Philippa Kaur

Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
M. Aaron MacNeil & Taylor Gorham

Institute of Environment, Department of Biological Sciences, Florida International University, North Miami, FL, USA
Demian D. Chapman, Michael Heithaus, Jeremy Kiszka, Mark E. Bond, Kathryn I. Flowers, Gina Clementi, Khadeeja Ali, Laura García Barcia, Erika Bonnema, Camila Cáceres, Naomi F. Farabough, Virginia Fourqurean, Kirk Gastrich, Devanshi Kasana, Yannis P. Papastamatiou, Jessica Quinlan, Maurits van Zinnicq Bergmann & Elizabeth Whitman

Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Queensland, Australia
Michelle Heupel & Leanne M. Currey-Randall

Centre for Sustainable Tropical Fisheries and Aquaculture, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia
Colin A. Simpfendorfer, C. Samantha Sherman, Stacy Bierwagen, Brooke D’Alberto, Lachlan George, Sushmita Mukherji & Audrey Schlaff

Australian Institute of Marine Science, Crawley, Western Australia, Australia
Mark Meekan, Conrad W. Speed, Matthew J. Rees & Dianne McLean

The UWA Oceans Institute, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia, Australia
Mark Meekan, Conrad W. Speed & Dianne McLean

School of Molecular and Life Sciences, Curtin University, Bentley, Western Australia, Australia
Euan Harvey & Jordan Goetze

Marine Program, Wildlife Conservation Society, New York, NY, USA
Jordan Goetze

Centre for Sustainable Ecosystems Solutions, School of Earth, Atmospheric and Life Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia
Matthew J. Rees

Australian Institute of Marine Science, Arafura Timor Research Facility, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia
Vinay Udyawer

School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA
Jasmine Valentin-Albanese, Diego Cardeñosa, Stephen Heck & Bradley Peterson

International Pole and Line Foundation, Malé, Maldives
M. Shiham Adam

Maldives Marine Research Institute, Ministry of Fisheries, Marine Resources and Agriculture, Malé, Maldives
Khadeeja Ali

Centro de Investigaciones de Ecosistemas Costeros (CIEC), Cayo Coco, Morón, Ciego de Ávila, Cuba
Fabián Pina-Amargós

Centro de Investigaciones Marinas, Universidad de la Habana, Havana, Cuba
Jorge A. Angulo-Valdés & Alexei Ruiz-Abierno

Galbraith Marine Science Laboratory, Eckerd College, St Petersburg, FL, USA
Jorge A. Angulo-Valdés

Joint Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI, USA
Jacob Asher

Habitat and Living Marine Resources Program, Ecosystem Sciences Division, Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Honolulu, HI, USA
Jacob Asher

Réseau requins des Antilles Francaises, Kap Natirel, Vieux-Fort, Guadeloupe
Océane Beaufort

Mahonia Na Dari Research and Conservation Centre, Kimbe, Papua New Guinea
Cecilie Benjamin

South African Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity, Grahamstown, South Africa
Anthony T. F. Bernard

Department of Zoology and Entomology, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa
Anthony T. F. Bernard

Red Sea Research Center, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Thuwal, Saudi Arabia
Michael L. Berumen, Jesse E. M. Cochran & Royale S. Hardenstine

Blue Resources Trust, Colombo, Sri Lanka
Rosalind M. K. Bown, Daniel Fernando, Nishan Perera & Akshay Tanna

Bren School of Environmental Sciences and Management, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, USA
Darcey Bradley

Shark Research and Conservation Program, Cape Eleuthera Institute, Cape Eleuthera, Eleuthera, Bahamas
Edd Brooks

Center for Sustainable Development, College of Arts and Sciences, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar
J. Jed Brown

University of the West Indies, Discovery Bay Marine Laboratory, Discovery Bay, Jamaica
Dayne Buddo

Department of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Patrick Burke

Albion College, Albion, MI, USA
Jeffrey C. Carrier

Marine Science Institute, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, USA
Jennifer E. Caselle

Coastal Impact, Quitula, Aldona Bardez, India
Venkatesh Charloo

CUFR Mayotte & Marine Biodiversity, Exploitation and Conservation (MARBEC), Université de Montpellier, CNRS, IRD, IFREMER, Montpellier, France
Thomas Claverie

PSL Research University, LABEX CORAIL, CRIOBE USR3278 EPHE-CNRS-UPVD, Mòorea, French Polynesia
Eric Clua

Environmental Research Institute Charlotteville, Charlotteville, Trinidad and Tobago
Neil Cook, Lanya Fanovich & Aljoscha Wothke

School of Biosciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
Neil Cook

ARC Centre of Excellence in Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia
Jessica Cramp & Joshua E. Cinner

Sharks Pacific, Rarotonga, Cook Islands
Jessica Cramp

Wageningen Marine Research, Wageningen University & Research, IJmuiden, The Netherlands
Martin de Graaf

Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies, Sophia University, Tokyo, Japan
Mareike Dornhege

Waitt Institute, La Jolla, CA, USA
Andy Estep

Marine Megafauna Foundation, Truckee, CA, USA
Anna L. Flam, Andrea Marshall & Alexandra M. Watts

The South African Association for Marine Biological Research, Oceanographic Research Institute, Durban, South Africa
Camilla Floros

Departamento de Botânica e Zoologia, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Brazil
Ricardo Garla

Independent consultant, Hull, UK
Rory Graham

Bimini Biological Field Station Foundation, South Bimini, Bahamas
Tristan Guttridge & Maurits van Zinnicq Bergmann

Saving the Blue, Kendall, Miami, FL, USA
Tristan Guttridge

Biology Department, College of Science, UAE University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates
Aaron C. Henderson

The School for Field Studies Center for Marine Resource Studies, South Caicos, Turks and Caicos Islands
Aaron C. Henderson & Heidi Hertler

Center for Shark Research, Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, FL, USA
Robert Hueter

Operation Wallacea, Spilsby, Lincolnshire, UK
Mohini Johnson

Wildlife Conservation Society, Melanesia Program, Suva, Fiji
Stacy Jupiter

Daniel P. Haerther Center for Conservation and Research, John G. Shedd Aquarium, Chicago, IL, USA
Steven T. Kessel

Kenya Fisheries Service, Mombasa, Kenya
Benedict Kiilu

Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources, Development, Kiritimati, Kiribati
Taratu Kirata

Tanzania Fisheries Research Institute, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania
Baraka Kuguru

University of the West Indies, Kingston, Jamaica
Fabian Kyne

School of Biological Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
Tim Langlois

Fish Ecology and Conservation Physiology Laboratory, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Elodie J. I. Lédée

Coral Reef Research Foundation, Koror, Palau
Steve Lindfield

Departamento de Ecología y Territorio, Facultad de Estudios Ambientales y Rurales, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá, Colombia
Andrea Luna-Acosta

National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Hataitai, New Zealand
Jade Maggs

Endangered Marine Species Research Unit, Borneo Marine Research Institute, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia
B. Mabel Manjaji-Matsumoto

Department of Marine Biology, Texas A&M University at Galveston, Galveston, TX, USA
Philip Matich

Aquarium of the Pacific, Long Beach, CA, USA
Erin McCombs

Khaled bin Sultan Living Oceans Foundation, Annapolis, MD, USA
Llewelyn Meggs

Department of Biodiversity, Conservation & Attractions, Parks & Wildlife WA, Pilbara Region, Nickol, Western Australia, Australia
Stephen Moore

Large Marine Vertebrates Research Institute Philippines, Jagna, The Philippines
Ryan Murray & Alessandro Ponzo

Wasage Divers, Wakatobi and Buton, Indonesia
Muslimin Kaimuddin

Western Australian Fisheries and Marine Research Laboratories, Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, Government of Western Australia, North Beach, Western Australia, Australia
Stephen J. Newman & Michael J. Travers

Island Conservation Society Seychelles, Victoria, Mahé, Seychelles
Josep Nogués

CORDIO East Africa, Mombasa, Kenya
Clay Obota & Melita Samoilys

The Centre for Ocean Research and Education, Gregory Town, Eleuthera, Bahamas
Owen O’Shea

Department of Environment and Geography, University of York, York, UK
Kennedy Osuka

Center for Fisheries Research, Ministry for Marine Affairs and Fisheries, Jakarta Utara, Indonesia
Andhika Prasetyo

Universitas Dayanu Ikhsanuddin Bau-Bau, Bau-Bau, Indonesia
L. M. Sjamsul Quamar

Pristine Seas, National Geographic Society, Washington, DC, USA
Enric Sala

Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Melita Samoilys

HJR Reefscaping, Boquerón, Puerto Rico
Michelle Schärer-Umpierre

SalvageBlue, Kingstown, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Nikola Simpson

School of Natural and Computational Sciences, Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand
Adam N. H. Smith

Indo Ocean Project, PT Nomads Diving Bali, Nusa Penida, Indonesia
Lauren Sparks

Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK
Akshay Tanna & Alexandra M. Watts

Reef Check Dominican Republic, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic
Rubén Torres

Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, UMR ENTROPIE (IRD-UR-UNC-CNRS-IFREMER), Nouméa, New Caledonia
Laurent Vigliola

Secretariat of the Pacific Regional, Environment Programme, Apia, Samoa
Juney Ward

Department of Life Science, Tunghai University, Taichung, Taiwan
Colin Wen

School of Environmental and Forest Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
Aaron J. Wirsing

Corales del Rosario and San Bernardo National Natural Park, GIBEAM Research Group, Universidad del Sinú, Cartagena, Colombia
Esteban Zarza-Gonzâlez

D. Chapman and M. Heithaus conceived the study with assistance from M. Heupel, C.A.S., M.M., E.H. and M.A.M. D. Chapman, M. Heithaus, M. Heupel, C.A.S., M.M. and E.H. directed fieldwork run by J.G., J.K., M.E.B., L.M.C.-R., C.W.S., K.I.F., J.V.-A., G.C. and C.S.S. Database management was by T. Gorham. M.A.M. and D. Chapman drafted the manuscript, with help from M. Heithaus, M. Heupel, C.A.S., J.E.M.C., M.M., E.H., J.G., J.K., M.E.B., L.M.C.-R., C.W.S., C.S.S., M.J.R., V.U. and T. Gorham. All other authors contributed equally, made substantial contributions to data collection, provided input and approved the text in the manuscript. More

1.
Nesbitt, M. & Samuel, D. Wheat domestication: Archaeobotanical evidence. Science 279, 1431–1431 (1998).
ADS  Google Scholar 
2.
Hammer, K. Das Domestikationssyndrom. Kult. 32, 11–34 (1984).
Google Scholar 

3.
Peleg, Z., Fahima, T., Korol, A. B., Abbo, S. & Saranga, Y. Genetic analysis of wheat domestication and evolution under domestication. J. Exp. Bot. 62, 5051–5061 (2011).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

4.
Simons, K. J. et al. Molecular characterization of the major wheat domestication gene Q. Genetics 172, 547 (2006).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

5.
Simonetti, M. C. et al. Quantitative trait loci influencing free-threshing habit in tetraploid wheats. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 46, 267–271 (1999).
Google Scholar 

6.
Tzarfati, R. et al. Threshing efficiency as an incentive for rapid domestication of emmer wheat. Ann. Bot. 112, 829–837 (2013).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

7.
Matsuoka, Y. Evolution of polyploid triticum wheats under cultivation: The role of domestication, natural hybridization and allopolyploid speciation in their diversification. Plant Cell Physiol. 52, 750–764 (2011).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

8.
Araus, J. L., Bort, J., Steduto, P., Villegas, D. & Royo, C. Breeding cereals for Mediterranean conditions: Ecophysiological clues for biotechnology application. Ann. Appl. Biol. 142, 129–141 (2003).
Google Scholar 

9.
Gioia, T. et al. Impact of domestication on the phenotypic architecture of durum wheat under contrasting nitrogen fertilization. J. Exp. Bot. 66, 5519–5530 (2015).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

10.
Thuillet, A.-C., Bataillon, T., Poirier, S., Santoni, S. & David, J. L. Estimation of long-term effective population sizes through the history of durum wheat using microsatellite data. Genetics 169, 1589 (2005).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

11.
Haudry, A. et al. Grinding up wheat: A massive loss of nucleotide diversity since domestication. Mol. Biol. Evol. 24, 1506–1517 (2007).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

12.
Pérez-Jaramillo, J. E., Mendes, R. & Raaijmakers, J. M. Impact of plant domestication on rhizosphere microbiome assembly and functions. Plant Mol. Biol. 90, 635–644 (2016).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

13.
Philippot, L., Raaijmakers, J. M., Lemanceau, P. & van der Putten, W. H. Going back to the roots: The microbial ecology of the rhizosphere. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 11, 789 (2013).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

14.
Pozo, M. J. & Azcón-Aguilar, C. Unraveling mycorrhiza-induced resistance. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 10, 393–398 (2007).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

15.
Cook, R. J. et al. Molecular mechanisms of defense by rhizobacteria against root disease. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 92, 4197 (1995).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

16.
Lundberg, D. S. et al. Defining the core Arabidopsis thaliana root microbiome. Nature 488, 86 (2012).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

17.
Peiffer, J. A. et al. Diversity and heritability of the maize rhizosphere microbiome under field conditions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 110, 6548 (2013).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

18.
İnceoğlu, Ö, Salles, J. F., van Overbeek, L. & van Elsas, J. D. Effects of plant genotype and growth stage on the betaproteobacterial communities associated with different potato cultivars in two fields. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 76, 3675 (2010).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

19.
Bulgarelli, D. et al. Revealing structure and assembly cues for Arabidopsis root-inhabiting bacterial microbiota. Nature 488, 91 (2012).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

20.
Hardoim, P. R. et al. Rice root-associated bacteria: Insights into community structures across 10 cultivars. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 77, 154–164 (2011).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

21.
Pérez-Jaramillo, J. E. et al. Linking rhizosphere microbiome composition of wild and domesticated Phaseolus vulgaris to genotypic and root phenotypic traits. ISME J. 11, 2244 (2017).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

22.
Bulgarelli, D. et al. Structure and function of the bacterial root microbiota in wild and domesticated barley. Cell Host Microbe 17, 392–403 (2015).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

23.
Leff, J. W., Lynch, R. C., Kane, N. C. & Fierer, N. Plant domestication and the assembly of bacterial and fungal communities associated with strains of the common sunflower, Helianthus annuus. New Phytol. 214, 412–423 (2017).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

24.
Roucou, A. et al. Shifts in plant functional strategies over the course of wheat domestication. J. Appl. Ecol. 55, 25–37 (2018).
CAS  Google Scholar 

25.
Röder, M. S. et al. A microsatellite map of wheat. Genetics 149, 2007 (1998).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

