More stories

  • in

    Deep learning-assisted comparative analysis of animal trajectories with DeepHL

    DeepHL system architecture
    The DeepHL system consists of three server computers. The first one is a web server that receives a trajectory data file from a user and provides analysis results to the user (Intel Xeon E5-2620 v4, 16 cores, 32 GB RAM, Ubuntu 14.04). The second one is a storage server that stores data files and analysis results. The third one is a GPU server that analyzes data provided by the user (Intel Xeon E5-2620 v4, 32 cores, 512 GB RAM, four NVIDIA Quadro P6000, Ubuntu 14.04). Supplementary Information, Algorithm, provides a complete description of the DeepHL method. DeepHL is accessible on the Internet through http://www-mmde.ist.osaka-u.ac.jp/maekawa/deephl/. Supplementary Information, User guide to DeepHL, provides a user guide to DeepHL. In addition, Supplementary Information, Usage of Python-based Software, and Supplementary Software 1 present the Python code of DeepHL.
    Preprocessing
    An input trajectory is a series of timestamps and X/Y coordinates associated with a class label. To perform position- and rotation-independent analysis, we convert the series into time series of speed and relative angular speed and then standardize them (Supplementary Information, Algorithm). Note that the absolute coordinates of wild animals, which can relate to the distance from a nest or feeding location, for example, are important in understanding behavior of the animals. Hence, DeepHL allows the original coordinates to be input to DeepHL-Net along with the speed and relative angular speed. In addition, other biological time-series sensor data measured by the user can be fed into DeepHL-Net when these time-series data are included in a data file uploaded by the user. For example, a time series of the heading direction of animals obtained from digital compasses can be useful for behavior understanding. Moreover, primitive features usually used in trajectory analysis can be easily fed into DeepHL-Net. DeepHL automatically computes the travel distance from the initial position, the straight-line distance from the initial position, and the angle from the initial position (Supplementary Table 1) as primitive features. Using the web interface of DeepHL, the user can easily select primitive features and other sensor data to be fed into DeepHL-Net (Supplementary Information, User guide to DeepHL). See Supplementary Information, Effect of input features, for effects of input features on classification accuracy. Normally, the inputs of DeepHL-Net are two-dimensional time series, that is, speed and relative angular speed. When we input an additional time series (such as the original coordinates) into DeepHL-Net, the additional time series are added as additional dimensions of the inputs.
    Multi-scale layer-wise attention model (DeepHL-Net)
    Here, we explain DeepHL-Net shown in Fig. 2f in detail. The input of the model is a time series of primitive features, that is, an lMAX × Nf matrix, where lMAX is the maximum length of the input trajectories and Nf is the dimensionality of the time series, that is, the number of the primitive features. Because the lengths of observed trajectories are not identical to each other in many cases, we fill in missing elements in the matrix with  −1.0 and mask them when we train DeepHL-Net. In each 1D convolutional layer of the convolutional stacks, we extract features by convolving input features through the time dimension using a filter with a width (kernel size) of Ft. We use different filter widths in the four convolutional stacks (3%, 6%, 9%, and 12% of lMAX) to extract features at different levels of scale. We use a stride (step size) of one sample in terms of the time axis. We also use padding to allow the outputs of a layer to have the same length as the layer inputs. In addition, to reduce an overfitting, we employ a dropout, which is a simple regularization technique in which randomly selected neurons are dropped during training44. The dropout rate used in this study is 0.5.
    In each LSTM layer of the LSTM stacks, we extract features considering the long-term dependencies of the input features. LSTM is a recurrent neural network architecture with memory cells, and it permits us to learn temporal relationships over a long time scale. LSTM learns long-term dependencies by employing memory cells that hold past information, updating the cell state using write, read, and reset operations with input, output, and forget gates (see Supplementary Information, Algorithm). In addition, we employ dropout to reduce overfitting. The attention information of each layer is computed by using Eq. (1), and then it is multiplied by the layer output. Here, the softmax and tanh functions in Eq. (1) are defined as follows:

    $$,{text{softmax}},({x}_{j})=frac{exp ({x}_{j})}{{sum }_{i}exp ({x}_{i})},$$
    (2)

    $$tanh ({x}_{j})=frac{exp ({x}_{j})-exp (-{x}_{j})}{exp ({x}_{j})+exp (-{x}_{j})}.$$
    (3)

    Note that parameters in Eq. (1) for each layer, that is, Wa and ba, as well as parameters in the convolutional and LSTM layers are estimated during the network training phase. Here, we introduced the tanh activation function into Eq. (1) to smooth out the output attention values. When an outlying large value is included in WaZT + ba at time t, attention values other than time t become extremely small without using the tanh function. When we visualize a trajectory using such attention values, only a single data point is colored in red, making it difficult for a user to identify important segments.
    Training and testing of DeepHL-Net
    The DeepHL user can select the parameters of DeepHL-Net used in the analysis, that is, the number of convolutional/LSTM layers and the number of neurons in each layer (default: four layers with 16 neurons). Then, DeepHL-Net is trained on 80% of randomly selected trajectories to minimize the binary classification error of the training data, employing backpropagation based on Adam45 (Supplementary Information, Algorithm). (Note that each trajectory has a class label for binary classification.) Then, the trained DeepHL-Net is tested using the remaining 20% of trajectories to compute the classification accuracy, providing an indication of the degree of difference between the two classes.
    Computing the score of each layer
    To screen the layers in DeepHL-Net, we compute a score for each layer according to Eq. (4)

    $$s({A}_{i,{C}_{mathrm{A}}},{A}_{i,{C}_{mathrm{B}}})={s}_{mathrm{fc}}({A}_{i,{C}_{mathrm{A}}},{A}_{i,{C}_{mathrm{B}}})+{s}_{mathrm{it}}({A}_{i,{C}_{mathrm{A}}},{A}_{i,{C}_{mathrm{B}}}).$$
    (4)

    Here, ({A}_{i,{C}_{mathrm{A}}}) is a set of attention vectors calculated from trajectories belonging to class A using the ith layer. In addition, ({A}_{i,{C}_{mathrm{B}}}) is a set of attention vectors calculated from trajectories belonging to class B using the ith layer. As mentioned in the main text, an attention vector from a discriminator layer should have large values within limited segments. Therefore, ({s}_{mathrm{fc}}({A}_{i,{C}_{mathrm{A}}},{A}_{i,{C}_{mathrm{B}}})) in Eq. (4) calculates the averaged variance of the attention values normalized by the average length of the trajectories, as described in Eq. (5). When the layer focuses on a part of a trajectory, the variance increases

    $${s}_{mathrm{fc}}({A}_{i,{C}_{mathrm{A}}},{A}_{i,{C}_{mathrm{B}}})=sqrt{frac{1}{| {A}_{i,{C}_{mathrm{A}}}cup {A}_{i,{C}_{mathrm{B}}}| cdot l({A}_{i,{C}_{mathrm{A}}}cup {A}_{i,{C}_{mathrm{B}}})}sum _{{bf{a}}in {A}_{i,{C}_{mathrm{A}}}cup {A}_{i,{C}_{mathrm{B}}}}V({bf{a}})}.$$
    (5)

    Note that V(⋅) calculates the variance and l(⋅) calculates the average length of the trajectories. We take the square root of the average variance to derive the average standard deviation. Using (l({A}_{i,{C}_{mathrm{A}}}cup {A}_{i,{C}_{mathrm{B}}})), which calculates the average length of ({A}_{i,{C}_{mathrm{A}}}cup {A}_{i,{C}_{mathrm{B}}}), we normalize the computed variance. Because the softmax function in Eq. (1) ensures that all values sum to 1, resulting in a larger variance for longer trajectories, we normalize the average variance using the average length.
    In addition, as mentioned in the main text, the distribution of attention values by the layer for one class should be different from that for another class. Therefore, ({s}_{mathrm{it}}({A}_{i,{C}_{mathrm{A}}},{A}_{i,{C}_{mathrm{B}}})) calculates the difference between the distributions of the attention values of classes A and B as follows:

    $${s}_{mathrm{it}}({A}_{i,{C}_{mathrm{A}}},{A}_{i,{C}_{mathrm{B}}})=(1-,{mathrm{Intersect}},(h(A_{{i,{C}}_{mathrm{A}}}),h({{A}}_{{i,{C}}_{mathrm{B}}}))).$$
    (6)

    Here, h(⋅) calculates a normalized histogram of attention with 200 bins, and Intersect(⋅ , ⋅) calculates the area overlap between two histograms, and is described as follows:

    $${mathrm{Intersect}},(H_{1},H_{2})=mathop{sum}limits_{i}min (H_{1}(i),H_{2}(i)),$$
    (7)

    where H1(i) shows the normalized frequency of the ith bin of histogram H1. As described in Eq. (4), the final score is calculated as the sum of the two scores of ({s}_{mathrm{fc}}({A}_{i,{C}_{mathrm{A}}},{A}_{i,{C}_{mathrm{B}}})) and ({s}_{mathrm{it}}({A}_{i,{C}_{mathrm{A}}},{A}_{i,{C}_{mathrm{B}}})).
    Here, ({s}_{mathrm{fc}}({A}_{i,{C}_{mathrm{A}}},{A}_{i,{C}_{mathrm{B}}})) in Eq. (4) is used to find a layer that focuses only on a portion of a trajectory. Owing to the term, only a small important portion of trajectories is highlighted in many cases, as shown in Figs. 3, 5, and 6, especially for the trajectories of beetles. However, substantial portions of several trajectories of the normal mice are highlighted, as shown in Fig. 4d. Because the characteristics of the normal mouse trajectories are the distance from the initial position, the segments in the trajectories far from the initial position are highlighted.
    Computing the correlation between attention values and handcrafted features
    To help the user understand the meaning of the highlights, DeepHL automatically computes the Pearson correlation coefficients between the attention values of each layer and handcrafted features computed by DeepHL, as shown in Supplementary Table 1. In addition, the correlation coefficients with sensor data and handcrafted features included in a trajectory data file are automatically computed. Computing the correlation with environmental sensor data can reveal the relationship between a behavior and environmental conditions. If a specific behavior is exhibited only when the temperature is high, for example, we can infer that the behavior relates to the high temperature condition. Furthermore, DeepHL automatically computes the moving average, moving variance, and derivative of each of the above features/sensor data, and then computes the correlation coefficients with the attention values, which are presented to the user (Supplementary Fig. 1).
    Computing the difference between distributions of each handcrafted feature for the two classes within highlighted segments
    To help the user understand the meaning of the highlights, DeepHL automatically computes the difference between distributions of each handcrafted feature for two classes within highlighted segments. The difference is computed as follows:

    $${mathrm{diff}}({A}_{i,{C}_{mathrm{A}}},{F}_{j,{C}_{mathrm{A}}},{A}_{i,{C}_{mathrm{B}}},{F}_{j,{C}_{mathrm{B}}})=1-,{mathrm{Intersect}},(h(m({{A}}_{{i,{C}}_{mathrm{A}}},{{F}}_{{j,{C}}_{mathrm{A}}})),h(m({{A}}_{{i,{C}}_{mathrm{B}}},{{F}}_{{j,{C}}_{mathrm{B}}}))).$$
    (8)

