegetation Types and Floristic Patterns. La Selva: Ecology and Natural History of a Neotropical Rain Forest (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1994).
    Google Scholar 

    68.
    van der Gast, C. J., Gosling, P., Tiwari, B. & Bending, G. D. Spatial scaling of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal diversity is affected by farming practice: spatial scaling of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Environ. Microbiol. 13, 241–249 (2011).
    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    69.
    McGee, K. M., Eaton, W. D., Porter, T. M., Shokralla, S. & Hajibabaei, M. Soil microbiomes associated with two dominant Costa Rican tree species, and implications for remediation. A case study from a Costa Rican conservation area. Appl. Soil Ecol. 137, 139–153 (2019).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    70.
    Eaton, W. D. et al. Differences in the soil microbial community and carbon-use efficiency following development of Vochysia guatemalensis tree plantations in unproductive pastures in Costa Rica. Restor. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12978 (2019).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    71.
    Folmer, O., Black, M., Hoeh, W., Lutz, R. & Vrijenhoek, R. DNA primers for amplification of mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I from diverse metazoan invertebrates. Mol. Mar. Biol. Biochem. 3, 294–299 (1994).
    CAS  Google Scholar 

    72.
    Hajibabaei, M., Spall, J. L., Shokralla, S. & van Konynenburg, S. Assessing biodiversity of a freshwater benthic macroinvertebrate community through non-destructive environmental barcoding of DNA from preservative ethanol. BMC Ecol. 12, 28 (2012).
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

    73.
    Gibson, J. et al. Simultaneous assessment of the macrobiome and microbiome in a bulk sample of tropical arthropods through DNA metasystematics. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 111, 8007–8012 (2014).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    74.
    St. John, J. SeqPrep. Retrieved https://github.com/jstjohn/SeqPrep (2016).

    75.
    Edgar, R. C. UNOISE2: improved error-correction for Illumina 16S and ITS amplicon sequencing. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/081257 (2016).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    76.
    Callahan, B. J., McMurdie, P. J. & Holmes, S. P. Exact sequence variants should replace operational taxonomic units in marker-gene data analysis. ISME J. 11, 2639–2643 (2017).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

    77.
    Reeder, J. & Knight, R. The ‘rare biosphere’: a reality check. Nat. Methods 6, 636–637 (2009).
    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    78.
    Tedersoo, L. et al. 454 Pyrosequencing and Sanger sequencing of tropical mycorrhizal fungi provide similar results but reveal substantial methodological biases. New Phytol. 188, 291–301 (2010).
    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    79.
    Weiss, S. et al. Normalization and microbial differential abundance strategies depend upon data characteristics. Microbiome 5, 27 (2017).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

    80.
    Anderson, M. J., Gorley, R. N. & Clarke, R. K. PERMANOVA+ for Primer: guide to Software and Statistical Methods (PRIMER-E Ltd., Plymouth, UK, 2008).
    Google Scholar 

    81.
    Clarke, K. R. Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Aust. J. Ecol. 18, 117–143 (1993).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    82.
    Anderson, M. J. & Willis, T. J. Canonical analysis of principal coordinates: a useful method of constrained ordination for ecology. Ecology 84, 511–525 (2003).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    83.
    DiStefano, J., Fidler, F. & Cumming, G. Effect size estimates and confidence intervals: An alternative focus for the presentation and interpretation of ecological data. In New Trends in Ecology Research. 1st edn. (ed. Burk, A.). (Nova Science Publishers Inc., New York, 2005).
    Google Scholar 

    84.
    Clarke, K. R., & Gorley, R. N. PRIMER v6: user manual/tutorial (Plymouth routines in multivariate ecological research) (PRIMER-E Ltd., Plymouth, UK, 2006).
    Google Scholar 

    85.
    Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. In Model Selection and Multimodel Inference (eds Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R.) 1–515 (Springer, Berlin, 2003).
    Google Scholar 