26.
Berry, D., Ben Mahfoudh, K., Wagner, M. & Loy, A. Barcoded Primers used in multiplex amplicon pyrosequencing bias amplification. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 77, 7846 (2011).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

27.
Takahashi, S., Tomita, J., Nishioka, K., Hisada, T. & Nishijima, M. Development of a prokaryotic universal primer for simultaneous analysis of bacteria and archaea using next-generation sequencing. PLoS ONE 9, e105592 (2014).
ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

28.
Muyzer, G., de Waal, E. C. & Uitterlinden, A. G. Profiling of complex microbial populations by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis analysis of polymerase chain reaction-amplified genes coding for 16S rRNA. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 59, 695 (1993).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

29.
White, T. J., Bruns, T., Lee, S. & Taylor, J. Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics. In PCR Protocols (eds Innis, M. A. et al.) 315–322 (Academic Press, Cambridge, 1990).
Google Scholar 

30.
Tourna, M., Freitag, T. E., Nicol, G. W. & Prosser, J. I. Growth, activity and temperature responses of ammonia-oxidizing archaea and bacteria in soil microcosms. Environ. Microbiol. 10, 1357–1364 (2008).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

31.
Leininger, S. et al. Archaea predominate among ammonia-oxidizing prokaryotes in soils. Nature 442, 806–809 (2006).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

32.
Henry, S. et al. Quantification of denitrifying bacteria in soils by nirK gene targeted real-time PCR. J. Microbiol. Methods 59, 327–335 (2004).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

33.
Henry, S., Bru, D., Stres, B., Hallet, S. & Philippot, L. Quantitative detection of the nosZ Gene, encoding nitrous oxide reductase, and comparison of the abundances of 16S rRNA, narG, nirK, and nosZ genes in soils. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 72, 5181 (2006).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

34.
Jones, C. M., Graf, D. R., Bru, D., Philippot, L. & Hallin, S. The unaccounted yet abundant nitrous oxide-reducing microbial community: A potential nitrous oxide sink. ISME J. 7, 417 (2012).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

35.
Bru, D. et al. Determinants of the distribution of nitrogen-cycling microbial communities at the landscape scale. ISME J. 5, 532 (2010).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

36.
Zhang, J., Kobert, K., Flouri, T. & Stamatakis, A. PEAR: A fast and accurate Illumina Paired-End reAd mergeR. Bioinformatics 30, 614–620 (2013).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

37.
Caporaso, J. G. et al. QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat. Methods 7, 335 (2010).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

38.
Rognes, T., Flouri, T., Nichols, B., Quince, C. & Mahé, F. VSEARCH: A versatile open source tool for metagenomics. PeerJ 4, e2584 (2016).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

39.
Caporaso, J. G. et al. PyNAST: A flexible tool for aligning sequences to a template alignment. Bioinformatics 26, 266–267 (2009).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

40.
Price, M. N., Dehal, P. S. & Arkin, A. P. FastTree 2—Approximately maximum-likelihood trees for large alignments. PLoS ONE 5, e9490 (2010).
ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

41.
Edgar, R. C. Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics 26, 2460–2461 (2010).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

42.
McDonald, D. et al. An improved Greengenes taxonomy with explicit ranks for ecological and evolutionary analyses of bacteria and archaea. ISME J. 6, 610 (2011).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

43.
Altschul, S. F., Gish, W., Miller, W., Myers, E. W. & Lipman, D. J. Basic local alignment search tool. J. Mol. Biol. 215, 403–410 (1990).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

44.
Nilsson, R. H. et al. The UNITE database for molecular identification of fungi: Handling dark taxa and parallel taxonomic classifications. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, D259–D264 (2019).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

45.
Rohart, F., Gautier, B., Singh, A. & Cao, K.-A.L. mixOmics: An R package for ‘omics feature selection and multiple data integration. PLoS Comput. Biol. 13, e1005752 (2017).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

46.
A. Singh, et al., DIABLO—An integrative, multi-omics, multivariate method for multi-group classification. bioRxiv, 067611 (2016).

47.
Fierer, N., Bradford, M. A. & Jackson, R. B. Toward an ecological classification of soil bacteria. Ecology 88, 1354–1364 (2007).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

48.
Anderson, P. K. et al. Emerging infectious diseases of plants: Pathogen pollution, climate change and agrotechnology drivers. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19, 535–544 (2004).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

49.
Dreaden, T. J. et al. Development of multilocus PCR assays for Raffaelea lauricola, causal agent of laurel wilt disease. Plant Dis. 98, 379–383 (2013).
Google Scholar 

50.
Takahashi, Y., Matsushita, N. & Hogetsu, T. Spatial distribution of Raffaelea quercivora in xylem of naturally infested and inoculated oak trees. Phytopathology 100, 747–755 (2010).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

51.
Gramaje, D., Armengol, J. & Ridgway, H. J. Genetic and virulence diversity, and mating type distribution of Togninia minima causing grapevine trunk diseases in Spain. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 135, 727–743 (2013).
Google Scholar 

52.
Corradi, N. & Bonfante, P. The arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis: Origin and evolution of a beneficial plant infection. PLoS Pathog. 8, e1002600 (2012).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

53.
Maherali, H. & Klironomos, J. N. Influence of phylogeny on fungal community assembly and ecosystem functioning. Science 316, 1746–1748 (2007).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

54.
Gosling, P., Proctor, M., Jones, J. & Bending, G. D. Distribution and diversity of Paraglomus spp. in tilled agricultural soils. Mycorrhiza 24, 1–11 (2014).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

55.
B. D. Emmett, N. D. Youngblut, D. H. Buckley, L. E. Drinkwater, plant phylogeny and life history shape rhizosphere bacterial microbiome of summer annuals in an agricultural field. Front. Microbiol. 8, 2414 (2017).

56.
Hernández, M., Dumont, M. G., Yuan, Q. & Conrad, R. Different bacterial populations associated with the roots and rhizosphere of rice incorporate plant-derived carbon. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 81, 2244–2253 (2015).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

57.
DeBruyn, J. M., Nixon, L. T., Fawaz, M. N., Johnson, A. M. & Radosevich, M. Global biogeography and quantitative seasonal dynamics of gemmatimonadetes in soil. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 77, 6295 (2011).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

58.
Oldroyd, G. E. D. Speak, friend, and enter: Signalling systems that promote beneficial symbiotic associations in plants. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 11, 252 (2013).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

59.
Sikes, B. A. When do arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi protect plant roots from pathogens?. Plant Signal. Behav. 5, 763–765 (2010).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  More

1.
Costanza, R. et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260 (1997).
ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 
2.
Barbier, E. B. et al. The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecol. Monogr. 81, 169–193 (2011).
Google Scholar 

3.
Polidoro, B. A. et al. The loss of species: mangrove extinction risk and geographic areas of global concern. PLoS ONE 5, e10095 (2010).
ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

4.
Waycott, M. et al. Accelerating loss of seagrasses across the globe threatens coastal ecosystems. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 106, 12377–12381 (2009).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

5.
Halpern, B. S., Selkoe, K. A., Micheli, F. & Kappel, C. V. Evaluating and ranking the vulnerability of global marine ecosystems to anthropogenic threats. Conserv. Biol. 21, 1301–1315 (2007).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

6.
Hoegh-Guldberg, O. & Bruno, J. F. The impact of climate change on the world’s marine ecosystems. Science 328, 1523–1528 (2010).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

7.
Duke, N. C. et al. Large-scale dieback of mangroves in Australia’s Gulf of Carpentaria: a severe ecosystem response, coincidental with an unusually extreme weather event. Mar. Freshw. Res. 68, 1816–1829 (2017).
Google Scholar 

8.
Strain, E. M. A. et al. The role of changing climate in driving the shift from perennial grasses to annual succulents in a Mediterranean saltmarsh. J. Ecol. 105, 1374–1385 (2017).
Google Scholar 

9.
Beck, M. W. et al. Oyster reefs at risk and recommendations for conservation, restoration, and management. BioScience 61, 107–116 (2011).
Google Scholar 

10.
Wilkinson, C. Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2008, Vol. 296 (Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network and Reef and Rainforest Research Centre, Townsville, 2008).

11.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being (Island Press, 2005).

12.
Gedan, K. & Silliman, B. Patterns of Salt Marsh Loss within Coastal Regions of North America: Presettlement to Present (University of California Press, Berkeley, 2009).

13.
Possingham, H. P., Bode, M. & Klein, C. J. Optimal conservation outcomes require both restoration and protection. PLoS Biol. 13, e1002052 (2015).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

14.
Simenstad, C., Reed, D. & Ford, M. When is restoration not?: incorporating landscape-scale processes to restore self-sustaining ecosystems in coastal wetland restoration. Ecol. Eng. 26, 27–39 (2006).
Google Scholar 

15.
Bayraktarov, E. et al. The cost and feasibility of marine coastal restoration. Ecol. Appl. 26, 1055–1074 (2016).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

16.
Silliman, B. R. et al. Facilitation shifts paradigms and can amplify coastal restoration efforts. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 112, 14295–14300 (2015).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

17.
van Katwijk, M. M. et al. Global analysis of seagrass restoration: the importance of large-scale planting. J. Appl. Ecol. 53, 567–578 (2016).
Google Scholar 

18.
Teas, H. J. Ecology and restoration of mangrove shorelines in Florida. Environ. Conserv. 4, 51–58 (1977).
Google Scholar 

19.
Renzi, J. J., He, Q. & Silliman, B. R. Harnessing positive species interactions to enhance coastal wetland restoration. Front. Ecol. Evol. 7 https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2019.00131 (2019).

20.
Shaver, E. C. & Silliman, B. R. Time to cash in on positive interactions for coral restoration. PeerJ 5, e3499 (2017).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

21.
Bruno, J. F., Stachowicz, J. J. & Bertness, M. D. Inclusion of facilitation into ecological theory. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18, 119–125 (2003).
Google Scholar 

22.
McGill, B. J., Enquist, B. J., Weiher, E. & Westoby, M. Rebuilding community ecology from functional traits. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 178–185 (2006).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

23.
Nock, C. A., Vogt, R. J. & Beisner, B. E. Functional Traits Vol. 10, a0026282 (eLS. John Wiley Sons, Ltd, Chichester, 2016).

24.
Diaz, S., Cabido, M. & Casanoves, F. Plant functional traits and environmental filters at a regional scale. J. Vegetation Sci. 9, 113–122 (1998).
Google Scholar 

25.
Winemiller, K. O., Fitzgerald, D. B., Bower, L. M. & Pianka, E. R. Functional traits, convergent evolution, and periodic tables of niches. Ecol. Lett. 18, 737–751 (2015).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

26.
Smaldino, P. E. The cultural evolution of emergent group-level traits. Behav. Brain Sci. 37, 243–254 (2014).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

27.
Liu, Q. -X. et al. Pattern formation at multiple spatial scales drives the resilience of mussel bed ecosystems. Nat. Commun. 5, 5234 (2014).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

28.
Maxwell, P. S. et al. The fundamental role of ecological feedback mechanisms for the adaptive management of seagrass ecosystems—a review. Biol. Rev. 92, 1521–1538 (2016).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

29.
Bouma, T. J. et al. Density-dependent linkage of scale-dependent feedbacks: a flume study on the intertidal macrophyte Spartina anglica. Oikos 118, 260–268 (2009).
Google Scholar 

30.
Balke, T., Herman, P. M. J. & Bouma, T. J. Critical transitions in disturbance-driven ecosystems: identifying Windows of Opportunity for recovery. J. Ecol. 102, 700–708 (2014).
Google Scholar 

31.
Christianen, M. J. A. et al. Low-canopy seagrass beds still provide important coastal protection services. PLoS ONE 8, e62413 (2013).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

32.
Lo, V., Bouma, T., Van Belzen, J., Van Colen, C. & Airoldi, L. Interactive effects of vegetation and sediment properties on erosion of salt marshes in the Northern Adriatic Sea. Mar. Environ. Res. 131, 32–42 (2017).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

33.
Bouma, T. J. et al. Organism traits determine the strength of scale-dependent bio-geomorphic feedbacks: a flume study on three intertidal plant species. Geomorphology 180-181, 57–65 (2013).
ADS  Google Scholar 

34.
Bouma, T. J. et al. Trade-offs related to ecosystem engineering: a case study on stiffness of emerging macrophytes. Ecology 86, 2187–2199 (2005).
Google Scholar 

35.
Peralta, G., Van Duren, L., Morris, E. & Bouma, T. Consequences of shoot density and stiffness for ecosystem engineering by benthic macrophytes in flow dominated areas: a hydrodynamic flume study. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 368, 103–115 (2008).
ADS  Google Scholar 

36.
Wolters, M., Bakker, J. P., Bertness, M. D., Jeffries, R. L. & Möller, I. Saltmarsh erosion and restoration in south-east England: squeezing the evidence requires realignment. J. Appl. Ecol. 42, 844–851 (2005).
Google Scholar 

37.
Currin, C. A., Chappell, W. S. & Deaton, A. Developing alternative shoreline armoring strategies: The living shoreline approach in North Carolina, in (eds Shipman, H., Dethier, M. N., Gelfenbaum, G., Fresh, K. L. & Dinicola, R. S.), Puget Sound Shorelines and the Impacts of Armoring—Proceedings of a State of the Science Workshop, May 2009: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5254, p. 91–102(2010).

38.
Herbert, D. et al. Mitigating erosional effects induced by boat wakes with living shorelines. Sustainability 10, 436 (2018).
Google Scholar 

39.
Meyer, D. L., Townsend, E. C. & Thayer, G. W. Stabilization and erosion control value of oyster cultch for intertidal marsh. Restor. Ecol. 5, 93–99 (1997).
Google Scholar 

40.
Baine, M. Artificial reefs: a review of their design, application, management and performance. Ocean Coast. Manag. 44, 241–259 (2001).
Google Scholar 

41.
Graham, P. M., Palmer, T. A. & Beseres Pollack, J. Oyster reef restoration: substrate suitability may depend on specific restoration goals. Restor. Ecol. 25, 459–470 (2017).
Google Scholar 

42.
Bersoza Hernández, A. et al. Restoring the eastern oyster: how much progress has been made in 53 years? Front. Ecol. Environ. 16, 463–471 (2018).
Google Scholar 

43.
Spieler, R. E., Gilliam, D. S. & Sherman, R. L. Artificial substrate and coral reef restoration: what do we need to know to know what we need. Bull. Mar. Sci. 69, 1013–1030 (2001).
Google Scholar 

44.
Morgan, R. P. & Rickson, R. J. Slope Stabilization and Erosion Control: A Bioengineering Approach (Taylor & Francis, 2003).