    Here, ({F}_{j,{C}_{mathrm{A}}}) is a set of time series of the jth handcrafted feature calculated from trajectories belonging to class A. In addition, m(⋅ , ⋅) is a masking function that extracts feature values within highlighted segments. Because the softmax function in each attention layer ensures that all attention values in a sum of 1, we consider an attention value larger than c/(# time slices) as a potential attended value (c = 1.2 in our implementation).
    Data acquisition of worms
    Data acquisition was performed according to Yamazoe-Umemoto et al.22. In brief, several worms were placed in the center of an agar plate in a 9-cm Petri dish, 30% 2-nonanone (v/v, EtOH) was spotted on the left side of the plate, which was covered by a lid and placed on the bench upside down. Then, the images of the plate were captured with a high-resolution USB camera for 12 min at 1 Hz. Because the worms do not exhibit odor avoidance behavior during the first 2 min because of the rapid increase in odor concentration46, the data for the following 10 min (i.e., 600 s) was used. From the images, individual worms were identified and the position of the centroid was recorded by an image processing software Move-tr/2D (v. 8.31; Library Inc., Japan). The number of recorded trajectories is 325 (Supplementary Table 2). The comparison was between the naive worms (control class) and the worms after preexposure to the odor (preexposed class).
    DeepHL analysis of worms
    A multivariate time series of movement speed, relative angular speed, distances from the initial position, and angle from the initial position extracted from the time series of trajectories was fed into DeepHL-Net, yielding a binary classification accuracy of 93.9%, where 20% of the data are used as test data. The discriminator layer used in this investigation has the highest score of all layers. As shown in Fig. 3d, which was calculated from the moving variance of the speed within highlighted segments, we can state that the changes in the speed of preexposed worms is larger than those of control worms. Figure 3e shows spectrograms of the speed calculated from entire trajectories (Fig. 3c) with a 128-s wide sliding window shifted in 1-sample intervals. In addition, Fig. 3f shows histograms of the dominant frequency of speed calculated from entire trajectories using the 128-s wide sliding window shifted in 1-sample intervals. These results also indicate the difference in the frequency of speed between the preexposed and control worms. Our investigation revealed that the dominant frequency of speed significantly differs between the preexposed and control worms using GLMM with Gaussian distributions (t = −6.60; d.f. = 322.8; p = 1.68 × 10−10, effect size(r2) = 0.232). The p value is two sided. Individual factors were treated as random effects. The number of data points for the control class is n = 76, 784 and that for the preexposed class is n = 75, 750. We used GLMM with Gaussian distributions because the objective variable has a continuous value and we used the lmerTest package (v. 2.0–36) of R (v. 3.4.3) for the analysis.
    Data acquisition of mice
    We collected 52 trajectories of normal mice and unilateral 6-hydroxydopamine (OHDA) lesion mouse models of PD while they freely moved for 10 min in an open field (60 × 55 cm2, wall height = 20 cm; normal: 22, PD: 30). The trajectories were detected by the animal’s head position, which was captured by an overhead digital video camera (60 fps). Two sets of small red and green light-emitting diodes were mounted above the animal’s head so that it could be located in each frame. Custom softwares based on Matlab (R2018b, Mathworks, MA, USA) and LabVIEW (Labview 2018, National Instruments, TX, USA) were used for tracking. We then created 30-s segments by splitting each trajectory because training a DNN requires a number of trajectories. We used 966 segments in total (normal: 374, PD: 592) collected from nine C57BL/6J mice (normal: 5, PD: 4). Note that we excluded 30-s segments that contain no movements of a mouse.
    DeepHL analysis of mice
    Movement speed, relative angular speed, travel distances, straight-line and travel distances from the initial position, and angle from the initial position were fed into our model. The accuracy for the binary classification of normal and 6-OHDA model mice was 74.7%, where 20% of the data are used as test data. The score of the discriminator layer was the highest of all LSTM layers and the sixth highest of all layers. Our investigation revealed that the behavior of visiting locations far away from the initial position can be characteristic of normal mice.
    To evaluate PD symptoms from animal behaviors, previous studies have exclusively focused on the movement speed of animals in the open-field tests (frequency and bout duration of ambulation as well as immobility or fine movement) because typical symptoms in the animal model of PD are thought to be slowness of movement and a paucity of spontaneous movements. As shown in Fig. 4e–g, we found significant differences in average movement speed during ambulation periods, average movement speed during fine movement periods, and average maximum distance within a ±60-s window in a session. These differences were derived from the findings of DeepHL using the two-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test (W = 544, p = 3.486 × 10−5, effect size (Cliff’s delta) = −0.648; W = 511, p = 5.869 × 10−4, effect size (Cliff’s delta) = −0.548; W = 521, p = 2.666 × 10−4, effect size (Cliff’s delta) = −0.579). The 95% confidence intervals are [1.222, 3.481], [0.139, 0.468], and [13.726, 43.175], respectively. We used the exactRankTests package (v. 0.8–29) of R (v. 3.2.3). Note that these behavioral features are extracted from original 10-min trajectories.
    The maximum distance, which was derived from a finding of DeepHL, is more useful for evaluating the PD symptoms than conventional measures based on the movement speed. Note that the new feature is designed based on an insight drawn from an analysis by deep learning. These results suggest that DeepHL helps find a novel measure not directly linked to the movement speed, that is, a straight-line distance within a certain time window. When the aim of an animal is to visit all locations in an area, the travel distance over a short duration commonly becomes longer. Besides, it is well known that rodents, including mice and rats, spontaneously prefer to explore an environment, particularly in novel places. Thus, DeepHL may capture the fact that the abnormal behavior of the 6-OHDA lesion model of PD hinders such spontaneous behavioral traits of normal mice. Indeed, the 6-OHDA lesion mouse model appears to remain in the same place. Although this hypothesis should be verified based on the causality between behavioral traits and neural activity patterns underlying PD symptoms using neuronal recording together with its optogenetic manipulation in the basal ganglia and motor cortex23, it is beyond the scope of this study.
    Behavioral features of mice
    According to Kravitz et al.23, ambulation was defined as periods when the velocity of the animal’s center point averaged >2 cm/s for at least 0.5 s. Immobility was defined as continuous periods of time during which the average change of the trajectory was More

  • in

    Mosaic fungal individuals have the potential to evolve within a single generation

    Within-generation HGM
    After matings of compatible hyphal tips grown from spores, haploid dikaryotic nuclei (n + n) of A. gallica fuse to produce diploid monokaryons (2n). As monokaryons are persistent in vegetative stages and often possess two distinct molecular-marker alleles, the model of vegetative heterozygous diploidy is widely accepted. But since other studies show vegetative stages can possess recombinant, haploid nuclei, an alternative hypothesis has been advanced. This hypothesis proposes a life cycle in which a vegetative-stage haploidization produces HGM6,7,17,18. Our analyses confirm that vegetative-stage hyphae can be haploid (Fig. 1, Supplementary Table S1), while still possessing two different molecular-marker alleles (Supplementary Table S2).
    Although RFLP data are consistent with both heterozygous diploid and haploid genetic mosaic models, DNA content data and EF1α sequence data both argue against the heterozygous diploid model. Since EF1α is a single-copy gene, multiple cloned sequences isolated from a single hyphal filament should have only 1 haplotype if the filament is a diploid homozygote or 2 haplotypes if it is a diploid heterozygote; but it could have 1, 2, 3 or more haplotypes if it is a haploid genetic mosaic. The upper limit on the number of haplotypes detected in a hyphal filament is set by the number of hyphal compartments recovered during cell-line isolation. We estimate that, on average, six contiguous compartments were harvested each time we isolated a hyphal filament line; and there were 26 instances in which 3 or more clones were successfully sequenced from within a single hyphal filament line. In these 26 lines, we detected 1 or 2 haplotypes 11 times and 3 or 4 haplotypes 15 times (Table 1, Supplementary Table S3a–c). The 11 instances in which 1 or 2 haplotypes were detected are compatible with either model; but the 15 instances in which 3 or 4 haplotypes were detected are compatible with only the haploid genetic mosaic model. In conjunction with the finding of haploidy in vegetative stages, this finding argues against the heterozygous diploid model and supports the haploid genetic mosaic model. We define a haploid genetic mosaic as a mycelium with haplotypes that vary within and among hyphae. As an example, Fig. 6 depicts two haploid genetic mosaic rhizomorph hyphal filament lines that were isolated from the Raynham genet.
    Figure 6

    Haploid Genetic Mosaicism is exemplified in two rhizomorph hyphal filament lines (09r27 and 09r50) isolated from the Raynham genet. The mycelium containing hyphae with these haplotypes exhibits both within-line and among-line nuclear heterogeneity.