    86.
    Legendre, P. & Anderson, M. J. Distance-based redundancy analysis: testing multispecies responses in multifactorial ecological experiments. New Phytol. 69, 1–24 (1999).
    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Changes in coupled carbon‒nitrogen dynamics in a tundra ecosystem predate post-1950 regional warming

    1.
    Hugelius, G. et al. Estimated stocks of circumpolar permafrost carbon with quantified uncertainty ranges and identified data gaps. Biogeosciences 11, 6573–6593 (2014).
    Article  Google Scholar 
    2.
    Olefeldt, D. et al. Circumpolar distribution and carbon storage of thermokarst landscapes. Nat. Commun. 7, https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms13043 (2016).

    3.
    McGuire, A. D. et al. Sensitivity of the carbon cycle in the Arctic to climate change. Ecol. Monogr. 79, 523–555 (2009).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    4.
    Schuur, E. A. G. et al. Climate change and the permafrost carbon feedback. Nature 520, 171–179 (2015).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    5.
    Chapin, D. M. & Bledsoe, C. S. Nitrogen fixation in Arctic plant communitiesin (eds. Chapin, F. S., Jefferies, R. L., Reynolds, J. F., Shaver, G. R. & Svoboda, J.) Arctic Ecossytems in a changing cliamte: an ecophysiological perspective 1992.

    6.
    Chapin, F. S. III. et al. The changing global carbon cycle: linking plant-soil carbon dynamics to global consequences. J. Ecol. 97, 840–850 (2009).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    7.
    Elser, J. J. et al. Global analysis of nitrogen and phosphorus limitation of primary producers in freshwater, marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Ecol. Lett. 10, 1135–1142 (2007).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    8.
    Wookey, P. A. et al. Ecosystem feedbacks and cascade processes: understanding their role in the responses of Arctic and alpine ecosystems to environmental change. Glob. Change Biol. 15, 1153–1172 (2009).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    9.
    Marin-Spiotta, E. et al. Paradigm shifts in soil organic matter research affect interpretations of aquatic carbon cycling: transcending disciplinary and ecosystem boundaries. Biogeochemistry 117, 279–297 (2014).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    10.
    Tape, K. D., Hallinger, M., Welker, J. M. & Ruess, R. W. Landscape heterogeneity of shrub expansion in arctic Alaska. Ecosystems 15, 711–724 (2012).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    11.
    Myrstener, M. et al. Persistent nitrogen limitation of stream biofilm communities along climate gradients in the Arctic. Glob Change Biol. 24, 3680–3691 (2018).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    12.
    Salmon, V. G. et al. Nitrogen availability increases in a tundra ecosystem during five years of experimental permafrost thaw. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 1927–1941 (2016).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    13.
    Kling, G. W., Kipphut, G. W. & Miller, M. C. Arctic lakes and streams as gas conduits to the atmosphere-implications for tundra carbon budgets. Science 251, 298–301 (1991).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    14.
    Kling, G. W., Kipphut, G. W., Miller, M. M. & O’Brien, W. J. Integration of lakes and streams in a landscape perspective: the importance of material processing on spatial patterns and temporal coherence. Freshwater Biol. 43, 477–497 (2000).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    15.
    DelSontro, T., Beaulieu, J. J. & Downing, J. A. Greenhouse gas emissions from lakes and impoundments: upscaling in the face of global change. Limnol. Oceanogr. Lett. 3, 64–75 (2018).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    16.
    Bring, A. et al. Arctic terrestrial hydrology: A synthesis of processes, regional effects, and research challenges. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 121, 621–649 (2016).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    17.
    Tank, S. E. et al. Landscape-level controls on dissolved carbon flux from diverse catchments of the circumboreal. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 26, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012gb004299 (2012).