45.
Suykerbuyk, W. et al. Unpredictability in seagrass restoration: analysing the role of positive feedback and environmental stress on Zostera noltii transplants. J. Appl. Ecol. 53, 774–784 (2016).
Google Scholar 

46.
Bouma, T. J., Vries, M. B. D. & Herman, P. M. J. Comparing ecosystem engineering efficiency of two plant species with contrasting growth strategies. Ecology 91, 2696–2704 (2010).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

47.
De Battisti, D. et al. Intraspecific root trait variability along environmental gradients affects salt marsh resistance to lateral erosion. Front. Ecol. Evol. 7 https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2019.00150 (2019).

48.
Silliman, B. R. & He, Q. Physical stress, consumer control, and new theory in ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 33, 492–503 (2018).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

49.
Manis, J. E., Garvis, S. K., Jachec, S. M. & Walters, L. J. Wave attenuation experiments over living shorelines over time: a wave tank study to assess recreational boating pressures. J. Coast. Conserv. 19, 1–11 (2015).
Google Scholar 

50.
Angelini, C. et al. A keystone mutualism underpins resilience of a coastal ecosystem to drought. Nat. Commun. 7 https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12473 (2016).

51.
Bos, A. R. & van Katwijk, M. M. Planting density, hydrodynamic exposure and mussel beds affect survival of transplanted intertidal eelgrass. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 336, 121–129 (2007).
ADS  Google Scholar 

52.
Valdez, S. R. et al. Positive ecological interactions and the success of seagrass restoration. Front. Mar. Sci. 91 https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00091 (2020).

53.
De Groot, R. S. et al. Benefits of investing in ecosystem restoration. Conserv. Biol. 27, 1286–1293 (2013).
Google Scholar 

54.
Romijn, E. et al. Land restoration in Latin America and the Caribbean: an overview of recent, ongoing and planned restoration initiatives and their potential for climate change mitigation. Forests 10, 510 (2019).
Google Scholar 

55.
Broome, S. W., Seneca, E. D. & Woodhouse, W. W. Tidal salt marsh restoration. Aquat. Bot. 32, 1–22 (1988).
Google Scholar 

56.
Pérez-Pagán, B. S. & Mercado-Molina, A. E. Evaluation of the effectiveness of 3D-printed corals to attract coral reef fish at Tamarindo Reef, Culebra, Puerto Rico. Conserv. Evid. 15, 43–47 (2018).
Google Scholar 

57.
Strain, E. M. A. et al. Increasing microhabitat complexity on seawalls can reduce fish predation on native oysters. Ecol. Eng. 120, 637–644 (2018).
Google Scholar 

58.
Cunha, A. H. et al. Changing paradigms in seagrass restoration. Restor. Ecol. 20, 427–430 (2012).
Google Scholar 

59.
Derksen-Hooijberg, M. et al. Mutualistic interactions amplify saltmarsh restoration success. J. Appl. Ecol. 55, 405–414 (2018).
Google Scholar 

60.
Ritchey, T. In 16th Euro Conference on Operational Analysis. Brussels. Online available at http://swemorph.com/pdf/gma.pdf.

61.
Narayan, S. et al. The effectiveness, costs and coastal protection benefits of natural and nature-based defences. PLoS ONE 11, e0154735 (2016).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

62.
Bertness, M. D. & Callaway, R. Positive interactions in communities. Trends Ecol. Evol. 9, 191–193 (1994).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

63.
Bertness, M. D. & Shumway, S. W. Competition and facilitation in marsh plants. Am. Nat. 142, 718–724 (1993).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

64.
Stachowicz, J. J. Mutualism, facilitation, and the structure of ecological communities. BioScience 51, 235–246 (2001).
Google Scholar 

65.
Björk, M., Uku, J., Weil, A. & Beer, S. Photosynthetic tolerances to desiccation of tropical intertidal seagrasses. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 191, 121–126 (1999).
ADS  Google Scholar 

66.
Silva, J. & Santos, R. Daily variation patterns in seagrass photosynthesis along a vertical gradient. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 257, 37–44 (2003).
ADS  Google Scholar 

67.
Crotty, S. M. & Bertness, M. D. Positive interactions expand habitat use and the realized niches of sympatric species. Ecology 96, 2575–2582 (2015).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

68.
Balke, T. et al. Windows of opportunity: thresholds to mangrove seedling establishment on tidal flats. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 440, 1–9 (2011).
ADS  Google Scholar 

69.
Price, J. S. & Whitehead, G. S. Developing hydrologic thresholds for Sphagnum recolonization on an abandoned cutover bog. Wetlands 21, 32–40 (2001).
Google Scholar 

70.
van der Heide, T. et al. Predation and habitat modification synergistically interact to control bivalve recruitment on intertidal mudflats. Biol. Conserv. 172, 163–169 (2014).
Google Scholar 

71.
Schulte, D. M., Burke, R. P. & Lipcius, R. N. Unprecedented restoration of a native oyster metapopulation. Science 325, 1124–1128 (2009).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

72.
Stokes, D. J., Healy, T. R. & Cooke, P. J. Expansion dynamics of monospecific, temperate mangroves and sedimentation in two embayments of a barrier-enclosed lagoon, Tauranga Harbour, New Zealand. J. Coast. Res., 113–122 https://doi.org/10.2112/08-1043.1 (2010).

73.
Bouma, T. J. et al. Spatial flow and sedimentation patterns within patches of epibenthic structures: combining field, flume and modelling experiments. Cont. Shelf Res. 27, 1020–1045 (2007).
ADS  Google Scholar 

74.
Schneider, C. A., Rasband, W. S. & Eliceiri, K. W. NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat. Methods 9, 671–675 (2012).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

75.
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).
Google Scholar 

76.
Lenth, R. & Lenth, M. R. Package ‘lsmeans’. Am. Statistician 34, 216–221 (2018).
Google Scholar 

77.
R Core Team. R Foundation for Statistical Computing (R Core Team, Vienna, 2014).

78.
Schwarz, C. et al. Abiotic factors governing the establishment and expansion of two salt marsh plants in the Yangtze Estuary, China. Wetlands 31, 1011–1021 (2011).
Google Scholar 

79.
Marbà, N. & Duarte, C. M. Rhizome elongation and seagrass clonal growth. Marine Ecology Progress Series 174, 269–280 (1998).
ADS  Google Scholar 

80.
Bastyan, G. R. & Cambridge, M. L. Transplantation as a method for restoring the seagrass Posidonia australis. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 79, 289–299.

81.
Temmink, R. J. M. et al. Data from: mimicry of emergent traits amplifies coastal restoration success. DANS https://doi.org/10.17026/dans-xx2-s4c6 (2020). More

1.
Gilliam, F. S. The ecological significance of the herbaceous layer in temperate forest ecosystems. Bioscience 57, 845–858 (2007).
Google Scholar 
2.
Cervellini, M. et al. Relationships between understory specialist species and local management practices in coppiced forests—evidence from the Italian Apennines. For. Ecol. Manag. 385, 35–45 (2017).
Google Scholar 

3.
Hamelin, C., Gagnon, D. & Truax, B. Exotic invasive shrub glossy buckthorn reduces restoration potential for native forest herbs. Sustainability 9, 1–13 (2017).
Google Scholar 

4.
Lü, X. T., Yin, J. X. & Tang, J. W. Diversity and composition of understory vegetation in the tropical seasonal rain forest of Xishuangbanna, SW China. Rev. Biol. Trop. 59, 455–463 (2011).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

5.
Yazdanshenas, H., Kalagar, M. & Toularoud, M. M. Understory plant species diversity of Asalem’s forests, northern Iran. For. Res. Eng. Int. J. 3, 56–62 (2019).
Google Scholar 

6.
Li, Y. L., Wang, S. L. & Yan, S. K. Short-term effects of understory vegetation removal on nutrient cycling in litter layer of Chinese fir plantation. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 22, 2560–2566 (2011) (in Chinese with English abstract).
Google Scholar 

7.
Yang, Y. et al. Mechanism of litter and understory vegetation effects on soil carbon and nitrogen hydrolase activities in Chinese fir forests. Acta Ecol. Sin. 36, 8102–8110 (2016) (in Chinese with English abstract).
Google Scholar 

8.
Berkowitz, A. R., Canham, C. D. & Kelly, V. R. Competition vs. facilitation of tree seedling growth and survival in early successional communities. Ecology 76, 1156–1168 (1995).
Google Scholar 

9.
Padilla, F. M. & Pugnaire, F. I. The role of nurse plants in the restoration of degraded environments. Front. Ecol. Environ. 4, 196–202 (2006).
Google Scholar 

10.
Feng, Q. H. et al. Effects of density adjustment on ground cover and soil hydrological function of Picea asperata plantation in the subalpine region of western Sichuan Province, China. J. Nanjing For. Univ. Nat. Sci. Ed. 42, 98–104 (2018) (in Chinese with English abstract).
Google Scholar 

11.
Rasingam, L. & Parthasarathy, N. Diversity of understory plants in undisturbed and disturbed tropical lowland forests of Little Andaman Island, India. Biodiv. Cons. 18, 1045–1065 (2009).
Google Scholar 

12.
Boonstra, R., Krebs, C. J. & Cowcill, K. Responses of key understory plants in the boreal forests of western North America to natural versus anthropogenic nitrogen levels. For. Ecol. Manag. 401, 45–54 (2017).
Google Scholar 

13.
Ou, Z. Y., Su, Z. Y., Ye, Y. C., Zhu, J. Y. & Liu, S. S. Ground vegetation as indicators of topsoil chemical properties in Dongguan, South China. Acta Ecol. Sin. 29, 984–992 (2009) (in Chinese with English abstract).
CAS  Google Scholar 

14.
Su, Z. Y., Ke, X. D. & Zhang, S. J. Vascular plants as indicators of organic carbon gradient in subtropical forested soil. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 21, 1393–1398 (2012).
CAS  Google Scholar 

15.
Dolan, B. & Kilgore, J. Forest regeneration following emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis Fairemaire) enhances mesophication in eastern hardwood forests. Forests 9, 353–366 (2018).
Google Scholar 

16.
Zhang, J. W., Young, D. H., Oliver, W. W. & Fiddler, G. Effect of overstorey trees on understorey vegetation in California (USA) ponderosa pine plantations. Forest. Int. J. Forest Res. 89, 91–99 (2016).
Google Scholar 

17.
Curzon, M., Baker, S., Kern, C., Palik, B. J. & D’Amato, A. W. Influence of mature overstory trees on adjacent 12-year regeneration and the woody understory: Aggregated retention versus intact forest. Forests 8, 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8020031 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

18.
Ádám, R., Ódor, P. & Bölöni, J. The effects of stand characteristics on the understory vegetation in Quercus petraea and Q. cerris dominated forests. Commun. Ecol. 14, 101–109 (2013).
Google Scholar 

19.
Navroud, B. B., Vajari, K. A., Pilehvar, B. & Kooch, Y. Interactions between tree and herb layers vegetation along a gradient of tree composition in Hyrcanian forests. Russ. J. Ecol. 46, 483–486 (2015).
Google Scholar 

20.
Mestre, L. et al. The influence of canopy-layer composition on understory plant diversity in southern temperate forests. For. Ecosyst. 4, 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-017-0093-z (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

21.
Yu, M. & Sun, O. J. Effects of forest patch type and site on herb-layer vegetation in a temperate forest ecosystem. Forest Ecology and Managemen t300, 14–20 (2013).

22.
Huo, H., Feng, Q. & Su, Y. H. The influences of canopy species and topographic variables on understory species diversity and composition in coniferous forests. Sci. World J. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/252489 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

23.
Hicks, D. J. & Taylor, M. S. Effects of Aesculus glabra canopy on understory community structure and environment in a temperate deciduous forest. Castanea 80, 8–19 (2015).
Google Scholar 

24.
Riegel, G. M., Miller, R. F. & Krueger, W. C. Competition for resources between understory vegetation and overstory Pinus ponderosa in northeastern Oregon. Ecol. Appl. 2, 71–85 (1992).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

25.
Barbier, S., Gosselin, F. & Balandier, P. Influence of tree species on understory vegetation diversity and mechanisms involved—a critical review for temperate and boreal forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 254, 1–15 (2008).
Google Scholar 

26.
Giesbrecht, I. J. W., Saunders, S. C., MacKinnon, A. & Lertzman, K. P. Overstory structure drives fine-scale coupling of understory light and vegetation in two temperate rainforest floodplains. Can. J. For. Res. 47, 1244–1256 (2017).
Google Scholar 

27.
Mataji, A. et al. Understory vegetation as environmental factors indicator in forest ecosystems. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Tech. 7, 629–638 (2010).
Google Scholar 

28.
McCalip, B. et al. Site factors influence on herbaceous understory diversity in east Texas Pinus palustris savannas. Int. J. Biol. 11, 1. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijb.v11n1p1 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

29.
Bartels, S. F. & Chen, H. Y. H. Interactions between overstorey and understorey vegetation along an overstorey compositional gradient. J. Veg. Sci. 24, 543–552 (2013).
Google Scholar 

30.
Olivero, A. M. & Hix, D. M. Influence of aspect and stand age on ground flora of southeastern Ohio forest ecosystems. Plant Ecol. 139, 177–187 (1998).
Google Scholar 

31.
Warren, R. J. Mechanisms driving understory evergreen herb distributions across slope aspects: As derived from landscape position. Plant Ecol. 198, 297–308 (2008).
Google Scholar 

32.
Ou, Y. D., Su, Z. Y., Ke, X. D. & Li, Z. Vascular ground flora in relation to topography, canopy structure and gap light regimes in a subtropical broadleaved forest (South China). Pol. J. Ecol. 60, 463–476 (2012).
Google Scholar 

33.
Wang, B. W., Zhang, G. H. & Duan, J. Relationship between topography and the distribution of understory vegetation in a Pinus massoniana forest in Southern China. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 3, 291–304 (2015).
Google Scholar 

34.
Costa, F. R. C., Magnusson, W. E. & Luizao, R. C. Mesoscale distribution patterns of Amazonian understorey herbs in relation to topography, soil and watersheds. J. Ecol. 93, 863–878 (2005).
CAS  Google Scholar 

35.
Gracia, M., Montané, F., Piqué, J. & Retana, J. Overstory structure and topographic gradients determining diversity and abundance of understory shrub species in temperate forests in central Pyrenees (NE Spain). For. Ecol. Manag. 242, 391–397 (2007).
Google Scholar 

36.
Zeng, F. P. et al. Changes in vegetation after 22 years’ natural restoration in the karst disturbed area in Northwest Guangxi. Acta Ecol. Sin. 27, 5110–5119 (2007) (in Chinese with English abstract).
Google Scholar 