    Full size image

    Haplotype designations hap 1, hap 3…hap 13 refer to EF1α haplotypes listed in rows 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 12, and 13 of Table 1. Note that (1) haplotype 13 is the only haplotype shared by both filament lines; (2) the order of the nuclei in the filaments is not known, so it is arbitrarily shown as numerical; (3) the spacers are hypothetical, as usually a maximum of 6 nuclei were included in an isolate.
    We are not the first to propose HGM in Armillaria. Ullrich and Anderson19 considered stable diploidy as the most likely explanation for prototrophy in mated auxotrophs of Armillaria mellea. However, they also presented an alternative hypothesis that they considered a less likely but possible explanation for their results: “Alternatively, it is possible that an unusual (unprecedented) type of heterokaryon is present, i.e., one that is vegetatively stable in a filamentous fungus with uninucleate cells and intact septa.” Our results appear to be an example of Ullrich and Anderson’s alternative model.
    Because hyphal extension requires mitosis, contiguous compartments within growing hyphal tips should contain a series of identical nuclei. How then, in rhizomorphs capable of undergoing mitosis for decades, can within-hyphal filament HGM persist? Korhonen20 was the first to document nuclear migration through cytoplasmic bridges in Armillaria. We found cytoplasmic bridges to be common in monokaryotic rhizomorph hyphae collected in nature (Fig. 3) and hyphae grown in culture (Fig. 4). Because nuclei were frequently found in or near bridges, we propose nuclear exchange through bridges as a mechanism that maintains within-line and among-line HGM (Fig. 7).
    Figure 7

    In this model, Haploid Genetic Mosaicism is maintained by nuclear exchange across cytoplasmic bridges connecting rhizomorph hyphal filament tips.

    Full size image

    Growth
    Gallic acid growth experiments revealed significant line effects, treatment effects, and line × treatment effects for all 4 sets of Raynham and Bridgewater cell-lines (ANOVA P  More

  • in

    The constraints and driving forces of oasis development in arid region: a case study of the Hexi Corridor in northwest China

    Characteristics of oasis change in the Hexi Corridor
    Oasis area variation at the river basin and county scales
    The distribution of stable oasis in three river basins and seventeen administration regions is shown in Fig. 1a. The total oasis area in the Hexi Corridor has increased from 10,707.7 km2 in 1986 to 14,950.1 km2 in 2015 (Fig. 1b), with an increase factor of 1.4 from the start to the end years and an average annual increase of 140 km2. At the river basin scale, the HHRB has the largest oasis area with 47% of the total oasis area, followed by SYRB with 40%. The SLRB charactered by drier environments has the least oasis area of 13%. The oasis change types in the Hexi Corridor over the last 30 years are mainly “expansion”, which is supplemented by “retreating” (Fig. 1b). The oasis area variation of administration regions during the past thirty years is shown in Fig. 1c. It is observed that the variation tendency of the oasis area at administration regions scale was the same as that on the river basin scale. The oasis areas in Liangzhou District, Ganzhou District, Minqin County, Yongchang County, Suzhou District, and Shandan Country were more than 1000 km2 in most time. Conversely, the oasis area in Jiayuguan District and Sunan County was less than 200 km2.
    Figure 1

    Variation of oases area in three river basins of the Hexi Corridor during the past thirty years. (a) was generated using ArcGIS 10.3, www.esri.com.

    Full size image

    The stable oasis and maximum oasis distribution
    The stable oasis was extracted from the area where the oasis exists in all seven periods, and the maximum oasis area was depicted from the area where the oasis existed once in the past thirty years. It can be seen that the stable oasis area is 9062 km2, while the maximum oasis area reaches 16,374 km2, which is almost two times larger than that of the stable oasis.
    The stable oases distribute in alluvial and pluvial fans, the river plains in middle reaches, and the catchment area in the lower reaches (Fig. 2). The maximum oases extended from the stable oases, which mainly located at the edges of the alluvial–proluvial fans, low-lying areas next to rivers and ditches, and the oases-deserts ecotone.
    Figure 2

    The distribution of stable oases and maximum oases in the Hexi Corridor. The map was generated using ArcGIS 10.3, www.esri.com.

    Full size image

    The constraints of oasis development
    Geomorphological characteristics of oasis distribution
    The geomorphological conditions, formed in the geological history period, is critical for the process of oases development. To investigate the possible relationship between limiting factors and oasis distribution, the distribution frequency, which is the ratio of number in specific condition among all oasis raster number, was introduced and the scatter plots and normal distribution fitting curves were plotted. Figure 3a shows the altitude of the oasis is mainly between 1000 m that is near the lowest value in the study area to 2500 m. The elevation of stable (maximum) oasis peaks in 1500 (1450) m, and accounted for 3.5% (4.5%), which suggests that when oases expand, they tend to occupy the lower elevation. The oases are mainly located in the plains along rivers or irrigation canal systems where slopes flatter than 5° (Fig. 3b), most of them are located in the level ground with a slope flatter than 3°. The area of the stable and the maximum oases located in flat place (slope = 0) account 64% and 76%, respectively, which indicated that the oasis expansion mainly occurs on flat ground. The analysis of the oasis on eight slopes shows that the majority of the slope oasis is concentrated in the north slope and the northeast slope, accounting for about 60%, while the east slope and the northwest slope also have a part, accounting for 30% (Fig. 3c). The aspect of slope oasis expansion mainly takes place in sunny slope (Northwest, West, Southwest, south, southeast), which due to that almost all of the shady slope has been covered by oasis. On the contrary, there are many deserts in sunny slope, as long as the necessary moisture conditions will be occupied by the oasis. The different aspects result in varying amounts of solar radiation, which affects evapotranspiration and consequently water balance in the soil. More specifically shady aspects have more moisture for vegetation growth due to less evapotranspiration, on the other hand, sunny aspects experience potentially higher rates of evapotranspiration, supporting less moisture for vegetation growth26. The fitted normal distribution formula of DEM frequency for stable and maximum oases are given in Fig. 3a, the fits reached a significant level (p  total population  > AWD  > Primary industry  > GDP  > tertiary industry  > secondary industry (Table 1).
    Table 1 The relative degree of incidence between urban expansion and driving factors based on panel data in the Hexi Corridor (1986–2015).
    Full size table

    The GRD of Population, especially for the rural laborer, is the highest. The increase of the nonagricultural population directly stimulated urban residential, commercial, industrial, transportation, and other related industry development. Consequently, urban land expanded in this area. The population growth was a major factor in oasis variation29. During the past 30 years, the population increased from 1.06 to 5.07 million (378% increase), while the oasis area increased from 10,707 to 14,950 km2 (39.6% increase) in the Hexi Corridor. The rise in population will unavoidably lead to an increase in arable land for survival.
    Secondly, the GRD between oasis expansion and AWD is pervasively high with the value around 0.9. The water resource including the precipitation and runoff play an important role in the spatial expansion of oasis. The Hexi Corridor located in a typical arid region, where the most vital limiting factor for both vegetation growth and economic development is the limited water resource. Concerning the shortage of water resources, it is difficult to irrigate many newly reclaimed agricultural oases in the Hexi Corridor. That is to say, water resources cannot afford continuous growth. Thus, AWD of oases is significantly positively correlated with the area of oases.
    Thirdly, the GRD between economic factors, including GDP, Primary industry, Secondary industry and Tertiary industry, is about 0.6, which is relatively low comparing to that of population, water resource. The GRD of primary industry is highest with a value of 0.7 among the economic factors. Separately, for the type of agriculture oases contains most of the administration regions in the study area, the GRD of the primary industry was considerably higher than that of secondary and tertiary industry, the agriculture was their first driving force. For the resource-based cities and towns, like Jinchuan District, Jiayuguan City, the GRD of secondary and tertiary industry is essentially equal to that of primary industry, the secondary industry and tertiary industry played a vital role in oasis development. More

  • in

    Riparian and in-channel habitat properties linked to dragonfly emergence

    1.
    Noss, R. F. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: A hierarchical approach. Conserv. Biol. 4, 355–364 (1990).
    Article  Google Scholar 
    2.
    Lambeck, R. J. Focal species: A multi-species umbrella for nature conservation. Conserv. Biol. 11, 849–856 (1997).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    3.
    Knight, T. M., McCoy, M. W., Chase, J. M., McCoy, K. A. & Holt, R. D. Trophic cascades across ecosystems. Nature 437, 880–883 (2005).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    4.
    Rudolf, V. H. W. & Rasmussen, N. L. Ontogenetic functional diversity: Size structure of a keystone predator drives functioning of a complex ecosystem. Ecology 94, 1046–1056 (2013).
    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    5.
    Bulánková, E. Dragonflies (Odonata) as bioindicators. Biologia, Bratislava 52, 177–180 (1997).
    Google Scholar 

    6.
    Catling, P. M. A potential for the use of dragonfly (Odonata) diversity as a bioindicator of the efficiency of sewage lagoons. Can. Field Nat. 119, 233 (2005).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    7.
    Vorster, C. et al. Development of a new continental-scale index for freshwater assessment based on dragonfly assemblages. Ecol. Indic. 109, 105819 (2020).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    8.
    Jeremiason, J. D., Reiser, T. K., Weitz, R. A., Berndt, M. E. & Aiken, G. R. Aeshnid dragonfly larvae as bioindicators of methylmercury contamination in aquatic systems impacted by elevated sulfate loading. Ecotoxicology 25, 456–468 (2016).
    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    9.
    Chovanec, A. & Raab, R. Dragonflies (Insecta, Odonata) and the ecological status of newly created wetlands—examples for long-term bioindication programmes. Limnologica 27, 381–392 (1997).
    Google Scholar 