    18.
    Kling, G. W., Kipphut, G. W. & Miller, M. C. The flux of CO2 and CH4 from lakes and rivers in arctic Alaska. Hydrobiologia 240, 23–36 (1992).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    19.
    Cory, R. M., Ward, C. P., Crump, B. C. & Kling, G. W. Sunlight controls water column processing of carbon in arctic fresh waters. Science 345, 925–928 (2014).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    20.
    Kortelainen, P. et al. Carbon evasion/accumulation ratio in boreal lakes is linked to nitrogen. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 27, 363–374 (2013).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    21.
    Schuur, E. A. G. et al. The effect of permafrost thaw on old carbon release and net carbon exchange from tundra. Nature 459, 556–559 (2009).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    22.
    Bowden, W. B. et al. Sediment and nutrient delivery from thermokarst features in the foothills of the North Slope, Alaska: Potential impacts on headwater stream ecosystems. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 113, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007jg000470 (2008).

    23.
    Curtis, J., Wendler, G., Stone, R. & Dutton, E. Precipitation decrease in the western arctic, with special emphasis on Barrow and Barter Island, Alaska. Int. J. Climatol. 18, 1687–1707 (1998).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    24.
    Yano, Y., Shaver, G. R., Giblin, A. E., Rastetter, E. B. & Nadelhoffer, K. J. Nitrogen dynamics in a small arctic watershed: retention and downhill movement of N-15. Ecol. Monogr. 80, 331–351 (2010).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    25.
    Tape, K., Sturm, M. & Racine, C. The evidence for shrub expansion in Northern Alaska and the Pan-Arctic. Glob. Change Biol. 12, 686–702 (2006).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    26.
    Stackpoole, S. M. et al. Inland waters and their role in the carbon cycle of Alaska. Ecol. Appl. 27, 1403–1420 (2017).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    27.
    Tank, S. E. et al. Landscape matters: Predicting the biogeochemical effects of permafrost thaw on aquatic networks with a state factor approach. Permafr. Periglac. Process. 31, 358–370 (2020).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    28.
    Hobbie, J. E. & Kling, G. W. Alaska’s Changing Arctic: Ecological Consequences for Tundra, Streams, and Lakes. (Oxford University Press, 2014).