37.
Song, T. Q. et al. Spatial pattern of forest communities and environmental interpretation in Mulun National Nature Reserve, karst cluster-peak depression region. Chin. J. Plant Ecol. 34, 298–308 (2010) (in Chinese with English abstract).
Google Scholar 

38.
Liu, Y. G., Liu, C. C., Wei, Y. F., Liu, Y. G. & Guo, K. Species composition and community structure at different vegetation successional stages in Puding, Guizhou Province, China. Chin. J. Plant Ecol. 35, 1009–1018 (2011) (in Chinese with English abstract).
Google Scholar 

39.
Wu, K. Y., Jiang, Z. C. & Luo, W. Q. Techniques of ecological restoration and evaluation of economic value of their results in Guohua demonstration area. Earth Environ. 35, 159–165 (2007) (in Chinese with English abstract).
Google Scholar 

40.
Pang, S. L. et al. Edaphic characteristics of different regeneration patterns in karst mountainous areas of Guangxi. J. Cent. South Univ. For. Technol. 36, 60–66 (2016) (in Chinese with English abstract).
Google Scholar 

41.
Ou, Z. Y. et al. Effect of soil fertility and topographic factors on woody plant communities in the karst mountains of Southwest Guangxi, China. Acta Ecol. Sin. 34, 3672–3681 (2014) (in Chinese with English abstract).
Google Scholar 

42.
Ou, Z. Y., Zhu, J. Y., Peng, Y. H., He, Q. F. & Pang, S. L. Relationship between plant diversity and environmental factors of Excentrodendron hsienmu community in karst mountains in Pinguo County, Guangxi. Bull. Bot. Res. 34, 204–211 (2014) (in Chinese with English abstract).
CAS  Google Scholar 

43.
Liu, Y., He, B. Y. & Kou, J. F. Landsat thermal remote sensing to investigate the present situation and variation characteristics of karst rocky desertification in Pingguo County of Guangxi, Southwest China. Sci. Soil Water Conserv. 15, 125–131 (2017) (in Chinese with English abstract).
Google Scholar 

44.
Bao, S. D. The Agro-Chemical Analysis of Soil (China Agriculture Press, Beijing, 2000) (in Chinese)).
Google Scholar 

45.
McCune, B. & Mefford, M. J. PC-ORD. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data (Version 5) (MjM Software Design, Oregon, 2006).
Google Scholar 

46.
Ister, S. I. & Gokbulak, F. Effect of stand types on understory vegetation. J. Environ. Biol. 30, 595–600 (2009).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

47.
Légaré, S., Bergeron, Y. & Paré, D. Influence of forest composition on understory cover in boreal mixedwood forests of western Quebec. Silva Fenn 36, 353–366 (2002).
Google Scholar 

48.
Hameed, M. et al. Influence of plantation type on ground flora composition and diversity in Gatwala artificial forest plantation. Pak. J. Bot. 43, 1867–1872 (2011).
Google Scholar 

49.
Sagar, R., Singh, A. & Singh, J. S. Differential effect of woody plant canopies on species composition and diversity of ground vegetation: A case study. Trop. Ecol. 49, 189–197 (2008).
Google Scholar 

50.
Si, B., Yao, X. H. & Ben, H. D. Species composition and diversity in the process of natural succession of Karst vegetation in Central Guizhou: Case study of Puding Country in Guizhou. For. Res. 21, 669–674 (2008) (in Chinese with English abstract).
Google Scholar 

51.
Bazzaz, F. A. Plant species diversity in old-field successional ecosystems in southern Illinois. Ecology 56, 485–488 (1975).
Google Scholar 

52.
Augusto, L., Dupouey, J. L. & Ranger, J. Effects of tree species on understory vegetation and environmental conditions in temperate forests. Ann. For. Sci. 60, 823–831 (2003).
Google Scholar 

53.
Widyatmoko, D. & Burgman, M. A. Influences of edaphic factors on the distribution and abundance of a rare palm (Cyrtostachys renda) in a peat swamp forest in eastern Sumatra, Indonesia. Aust. Ecol. 31, 964–974 (2006).
Google Scholar 

54.
Zhang, Z. H., Hu, G., Zhu, J. D. & Ni, J. Spatial heterogeneity of soil nutrients and its impact on tree species distribution in a karst forest of Southwest China. Chin. J. Plant Ecol. 35, 1038–1049 (2011) (in Chinese with English abstract).
ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

55.
Song, T. Q. et al. Community composition and biodiversity characteristics of forests in Karst cluster-peak-depression region. Biodivers. Sci. 18, 355–364 (2010) (in Chinese with English abstract).
Google Scholar 

56.
Ou, Z. Y. et al. Coupling relationships between woody plants in Excentrodendron hsienmu community and related edaphic and topographic factors. Chin. J. Ecol. 32, 3182–3189 (2013) (in Chinese with English abstract).
Google Scholar 

57.
Tan, Y. B. et al. Effect of environmental factors on understory species diversity in Southwest Guangxi Excentrodendron tonkinense forests. Biodivers. Sci. 27, 970–983 (2019) (in Chinese with English abstract).
Google Scholar  More

Biodiversity is in crisis and the main reasons are human activities inducing habitat modifications and the introduction of invasive species1. In addition, global climate change will probably alter habitat characteristics, migration patterns, reproduction time, and place of various species2. Such human disturbances may produce new breeding overlaps, breaking the independent evolution of organisms and leading to hybridization (see Glossary, Table 1)3. The role of hybridization in the evolution of several plant and animal taxa has been recognized in the light of newly developed molecular tools4. This has also alerted biologists about the threat this phenomenon may represent to biodiversity when enhanced by anthropogenic factors5. We identified three types of hybridization regarding the reproductive properties of first-generation hybrids (F1). This is proposed as a framework to investigate the demographic and genetic effects of hybridization on biodiversity.
Table 1 Glossary.
Full size table

Our perspectives come from the development of modeling simulation approaches applied to various real case studies, which helped us to explore the outcomes of hybridization from both conservation and evolutionary perspectives. We bring here a novel view of conservation guidelines aiming to state the conditions under which hybridization may represent priorities for conservation programmes or, alternatively, new evolutionary opportunities. We highlight that hybridization may certainly lead to biodiversity loss when enhanced by human factors, leading for instance to outbreeding depression or the introgression of maladaptive genes. However, it may also drive the emergence of new biodiversity, reducing the effects of inbreeding depression, and increasing the opportunities to adapt to changing environmental conditions.
Species concept problem and interspecific hybridization
The widely accepted biological species concept formulated by Mayr6 states that species are “groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups”. The key idea under this vision is the reproductive isolation that delimits the species unit. This was already proposed by Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon, more than 260 years ago7. Buffon realized that a horse and a donkey are morphologically more similar than some different races of dogs. However, the reproduction in the first case leads to an infertile offspring (a mule) while in the second case, the offspring is fertile, highlighting that a line can be drawn between organisms that cannot reproduce in order to differentiate species.
Charles Darwin supported a different view and dedicated an entire chapter of “On the Origin of Species” to the hybridization concept8. The observation of interbreeding between distinct morphological species, with different degrees of offspring fertility, from completely sterile to even more fertile than parental species in determined conditions, was an argument against sterility or fecundity as a species delineation factor. Darwin agreed with the notion that species may hardly remain different when free sympatric mating occurs, but supported a more continuous conception of species, influenced by the gradual effect of natural selection. However, the idea of species with various degrees of fertility was abandoned during the modern evolutionary synthesis6,9,10.
Much of the understanding about reproductive isolation and interspecific hybridization has been revealed by experimental studies of Drosophila11. Those works revealed that: (i) reproductive isolation is positively correlated with the phylogenetic distance between hybridizing species; (ii) at the same level of genetic divergence, reproductive isolation is higher between sympatric than allopatric species; and (iii) hybrid offspring follow Haldane’s rule, meaning that if one sex is less viable or sterile, it is more likely to be the heterozygotic sex12,13. During most of the 20th century, interspecific hybridization was considered to be rare in nature, mainly arising by human translocation of species and with a small effect in evolution, with hybrids supposedly having lower fertility in most cases14.
Despite the wide acceptance of reproductive isolation as a key element to define species, a large controversy persists around the biological species concept (Box 1). This is mainly motivated by the semipermeable breeding barriers between some species and the difficulty of testing this notion in organisms with nonoverlapping spatial or temporal distribution ranges15,16.

Box 1 Alternative species concepts

Three of the most popular alternative definitions of species are the ecological, phylogenetic, and evolutionary concepts. Ecological species are of closely related lineage using minimally differentiated adaptive zones, also denominated as ecological niches93. Evolutionary species are defined as ancestral-descendant lineages with their own identity, evolutionary tendency and historical fate94. Phylogenetic species are in turn considered to be the minimal cluster of organisms with a pattern of ancestry and descendance95. These three definitions have also been criticized. The ecological and evolutionary species concepts have been judged to be too vague to determine a cut-off point between species15,17. The phylogenetic species concept has been defended by various authors in the field of conservation biology, who consider it an encompassing view of unique ancestral and derived features for separate species, e.g., refs. 15,19. However, this definition has also been the focus of criticism, mainly due to an inflated number of species16. This is because different regions of the genome may express very different evolutionary histories and because hybridization may also perturb phylogenetic classifications by altering monophyletic lineages20. Mallet96 recognized various cases of speciation that are influenced by fertile hybridization in nature and tried to rescue and adapt the more continuous view of species proposed by Charles Darwin. He understood species as groups of genotypes that remain distinct in the face of actual or potential hybridization96,97. He highlighted the fact that genotypes may remain distinct with reproductive isolation, but this would be a way to maintain species or to reach speciation rather than being a means of species discrimination96. To date, there are around 30 definitions of species and a large debate about species concept and the relation with hybridization, e.g., refs. 15,17,18,98.

Species concept and conservation
A problematic view arises when applying the biological species concept, which does not make room for interspecific hybridization17. The semipermeable barriers between genetically, morphologically or ecologically distinct organisms have motivated a large debate about species and hybridization, e.g., refs. 15,18. This discussion is not superfluous for conservation biology because it delimits the main unit of protection17. Yet, what are the central criteria to delineate the units that deserve protection? Some authors consider that because species are evolutionary units, the most appropriate way to diagnose them objectively is through the phylogenetic species concept19. But the use of the phylogenetic species concept has been criticized because small, isolated populations may become well diagnosed evolutionary lineages through the effect of strong genetic drift, inflating the number of species and rendering protection actions more complex. Other authors have advocated that the criteria to delineate conservation units should rely on evidence of reproductive isolation or reduced reproductive fitness20, but these criteria are less objective and sometimes difficult to evidence.
The debate about species concept and hybridization is not only a matter for biologists, but also for scientists from very different domains, as well as politicians who define legal aspects of wildlife protection21. In this sense, Pasachnik et al.22 propose that whatever else a species is, in the field of conservation biology it should be a group of organisms deserving legal protection because its extinction would constitute a meaningful loss of biodiversity. The evolution of biodiversity represents a continuum, in which speciation processes may occur slowly or relatively fast, but will always have a period of uncertainty regarding genetic differentiation between emerging species23. Conservation biology may therefore consider the level of uncertainty due to hybridization by protecting biodiversity as a dynamic system, which is not focused on reproductive isolation to delimit discrete units, but on the sum of features for which the loss of certain organisms may represent a detrimental effect on biodiversity.
Evolution of new biodiversity
Botanists first highlighted the important role of natural hybridization on the speciation process of several species, i.e., in generating new biodiversity, e.g., 24,25. Later, zoologists recognized the major evolutionary effects of introgression on numerous insects e.g., ref. 26, fishes, e.g. ref. 27, amphibians, e.g., ref. 28, reptiles, e.g., ref. 29, birds, e.g., ref. 30, mammals, e.g., ref. 31; and other organisms, e.g., ref. 32, including modern humans (Box 2). There are around 25% of plants and 10% of animals that are currently known to hybridize with another species and the effect of this phenomenon in evolution is considered to be much more important than previously thought33.
Species can naturally change their historical home range in response to changing environmental conditions and meet closely related taxa34. Several species carry signatures of hybrid ancestry from the last Ice Age period, e.g., ref. 27. For this reason we can find DNA of brown bears in polar bears, because ancient hybridization events occurred during the Pleistocene35. The Bering Land Bridge recurrently emerged during this time, allowing organisms to migrate between Eurasia and North America, leading to opportunities of hybridization, such as those observed between Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) and Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx)31. Organisms can have introgressed genes from locally extinct species even if they have never been in contact, because a third species, acting as a temporal bridge to gene flow, has hybridized with both of them e.g., ref. 36.
Natural selection may fix beneficial alleles obtained by hybridization or, to the contrary, remove detrimental introgressed alleles. Adaptive introgression has been important for several speciation processes33. For instance, the antipredatory mimicry of three Heliconius butterflies in South America has been acquired by interspecific hybridization, for which the parts of the genome related to color patterns have more introgressed alleles than other regions of the genome37. Introgressed alleles can rapidly spread among individuals when they are related to adaptive traits. For example, “warfarin” is a rodenticide that was developed in 1948 to control house mice (Mus musculus). Mice started to be resistant during the 1960s by acquiring a single gene from the Algerian mouse (M. spretus) through hybridization38. These species were isolated until the development of human agricultural lands. They rarely interbreed and hybrids have limited survival with half of them being sterile, but the resistance gene rapidly spread across Europe. In Germany, where both species do not mingle, one third of house mice have the introgressed resistance gene coming from Algerian mice38. A similar case was documented between two species of mosquitos that are vectors of malaria and have different levels of resistance to an insecticide39. The insecticide acted as a selective pressure driving the spread of resistant alleles obtained by hybridization, even when hybrids had reduced fertility40. The reduced fertility of the offspring is therefore not necessarily selected against and can also represent adaptive mate choice41.
Opportunities for speciation as a result of hybridization can be generated when hybrids exploit unique ecological niches. For instance, a rapid incipient speciation was recently observed in the offspring of two species of yeast, Saccharomyces paradoxus and S. cerevisiae, whose hybrids have the potential to exploit a unique ecology that is intermediate between those of the parental species32. The new genetic architecture generated by hybridization can thus also facilitate ecological divergence, promoting a speciation process by exploiting a specific niche, e.g., ref. 42.
Positive selection can fix adaptive alleles and purifying selection can remove the detrimental alleles, e.g., ref. 27, but introgressed genes can remain even without the effect of natural selection. Neutral introgressed alleles can persist in high proportion, even when the original species is extinct. Currat et al.43 demonstrated through computer simulations and by a review of the literature, that invasive species in range expansion may carry a large quantity of neutral alleles that are introgressed from a local species. The reverse is not necessarily true unless interbreeding is rare (Fig. 1). When hybridization occurs during the expansion of an invasive species into the territory of a local species, introgression is indeed expected to be much higher in the invasive species than in the local species (Fig. 1). This pattern of asymmetric introgression is generally robust to the density and population structure within both species and to the level of interspecific competition. It results from the hybridization level and from the population demographic imbalance at the wave front of the invasion, in which introgressed alleles that are continuously introduced in the invasive species along its expansion, may surf and reach a higher frequency than expected under a stationary context44. While this pattern may be perturbed by density-dependent dispersal45 and long-distance dispersal46, there are several real cases of asymmetrical introgression between demographically imbalanced species that have been proposed to follow this neutral expectation, e.g. refs. 47,48.
Fig. 1: Expected pattern of introgression of neutral genes between local and invasive organisms in range expansion.

a The context of this expected pattern of introgression is the expansion of an invasive species (in beige) in an area where the local species (in blue) is already in demographic equilibrium. The invasive species starts its colonization from the bottom left side of the area with few individuals. b The level of introgression is asymmetrical and higher in the invasive organisms when the interbreeding rate is large enough (after the dotted line in the x-axis). The value of the admixture rate that delineates this expected higher introgression in the invasive taxon depends on the combination of demographic and migration parameters43. The introgression asymmetry between the two species is due to local alleles continuously introduced at the wave front of the invasive range expansion, with a relatively high probability of increasing in frequency due to the surfing process44. The invasive organisms are not necessarily non-indigenous and may also represent threatened organisms that increase in frequency at the expense of exotic organisms45.