    10.
    Chovanec, A. & Waringer, J. Ecological integrity of river–floodplain systems—assessment by dragonfly surveys (Insecta: Odonata). Regul. Rivers Res. Manag. 17, 493–507 (2001).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    11.
    Rocha-Ortega, M., Rodríguez, P. & Córdoba-Aguilar, A. Can dragonfly and damselfly communities be used as bioindicators of land use intensification?. Ecol. Indic. 107, 105553 (2019).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    12.
    Kalkman, V. J. et al. Diversity and conservation of European dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata). Hydrobiologia 811, 269–282 (2018).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    13.
    Harvey, J. A. et al. International scientists formulate a roadmap for insect conservation and recovery. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 174–176 (2020).
    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    14.
    Falck, J. & Johansson, F. Patterns in size, sex ratio and time at emergence in a South Swedish population of Sympetrum sanguineum (Odonata). Aquat. Insects 22, 311–317 (2000).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    15.
    Farkas, A. et al. Sex ratio in Gomphidae (Odonata) at emergence: Is there a relationship with water temperature?. Int. J. Odonatol. 16, 279–287 (2013).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    16.
    Cardoso, P., Erwin, T. L., Borges, P. A. V. & New, T. R. The seven impediments in invertebrate conservation and how to overcome them. Biol. Conserv. 144, 2647–2655 (2011).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    17.
    Daigle, R. J. Sea-level rise estimates for New Brunswick municipalities: Saint John, Sackville, Richibucto, Shippagan, Caraquet, Le Goulet. Report for the Atlantic Climate Adaptation Solutions Association (2011).

    18.
    Tockner, K., Pusch, M., Borchardt, D. & Lorang, M. S. Multiple stressors in coupled river–floodplain ecosystems. Freshw. Biol. 55, 135–151 (2010).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    19.
    Nakano, S. & Murakami, M. Reciprocal subsidies: Dynamic interdependence between terrestrial and aquatic food webs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 98, 166–170 (2001).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    20.
    Rantala, M. J., Ilmonen, J., Koskimäki, J., Suhonen, J. & Tynkkynen, K. The macrophyte, Stratiotes aloides, protects larvae of dragonfly Aeshna viridis against fish predation. Aquat. Ecol. 38, 77–82 (2004).
    Google Scholar 

    21.
    Suhonen, J., Suutari, E., Kaunisto, K. M. & Krams, I. Patch area of macrophyte Stratioites aloides as a critical resource for declining dragonfly Aeshna viridis. J. Insect Conserv. 17, 393–398 (2013).
    Google Scholar 

    22.
    Bell, H. L. Effect of low pH on the survival and emergence of aquatic insects. Water Res. 5, 313–319 (1971).
    Google Scholar 

    23.
    Farkas, A., Jakab, T., Tóth, A., Kalmár, A. F. & Dévai, G. Emergence patterns of riverine dragonflies (Odonata: Gomphidae) in Hungary: Variations between habitats and years. Aquat. Insects 34, 77–89 (2012).
    Google Scholar 

    24.
    Boda, R. et al. Emergence behaviour of the red listed Balkan Goldenring (Cordulegaster heros Theischinger, 1979) in Hungarian upstreams: Vegetation structure affects the last steps of the larvae. J. Insect Conserv. 19, 547–557 (2015).
    Google Scholar 

    25.
    Remsburg, A. J. & Turner, M. G. Aquatic and terrestrial drivers of dragonfly (Odonata) assemblages within and among north-temperate lakes. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 28, 44–56 (2009).
    Google Scholar 

    26.
    Remsburg, A. Relative influence of prior life stages and habitat variables on dragonfly (Odonata: Gomphidae) densities among lake sites. Diversity 3, 200–216 (2011).
    Google Scholar 

    27.
    Aoki, T. Larval development, emergence and seasonal regulation in Asiagomphus pryeri (Selys) (Odonata: Gomphidae). Hydrobiologia 394, 179–192 (1999).
    Google Scholar 

    28.
    Paulson, D. Dragonflies and Damselflies of the East (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2011).
    Google Scholar 

    29.
    Foster, S. E. & Soluk, D. A. Evaluating exuvia collection as a management tool for the federally endangered Hine’s emerald dragonfly, Somatochlora hineana Williamson (Odonata: Cordulidae). Biol. Conserv. 118, 15–20 (2004).
    Google Scholar 

    30.
    Raebel, E. M., Merckx, T., Riordan, P., Macdonald, D. W. & Thompson, D. J. The dragonfly delusion: Why it is essential to sample exuviae to avoid biased surveys. J. Insect Conserv. 14, 523–533 (2010).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    31.
    Needham, J. G., Westfall, M. J. & May, M. L. Dragonflies of North America: The Odonata (Anisoptera) Fauna of Canada, the Continental United States, Northern Mexico and the Greater Antilles (Scientific Publishers, Jodhpur, 2014).
    Google Scholar 

    32.
    Aliberti Lubertazzi, M. A. & Ginsberg, H. S. Persistence of dragonfly exuviae on vegetation and rock substrates. Northeast. Nat. 16, 141–147 (2009).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    33.
    Brodin, T. & Johansson, F. Effects of predator-induced thinning and activity changes on life history in a damselfly. Oecologia 132, 316–322 (2002).
    ADS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    34.
    Johansson, F., Crowley, P. H. & Brodin, T. Sexual size dimorphism and sex ratios in dragonflies (Odonata). Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 86, 507–513 (2005).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    35.
    Lamit, L. J. et al. Genotype variation in bark texture drives lichen community assembly across multiple environments. Ecology 96, 960–971 (2015).
    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    36.
    Wolman, M. G. A method of sampling coarse river-bed material. EOS Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 35, 951–956 (1954).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    37.
    Richter, B. D., Baumgartner, J. V., Powell, J. & Braun, D. P. A method for assessing hydrologic alteration within ecosystems. Conserv. Biol. 10, 1163–1174 (1996).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    38.
    Sabo, J. L., Bastow, J. L. & Power, M. E. Length–mass relationships for adult aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates in a California watershed. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 21, 336–343 (2002).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    39.
    Sample, B. E., Cooper, R. J., Greer, R. D. & Whitmore, R. C. Estimation of insect biomass by length and width. Am. Midl. Nat. 129, 234 (1993).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    40.
    McCune, B. & Mefford, M. J. PC-ORD. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data, Version 5.0 for Windows. MjM Software, Gleneden Beach, Oregon, U.S.A. (2006).

    41.
    Oksanen, J. et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.5-2. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan (2018).

    42.
    R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Found. Stat. Comput. Vienna Austria (2018).

    43.
    Anderson, M. J. Permutational Multivariate Analysis of Variance (Department of Statistics, University of Auckland, Auckland, 2005).
    Google Scholar 

    44.
    Manly, B. F. J. Randomization, Bootstrap and Monte Carlo Methods in Biology 3rd edn. (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2006).
    Google Scholar 

    45.
    Goslee, S. C. & Urban, D. L. The ecodist Package for dissimilarity-based analysis of ecological data. J. Stat. Softw. 22, 1–19 (2007).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    46.
    Crabot, J., Clappe, S., Dray, S. & Datry, T. Testing the Mantel statistic with a spatially-constrained permutation procedure. Methods Ecol. Evol. 10, 532–540 (2019).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    47.
    Benjamini, Y. & Hochberg, Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Methodol. 57, 289–300 (1995).
    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

    48.
    Clarke, K. R. & Gorley, R. N. PRIMER v7: User Manual/Tutorial 3rd edn. (Plymouth U. K. Primer-E Ltd, Wellington, 2015).
    Google Scholar 

    49.
    Baird, I. R. C. & Burgin, S. An emergence study of Petalura gigantea (Odonata: Petaluridae). Int. J. Odonatol. 16, 193–211 (2013).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    50.
    Richter, O., Suhling, F., Müller, O. & Kern, D. A model for predicting the emergence of dragonflies in a changing climate. Freshw. Biol. 53, 1868–1880 (2008).
    Google Scholar 

    51.
    Kennedy, T. A. et al. Flow management for hydropower extirpates aquatic insects, undermining river food webs. Bioscience 66, 561–575 (2016).
    Google Scholar 

    52.
    Worthen, W. B. & Horacek, H. J. The distribution of dragonfly larvae in a South Carolina stream: Relationships with sediment type, body size, and the presence of other larvae. J. Insect Sci. 15, 31–31 (2015).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    53.
    Corbet, P. A Biology of Dragonflies. HF & G. Witherby LTD (Northumberland Press Limited, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 1962).
    Google Scholar 

    54.
    Corbet, P. S. Dragonflies: Behavior and Ecology of Odonata (Cornell University Press, New York, 1999).
    Google Scholar 

    55.
    Baxter, C. V., Fausch, K. D. & Saunders, W. C. Tangled webs: Reciprocal flows of invertebrate prey link streams and riparian zones. Freshw. Biol. 50, 201–220 (2005).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    56.
    Burdon, F. J. & Harding, J. S. The linkage between riparian predators and aquatic insects across a stream-resource spectrum. Freshw. Biol. 53, 330–346 (2008).
    Google Scholar 

    57.
    Grof-Tisza, P., LoPresti, E., Heath, S. K. & Karban, R. Plant structural complexity and mechanical defenses mediate predator–prey interactions in an odonate–bird system. Ecol. Evol. 7, 1650–1659 (2017).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

    58.
    Iwata, T. Linking stream habitats and spider distribution: Spatial variations in trophic transfer across a forest–stream boundary. Ecol. Res. 22, 619–628 (2007).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    59.
    Jakob, C. & Suhling, F. Risky times? Mortality during emergence in two species of dragonflies (Odonata: Gomphidae, Libellulidae). Aquat. Insects 21, 1–10 (1999).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    60.
    Kurata, M. Life history of Gomphys melaenops (Gomphidae). Tombo 14, 6–11 (1971).
    Google Scholar 