    29.
    Kaufman, D. S. et al. Recent warming reverses long-term Arctic cooling. Science 325, 1236–1239 (2009).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    30.
    Meyers, P. A. & Ishiwatari, R. Lacustrine organic geochemistry-an overview of indicators of organic matter sources and diagenesis in lake sediments. Organ. Geochem. 20, 867–900 (1993).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    31.
    Vadeboncoeur, Y. et al. From Greenland to green lakes: cultural eutrophication and the loss of benthic pathways in lakes. Limnol. Oceanogr. 48, 1408–1418 (2003).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    32.
    Gettel, G. M., Giblin, A. E. & Howarth, R. W. Controls of benthic nitrogen fixation and primary production from nutrient enrichment of oligotrophic, Arctic lakes. Ecosystems 16, 1550–1564 (2013).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    33.
    Cornwell, J. C. & Banahan, S. A silicon budget for an alaskan arctic lake. Hydrobiologia 240, 37–44 (1992).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    34.
    France, R. L. C-13 enrichment in benthic compared to planktonic algae-foodweb implications. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 124, 307–312 (1995).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    35.
    Levine, M. A. & Whalen, S. C. Nutrient limitation of phytoplankton production in Alaskan Arctic foothill lakes. Hydrobiologia 455, 189–201 (2001).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    36.
    Hobbie, S. E., Schimel, J. P., Trumbore, S. E. & Randerson, J. R. Controls over carbon storage and turnover in high-latitude soils. Glob. Change Biol. 6, 196–210 (2000).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    37.
    Galman, V., Rydberg, J., de-Luna, S. S., Bindler, R. & Renberg, I. Carbon and nitrogen loss rates during aging of lake sediment: changes over 27 years studied in varved lake sediment. Limnol. Oceanogr. 53, 1076–1082 (2008).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    38.
    Fitzgerald, W. F. et al. Modern and historic atmospheric mercury fluxes in northern Alaska: Global sources and Arctic depletion. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39, 557–568 (2005).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    39.
    Holtgrieve, G. W. et al. A coherent signature of anthropogenic nitrogen deposition to remote watersheds of the northern hemisphere. Science 334, 1545–1548 (2011).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    40.
    Hobbs, W. O. et al. Nitrogen deposition to lakes in national parks of the western Great Lakes region: Isotopic signatures, watershed retention, and algal shifts. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 30, 514–533 (2016).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    41.
    Anderson, N. J. et al. Regional variability in the atmospheric nitrogen deposition signal and its transfer to the sediment record in Greenland lakes. Limnol. Oceanogr. 63, 2250–2265 (2018).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    42.
    Brock, C. S., Leavitt, P. R., Schindler, D. E., Johnson, S. P. & Moore, J. W. Spatial variability of stable isotopes and fossil pigments in surface sediments of Alaskan coastal lakes: Constraints on quantitative estimates of past salmon abundance. Limnol. Oceanogr. 51, 1637–1647 (2006).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    43.
    Curtis, C. J. et al. Spatial variations in snowpack chemistry, isotopic composition of NO3- and nitrogen deposition from the ice sheet margin to the coast of western Greenland. Biogeosciences 15, 529–550 (2018).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    44.
    Post, E. et al. Ecological dynamics across the Arctic associated with recent climate change. Science 325, 1355–1358 (2009).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    45.
    Jones, V. J. et al. The influence of Holocene tree-line advance and retreat on an arctic lake ecosystem: a multi-proxy study from Kharinei Lake, North Eastern European Russia. J. Paleolimnol. 46, 123–137 (2011).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    46.
    Kittel, T. G. F., Baker, B. B., Higgins, J. V. & Haney, J. C. Climate vulnerability of ecosystems and landscapes on Alaska’s North Slope. Reg. Environ. Change 11, S249–S264 (2011).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    47.
    McKane, R. B. et al. Reconstruction and analysis of historical changes in carbon storage in arctic tundra. Ecology 78, 1188–1198 (1997).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    48.
    Leavitt, P. R. et al. Paleolimnological evidence of the effects on lakes of energy and mass transfer from climate and humans. Limnol. Oceanogr. 54, 2330–2348 (2009).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    49.
    Tye, A. M. & Heaton, T. H. E. Chemical and isotopic characteristics of weathering and nitrogen release in non-glacial drainage waters on Arctic tundra. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 71, 4188–4205 (2007).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    50.
    Hobbie, J. E. et al. Impact of global change on biogeochemistry and ecosystems of an arctic freshwater system. Polar Res. 18, 207–214 (1999).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    51.
    Whalen, S. C. & Cornwell, J. C. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and organic-carbon cycling in an Arctic lake. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 42, 797–808 (1985).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    52.
    Mantua, N. J., Hare, S. R., Zhang, Y. & Wallace, J. M. Pacific interdecadal climate oscillation with impacts on salmon production. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 78, 1069–1079 (1997).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    53.
    Galloway, J. N. et al. Transformation of the nitrogen cycle: Recent trends, questions, and potential solutions. Science 320, 889–892 (2008).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    54.
    Dean, W. E. Determination of carbonate and organic-matter in calcareous sediments and sedimentary-rocks by loss on ignition-comparison with other methods. J. Sediment. Petrol. 44, 242–248 (1974).
    CAS  Google Scholar 

    55.
    Appleby, P. G. In Tracking Environmental Change Using Lake Sediments Volume 1: Basin Analysis, Coring, and Chronological Techniques (eds. Last, W. M. & Smol, J. P.) 171–203 (Kluwer, 2001).