Full size image

Box 2 Hybridization and human evolution

Hybridization has probably also played a role in our own evolution when modern humans spread out of Africa and met other closely related hominids. Analyses of ancient DNA estimated around two percent of Neanderthal ancestry in the genome of modern humans outside Africa99,100,101. The introgressed genes may have persisted through neutral processes102 or as a result of positive selection e.g., ref. 103. Recently, it has been proposed that some introgressed alleles, adaptive in the past, may currently be associated with certain diseases104. Modern humans are likely to have met and potentially interbred with other hominids in addition to Neanderthals. Huerta-Sánchez et al105. recognized positive selection in haplotypes related to survival at high altitudes in current Tibetans, which seem to have been introgressed from Denisovans. Other haplotypes from Denisovan ancestry seem to be frequent in the current genome of Melanesians106. Our own genome may thus carry the result of various ancient hybridization events during human evolution107.

Biodiversity loss
Hybridization is considered as a major conservation concern when it is motivated by anthropogenic factors, such as translocation of invasive species or by modification of natural habitats5,49. The breakdown of the reproductive barriers between organisms may disrupt their independent evolution and has already increased the risk of extinction of several plant and animal taxa, e.g., refs. 50,51.
Hybridization may lead to different but potentially interacting mechanisms that threaten species persistence. First, outbreeding depression may represent a significant loss of reproductive value and detonates a rapid extinction when it interacts with a demographic decline. This may be stronger between genetically distant species e.g., ref. 52, but organisms do not need to be distantly related to be affected by outbreeding depression. For instance, the human domestication of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) has led to lower fertility when mating with conspecifics in the wild, representing a serious threat for wild salmon in Norway53. Second, native genotypes can disappear by genetic swamping and be replaced by the numerical or competitive advantage of invasive genotypes. Third, the introgression of non-native genes can disrupt local adaptations by introducing maladaptive gene complexes54. Fourth, the behavior of wild animals may be perturbed in a way that is difficult to predict, more particularly when it concerns human domesticated animals55, which have been artificially selected according to human lifestyle and, when spreading their genes in nature, may influence a whole network of ecological interactions, e.g., ref. 56. Fifth, hybridization may affect the effective population size of the interacting species with major consequences for rare or threatened species, which already have a reduced number of breeders57. Finally, an important problem for conservation biology arises when the few remaining individuals of a threatened species show a level of introgression that may cause them to lose their legal protection status when hybrids are not considered to be protected organisms, even though the hybrids may have an ecological function otherwise lost with the extinction of parental species21,58.
The loss of species distinctiveness due to introgression has also been called “speciation reversal”, e.g., ref. 59. This may seriously affect key ecological adaptations that appeared during species radiation. Vonlanthen et al.60 documented the rapid extinction of whitefish (Coregonus spp.) in Swiss lakes, which evolved according to ecological opportunities, but human eutrophication and homogenization of the environment is driving extinction by hybridization and demographic decline. A similar case was documented for cichlid fishes of Lake Victoria (East Africa), for which the coloration pattern is a key character that determines mate choice and reproductive isolation, but the turbidity of the water induced by eutrophication relaxed sexual selection, destroying the diversification mechanism61. Speciation reversal is a conservation concern, because it erodes the ecological and genetic distinctiveness between closely related, but ecologically divergent, species60. In a context of climate change, Owens and Samuk62 refers to hybridization as a double edge sword, because even when increasing the pool of potentially adaptive genes, some of these genes may be related to reproductive isolation, weakening any reproductive barrier. The various cases of hybridization leading speciation reversal, e.g., refs. 59,61, suggest that the extinction risk may be more extensive than previously thought60.
Hybridization between wild and domesticated organisms is a worldwide problem of conservation. For instance, the main current threat for the persistence of European wildcats (Felis silvestris) is the hybridization with domestic cats (Felis catus)63,64. Domestic cats were originally domesticated from a wildcat inhabiting the Near East (Felis lybica), but they are genetically distinct to all current F. lybica subspecies65. There are still some wildcat populations remaining in Europe, e.g., ref. 66, but the complete admixture and the loss of genetic distinctiveness have already been achieved in some countries67. Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) can hybridize with any kind of wolf-like canids and have already led to conservation issues in various cases50, such as for the gray wolf (Canis lupus) in Europe, e.g., ref. 68 the coyote (Canis latrans) in North America, e.g., ref. 56 or the Ethiopian wolf (Canis simensis) in Africa, e.g. ref. 69. Ellington and Murray56 found that hybridization with domestic dogs was driving changes in the space occupied by coyotes, suggesting consequences at the ecosystem level. A particular threat is the hybridization of domestic dogs with the Ethiopian wolf, which is the world’s most endangered canid, persisting with around 500 individuals in 6 isolated populations69,70. The detrimental effects of hybridization with domesticated organisms is reinforced, because they far outnumber their wild counterparts, e.g., ref. 71, in which the extinction risk can be particularly accelerated when rare species hybridize with more abundant species.
Genetically modified organisms and genetic engineering have generated a large debate on how to regulate the spread of modified genes in nature through hybridization e.g., ref. 72. Genomic alteration for economic purposes may induce higher fertility and resistance to pathogens that make crops or hybrids highly invasive73. The reduced fertility of the first-generation hybrids (F1) is not a barrier for the spread of advantageous alleles74, which are frequently observed in the wild, e.g., ref. 75 with hybrids becoming invasive in various cases76. The ecological release of their natural predators or pathogens conferred by the resistant alleles has been proposed as a factor that is initiating this invasion73. A serious risk has been detected in the single wild population of rice in Costa Rica (Oryza glumaepatula) that hybridizes with invasive commercial rice (O. sativa)77. The concerns are not only related to modified plant crops, but also to animals of economic interest, usually with unpredictable ecological effects, e.g., ref. 78 or to non-target insects, as has been documented for the monarch butterfly Danaus plexippus of North America, e.g., ref. 79.
Types of hybridization
We defined three main types of hybridization that may be used as a framework for the understanding of the ecological and evolutionary consequences of hybridization (Fig. 2). These categories include: (1) distant species hybridization, mostly preventing gene flow because hybrids are infertile (Type 1) or (2) because homologous chromosomes do not recombine (Type 2); and (3) interbreeding between more closely related taxa, in which homologous chromosomes recognize themselves during meiosis, resulting in gene flow and consequent introgression between parental organisms (Type 3) (Box 3).
Fig. 2: Three types of hybridization regarding the reproductive characteristics of first-generation hybrids (F1).

Type 1 represents infertile or inviable hybrids. Type 2 hybrids are fertile but introgression is prevented in further generations due to the generation of gametes without recombination during gametogenesis in hybrid offspring. Type 3 hybrids are fertile and there is recombination during gametogenesis allowing introgression in further generations. Non-human-induced hybridization represents hybrids naturally found in nature, in which evolutionary opportunities arise when hybrids are fertile. Conservation guidelines are proposed for human-induced hybridization, which are motivated by any anthropogenic factor. They represent either a purely demographic or both a demographic and genetic effect on interbreeding taxa. The conservation priorities to avoid biodiversity loss are highlighted in red and basically represent human-induced hybridization that produces demographic decline or ecological disequilibrium. A potential tool to increase genetic diversity is highlighted in green.

Full size image

Fig. 3: Identification of the type of hybridization.

Different steps that may be considered to recognize the type of hybridization when there is evidence of interbreeding between taxa (modified from Quilodrán et al.81).

Full size image

Type 1: Infertile hybrids, no introgression
The first type of hybridization does not result in introgression, because offspring are inviable or infertile. This type of hybridization represents an extinction risk when the loss of reproductive value enhances a demographic decline for one (or both) parental species. The reasons could be either because small populations interbreed with more abundant populations and therefore waste reproductive efforts, or because additional threats are accumulated, such as a disease. For example, in the case of hybridization between Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and brown trout (Salmo trutta), hybridization alone is likely not a threat, but could lead to the extinction of some local salmon populations that are already threatened by a parasitic disease80. This type of hybridization may be considered an evolutionary dead-end.
Type 2: Fertile hybrids, no introgression
The second type of hybridization results in fertile F1 hybrids, but introgression is prevented because their offspring are clonal or hemiclonal, transmitting a single parental genome, also called hybridization with genome exclusion. We recently showed that the extinction of natives and the invasion of exotic organisms might be reached in very few generations81. For instance, in the case of hybridogenesis between Western European water-frogs (Pelophylax species complex)51, the extinction risk is not genetically driven, but determined by the “demographic flow” between parental species and mediated by hybrid offspring. We previously demonstrated that this hybridization is a highway to extinction, which may be underappreciated because it emulates the result of hybridization type 1 (i.e., only displaying F1 hybrid phenotypes)81. Evolutionary opportunities may emerge from these systems by generating self-reproducing polyploid forms82, which are observed in plants but rarely found in animals83.
Type 3: Fertile hybrids, introgression
The third type of hybridization defines interbreeding with gene flow between parental organisms leading to genomic mixing and therefore to introgression. This type of hybridization may result in two different effects on biodiversity, either a genetic and demographic risk of species extinction5, or the opportunity of adaptation and evolution of novel diversity14. For instance, hybrids may replace native species and facilitate biological invasions as in the case of mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), which has been widely translocated, cohabiting with other duck species and threatening them by hybridization84. In another example, however, genes from extinct hominids may still be found in high frequency in current human populations due to old hybridization events43,85. This type of hybridization can also represent a new evolutionary opportunity by increasing genetic diversity and possibilities of adaptation84.

Box 3 Assignment to hybridization type

The three types of hybridization constitute a useful guideline for the understanding of the genetics and/or demographics effects of hybridization on biodiversity. However, to determine one of these types in a specific real system is not always an easy task to achieve, especially when it regards the past evolution of already extinct organisms or when it regards the projection of long-term effects. For instance, infertile hybrids, but with very small introgressions, are observed between Atlantic salmon and brown trout108. A small level of introgression may be ignored, when there is a short-term effect of hybridization producing extinction risk80, but it would not be the case when projecting evolutionary long-term effects, and even more so when concerning range expansions (see Fig. 1), in which case it would be considered as type 3. Moreover, detection of hybridization type 3 with low levels of introgression strongly depends on the amount of genetic markers evaluated4.
Because hybridization type 1 and type 2 are both producing only F1 phenotypes, we recently developed a genetic framework to determine the type of hybridization81 (Fig. 3). Type 3 is easier to recognize due to multiple hybrid phenotypes being present in a population caused by different levels of introgression. If only F1 phenotypes are observed, often with a phenotype intermediate between parental taxa, we recommend defining hybrid fertility by performing controlled breeding experiments. If these experiments are not possible because, for instance, the few remaining individuals of the involved species are threatened, it would be useful to observe their demography and sex ratio. Hybridization type 2 generally produces a very fast demographic decline, and most of the time favors the production of a single sex (namely females). When hybridization type 2 is suspected, it is important to define whether hybrids’ gametes are producing a single (non-alternative) or both (alternative) parental genomes. This may be clarified with a pool of gametes haplotyping test, which will show whether all gametes of an individual have a single allele per gene, in which case hybridization type 2 will be of the non-alternative form. If two alleles are present for some loci, this test reveals hybridization type 2 of the alternative form. In this last case, a single gamete haplotyping method may be implemented to determine the proportion of gametes generated from each of the parental taxa. If those tests result in more than two haplotypes, it would indicate introgression with very low fitness: either type 1 when regarding ecological short-term effects or type 3 when considering evolutionary long-term effects. Details about the pool of gametes and single gametes haplotyping test are presented in Quilodrán et al.81.