    61.
    Corbet, P. S. The life-history of the emperor dragonfly anax imperator leach (Odonata: Aeshnidae). J. Anim. Ecol. 26, 1–69 (1957).
    Google Scholar 

    62.
    Suhling, F. Temporal patterns of emergence of the riverine dragonfly Onychogomphus uncatus (Odonata: Gomphidae). Hydrobiologia 302, 113–118 (1995).
    Google Scholar 

    63.
    Wissmar, R. C. & Beschta, R. L. Restoration and management of riparian ecosystems: A catchment perspective. Freshw. Biol. 40, 571–585 (1998).
    Google Scholar 

    64.
    Evans, B. F., Townsend, C. R. & Crowl, T. A. Distribution and abundance of coarse woody debris in some southern New Zealand streams from contrasting forest catchments. N. Z. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 27, 227–239 (1993).
    Google Scholar 

    65.
    Studinski, J. M., Hartman, K. J., Niles, J. M. & Keyser, P. The effects of riparian forest disturbance on stream temperature, sedimentation, and morphology. Hydrobiologia 686, 107–117 (2012).
    Google Scholar 

    66.
    Wang, L., Lyons, J., Kanehl, P. & Gatti, R. Influences of watershed land use on habitat quality and biotic integrity in wisconsin streams. Fisheries 22, 6–12 (1997).
    Google Scholar 

    67.
    Martin, T. G. & Mcintyre, S. Impacts of livestock grazing and tree clearing on birds of woodland and riparian habitats. Conserv. Biol. 21, 504–514 (2007).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    68.
    Ormerod, S. J., Rundle, S. D., Lloyd, E. C. & Douglas, A. A. The influence of riparian management on the habitat structure and macroinvertebrate communities of upland streams draining plantation forests. J. Appl. Ecol. 30, 13–24 (1993).
    Google Scholar 

    69.
    Cordero, A. Vertical stratification during emergence in odonates. Not. Odonatol. 4, 103–105 (1995).
    Google Scholar 

    70.
    Coppa, G. Notes sur l’émergence d’Epitheca bimaculata (Charpentier)(Odonata: Corduliidae). Martinia 7, 7–16 (1991).
    Google Scholar 

    71.
    Miller, P. L. Notes on Ictinogomphus ferox Rambur (Odonata: Gomphidae). Entomologist 97, 2–66 (1964).
    Google Scholar 

    72.
    Worthen, W. B. Emergence-site selection by the dragonfly Epitheca spinosa (Hagen). Southeast. Nat. 9, 251–258 (2010).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    73.
    Magoba, R. N. & Samways, M. J. Recovery of benthic macroinvertebrate and adult dragonfly assemblages in response to large scale removal of riparian invasive alien trees. J. Insect Conserv. 14, 627–636 (2010).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    74.
    Cothran, M. L. & Thorp, J. H. Emergence patterns and size variation of Odonata in a thermal reservoir. Freshw. Invertebr. Biol. 1, 30–39 (1982).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    75.
    Mccauley, S. J., Hammond, J. I., Frances, D. N. & Mabry, K. E. Effects of experimental warming on survival, phenology, and morphology of an aquatic insect (Odonata). Ecol. Entomol. 40, 211–220 (2015).
    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    76.
    McCauley, S. J., Hammond, J. I. & Mabry, K. E. Simulated climate change increases larval mortality, alters phenology, and affects flight morphology of a dragonfly. Ecosphere 9, e02151 (2018).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

    77.
    de Nadaï-Monoury, E., Gilbert, F. & Lecerf, A. Forest canopy cover determines invertebrate diversity and ecosystem process rates in depositional zones of headwater streams. Freshw. Biol. 59, 1532–1545 (2014).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    78.
    Flenner, I. & Sahlén, G. Dragonfly community re-organisation in boreal forest lakes: Rapid species turnover driven by climate change?. Insect Conserv. Divers. 1, 169–179 (2008).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    79.
    Harper, M. P. & Peckarsky, B. L. Emergence cues of a mayfly in a high-altitude stream ecosystem: Potential response to climate change. Ecol. Appl. 16, 612–621 (2006).
    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    80.
    Jonsson, M. et al. Climate change modifies the size structure of assemblages of emerging aquatic insects. Freshw. Biol. 60, 78–88 (2015).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    81.
    Dudgeon, D. et al. Freshwater biodiversity: Importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biol. Rev. 81, 163–182 (2006).
    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    82.
    Sala, O. E. Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287, 1770–1774 (2000).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    83.
    Likens, G. E. & Bormann, F. H. Linkages between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Bioscience 24, 447–456 (1974).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    84.
    England, L. E. & Rosemond, A. D. Small reductions in forest cover weaken terrestrial-aquatic linkages in headwater streams. Freshw. Biol. 49, 721–734 (2004).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    85.
    Lafage, D. et al. Local and landscape drivers of aquatic-to-terrestrial subsidies in riparian ecosystems: A worldwide meta-analysis. Ecosphere 10, e02697 (2019).
    Article  Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Large seasonal and spatial variation in nano- and microphytoplankton diversity along a Baltic Sea—North Sea salinity gradient

    1.
    Simon, N., Cras, A. L., Foulon, E. & Lemée, R. Diversity and evolution of marine phytoplankton. C. R. Biol 332, 159–170 (2009).
    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 
    2.
    Field, C. B., Behrenfeld, M. J., Randerson, J. T. & Falkowski, P. Primary production of the biosphere: integrating terrestrial and oceanic components. Science 281, 237–240 (1998).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    3.
    Diaz, S. et al. IPBES: Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany, 56 pp. (2019).

    4.
    IPCC. The Ocean and Cryosphere in a changing climate (2019).

    5.
    Blowes, S. A. et al. The geography of biodiversity change in marine and terrestrial assemblages. Science 366, 339–345 (2019).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    6.
    Cardinale, B. J. et al. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486, 59–67 (2012).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    7.
    Gamfeldt, L. et al. Marine biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: what´s known and what´s next? Oikos 124, 252–265 (2015).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    8.
    Kardol, P., Fanin, N. & Wardle, D. A. Long-term effects of species loss on community properties across contrasting ecosystems. Nature 557, 710–713 (2018).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    9.
    Klawonn, I. et al. Cell-specific nitrogen- and carbon-fixation of cyanobacteria in a temperate marine system (Baltic Sea). Environ. Microb. 18(12), 4596–4609 (2016).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    10.
    Cloern, J. E., Jassby, A. D., Schraga, T. S., Nejad, E. & Martin, C. Ecosystem variability along the estuarine salinity gradient: examples from long-term study of San Francisco Bay. Limnol. Oceanogr. 62, S272–S291 (2017).
    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    11.
    Karlusich, J. J. P., Ibarbalz, F. M., & Bowler. C. Phytoplankton in the Tara Ocean. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 12, 233–265 (2020).

    12.
    Lehtimäki, J., Moisander, P., Sivonen, K. & Kononen, K. Growth, nitrogen fixation, and nodularin production by two Baltic Sea cyanobacteria. Appl. Environ. Microb. 63(5), 1647–1656 (1997).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    13.
    Laamanen, M. J., Forsström, L. & Sivonen, K. Diversity of Aphanizomenon flos aquae (cyanobacterium) populations along a Baltic Sea salinity gradient. Appl. Environ. Microb. 68, 5296–5303 (2002).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    14.
    Mazur-Marzec, H., Żeglińska, L. & Pliński, M. The effect of salinity on the growth, toxin production, and morphology of Nodularia spumigena isolated from Gulf of Gdańsk, southern Baltic Sea. J. Appl. Phycol. 17, 171–179 (2005).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    15.
    Teikari, J. E. et al. Insight into the genome and brackish water adaptation strategies of toxic and bloom-forming Baltic Sea Dolichospermum sp. UHCC 0315. Sci. Rep. 9, 4888 (2019).

    16.
    Logares, R. et al. Infrequent marine–freshwater transitions in the microbial world. Trends Microbiol. 17, 414–422 (2009).
    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    17.
    Snoeijs-Leijonmalm, P. Patterns of biodiversity. In Biological Oceanography of the Baltic Sea (eds Snoeijs-Leijonmalm, P. et al.) 123–191 (Springer, Dordrecht, 2017).
    Google Scholar 

    18.
    Olli, K., Ptacnik, R., Klais, R. & Tamminen, T. Phytoplankton species richness along coastal and estuarine salinity continua. Am. Nat. 194, 2 (2019).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    19.
    Frenken, T. et al. Warming accelerates termination of a phytoplankton spring bloom by fungal parasites. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 299–309 (2016).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    20.
    Romo, S. & Villena, M-J. Phytoplankton strategies and diversity under different nutrient levels and planktivorous fish densities in a shallow Mediterranean lake. J. Plankton Res. 27, 1273–1286 (2005).

    21.
    Gasiunaite, Z. R. et al. Seasonality of coastal phytoplankton in the Baltic Sea: Influence of salinity and eutrophication. Est. Coast Shelf S. 65, 239–252 (2005).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    22.
    R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. R version 3.5.1. https://www.R-project.org/ (2018).