    56.
    Engstrom, D. R. & Rose, N. L. A whole-basin, mass-balance approach to paleolimnology. J. Paleolimnol. 49, 333–347 (2013).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    57.
    Dietz, R. D., Engstrom, D. R. & Anderson, N. J. Patterns and drivers of change in organic carbon burial across a diverse landscape: insights from 116 Minnesota lakes. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 29, 708–727 (2015).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    58.
    DeMaster, D. J. The supply and accumulation of silica in the marine environment. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 45, 1715–1732 (1981).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    59.
    Conley, D. J. & Schelske, C. L. In Tracking Environmental Change Using lake Sediments: Biological Methods and Indicators (eds. Smol, J. P., Birks, H. J. B. & Last, W. M.) 281–293 (Kluwer, 2001).

    60.
    Renberg, I. A procedure for preparing large sets of diatom slides from sediment cores. J. Paleolimnol. 4, 87–90 (1990).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    61.
    Savage, C., Leavitt, P. R. & Elmgren, R. Distribution and retention of effluent nitrogen in surface sediments of a coastal bay. Limnol. Oceanogr. 49, 1503–1511 (2004).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    62.
    Wood, S. N. Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R, 2nd edn. (Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2017).

    63.
    Wood, S. N. Thin-plate regression splines. J. R. Stat. Soc. (B) 65, 95–114 (2003).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    64.
    Simpson, G. L. Modelling palaeoecological time series using generalized additive models. Front. Ecol. Evol. 6, 149 (2018).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    65.
    Bai, J. & Perron, P. Computation and analysis of multiple structural change models. J Appl. Econ. 181, 1–22 (2003).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    66.
    R Core Team. A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, http://www.R-project.org/ (2013).

    67.
    Zeileis, A., Leisch, F., Hornik, K. & Kleiber, C. strucchange: An R package for testing for structural change in linear regression models. J. Stat. Softw. 7, 1–38 (2002).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    68.
    Anderson, N. J., Engstrom, D. R., Leavitt, P. R., Flood, S. M. & Heathcote, A. J. Mendeley, https://doi.org/10.17632/xfmpvjmrby.1 (2020).

    69.
    The Alaska Climate Research Center. Climatological Data-Alaska’s Arctic, http://oldclimate.gi.alaska.edu/Climate/Location/TimeSeries/Data/brwT (2010).

    70.
    Hastings, M. G., Steig, E. J. & Sigman, D. M. Seasonal variations in N and O isotopes of nitrate in snow at Summit, Greenland: Implications for the study of nitrate in snow and ice cores. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 109, https://doi.org/10.1029/2004jd004991 (2004).

    71.
    Tseng, C.-M., Lamborg, C. H., Fitzgerald, W. F. & Engstrom, D. R. Cycling of dissolved elemental mercury in Arctic Alaskan lakes. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 68, 1173–1184 (2004).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Analysis of molecular diversity within single cyanobacterial colonies from environmental samples