Conservation guidelines
Allendorf et al.49 proposed hybridization categories that are widely used to prioritize conservation actions. They considered three categories, but defined differently than ours: (i) sterile hybrids, (ii) widespread introgression, and (iii) complete admixture. Indeed, they ignore the effect of fertile hybrids without introgression (hybridization type 2), which is the category that may induce faster extinctions. In addition, they considered the anthropogenic motivation a sine qua non condition to distinguish the conservation issues of hybridization. We highlight here that hybridization, even when induced by humans, is potentially representing a source of genetic variation that could be useful for conservation purposes.
The classification of Allendorf et al.49 has been employed during the past 20 years, but the wider understanding of hybridization impact brought by more recent studies allows us to propose a novel view of conservation priorities (Fig. 2). Given our classification, the conservation priorities are also found in human-induced hybridization, but this is not the single cut-off to delimit them. Hybridization type 1 is a conservation concern when promoting demographic decline, either because two species with high density-imbalance interbreed or because hybridization amplifies other existing risks80. Hybridization type 2 is always a threat that may precipitate extinction within very few generations81. Hybridization type 3 is also a priority when affecting key ecological interactions, either by enhancing demographic decline or because it changes the behavior of wild individuals84.
Hybridization types 1 and 3 should not represent a priority when they are not triggering demographic decline or the disruption of ecological functions80,84. We suggest that the resources to protect biodiversity may be redirected either to other conservation issues or other threatened organisms. In such conditions, hybridization type 3 may even be used as a conservation tool to increase genetic diversity. However, all of these should be implemented carefully84. The potential fitness loss and the detrimental ecological effects of hybridization have first to be evaluated, and this is often difficult to achieve. In the first case, controlled breeding experiments may help to assess the fertility of hybrids. If this is not possible, monitoring the demography of parental species may help to evaluate a potential fitness loss due to hybridization. A detrimental ecological effect of hybridization is more difficult to evaluate but the behavior of hybrids may provide valuable information. As an example, in Britain, extent hybridization has been registered between Scottish wildcats and domestic cats86, as well as between European polecat and feral ferrets87. While the phenotype of Scottish wildcats has been seriously affected86, the polecat phenotype has been much less affected due to hybridization87. In both cases, the increased genetic diversity may have a positive effect in front of changing environmental conditions, but the impact of hybridization on the behavior of wildcats55, and on the fitness of the polecat population88, deserve more attention before rejecting hybridization as a threat or proposing it as a conservation management tool.
We propose that phylogenetically closer taxa with similar ecological requirements may offer some guidelines for assisted hybridization as a tool in conservation. For instance, assisted hybrization between subspecies of panthers has promoted the recovery of Florida panthers (Puma concolor coryi) by increasing heterozygosity and decreasing inbreeding, resulting in an overall increase of survival and fitness89. Hybridization between different species has also promoted the recovery of American chestnuts (Castanea dentata) through the transfer of pathogen resistance from Chinese chestnuts (C. mollisima)90. In circumstances where organisms are evolutionarily close and share similar ecologies, and when the local species is on the brink of extinction, hybrids may also represent a subject of protection, even when hybridization is caused by anthropogenic factors. An example is the interspecific hybridization between coral reefs, in which the parental species Acropora palmata and A. cervicornis have been in a critical decline over the last decades, but their hybrids (also called A. prolifera) have increased in several locations91. The hybrids have been shown to be as fit or even more fit than the parental species92. While the parental species are legally protected, protecting hybrids represents a legal challenge, which may help to preserve functional ecosystems otherwise lost with the extinction of the parental species91. More

1.
Augustine, D. J. & McNaughton, S. J. Ungulate effects on the functional species composition of plant communities: herbivore selectivity and plant tolerance. J. Wildl. Manag. 62, 1165–1183 (1998).
Google Scholar 
2.
Huntly, N. Herbivores and the dynamics of communities and ecosystems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 22, 477–503 (1991).
Google Scholar 

3.
Keane, R. M. & Crawley, M. J. Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17, 164–170 (2002).
Google Scholar 

4.
Maron, J. L. & Vila, M. When do herbivores affect plant invasion? Evidence for the natural enemies and biotic resistance hypotheses. Oikos 95, 361–373 (2001).
Google Scholar 

5.
Lockwood, J. L., Hoopes, M. F. & Marchetti, M. P. Establishment success: the influence of biotic interactions. In Invasion Ecology (eds Lockwood, J. L. et al.) 107–131 (Wiley, Hoboken, 2013).
Google Scholar 

6.
Meijer, K., Schilthuizen, M., Beukeboom, L. & Smit, C. A review and meta-analysis of the enemy release hypothesis in plant-herbivorous insect systems. PeerJ https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2778 (2016).
Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

7.
Nunez-Mir, G. C. et al. Biotic resistance to exotic invasions: its role in forest ecosystems, confounding artifacts, and future directions. Biol. Invasions 19, 3287–3299 (2017).
Google Scholar 

8.
Jeschke, J. M. & Heger, T. Invasion Biology. Hypotheses and Evidence (CABI, Wallingford, 2018).
Google Scholar 

9.
Averill, K. M., Mortensen, D. A., Smithwick, E. A. H. & Post, E. Deer feeding selectivity for invasive plants. Biol. Invasions 18, 1247–1263 (2016).
Google Scholar 

10.
Parker, J., Burkepile, D. & Hay, M. Opposing effects of native and exotic herbivores on plant invasions. Science 311, 1459–1461. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1121407 (2006).
ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

11.
Hobbs, R. J. Synergisms among habitat fragmentation, livestock grazing, and biotic invasions in Southwestern Australia. Conserv. Biol. 15, 1522–1528 (2001).
Google Scholar 

12.
Knight, T. M., Dunn, J. L., Smith, L. A., Davis, J. & Kalisz, S. Deer facilitate invasive plant success in a Pennsylvania forest understory. Nat. Areas J. 29, 110–116 (2009).
Google Scholar 

13.
Nuñez, M. A. et al. Exotic mammals disperse exotic fungi that promote invasion by exotic trees. PLoS ONE 8, 1–6 (2013).
Google Scholar 

14.
Oduor, A. M. O., Gómez, J. M. & Strauss, S. Y. Exotic vertebrate and invertebrate herbivores differ in their impacts on native and exotic plants: a meta-analysis. Biol. Invasions 12, 407–419 (2010).
Google Scholar 

15.
Spear, D. & Chown, S. L. Non-indigenous ungulates as a threat to biodiversity. J. Zool. 279, 1–17 (2009).
Google Scholar 

16.
Vavra, M., Parks, C. G. & Wisdom, M. J. Biodiversity, exotic plant species, and herbivory: the good, the bad, and the ungulate. For. Ecol. Manag. 246, 66–72 (2007).
Google Scholar 

17.
Loydi, A. & Zalba, S. M. Feral horses dung piles as potential invasion windows for alien plant species in natural grasslands. Plant Ecol. 201, 471–480 (2009).
Google Scholar 

18.
Richardson, D. M. & Rejmánek, M. Conifers as invasive aliens: a global survey and predictive framework. Divers. Distrib. 10, 321–331 (2004).
Google Scholar 

19.
Simberloff, D. et al. Spread and impact of introduced conifers in South America: lessons from other southern hemisphere regions. Austral. Ecol. 35, 489–504 (2010).
Google Scholar 

20.
Rejmánek, M. & Richardson, D. M. What attributes make some plant species more invasive?. Ecology 77, 1655–1661 (1996).
Google Scholar 

21.
Nuñez, M. A., Simberloff, D. & Relva, M. A. Seed predation as a barrier to alien conifer invasions. Biol. Invasions 10, 1389–1398 (2008).
Google Scholar 

22.
Nuñez, M. A., Relva, M. A. & Simberloff, D. Enemy release or invasional meltdown? Deer preference for exotic and native trees on Isla Victoria Argentina. Austral. Ecol. 33, 317–323 (2008).
Google Scholar 

23.
Nuñez, M. A. & Medley, K. A. Pine invasions: climate predicts invasion success; something else predicts failure. Divers. Distrib. 17, 703–713 (2011).
Google Scholar 

24.
Relva, M. A., Nuñez, M. A. & Simberloff, D. Introduced deer reduce native plant cover and facilitate invasion of non-native tree species: evidence for invasional meltdown. Biol. Invasions 12, 303–311 (2010).
Google Scholar 

25.
Osem, Y., Lavi, A. & Rosenfeld, A. Colonization of Pinus halepensis in Mediterranean habitats: consequences of afforestation, grazing and fire. Biol. Invasions 13, 485–498 (2011).
Google Scholar 

26.
de Villalobos, A., Zalba, S. M. & Peláez, D. V. Pinus halepensis invasion in mountain pampean grassland: effects of feral horses grazing on seedling establishment. Environ. Res. 111, 953–959 (2011).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

27.
Sarasola, M. M., Rusch, V. E., Schlichter, T. M. & Ghersa, C. M. Invasión de coníferas forestales en áreas de estepa y bosques de ciprés de la cordillera en la Región Andino Patagónica. Ecol. Austral. 16, 143–156 (2006).
Google Scholar 

28.
Chauchard, S., Pille, G. & Carcaillet, C. Large herbivores control the invasive potential of nonnative Austrian black pine in a mixed deciduous Mediterranean forest. Can. J. For. Res. 36, 1047–1053 (2006).
Google Scholar 

29.
Boulant, N., Kunstler, G., Rambal, S. & Lepart, J. Seed supply, drought, and grazing determine spatio-temporal patterns of recruitment for native and introduced invasive pines in grasslands. Divers. Distrib. 14, 862–874 (2008).
Google Scholar 

30.
Becerra, P. I. & Bustamante, R. O. The effect of herbivory on seedling survival of the invasive exotic species Pinus radiata and Eucalyptus globulus in a Mediterranean ecosystem of Central Chile. For. Ecol. Manag. 256, 1573–1578 (2009).
Google Scholar 

31.
Bartolomé, J., Boada, M., Saurí, D., Sánchez, S. & Plaixats, J. Conifer dispersion on subalpine pastures in Northeastern Spain: characteristics and implications for rangeland management. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 61, 218–225 (2008).
Google Scholar 

32.
Forbes, J. M. Learning about food: conditioned preferences and aversions. In Voluntary Food Intake and Diet Selection in Farm Animals (ed. Forbes, J. M.) 117–143 (CABI, Wallingford, 2007).
Google Scholar 

33.
Danell, K., Bergström, R. & Edenius, L. Effects of large mammalian browsers on architecture, biomass, and nutrients of woody plants. Source J. Mammal. 75, 833–844 (1994).
Google Scholar 

34.
McNaughton, S. J. Grazing as an optimization process: grass-ungulate relationships in the Serengeti. Am. Nat. 113, 691–703 (1979).
Google Scholar 

35.
Canham, C. D., McAninch, J. B. & Wood, D. M. Effects of the frequency, timing, and intensity of simulated browsing on growth and mortality of tree seedlings. Can. J. For. Res. 24, 817–825 (1994).
Google Scholar 

36.
Persson, I. L., Danell, K. & Bergström, R. Different moose densities and accompanied changes in tree morphology and browse production. Ecol. Appl. 15, 1296–1305 (2005).
Google Scholar 

37.
Pollock, M. L., Lee, W. G., Walker, S. & Forrester, G. Ratite and ungulate preferences for woody New Zealand plants: influence of chemical and physical traits. N. Z. J. Ecol. 31, 68–78 (2007).
Google Scholar 

38.
Duncan, A. J., Hartley, S. E. & Iason, G. R. The effect of monoterpene concentrations in Sitka Spruce (Picea sitchensis) on the browsing behavior of red deer (Cervus elaphus). Can. J. Zool. Can. Zool. 72, 1715–1720 (1994).
CAS  Google Scholar 

39.
Kimball, B. A., Russell, J. H. & Ott, P. K. Phytochemical variation within a single plant species influences foraging behavior of deer. Oikos 121, 743–751 (2012).
Google Scholar 

40.
Zhang, X. & States, J. S. Selective herbivory of Ponderosa pine by Abert squirrels: a re-examination of the role of terpenes. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 19, 111–115 (1991).
CAS  Google Scholar 

41.
Elliott, S. & Loudon, A. Effects of monoterpene odors on food selection by red deer calves (Cervus elaphus). J. Chem. Ecol. 13, 1343–1349 (1987).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

42.
Bryant, J. P. et al. Interactions between woody plants and browsing mammals mediated by secondary metabolites. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 22, 431–446 (1991).
Google Scholar 

43.
Bryant, J. P., Reichardt, P. B. & Clausen, T. P. Chemically mediated interactions between woody plants and browsing mammals. J. Range Manag. 45, 18–24 (1992).
Google Scholar 

44.
Baraza, E., Hódar, J. A. & Zamora, R. Consequences of plant-chemical diversity for domestic goat food preference in Mediterranean forests. Acta Oecol. 35, 117–127 (2009).
ADS  Google Scholar 

45.
Moreira, X. et al. Trade-offs between constitutive and induced defences drive geographical and climatic clines in pine chemical defences. Ecol. Lett. 17, 537–546 (2014).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

46.
Radwan, M. A. & Crouch, G. L. Selected chemical constituents and deer browsing preference of Douglas Fir. J. Chem. Ecol. 4, 675–683 (1978).
CAS  Google Scholar 

47.
Frost, R. A. & Launchbaugh, K. L. Grazing for Rangeland Weed Managenent: a new look at an old tool. Rangelands 25, 43–47 (2003).
Google Scholar 

48.
Ledgard, N. J. The spread of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta, Dougl.) in New Zealand. For. Ecol. Manag. 141, 43–57 (2001).
Google Scholar 

49.
Zamora-Nasca, L. B., Relva, M. A. & Núñez, M. A. Ungulates can control tree invasions: experimental evidence from nonnative conifers and sheep herbivory. Biol. Invasions 20, 583–591 (2018).
Google Scholar 

50.
Crozier, E. R. & Ledgard, N. J. Palatability of wilding conifers and control by simulated sheep browsing. In Alternatives to the Chemical Control of Weeds. Proceedings of International Conference, Rotorua, July 1989. Bulletin No. 155 (eds Basset, C. et al.) 139–143 (Rotorua, Ministry of Forestry, Forest Research Institute, 1990).
Google Scholar 

51.
Mayle, B. Domestic Stock Grazing to Enhance Woodland Biodiversity (Forestry Commission, Edinburgh, 1999).
Google Scholar 

52.
Westoby, M. The LHS Strategy Scheme in Relation to Grazing and Fire. VIth International Rangeland Congress (Australian Rangeland Society, Canberra, 1999).
Google Scholar 

53.
Westoby, M. An analysis of diet selection by large generalist herbivores. Am. Nat. 108, 290–304 (1974).
Google Scholar 

54.
Villalba, J. J., Burritt, E. A. & Clair, S. B. S. Aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) intake and preference by mammalian herbivores: the role of plant secondary compounds and nutritional context. J. Chem. Ecol. 40, 1135–1145 (2014).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

55.
Rhodes, A. C., Larsen, R. T., Maxwell, J. D. & St. Clair, S. B. Temporal patterns of ungulate herbivory and phenology of aspen regeneration and defense. Oecologia 188, 707–719 (2018).
ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

56.
Cingolani, A. M., Posse, G. & Collantes, M. B. Plant functional traits, herbivore selectivity and response to sheep grazing in Patagonian steppe grasslands. J. Appl. Ecol. 42, 50–59 (2005).
Google Scholar 

57.
Bran, D., Ayesa, J. & Lopez, C. Áreas ecológicas de Neuquen (Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria – INTA, Buenos Aires, 2002).
Google Scholar 

58.
Mueller, J. Producción ovina en Argentina, situación actual y perspectivas futuras. Boletín Inf. INTA 200, 19–21 (2001).
Google Scholar 

59.
Aguiar, M. R. & Sala, O. E. Interactions among grasses, shrubs, and herbivores in Patagonian grass-shrub steppes. Ecol. Austral. 8, 201–210 (1998).
Google Scholar 

60.
Zamora-Nasca, L. B., Relva, M. A. & Núñez, M. A. Ungulate browsing on introduced pines differs between plant communities: implications for invasion process and management. Austral. Ecol. 44, 973–982 (2019).
Google Scholar 

61.
Bonvissuto, G. L., Somlo, R. C., Lanciotti, M. L., Carteau, A. G. & Busso, C. A. Guías de Condición para Pastizales Naturales de ‘Precordillera’, ‘Sierras y Mesetas’ y ‘Monte Austral’ de Patagonia (Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agrpecuaria – INTA, Buenos Aires, 2008).
Google Scholar 

62.
Siffredi, G. L. et al. Guía para la evaluación de Pastizales. Para las áreas ecológicas de Sierras y Mesetas Occidentales y de Monte de Patagonia Norte (INTA, Buenos Aires, 2013).
Google Scholar 

63.
SENASA. Manual de Bienestar Animal Un enfoqe práctico para el buen manejo de especies domésticas durante su tenencia, producción, concentración, transporte y faena (Servicio Nacional de Sanidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria, Buenos Aires, 2015).
Google Scholar 

64.
Álvarez, J. M. et al. Bienestar animal Ovino (2005).