    23.
    Rodhe, J. On the dynamics of the large-scale circulation of Skagerrak. J. Sea Res. 35, 9–21 (1996).
    ADS  Google Scholar 

    24.
    Dutkiewicz, S. et al. Dimensions of marine phytoplankton diversity. Biogeosci. 17, 609–634 (2020).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    25.
    Olofsson, M., Suikkanen, S., Kobos, J., Wasmund, N. & Karlson, B. Basin-specific changes in filamentous cyanobacteria community composition across four decades in the Baltic Sea. Harm. Alg. 91, 101685 (2020).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    26.
    Andersson, A., Höglander, H., Karlsson, C. & Huseby, S. Key role of phosphorus and nitrogen in regulating cyanoacterial community composition in the northern Baltic Sea. Estuar. Coast Shelf S. 164, 161–171 (2015).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    27.
    Olofsson, M. et al. Nitrate and ammonium fluxes to diatoms and dinoflagellates at a single cell level in mixed field communities in the sea. Sci. Rep. 9, 1424 (2019).
    ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

    28.
    Adler, PB.. et al. Productivity is a poor predictor of plant species richness. Science 333: 1750–1753 (2011).

    29.
    Irigoien, J., Huisman, R. & Harris, P. Global biodiversity patterns of marine phytoplankton and zooplankton. Nature 429, 863–867 (2004).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    30.
    Vallina, S. M. et al. Global relationship between phytoplankton diversity and productivity in the ocean. Nat. Comms. 5, 4299 (2011).
    ADS  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

    31.
    Righetti, D., Vogt, M., Gruber, N., Psomas, A. & Zimmermann, N. E. Global pattern of phytoplankton diversity driven by temperature and environmental variability. Sci. Adv. 5, eaau6253 (2019).

    32.
    Vidal, T., Calado, A. J., Moita, M. T. & Cunha, M. R. Phytoplankton dynamics in relation to seasonal variability and upwelling and relaxation patterns at the mouth of Ria de Aveiro (West Iberian Margin) over a four-year period. PLoS ONE 12, e0177237 (2017).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

    33.
    Shimadzu, H., Dornelas, M., Henderson, P. A. & Magurran, A. E. Diversity is maintained by seasonal variation in species abundance. BMC Biol. 11, 98 (2013).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

    34.
    Ryther, J. & Sanders, J. Experimental evidence of zooplankton control of the species composition and size distribution of marine phytoplankton. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 3, 279–283 (1980).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    35.
    Thomas, K. & Nielsen, T. G. Regulation of zooplankton biomass and production in a temperate, coastal ecosystem. 1. Copepods. Limnol. Oceanogr. 39, 493–507 (1994).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    36.
    Amin, S. A., Parker, M. S. & Armbrust, E. V. Interactions between diatoms and bacteria. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. R. 76, 667–684 (2012).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    37.
    Durham, B. P. et al. Cryptic carbon and sulfur cycling between surface ocean plankton. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 112, 453–457 (2015).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    38.
    Cirri, E. & Pohnert, G. Algae bacteria interactions that balance the planktonic microbiome. New Phytol. 223, 1–7 (2019).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    39.
    Bunse, C. et al. High frequency multi-year variability in Baltic Sea Microbial plankton stocks and activities. Front. Mar. Sci. 9, 3296 (2019).
    Google Scholar 

    40.
    Gallego, I., Venail, P. & Ibelings, B. W. Size differences predict niche and relative fitness differences between phytoplankton species but not their coexistence. ISME J. 13, 1133–1143 (2019).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

    41.
    Søndergaard, M., Jensen, L. M. & Ærtebjerg, G. Picoalgae in danish coastal waters during summer stratification. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 79, 139–149 (1992).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    42.
    Jochem, F. Distribution and importance of autotrophic ultraplankton in a boreal inshore area (Kiel Bight, Western Baltic). Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 53, 153–168 (1989).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    43.
    Hu, Y. O. O., Karlson, B., Charvet, S. & Andersson, A. F. Diversity of pico- to mesoplankton along the 2000 km salinity gradient of the Baltic Sea. Front. Microbiol. 7, 17 (2016).
    Google Scholar 

    44.
    Gran-Stadniczeñko, S. et al. Protist diversity and seasonal dynamics in skagerrak plankton communities as revealed by metabarcoding and microscopy. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 66, 494–513 (2019).
    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

    45.
    Utermöhl, H. Zur Vervollkomnung der quantitativen Phytoplankton-Methodik. Mitt. Int. Ver. Theor. Angew. Limnol. 9, 1–38 (1958).
    Google Scholar 

    46.
    Olenina, I. et al. Biovolumes and size-classes of phytoplankton in the Baltic Sea HELCOM Balt. Sea Environ. Proc. 106, 144 (2006).
    Google Scholar 

    47.
    Menden-Deuer, S. & Lessard, E. J. Carbon to volume relationship for dinoflagellates, diatoms and other protest plankton. Limnol. Oceanogr. 45, 569–579 (2000).
    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    48.
    HELCOM 2017. Manual for marine monitoring in the COMBINE Programme of HELCOM. Part B General guidelines on quality assurance for monitoring in the Baltic Sea. Annex B-9 Technical note on the determination of nutrients.

    49.
    Karlson, B. et al. Plankton toolbox—open source software making it easier to work with plankton data. In: MacKenzie AL (ed). Proceedings of 16th International Conference on Harmful Algae. Cawthron Institute, Nelson, New Zealand and the International Society for the Study of Harmful Algae (ISSHA), pp. 194–197 (2016).

    50.
    Hsieh, T. C., Ma, K. H. & Chao, A. iNEXT: an R package for rarefaction and extrapolation of species diversity (Hill numbers). Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 1451–1456 (2016).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    51.
    Chao, A., Chiu, C. H. & Jost, L. Unifying species diversity, phylogenetic diversity, functional diversity, and related similarity and differentiation measures through Hill numbers. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. S. 45, 297–324 (2014).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    52.
    Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N. & Elphick, C. S. A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods Ecol. Evol. 1, 3–14 (2010).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    53.
    Nakagawa, S. & Schielzeth, H. A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4(2), 133–142 (2012).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    54.
    Harrison, X. A. et al. A brief introduction to mixed effects modelling and multi-model inference in ecology. PeerJ. 6, e4794 (2018).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar  More

  • in

    The network structure and eco-evolutionary dynamics of CRISPR-induced immune diversification

    1.
    Labrie, S. J., Samson, J. E. & Moineau, S. Bacteriophage resistance mechanisms. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 8, 317–327 (2010).
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 
    2.
    van Houte, S., Buckling, A. & Westra, E. R. Evolutionary ecology of prokaryotic immune mechanisms. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 80, 745–763 (2016).
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    3.
    Mayer, A., Mora, T., Rivoire, O. & Walczak, A. M. Diversity of immune strategies explained by adaptation to pathogen statistics. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 8630–8635 (2016).
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    4.
    Chevallereau, A., Meaden, S., van Houte, S., Westra, E. R. & Rollie, C. The effect of bacterial mutation rate on the evolution of CRISPR–Cas adaptive immunity. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 374, 20180094 (2019).
    CAS  Google Scholar 

    5.
    Gurney, J., Pleška, M. & Levin, B. R. Why put up with immunity when there is resistance: an excursion into the population and evolutionary dynamics of restriction–modification and CRISPR–Cas. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 374, 20180096 (2019).
    CAS  Google Scholar 

    6.
    Weitz, J. S. et al. Phage–bacteria infection networks. Trends Microbiol. 21, 82–91 (2013).
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    7.
    Gurney, J. et al. Network structure and local adaptation in co-evolving bacteria-phage interactions. Mol. Ecol. 26, 1764–1777 (2017).
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    8.
    Fortuna, M. A. et al. Coevolutionary dynamics shape the structure of bacteria-phage infection networks. Evolution 73, 1001–1011 (2019).
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    9.
    Krasnov, B. R. et al. Phylogenetic signal in module composition and species connectivity in compartmentalized host-parasite networks. Am. Nat. 179, 501–511 (2012).
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    10.
    Pilosof, S. et al. Host–parasite network structure is associated with community-level immunogenetic diversity. Nat. Commun. 5, 5172 (2014).
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    11.
    Dallas, T. & Cornelius, E. Co-extinction in a host-parasite network: identifying key hosts for network stability. Sci. Rep. 5, 13185 (2015).
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    12.
    Pilosof, S., Morand, S., Krasnov, B. R. & Nunn, C. L. Potential parasite transmission in multi-host networks based on parasite sharing. PLoS ONE 10, e0117909 (2015).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    13.
    Vázquez, D. P., Poulin, R., Krasnov, B. R. & Shenbrot, G. I. Species abundance and the distribution of specialization in host–parasite interaction networks. J. Anim. Ecol. 74, 946–955 (2005).
    Google Scholar 

    14.
    Fortuna, M. A. et al. Nestedness versus modularity in ecological networks: two sides of the same coin? J. Anim. Ecol. 79, 811–817 (2010).
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    15.
    Flores, C. O., Meyer, J. R., Valverde, S., Farr, L. & Weitz, J. S. Statistical structure of host–phage interactions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, E288–E297 (2011).
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    16.
    Beckett, S. J. & Williams, H. T. P. Coevolutionary diversification creates nested-modular structure in phage–bacteria interaction networks. Interface Focus 3, 20130033 (2013).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    17.
    He, Q. et al. Networks of genetic similarity reveal non-neutral processes shape strain structure in Plasmodium falciparum. Nat. Commun. 9, 1817 (2018).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    18.
    Pilosof, S. et al. Competition for hosts modulates vast antigenic diversity to generate persistent strain structure in plasmodium falciparum. PLoS Biol. 17, e3000336 (2019).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    19.
    van der Oost, J., Westra, E. R., Jackson, R. N. & Wiedenheft, B. Unravelling the structural and mechanistic basis of CRISPR–Cas systems. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 12, 479–492 (2014).
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    20.
    Childs, L. M., Held, N. L., Young, M. J., Whitaker, R. J. & Weitz, J. S. Multiscale model of CRISPR-induced coevolutionary dynamics: diversification at the interface of Lamarck and Darwin. Evolution 66, 2015–2029 (2012).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    21.
    Paez-Espino, D. et al. CRISPR immunity drives rapid phage genome evolution in Streptococcus thermophilus. mBio 6, e00262-15 (2015).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    22.
    van Houte, S. et al. The diversity-generating benefits of a prokaryotic adaptive immune system. Nature 532, 385–388 (2016).
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    23.
    Daly, R. A. et al. Viruses control dominant bacteria colonizing the terrestrial deep biosphere after hydraulic fracturing. Nat. Microbiol. 4, 352–361 (2019).
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    24.
    Pauly, M. D., Bautista, M. A., Black, J. A. & Whitaker, R. J. Diversified local CRISPR–Cas immunity to viruses of Sulfolobus islandicus. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 374, 20180093 (2019).
    CAS  Google Scholar 