    Genotypic heterogeneity in single Rivularia-like colonies
    Rivularia-like colonies have a global distribution, occurring in marine or freshwater habitats, where they are usually attached to a rocky substrate; however, many studies have reported that Rivularia spp. are associated with unpolluted environments14. In addition, the relationships between some morphological or physiological features and the environment make these species excellent environmental indicators of changes in running water quality, mainly related to eutrophication processes14,30. Therefore, they have been included in biomonitoring programs21,31,32. On the other hand, because Rivularia colonies sometimes persist for very long periods, avoiding grazing, the toxicity of these colonies is being investigated33. It is undoubted that in all of these approaches, where genera and species must be strictly identified from environmental samples, accurate cyanobacterial characterization is essential.
    Traditional identification of cyanobacteria involves assigning a colony to a morphospecies, and conventionally, a bacterial colony is defined as a visible mass of clonal microorganisms, all of which originated from a single cell. However, the results from the present study show that the majority of the analyzed colonies consist of different clones growing together. Among the 28 Rivularia-like colonies, the phylotype corresponding to Rivularia sp. was present in 19 colonies, with abundances ranging from 59.4 to 99.8% depending on the studied colony. Nevertheless, it should also be noted that in most of the colonies, this phylotype dominated, whereby in 14 colonies, it presented an abundance of ≥ 90% (and within 7 of these colonies, the abundance was close to 99%). However, in three colonies, the abundance ranged from 72 to 85%, and in two of them, the abundance decreased to approximately 60%. The other highly abundant phylotypes found in these colonies, which reached abundances up to approximately 21%, corresponded to Calothrix sp. and Oculatella sp., the latter a genus morphologically similar to Leptolyngbya but separated from it because of genetic differences34. These results indicated great variability in the abundance of the phylotype corresponding to Rivularia depending on the analyzed colony, as well as variation in the other phylotypes and their abundances found in these colonies.
    One of the surprising findings was that among the twenty-eight analyzed Rivularia-like colonies, seven corresponded to the new, recently described genus Cyanomargarita, which as the authors described, is virtually indistinguishable from Rivularia in field samples15. In these colonies, genotypic heterogeneity was also found, in which the abundance of the phylotype corresponding to Cyanomargarita varied from 57,28% in a colony with clear lamination resembling R. haematites (see Fig. 3b) to 99.2% in a soft colony resembling R. biasolettiana. Interestingly, in these colonies, Phormidium sp. was the dominant nonheterocystous cyanobacterium instead of Oculatella from Rivularia colonies, but the phylotype corresponding to Calothrix was also found.
    Furthermore, phylotypes corresponding to Cyanomargarita and Rivularia were never found together in the same colony, although both types of colonies coexisted in the same rivers (e.g., Gordale Beck and Endrinales). Allelopathic effects could explain these results, as previously suggested for other cyanobacteria35. In fact, García-Espín et al.33 showed that extracts obtained from Rivularia colonies affected the photosynthetic activity of several diatoms and a red alga. Further experiments with extracts from both colonies would confirm this possible effect.
    Another very surprising finding was that two Rivularia-like colonies did not present any phylotypes corresponding to Rivularia or Cyanomargarita (or contained them at an abundance ≤ 0.7%). In one of these colonies (colony BAT4), five different phylotypes were found at similar abundances (approximately 15–20%), of which three corresponded to different Calothix spp. and the others corresponded to other Nostocaceae and Leptolyngbyaceae. In the other colony (BAT13), the dominant phylotype corresponded to the new genus Macrochaete16. This genus has been described only from cultures, so to the best of our knowledge, this is the first report in which a natural population is morphologically and genetically characterized. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that the morphological characteristics of filaments and trichomes in this environmental sample were different from those reported in the description of this new genus, in which the phenotypic features resembled those of Calothrix. However, these features corresponded only to isolated strains, which are known to exhibit morphological variability and differences from natural populations7,12,13.
    R. biasolettiana vs R. haematites
    However, what was very interesting and deserves to be highlighted is that when we tried to differentiate the two typical Rivularia colonies found in calcareous streams, R. biasolettiana and R. haematites, we did not find genetic differences, at least at the studied level, the 16S rRNA gene.