65.
Mumm, R. & Hilker, M. Direct and indirect chemical defence of pine against folivorous insects. Trends Plant Sci. 11, 351–358 (2006).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

66.
Moreira, X. et al. Inducibility of chemical defences by two chewing insect herbivores in pine trees is specific to targeted plant tissue, particular herbivore and defensive trait. Phytochemistry 94, 113–122 (2013).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

67.
Crawley, M. J. Mixed-effect models. In The R Book 681–714 (Wiley, 2013).

68.
Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N., Walker, N. J., Saveliev, A. A. & Smith, G. M. Mixed Effects Models and extensions in Ecology with R (Springer, Berlin, 2009).
Google Scholar 

69.
Lenth, M. R. Package ‘lsmeans’. CRAN (2013).

70.
Bates, D. M., Machler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).
Google Scholar 

71.
Skaug, H., Fournier, D., Nielsen, A., Magnusson, A. & Bolker, B. M. Generalized linear mixed models using ‘AD model builder’. Optim. Methods Softw. 27, 233–249 (2012).
MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

72.
Hothorn, T. et al. Package ‘multcomp’ – Simultaneous Inference in General Parametric Models. (2017). https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/multcomp/multcomp.pdf

73.
Giraudoux, P., Antonietti, J.-P., Beale, C., Pleydell, D. & Treglia, M. Package ‘pgirmess’: Spatial Analysis and Data Mining for Field Ecologists (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3097983.3098168doi:

74.
Dormann, C. F. et al. Collinearity: a review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography (Cop.) 36, 027–046 (2013).
Google Scholar 

75.
Peuke, A. D. Correlations in concentrations, xylem and phloem flows, and partitioning of elements and ions in intact plants. A summary and statistical re-evaluation of modelling experiments in Ricinus communis. J. Exp. Bot. 61, 635–655 (2010).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

76.
Wickham, H. ggplot2. Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (2009). doi:10.1007/978-0-387-98141-3.

77.
R Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/ (2018).

78.
Zamora, R., Gómez, J. M., Hódar, J. A., Castro, J. & García, D. Effect of browsing by ungulates on sapling growth of Scots pine in a mediterranean environment: consequences for forest regeneration. For. Ecol. Manag. 144, 33–42 (2001).
Google Scholar 

79.
Estell, R. E. et al. Effects of volatile compounds on consumption of alfalfa pellets by sheep. J. Anim. Sci. 76, 228–233 (1998).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

80.
Kruska, D. & Stephan, H. Volumenvergleich allokortikaler Hirnzentren hei Wild- und Hausschweinen. Acta Anat. 84, 387–415 (1973).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

81.
Arnold, G. W., De Boer, E. S. & Boundy, C. A. P. The influence of odour and taste on the food preferences and food intake of sheep. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 31, 571–587 (1980).
CAS  Google Scholar 

82.
Tribe, D. E. The importance of the sense of smell to the grazing sheep. J. Agric. Sci. 39, 309–312 (1949).
Google Scholar 

83.
Villalba, J. J. & Provenza, F. D. Effects of food structure and nutritional quality and animal nutritional state on intake behaviour and food preferences of sheep. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 63, 145–163 (1999).
Google Scholar 

84.
Evju, M., Austrheim, G., Halvorsen, R. & Mysterud, A. Grazing responses in herbs in relation to herbivore selectivity and plant traits in an alpine ecosystem. Oecologia 161, 77–85 (2009).
ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

85.
Cadenasso, M. L., Pickett, S. T. A. & Morin, P. J. Experimental test of the role of mammalian herbivores on old field succession: Community structure and seedling survival. J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 129, 228–237 (2002).
Google Scholar 

86.
Capó, E. A., Aguilar, R. & Renison, D. Livestock reduces juvenile tree growth of alien invasive species with a minimal effect on natives: a field experiment using exclosures. Biol. Invasions 18, 2943–2950 (2016).
Google Scholar 

87.
Dimock, E. J., Silen, R. R. & Allen, V. E. Genetic resistance in Douglas -fir to damage by snowshoe hare and black-tailed deer. For. Sci. 22, 106–121 (1976).
Google Scholar 

88.
Mobæk, R., Mysterud, A., Egil Loe, L., Holand, Ø & Austrheim, G. Density dependent and temporal variability in habitat selection by a large herbivore; an experimental approach. Oikos 118, 209–218 (2009).
Google Scholar 

89.
Iason, G. R., O’Reilly-Wapstra, J. M., Brewer, M. J., Summers, R. W. & Moore, B. D. Do multiple herbivores maintain chemical diversity of Scots pine monoterpenes? Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 366, 1337–1345 (2011).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  More

The lignite mine at Bełchatów, Central Poland (Fig. 1), has recently yielded abundant Miocene remains of several species of branchiopod microcrustaceans. They pertain to the order Anomopoda or water fleas, families Chydoridae and Bosminidae. The main synapomorphy of the anomopods is the ephippium, a structure in which sexual or resting eggs are deposited and that forms when external conditions deteriorate. The Daphniidae include the well-known and speciose genus Daphnia, a highly specialized pelagic component of the freshwater zooplankton. The ephippium fossilizes well and is mostly the only structure that survives as a fossil. The Chydoridae are mostly found in the littoral of lakes and ponds, among water plants. The Bosminidae are pelagic, like Daphnia, but are much smaller (around 0.5 mm in body size) while Daphnia and other daphniids may reach up to 6–7 mm.
Figure 1

(A) View of the Bełchatów Lignite Mine outcrop (photo from the nineties of the twentieth century, when the material was collected). The sedimentary unit with deposits with the cladoceran fossils is to the lower right of the picture (photo: G. Worobiec). (B) Piece of mudstone with cladoceran remains (Collection KRAM-P 225, stored in the W. Szafer Institute of Botany, Polish Academy of Sciences). On the exposed surface leaves of trees and shrubs as well as the water plant Potamogeton (red circle) are seen (photo: A. Pociecha).

Full size image

The fossil-bearing deposits belong to a clayey-sandy (I-P) unit considered to be of mid to late Miocene age1,2. Beside by geology, this age is supported by fission track dating, and fossils of different animal (mollusks, fish) and plant (higher plants, water plants and algae) groups1,2,3,4,5,6,7. The fission track ages were 16.5 to 18.1 million years, while the Miocene, also known as the age of mammals, extended from 23 to 5.3 million years BP.
The Branchiopoda (a class of the Crustacea composed ten extant orders) include some of the most ancient extant crustaceans (the Anostraca or fairy shrimp) with several credible fossils8. However, the fossil record is patchy. While the oldest known anostracan-like representatives date back to the Cambrian, fossils of the four extant so-called cladoceran orders, with an estimated 1,000 extant species, is poor9 and somewhat paradoxical. The order Ctenopoda is known from ca 60 extant species and several Mesozoic fossils (possibly representing orders in their own right) but is rare in the most abundant source of fossils, the sediments of late Pleistocene–Holocene lakes10,11. The Anomopoda, in contrast, have to date a limited Mesozoic fossil record, but their subfossils abound in Holocene lake sediments.
The family Chydoridae is represented in Bełchatów by at least four genera: Alona, Acroperus, Camptocercus, and Chydorus. Alona s.l. rivals Daphnia as the most species-rich genus of the order9. All Alona fossils seen so far had two connected head-pores (Fig. 2), placing them near or in the somewhat controversial genus Biapertura. In modern European faunas, and except for Biapertura affinis, three-pored species are dominant, while two-pored ones tend to be typical of warm-climate faunas. The postabdomen, another typical anomopod structure functioning more or less as a ‘tail’, is similar but not identical to that of Biapertura affinis. Furthermore, distinct other species (Fig. 2) have been found as well.
Figure 2

Alona with two head pores from Miocene mudstone from Bełchatów [(A–C), headshields; (B) arrow, labrum; (D, F, G, H) abdomens; (E) shell with abdomen] (photo: A. Pociecha, E. Zawisza).

Full size image

Another type of fossils (Fig. 3) shares characters of the genera Acroperus and Camptocercus. Some body parts suggest the presence of Acroperus cf. harpae, others are Campocercus like. One three-dimensional fossil of a first trunk limb (P1) with soft parts preserved shows an IDL (inner distal lobe) with two setae and a moderately well developed claw. In Acroperus, a seta instead of a claw is found here. In Camptocercus, P1 has a big hook here, and our fossils are therefore intermediate between both genera, suggesting the fossil to belong to an extinct ancestral stage. The genus Chydorus is represented by C. sphaericus-like fossils (Fig. 3), but the postabdomen is needed to decide on its taxonomic status.
Figure 3

Acroperus-Camptocercus from Miocene mudstone at Bełchatów [(A) complete animal with shell, headshield, and first antenna; (B) abdomen; (C) shell; (D) claw; (E) shell with abdomen; (F) headshield with soft parts, viz. first and second trunk limbs with IDL setae conserved] (photo: A. Pociecha, E. Zawisza).

Full size image

Significantly, Bosminidae in our material were almost as abundant as Alona, while in this family no pre-Pleistocene fossils were previously known at all. Most body parts have been recovered (Fig. 4), but not the postabdomen, which is diagnostic. There is strong variation in the fossils, like in the length of the first antenna (compare Fig. 4B with Fig. 4C,E) and the posterior mucro of the valve. It is impossible to decide whether these antennae belong to several or to a single cyclomorphotic species. However, the distinctly swollen mucros like in Fig. 4A, arrow, are not known in any modern Bosmina, and suggest an extinct taxon.
Figure 4

Bosmina from Miocene mudstone from Bełchatów [(A, D, F) shell; (B) shell with headshield; (C) headshield with first antenna; (E) first antenna)] (photo: A. Pociecha, E. Zawisza).

Full size image

Daphniid fossil evidence goes back to the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary. Fossils are fairly common but only consist of resting eggs (ephippia). Ephippia can tentatively be identified to genus level, which has led to the idea that the two subfamilies of Daphniidae have been around, apparently unchanged, for more than 140 million years9. This is known as the morphological stasis hypothesis. Its factual basis is weak although we accept that true Daphnia ephippia occur in the cretaceous of China, Mongolia and Australia9. Credible ephippia have also been isolated from Eocene age Messel pit-oil shales11. Moina (a water flea related to Daphnia) ephippia have been recovered from the early Miocene Barstow formation12,13,14. In the latter place, fossils are three-dimensional, like in our case in Bełchatów. It should be emphasized, however, that at Bełchatów no daphniid fossils have to date been discovered.
A variety of plant and animal groups, including water plants like Potamogeton have been documented from the Bełchatów site. Many are as beautifully preserved as the cladocerans3,4,5,6,7 and attempts have been made to reconstruct the climatic environment in which they lived. It is suggested to have been warmer than today (average 13.5°–16.5°C, cooling down gradually towards the end of the Miocene). The water was probably slowly flowing, through what may have been a swamp or a group of oxbow lakes from freshwater ecosystems2,15.
That we recovered no daphniid fossils may refine our insight into the nature of the Bełchatów aquatic environment: We favour the idea of a series of shallow oxbow lakes in a climate warmer than todays, with at least locally an abundance of macrophytes. Chydorids thrive in such environments, and the genus Simocephalus among daphniids also prefers such an environment. Simocephalus is quite common and widespread in modern weedy lakes but it has not been found in Bełchatów either. Like Daphnia, Bosminids are truly planktonic and need open water. Therefore, the Bełchatów lakes were probably a patchwork of macrophyte beds and open water.
So where did all the daphniids go? Daphniids are also relatively large species (up to several mm in size), while chydorids and bosminids are typically below a millimeter in size. This suggests size-selective predation on the zooplankton, most probably by fish16. Fish (tench, pike, and unidentified species) were present at Bełchatów4, at least until the middle Miocene. Tench is an omnivore and Pike is zooplanktivorous in its early stages, turning to piscivory in later life. Predation-driven exclusion of these large cladocerans may therefore well have acted in concert with the physical environment.
Predatory exclusion is seldom absolute, especially in a non-tropical climate with a cold season (‘winter’) during which predation is relaxed. This allows the prey to recover. In Bełchatów, we see no such a recovery, so another factor must have intervened. We suggest this may have been linked to water chemistry. Cladocerans, though of worldwide occurrence, are sensitive to water chemistry, more than the copepods, the second main group making up the zooplankton. We are unable to specify the precise nature behind the chemical exclusion of daphniids, but there are many examples of lakes in which Cladocera are chemically depressed. Sometimes, like in Lake Tanganyika (Africa), and the Mallili lakes (Indonesia), Cladocera are excluded altogether17,18.
In conclusion, our Miocene assemblage significantly expand our insights in anomopod evolution. They resemble modern faunas but at the same time show stronger signs of evolution at the species and at the genus level than expected under the morphological stasis hypothesis based on Daphnia ephippia. We also find clear indications of a species diversity that resembles todays’, with morphologies that look familiar at first sight but prove divergent in the details.
Bosminid fossils used to be known from the Pleistocene only, but in the Bełchatów fauna they are remarkably abundant and some of them show an unfamiliar morphology. This is best interpreted as a case of paleo-competitive release. Daphniids normally dominate the pelagic and keep bosminid abundances down. But their absence gives these small crustaceans a chance to prosper and dominate the open waters. More

1.
Uthicke, S., Schaffelke, B. & Byrne, M. A boom-bust phylum? Ecological and evolutionary consequences of density variations in echinoderms. Ecol. Monogr. 79, 3–24 (2009).
Google Scholar 
2.
Sala, E. & Knowlton, N. Global marine biodiversity trends. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 31, 93–122 (2006).
Google Scholar 