    25.
    Childs, L. M., England, W. E., Young, M. J., Weitz, J. S. & Whitaker, R. J. CRISPR-induced distributed immunity in microbial populations. PLoS ONE 9, e101710 (2014).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    26.
    Almeida-Neto, M. & Ulrich, W. A straightforward computational approach for measuring nestedness using quantitative matrices. Environ. Model. Softw. 26, 173–178 (2011).
    Google Scholar 

    27.
    Held, N. L., Herrera, A., Cadillo-Quiroz, H. & Whitaker, R. J. CRISPR associated diversity within a population of Sulfolobus islandicus. PLoS ONE 5, e12988 (2010).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    28.
    England, W. E., Kim, T. & Whitaker, R. J. Metapopulation structure of CRISPR–Cas immunity in Pseudomonas aeruginosa and its viruses. mSystems 3, e00075-18 (2018).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    29.
    Marvig, R. L., Sommer, L. M., Molin, S. & Johansen, H. K. Convergent evolution and adaptation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa within patients with cystic fibrosis. Nat. Genet. 47, 57–64 (2015).
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    30.
    Pirnay, J.-P. et al. Pseudomonas aeruginosa population structure revisited. PLoS ONE 4, e7740 (2009).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    31.
    Hall, A. R., Scanlan, P. D., Morgan, A. D. & Buckling, A. Host–parasite coevolutionary arms races give way to fluctuating selection. Ecol. Lett. 14, 635–642 (2011).
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    32.
    Levin, B. R., Moineau, S., Bushman, M. & Barrangou, R. The population and evolutionary dynamics of phage and bacteria with CRISPR-mediated immunity. PLoS Genet. 9, e1003312 (2013).
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    33.
    Koskella, B. & Brockhurst, M. A. Bacteria–phage coevolution as a driver of ecological and evolutionary processes in microbial communities. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 38, 916–931 (2014).
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    34.
    Weissman, J. L. et al. Immune loss as a driver of coexistence during host-phage coevolution. ISME J. 12, 585–597 (2018).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    35.
    Braga, L. P. P., Soucy, S. M., Amgarten, D. E., da Silva, A. M. & Setubal, J. C. Bacterial diversification in the light of the interactions with phages: the genetic symbionts and their role in ecological speciation. Front. Ecol. Evol. 6, 6 (2018).
    Google Scholar 

    36.
    Fontaine, C. et al. The ecological and evolutionary implications of merging different types of networks. Ecol. Lett. 14, 1170–1181 (2011).
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    37.
    Gupta, S. & Day, K. P. A strain theory of malaria transmission. Parasitol. Today 10, 476–481 (1994).
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    38.
    Buckee, C. O., Recker, M., Watkins, E. R. & Gupta, S. Role of stochastic processes in maintaining discrete strain structure in antigenically diverse pathogen populations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 15504–15509 (2011).
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    39.
    Artzy-Randrup, Y. et al. Population structuring of multi-copy, antigen-encoding genes in Plasmodium falciparum. eLife 1, e00093 (2012).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    40.
    Zinder, D., Bedford, T., Gupta, S. & Pascual, M. The roles of competition and mutation in shaping antigenic and genetic diversity in influenza. PLoS Pathog. 9, e1003104 (2013).
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    41.
    Song, C., Rohr, R. P. & Saavedra, S. Why are some plant–pollinator networks more nested than others? J. Anim. Ecol. 86, 1417–1424 (2017).
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    42.
    Chabas, H. et al. Evolutionary emergence of infectious diseases in heterogeneous host populations. PLoS Biol. 16, e2006738 (2018).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    43.
    Iranzo, J., Lobkovsky, A. E., Wolf, Y. I. & Koonin, E. V. Evolutionary dynamics of the prokaryotic adaptive immunity system CRISPR–Cas in an explicit ecological context. J. Bacteriol. 195, 3834–3844 (2013).
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    44.
    Staniczenko, P. P. A., Kopp, J. C. & Allesina, S. The ghost of nestedness in ecological networks. Nat. Commun. 4, 1391 (2013).
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    45.
    Rosvall, M. & Bergstrom, C. T. Maps of random walks on complex networks reveal community structure. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 1118–1123 (2008).
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    46.
    Rosvall, M., Axelsson, D. & Bergstrom, C. T. The map equation. Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 178, 13–23 (2010).
    Google Scholar 

    47.
    Farage, C., Edler, D., Eklöf, A., Rosvall, M. & Pilosof, S. A dynamical perspective to community detection in ecological networks. Preprint at bioRxiv https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.040519v1 (2020).

    48.
    Newman, M. E. J. & Girvan, M. Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. Phys. Rev. E 69, 026113 (2004).
    CAS  Google Scholar 

    49.
    Lancichinetti, A. & Fortunato, S. Community detection algorithms: a comparative analysis. Phys. Rev. E 80, 056117 (2009).
    Google Scholar 

    50.
    Campbell, K. M. et al. Sulfolobus islandicus meta-populations in Yellowstone National Park hot springs. Environ. Microbiol. 19, 2334–2347 (2017).
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    51.
    Bautista, M. A., Black, J. A., Youngblut, N. D. & Whitaker, R. J. Differentiation and structure in Sulfolobus islandicus rod-shaped virus populations. Viruses 9, 120 (2017).
    PubMed Central  Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Phylogenetic diversity shapes salt tolerance in Phragmites australis estuarine populations in East China

    1.
    Eller, F. et al. Cosmopolitan species as models for ecophysiological responses to global change: The common reed Phragmites australis. Front. Plant Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01833 (2017).
    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 
    2.
    Hauber, D. P., Saltonstall, K., White, D. A. & Hood, C. S. Genetic variation in the common reed, Phragmites australis, in the Mississippi River Delta marshes: Evidence for multiple introductions. Estuar. Coast 34, 851–862 (2011).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    3.
    Lambertini, C. et al. Tracing the origin of Gulf Coast Phragmites (Poaceae): A story of long-distance dispersal and hybridization. Am. J. Bot. 99, 538–551 (2012).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    4.
    Lambertini, C.et al. Revisiting Phragmites australisvariation in the Danube Delta with DNA molecular techniques. Water Resources and Wetlands, Conference Proceeding, 142–150; https://www.limnology.ro/water2012/Proceedings/019.html (2012).

    5.
    Nguyen, L. X. et al. Are the photosynthetic characteristics of co-existing lineages of Phragmites australis based on adaptations acquired in their native climatic zones?. AoB Plants https://doi.org/10.1093/aobpla/plt016 (2013).
    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    6.
    Eller, F., Lambertini, C., Nguyen, L. X. & Brix, H. Increased invasive potential of nonnative Phragmites australis: Elevated CO2 and temperature alleviate salinity effects on photosynthesis. Change Biol Glob https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12346 (2014).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    7.
    Guo, W.-Y. et al. Phenotypic traits of the Mediterranean Phragmites australis M1 lineage: Differences between the native and introduced ranges. Biol. Invasions 18, 2551–2561 (2016).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    8.
    Chambers, R. M., Meyerson, L. A. & Saltonstall, K. Expansion of Phragmites australis into tidal wetlands of North America. Aquat. Bot. 64, 261–273 (1999).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    9.
    Saltonstall, K. Cryptic invasion by a non-native genotype of the common reed, Phragmites australis, into North America. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99, 2445–2449 (2002).
    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    10.
    Zhao, K. F., Feng, L. T. & Zhang, S. Q. Study of the salinity-adaptation physiology in different ecotypes of Phragmites australis in the Yellow River Delta of China: Osmotica and their contribution to the osmotic adjustment. Estuar. Coast Shelf 49, 37–42 (1999).
    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    11.
    Guo, W., Wang, R., Zhou, S., Zhang, S. & Zhang, Z. Genetic diversity and clonal structure of Phragmites australis in the Yellow River delta of China. Bio. Chem. Syst. Ecol. 31, 1093–1109 (2003).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    12.
    Vasquez, E. A., Glenn, E. P., Brown, J. J., Guntensprenger, G. R. & Nelson, S. G. Salt tolerance underlies the cryptic invasion of North American salt marshes by an introduced haplotype of the common reed Phragmites australis (Poaceae). Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 298, 1–8 (2005).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    13.
    Hurry, C. R., James, E. A. & Thompson, R. M. Connectivity, genetic structure and stress response of Phragmites australis: issues for restoration in a salinizing wetland system. Aquat. Bot. 104, 138–146 (2013).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    14.
    Holmes, G. D., Hall, N. E., Gendall, A. R., Boon, P. I. & James, E. A. Using transcriptomics to identify differential gene expression in response to salinity among Australian Phragmites australis clones. Front. Plant Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.00432 (2016).
    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    15.
    Achenbach, L., Eller, F., Nguyen, L. X. & Brix, H. Differences in salinity tolerance in genetically distinct Phragmites australis clones. AoB Plants 5, 19. https://doi.org/10.1093/aobpla/plt019 (2013).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    16.
    Gao, L. et al. Spatial genetic structure in natural populations of Phragmites australis in a mosaic of saline habitats in the Yellow River Delta China. PONE 7(8), e43334. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043334 (2012).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    17.
    Lambertini, C. et al. A phylogeographic study of the cosmopolitan genus Phragmites (Poaceae) based on AFLPs. Plant. Syst. Evol. 258, 161–182 (2006).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    18.
    Lambertini, C., Sorrell, B. K., Riis, T., Olesen, B. & Brix, H. Exploring the borders of European Phragmites within a cosmopolitan genus. AoB Plants https://doi.org/10.1093/aobpla/pls020 (2012).
    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    19.
    An, J., Wang, Q., Yang, J. & Liu, Q. Phylogeographic analyses of Phagmites australis in China: Native distribution and habitat preference of the haplotype that invaded North America. J. Syst. Evol. 00, 1–7 (2012).
    Google Scholar 