    16S rRNA is the most widely used marker gene36,37, which fits the criteria of ubiquity, regions of strong conservation, and regions of hypervariability38,39. This gene is supported by reference databases containing over a million full-length 16S rRNA sequences, therefore spanning a broad phylogenetic spectrum40. The 16S rRNA gene has served as the general framework and as the benchmark for the taxonomy of prokaryotes41. Advances in high-throughput sequencing technologies have enabled almost comprehensive descriptions of bacterial diversity through 16S rRNA gene amplicons, which have been used in surveys of microbial communities to characterize the composition of microorganisms present in environments worldwide42,43,44,45. Although some issues have been raised, such as identification of metabolic or other functional capabilities of microorganisms when studies focus only on this gene, recent studies have shown that the phylogenetic information contained in 16S marker gene sequences is sufficiently well correlated with genomic content to yield accurate predictions when related reference genomes are available46,47,48,49. Therefore, the 16S rRNA gene continues to be the mainstay of sequence-based bacterial analysis, vastly expanding our understanding of the microbial world50.
    In particular, in cyanobacteria, as in other prokaryotes, the 16S rDNA gene is currently the most commonly used marker for molecular and phylogenetic studies51,52. The information obtained from 16S rDNA gene phylogenetic reconstructions, together with morphological, ultrastructural, and ecological data, led Komárek et al.53 to propose the current accepted classification of cyanobacteria. There have also been specific studies by this group concerning the problems associated with single-gene phylogenies, in which robust phylogenomic trees of cyanobacteria derived from multiple conserved proteins have also shown congruence between the multilocus and 16S rRNA gene phylogenies, which once again demonstrates the considerable strength of the 16S rRNA gene for phylogenetic inference and evaluation of prokaryote diversity54,55,56,57.
    In this study, in contrast to the genetic identity found in R. biasolettiana and R. haematites colonies, showing a dominance of OTU1, the remainder of the studied representatives of Rivulariaceae showed a wide range of variation in the 16S rDNA sequences and with OTU1. Sequence identity between OTU1 and the remaining OTUs belonging to this family was as low as approximately 90%, ranging from 90.73 to 93.41%, and when it was compared with other Rivulariaceae from the databases, in the different clusters of the phylogenetic tree, this value ranged from 87.12 to 93.90%. A large difference between the sequences of this gene was also found in other studies on Rivulariaceae15,16,17,29,58. In fact, several new genera are emerging on the basis of these differences15,16,17. Comparisons of phylogenies using other markers, such as the phycocyanin operon and the intervening intergenic spacer (cpcBA-IGS) with the 16S rRNA gene in previous studies in Rivulariaceae, have shown largely consistent results, with a high level of divergence between the components of this family11.
    In addition, the results of the present study showed correlations between morphological characteristics and the analyzed genes in all the cyanobacterial colonies/tufts, except for those of R. biasolettiana and R. haematites. In these two cyanobacteria, only distinct macroscopic phenotypic features were observed due to zonation and different degrees of calcification since no significant differences were found in the size measurements or other microscopic characteristics.
    Therefore, although the remainder of the genome has not been studied in these populations, the genetic identity of the studied marker, phenotypic features, together with environmental preferences point out that R. biasolettiana and R. haematites are ecotypes of the same species, as previously suggested59.
    R. biasolettiana and R. haematites have very similar morphotypes, and traditional taxonomical classification and studies have distinguished them primarily by their degrees of calcification. R. biasolettiana-type colonies are described as more gelatinous and less calcified, and the crystals are disseminated; however, R. haematites colonies are very hard and exhibit extensive calcification in concentric zones, which leads to clear lamination24,25,60,61. Because of its heavy mineralization, R. haematites is a model for stromatolite-binding organisms25,26.
    Microscopic observations from this study showed that some colonies presented typical R. haematites morphology with concentric bands of intense calcification (see Fig. 2a,b), and others were soft and less calcified, such as R. biasolettiana, although all of them presented the same dominant phylotype. Many others with this dominant phylotype have also shown ambiguous morphology with no clear lamination, although some dark/light zones could be observed (see, e.g., Fig. 4b,d, f). Even in Cyanomargarita colonies, whose genotype was clearly separated from that of Rivularia, concentric zones and extensive calcification could be observed (see, e.g., Fig. 3b,d). These results suggested that these phenotypic features are not diagnostic characteristics for further identification.
    In a two-year study, Obenlüneschloss and Schneider61 found that not all analyzed R. haematites colonies showed distinct concentric calcification layers. In the stromatolites of both types of Rivularia, the same lamination was observed, and the differences in calcification appeared later60. Pentecost and Franke26 compared populations of R. biasolettiana and R. haematites and argued that although both could be distinguished by their form of calcification and their trichome diameter, some populations of R. biasolettiana were more intensely calcified than others, suggesting that a continuity of forms may exist, even within the same stream, and therefore, a continuum of colony forms probably occurs between these taxa.
    Differences in the calcification pattern have been attributed to seasonality and cyanobacterial activity, in particular to photosynthesis24,26,62. The calcification in R. haematites occurred in concentric bands, which varied in thickness and the density of crystals. Since characteristic zonation is formed by filaments of different successive generations, the thickness will vary depending on the growth rate, while crystal density will depend on the rate of calcification. Calcification is the result of photosynthesis (with a maximum of 14%) and evaporation during the warmer seasons, while it is entirely abiogenic during winter as a result of CO2 evasion63. Therefore, dense calcified bands similar to those formed in winter have been described that are caused by a reduction in trichome growth and EPS production, allowing the development of abiotic surface precipitate, and less calcified layers are formed during spring and summer, when calcification is associated with photosynthesis in zones of growth with cell division24,26. Thus, differences in climatic conditions and/or biological activity seem to lead to differences in the degrees of zonation and calcification.
    The growth of Rivularia colonies is seasonal and strongly correlated with water temperature24,26. The colony growth rates were 12–14 µm/day in summer and 2 µm/day in winter24. The occurrence of R. biasolettiana was more closely related to high temperatures than that of R. haematites21. Moreover, colonies of R. haematites were generally collected under temperatures below 15 °C in mountain running waters64, and R. haematites stromatolites have been described as preferentially developed in wet periods, particularly in autumn and winter60. Our own field observations during the sampling for this and previous studies were that the gelatinous and weakly calcified R. biasolettiana type was more abundant in warmer locations, and in contrast, R. haematites was dominant in cold locations (data not shown).
    One possible explanation for the results found in this study could be related to these differences in the degree of zonation and calcification in relation to climate, which could include microclimatic conditions. In warmer sites or climatic conditions, when growth is rapid, the number of filaments will increase, moving towards the surface in a weakly dense and unaligned arrangement, on which calcite crystals spread, providing a lighter and less calcified structure. Thus, increased growth of Rivularia colonies can lead to the R. biasolettiana type. Under colder conditions, such as in winter, or microclimatic conditions, when growth slows down for other reasons, such as low light, filaments become more densely packed, allowing the development of extensive precipitates and leading to a dark band. When these conditions change, e.g., in the spring and summer, increases in temperatures and/or light will result in increasing and faster growth, leading to a less calcified new layer, and successive seasonal and/or microenvironmental changes will result in the typical lamination of R. haematites. Therefore, warmer places with high temperatures and/or light will allow the occurrence of the R. biasolettiana type, while in colder sites and/or sites with alternating environmental conditions, the R. haematites type will develop. Shaded colonies and colonies that lie in the supratidal spraywater zone often contain small, irregular and more densely packed crystals61.
    Cyanobacteria are known to modify EPS production, pigments, and morphology under environmental stimuli6. The production of EPS also varies depending on the cyanobacteria, whereby Rivularia has shown a well-developed exopolymer layer65, which is of great importance for this epilithic cyanobacteria, as it acts as an adhesive that allows cells to stick to the stones in the running waters, and it holds the filaments together, minimizing cell damage during intermittent drying exposure to the air and evaporation in the warmer seasons66. The C/N ratio is an important parameter for the variation in EPS production since high amounts of fixed C compared to N levels drive EPS synthesis to store excess C67,68. Therefore, Rivularia colonies that are exposed, in spring and summer, to high light intensities and temperatures will increase their photosynthetic rates and therefore the amount of EPS, as shown by the R. biasolettiana morphotype. In addition, most of the analyzed populations were dark in color, probably in relation to the accumulation of the yellow–brown scytonemin pigment in the sheaths or EPS, as previously observed in shallow and clear oligotrophic ecosystems, where water clarity allows UV radiation to penetrate well, protecting the cells from the damaging effects of this radiation69,70.
    In conclusion, environmental factors can lead to differences in macroscopic phenotypic features, such as those found in the Rivularia colonies studied here. However, further sampling under different climatic conditions and/or microenvironmental conditions or of Rivularia cultures grown under distinct temperature and/or illumination conditions, as well as analysis of other genes, are needed to confirm this hypothesis. More