    20.
    Chu, H. et al. Identification of natural hybrids in Korean Phragmites using haplotype and genotype analyses. Plant Syst. Evol. 293, 247–253 (2011).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    21.
    Tanaka, T., Chagan, I. & Tatsuya, I. Phylogenetic analyses of Phragmites spp. in southwest China identified two lineages and their hybrids. Plant Sys. Evol. 303, 699–707 (2017).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    22.
    Saltonstall, K. The naming of Phragmites haplotypes. Biol. Invasions 18, 2433–2441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-016-1192-4 (2016).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    23.
    Zong, W., Chen, R., Taniguchi, K. & Kondo, K. A chromosome study in intraspecific polyploidy of Phragmites australis and its related species. La Kromosomo 63–64, 2168–2172 (1991).
    Google Scholar 

    24.
    Clevering, O. A. & Lissner, J. Taxonomy, chromosome numbers, clonal diversity and population dynamics of Phragmites australis. Aquat. Bot. 64, 185–208 (1999).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    25.
    Takahashi, R., Liu, S. & Takano, T. Cloning and functional comparison of a high affinity K+ transporter gene PhaHKT1 of salt-tolerant and salt-sensitive reed plants. J. Exp. Bot. 58, 4387–4395 (2007).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    26.
    Yao, P.-C. Evaluating sampling strategy for DNA barcoding study of coastal and inland halo-tolerant Poaceae and Chenopodiaceae: A case study for increased sample size. PLoS ONE 12(9), e0185311. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185311 (2017).
    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    27.
    Ishii, J. & Kadono, Y. Factors influencing seed production of Phragmites australis. Aquat. Bot. 72, 129–141 (2002).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    28.
    Brix, H. et al. Large-scale management of common reed, Phragmites australis, for paper production: A case study from the Liaohe Delta, China. Ecol. Eng. 73, 760–769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2014.09.099 (2014).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    29.
    Lambertini, C., Gustafsson, M. H. G., Frydenberg, J., Speranza, M. & Brix, H. Genetic diversity patterns in Phragmites australis at the population, regional and continental scales. Aquat. Bot. 88, 160–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquabot.2007.10.002 (2008).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    30.
    Fér, T. & Hroudová, Z. Genetic diversity and dispersal of Phragmites australis in a small river system. Aquat. Bot. 90, 165–171 (2009).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    31.
    Krzakowa, M. & Michalak, M. Genetic differentiation of common reed (Phragmites australis) populations from selected lakes of Pomerania (NW Poland), revealed by elecrophoretically detected peroxidase variability. Biodivers. Resour. Conserv. 17, 19–22 (2010).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    32.
    McCormick, M., Kettenring, K. M., Baron, H. M. & Whigham, D. Spread of invasive Phragmites australis in estuaries with differing degrees of development: genetic patterns Allee effects and interpretation. J. Ecol. 98, 1369–1378 (2010).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    33.
    Canavan, K., Paterson, I. D., Lambertini, C. & Hill, M. P. Expansive reed populations—alien invasion or disturbed wetlands?. AoB PLANTS https://doi.org/10.1093/aobpla/ply014 (2018).
    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    34.
    Li, M. et al. Clonal genetic diversity and populational genetic differentiation in Phragmites australis distributed in the Songnen Prairie in northeast China as revealed by amplified length polymorphism and sequence-specific amplification polymorphism molecular markers. Ann. Appl. Biol. 154, 43–55 (2008).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    35.
    Qiu, T., Jiang, L. L. & Yang, Y. F. Genetic and epigenetic diversity and structure of Phragmites australis from local habitats of the Songnen Prairie using amplified fragment length polymorphism markers. Genet. Mol. Res. https://doi.org/10.4238/gmr.15038585 (2016).
    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    36.
    Lin, W. F., Chen, L. J. & Zhu, X. Y. An analysis of genetic diversity of different ecotypes of reed (Phragmites communis Trin) by molecular marker techniques. J. Plant. Physiol. Mol. Biol. 33, 77–84 (2007).
    CAS  Google Scholar 

    37.
    Rus, A. et al. AtHKT1 is a salt tolerance determinant that controls Na+ entry into plant roots. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98, 14150–14155. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.241501798 (2001).
    ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    38.
    Baxter, I. et al. A coastal cline in sodium accumulation in Arabidopsis thaliana is driven by natural variation of the sodium transporter AtHKT1. PLoS Genet. 6(11), e1001193. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1001193 (2010).
    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    39.
    Thuong, V. T. et al. Examining spatiotemporal salinity dynamics in the Mekong River Delta using Landsat time series imagery and a spatial regression approach. Sci. Tot. Environ. 687, 1087–1097 (2019).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    40.
    Hall, T. A. Bioedit: A user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT. Nucleic Acids Symp. Ser. 41, 95–98 (1999).
    CAS  Google Scholar 

    41.
    Lambertini, C. Heteroplasmy: Another complexity of the Phragmites genome to take into account. Biol. Invasions 18, 2443–2455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-016-1193-3 (2016).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    42.
    Swofford, D.L. PAUP. Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (and other methods). Version 4. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts (2002).

    43.
    Farris, J. S., Albert, V. A., Källersjö, M., Lipscomb, D. & Kluge, A. G. Parsimony jackknifing outperforms neighbor-joining. Cladistics 12, 99–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-0031.1996.tb00196.x (1996).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    44.
    Peakall, R. & Smouse, P. E. GenAlEx 6.5: genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research—an update. Bioinformatics 28, 2537–2539 (2012).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    45.
    Peakall, R. & Smouse, P. E. GenAlex 6: genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research. Mol. Ecol. Notes 6, 288–295 (2006).
    Google Scholar 

    46.
    Saltonstall, K. Microsatellite variation within and among North American lineages of Phragmites australis. Mol. Ecol. 12, 1689–1702 (2003).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    47.
    Pritchard, K. J., Stephens, M. & Donnelly, P. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155, 945–959 (2000).
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    48.
    Earl, D. A. & von Holdt, B. M. Structure Harvester: A website and program for visualizing STRUCTURE output and implementing the Evanno method. Conserv. Genet. Resour. 4, 359–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12686-011-9548-7 (2012).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    49.
    Evanno, G., Regnaut, S. & Goudet, J. Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software STRUCTURE: A simulation study. Mol. Ecol. 14, 2611–2620 (2005).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    50.
    Fischer, G. et al. Global agro-ecological zones assessment for agriculture (GAEZ 2008). IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria and FAO, Rome, Italy (2008)

    51.
    Lv, Z. Z. et al. Spatial variability of soil salinity in Bohai Sea coastal wetlands, China: Partition into four management zones. Plant Biosyst. 147, 1201–1210 (2013).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    52.
    Fan, X., Liu, Y., Tao, J. & Weng, Y. Soil salinity retrieval from advanced multi-spectral sensor with Partial Least Square Regression. Remote Sens. 7, 488–511 (2015).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    53.
    Yang, L., Huang, C., Liu, G., Liu, J. & Zhu, A. X. Mapping soil salinity using a similarity-based prediction approach: A case study in Huanghe River Delta China. Chin. Geogr. Sci. 25, 283–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11769-015-0740-7 (2015).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    54.
    Jiang, J. Y. et al. Soil organic carbon storage in tidal wetland and its relationships with soil physico-chemical factors: A case study of Dongtan of Chongming, Shanghai. J. Ecol. Rural Environ. 31, 540–547 (2015).
    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    A step-down photophobic response in coral larvae: implications for the light-dependent distribution of the common reef coral, Acropora tenuis

    Experiment 1—larval response to a rapid attenuation of stimulus light
    Acropora tenuis (Dana, 1846) is a common reef-building scleractinian coral in shallow water habitats throughout the Indo-Pacific Ocean. Seven adult colonies of A. tenuis were collected at 2–5 m depth from Backnumbers Reef (S18°29.26′, E147°09.18′), a mid-shelf reef in the central Great Barrier Reef (GBR) in November 2018, and transferred in flow-through tanks over 8 h by ship to flow-through aquaria in the National Sea Simulator (SeaSim), Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS), Queensland, Australia. This facility uses natural coastal seawater filtered to 1 µm and the range of water quality parameters matched that of mid-shelf reefs including Backnumbers Reef in November: temperature 26.5–27.5 °C, salinity 36.4–36.5 psu and pH 8.13–8.17. Immediately after spawning on November 5, gamete bundles were mixed to fertilize eggs, and cultures of embryos then larvae were maintained in 500 L flow through seawater tanks (0.5 µm filtered), with the motile aposymbiotic planula larvae becoming competent to settle four days after the spawning. Five to nine day old larvae were used in this experiment, with 10–15 larvae transferred into a rectangle polystyrene chamber (6.5 cm × 3.5 cm × 1 cm) filled with 15 mL 0.5 µm-filtered seawater (FSW). To examine whether larvae respond to rapid changes in the photon flux density of stimulus light, the swimming behavior of larvae was observed under the following light scheme. Firstly, a single long side of the test chamber was illuminated for 120 s using a 50 µmol/m2/s white LED light (ISC-201-2; CCS Inc., Kyoto, Japan), and the normal swimming activity of the larvae was recorded. Subsequently, the stimulus light was rapidly ( More