3.
Fabricius, K. E., Okaji, K. & De’ath, G. Three lines of evidence to link outbreaks of the crown-of-thorns seastar Acanthaster planci to the release of larval food limitation. Coral Reefs 29, 593–605 (2010).
ADS  Google Scholar 

4.
Hock, K., Wolff, N. H., Condie, S. A., Anthony, K. R. N. & Mumby, P. J. Connectivity networks reveal the risks of crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks on the Great Barrier Reef. J. Appl. Ecol. 51, 1188–1196 (2014).
Google Scholar 

5.
Wolfe, K., Graba-Landry, A., Dworjanyn, S. A. & Byrne, M. Larval phenotypic plasticity in the boom-and-bust crown-of-thorns seastar, Acanthaster planci. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 539, 179–189 (2015).
ADS  Google Scholar 

6.
Pearson, T. H., Josefson, A. B. & Rosenberg, R. Petersen’s benthic stations revisited. I. Is the Kattegatt becoming eutrophic?. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 92, 157–206 (1985).
Google Scholar 

7.
Barnes, D. K. A., Verling, E., Crook, A., Davidson, I. & O’Mahoney, M. Local population disappearance follows (20 yr after) cycle collapse in a pivotal ecological species. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 226, 311–313 (2002).
ADS  Google Scholar 

8.
Hereu, B. et al. Multiple processes regulate long-term population dynamics of sea urchins on Mediterranean rocky reefs. PLoS ONE 7, e36901 (2012).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

9.
Guillou, M. Biotic and abiotic interactions controlling starfish outbreaks in the Bay of Douarnenez, Brittany, France. Oceonol. Acta 19, 415–420 (1996).
Google Scholar 

10.
Van Nes, E. H., Amaro, T., Scheffer, M. & Duineveld, G. C. A. Possible mechanisms for a marine benthic regime shift in the North Sea. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 330, 39–47 (2007).
ADS  Google Scholar 

11.
Blanchet-Aurigny, A. et al. Multi-decadal changes in two co-occurring ophiuroid populations. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 460, 79–90 (2012).
ADS  Google Scholar 

12.
Guillou, M., Blanchet-Aurigny, A. & Le Goaster, E. Density fluctuations of the ophiuroids Ophiothrix fragilis and Ophiocomina nigra in the Bay of Douarnenez, Brittany, France. Mar. Biodivers. Rec. 6, 1–5 (2013).
Google Scholar 

13.
Blanchet-Aurigny, A., Dubois, S. F., Quéré, C., Guillou, M. & Pernet, F. Trophic niche of two co-occurring ophiuroid species in impacted coastal systems, derived from fatty acid and stable isotope analyses. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 525, 127–141 (2015).
ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

14.
Murat, A., Méar, Y., Poizot, E., Dauvin, J. C. & Beryouni, K. Silting up and development of anoxic conditions enhanced by high abundance of the geoengineer species Ophiothrix fragilis. Cont. Shelf Res. 118, 11–22 (2016).
ADS  Google Scholar 

15.
Geraldi, N. R. et al. Aggregations of brittle stars can perform similar ecological roles as mussel reefs. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 563, 157–167 (2017).
ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

16.
Mortensen, T. Die Echinodermen-larven. Nord. Plankt. 9, 1–30 (1900).
Google Scholar 

17.
Mortensen, T. Studies of the development and larval forms of Echinoderms. Copenhagen 266 pp (1921).

18.
Strathmann, R. R. The feeding behavior of planktotrophic echinoderm larvae: mechanisms, regulation, and rates of suspension-feeding. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 6, 109–160 (1971).
Google Scholar 

19.
Cowen, R. K., Gawarkiewicz, G., Pineda, J., Thorrold, S. R. & Werner, F. E. Population connectivity in marine systems: An overview. Oceanography 20, 14–21 (2007).
Google Scholar 

20.
Uthicke, S., Doyle, J., Duggan, S., Yasuda, N. & McKinnon, A. D. Outbreak of coral-eating crown-of-thorns creates continuous cloud of larvae over 320 km of the Great Barrier Reef. Sci. Rep. 5, 1–7 (2015).
Google Scholar 

21.
Pratchett, M. S. et al. Thirty years of research on crown-of-thorns starfish (1986–2016): Scientific advances and emerging opportunities. Diversity 9, 1–50 (2017).
Google Scholar 

22.
Wolfe, K., Graba-Landry, A., Dworjanyn, S. A. & Byrne, M. Superstars: Assessing nutrient thresholds for enhanced larval success of Acanthaster planci, a review of the evidence. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 116, 307–314 (2017).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

23.
Metaxas, A. & Saunders, M. Quantifying the ‘Bio-’ components in biophysical models of larval transport in marine benthic invertebrates: advances and pitfalls. Biol. Bull. 216, 257–272 (2009).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

24.
Cowen, R. K. & Sponaugle, S. Larval dispersal and marine population connectivity. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 1, 443–466 (2009).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

25.
Pineda, J., Hare, J. A. & Sponaugle, S. Larval transport and dispersal in the coastal ocean and consequences for population connectivity. Oceanography 20, 22–39 (2007).
Google Scholar 

26.
Shanks, A. L. Pelagic larval duration and dispersal distance revisited. Biol. Bull. 216, 373–385 (2009).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

27.
DiBacco, C., Sutton, D. & McConnico, L. Vertical migration behavior and horizontal distribution of brachyuran larvae in a low-inflow estuary: Implications for bay-ocean exchange. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 217, 191–206 (2001).
ADS  Google Scholar 

28.
Chia, F. S. Locomotion of marine invertebrate larvae: A review. Can. J. Zool. 62, 1205–1222 (1984).
Google Scholar 

29.
Thiébaut, E., Dauvin, J. C. & Lagadeuc, Y. Transport of Owenia fusiformis larvae (Annelida: Polychaeta) in the Bay of Seine. I. Vertical distribution in relation to water column stratification and ontogenetic vertical migration. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 80, 29–39 (1992).
ADS  Google Scholar 

30.
Kunze, H. B., Morgan, S. G. & Lwiza, K. M. Field test of the behavioral regulation of larval transport. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 487, 71–87 (2013).
ADS  Google Scholar 

31.
Miyake, Y. et al. Roles of vertical behavior in the open-ocean migration of teleplanic larvae: A modeling approach to the larval transport of Japanese spiny lobster. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 539, 93–109 (2015).
ADS  Google Scholar 

32.
Gallager, S. M., Manuel, J. L., Manning, D. A. & O’Dor, R. Ontogenetic changes in the vertical distribution of giant scallop larvae, Placopecten magellanicus, in 9-m deep mesocosms as a function of light, food, and temperature stratification. Mar. Biol. 124, 679–692 (1996).
Google Scholar 

33.
Daigle, R. M. & Metaxas, A. Modeling of the larval response of green sea urchins to thermal stratification using a random walk approach. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 438, 14–23 (2012).
Google Scholar 

34.
Bonicelli, J. et al. Diel vertical migration and cross-shore distribution of barnacle and bivalve larvae in the central Chile inner-shelf. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 485, 35–46 (2016).
Google Scholar 

35.
Lefebvre, A. & Davoult, D. Vertical distribution of the ophioplutei of Ophiothrix fragilis (Echinodermata: Ophiuroidea) in the Dover Strait (Eastern English Channel, France). In Fifth European Conference on Echinoderms—Echinoderm Research 1998 (eds Carnevali, M. D. C. & Bonasoro, F.) 505–509 (Balkema, Rotterdam, 1998).
Google Scholar 

36.
Grünbaum, D. & Strathmann, R. R. Form, performance and trade-offs in swimming and stability of armed larvae. J. Mar. Res. 61, 659–691 (2003).
Google Scholar 

37.
Roy, A., Metaxas, A. & Ross, T. Swimming patterns of larval Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis in turbulence in the laboratory. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 453, 117–127 (2012).
ADS  Google Scholar 

38.
Sameoto, J. A., Ross, T. & Metaxas, A. The effect of flow on larval vertical distribution of the sea urchin, Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 383, 156–163 (2010).
Google Scholar 

39.
Fuchs, H. L., Gerbi, G. P., Hunter, E. J., Christman, A. J. & Diez, F. J. Hydrodynamic sensing and behavior by oyster larvae in turbulence and waves. J. Exp. Biol. 218, 1419–1432 (2015).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

40.
Wheeler, J. D., Chan, K. Y. K., Anderson, E. J. & Mullineaux, L. S. Ontogenetic changes in larval swimming and orientation of pre-competent sea urchin Arbacia punctulata in turbulence. J. Exp. Biol. 219, 1303–1310 (2016).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

41.
Strathmann, R. R. & Grünbaum, D. Good eaters, poor swimmers: compromises in larval form. Integr. Comp. Biol. 46, 312–322 (2006).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

42.
Forward, R. B., Cronin, T. W. & Stearns, D. E. Control of diel vertical migration: Photoresponses of a larval crustacean. Limnol. Oceanogr. 29, 146–154 (1984).
ADS  Google Scholar 

43.
Forward, R. B. Behavioral responses of larvae of the crab Rhithropanopeus harrisii (Brachyura: Xanthidae) during diel vertical migration. Mar. Biol. 90, 9–18 (1985).
Google Scholar 

44.
Garland, E. D., Zimmer, C. A. & Lentz, S. J. Larval distributions in inner-shelf waters: The roles of wind-driven cross-shelf currents and diel vertical migrations. Limnol. Oceanogr. 47, 803–817 (2002).
ADS  Google Scholar 

45.
Pennington, J. T. & Emlet, R. B. Ontogenetic and diel vertical migration of a planktonic echinoid larva, Dendraster excentricus (Eschscholtz): Occurrence, causes, and probable consequences. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 104, 69–95 (1986).
Google Scholar 

46.
Lesser, M. P. & Barry, T. M. Survivorship, development, and DNA damage in echinoderm embryos and larvae exposed to ultraviolet radiation (290–400 nm). J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 292, 75–91 (2003).
CAS  Google Scholar 

47.
Tauchman, E. C. & Pomory, C. M. Effect of ultraviolet radiation on growth and percent settlement of larval Lytechinus variegatus (Echinodermata: Echinoidea). Invertebr. Reprod. Dev. 55, 152–161 (2011).
Google Scholar 

48.
Metaxas, A. & Burdett-Coutts, V. Response of invertebrate larvae to the presence of the ctenophore Bolinopsis infundibulum, a potential predator. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 334, 187–195 (2006).
Google Scholar 

49.
Raby, D., Lagadeuc, Y., Dodson, J. J. & Mingelbier, M. Relationship between feeding and vertical distribution of bivalve larvae in stratified and mixed waters. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 103, 275–284 (1994).
ADS  Google Scholar 

50.
Burdett-Coutts, V. & Metaxas, A. The effect of the quality of food patches on larval vertical distribution of the sea urchins Lytechinus variegatus (Lamarck) and Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis (Mueller). J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 308, 221–236 (2004).
Google Scholar 

51.
Sameoto, J. A. & Metaxas, A. Interactive effects of haloclines and food patches on the vertical distribution of 3 species of temperate invertebrate larvae. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 367, 131–141 (2008).
Google Scholar 

52.
Birrien, J. L., Wafar, M. V. M., Le Corre, P. & Riso, R. Nutrients and primary production in a shallow stratified ecosystem in the Iroise Sea. J. Plankton Res. 13, 721–742 (1991).
Google Scholar 

53.
Le Corre, P., L’Helguen, S., Morin, P. & Birrien, J. L. Conditions de formation d’eaux colorées toxiques sur le plateau continental Manche-Atlantique; cas de Gyrodinium cf. aureolum. Hydroécologie Appliquée 2, 173–188 (1992).
Google Scholar 

54.
Clay, T. W. & Grünbaum, D. Morphology-flow interactions lead to stage-selective vertical transport of larval sand dollars in shear flow. J. Exp. Biol. 213, 1281–1292 (2010).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

55.
Soars, N. A. & Byrne, M. Contrasting arm elevation angles of multi- and two-armed sea urchin echinoplutei supports Grünbaum and Strathmann’s hydromechanical model. Mar. Biol. 162, 607–616 (2015).
Google Scholar 

56.
Chan, K. Y. K., Grünbaum, D., Arnberg, M. & Dupont, S. Impacts of ocean acidification on survival, growth, and swimming behaviours differ between larval urchins and brittlestars. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 73, 951–961 (2016).
Google Scholar 

57.
Burke, R. D. Structure of the digestive tract of the pluteus larva of Dendraster excentricus (Echinodermata: Echinoida). Zoomorphology 98, 209–225 (1981).
Google Scholar 

58.
Chadwick, H. C. Echinoderm larvae. L.M.B.C. Mem. XXII (1914).

59.
Mileikovsky, S. A. Speed of active movement of pelagic larvae of marine bottom invertebrates and their ability to regulate their vertical position. Mar. Biol. 23, 11–17 (1973).
Google Scholar 

60.
Fortier, L. & Leggett, W. C. Fickian transport and the dispersal of fish larvae in estuaries. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 39, 1150–1163 (1982).
Google Scholar 

61.
Knights, A. M., Crowe, T. P. & Burnell, G. Mechanisms of larval transport: Vertical distribution of bivalve larvae varies with tidal conditions. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 326, 167–174 (2006).
ADS  Google Scholar 

62.
Rigal, F., Viard, F., Ayata, S. D. & Comtet, T. Does larval supply explain the low proliferation of the invasive gastropod Crepidula fornicata in a tidal estuary?. Biol. Invasions 12, 3171–3186 (2010).
Google Scholar 

63.
Herbert, R. J. H. et al. Invasion in tidal zones on complex coastlines: Modelling larvae of the non-native Manila clam, Ruditapes philippinarum, in the UK. J. Biogeogr. 39, 585–599 (2012).
Google Scholar 

64.
Hock, K. et al. Controlling range expansion in habitat networks by adaptively targeting source populations. Conserv. Biol. 30, 856–866 (2016).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

65.
Dupont, S., Havenhand, J., Thorndyke, W., Peck, L. & Thorndyke, M. Near-future level of CO2-driven ocean acidification radically affects larval survival and development in the brittlestar Ophiothrix fragilis. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 373, 285–294 (2008).
ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

66.
Strathmann, R. R., Fenaux, L. & Strathmann, M. F. Heterochronic developmental plasticity in larval sea urchins and its implications for evolution of nonfeeding larvae. Evolution 46, 972–986 (1992).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

67.
Augris, C. et al. Atlas thématique de l’environnement marin de la baie de Douarnenez (Finistère). Edition IFREMER, Brest (2005).

68.
Bodin, P., Boucher, D., Guillou, J. & Guillou, M. The trophic system of the benthic communities in the bay of Douarnenez (Brittany). In Proceedings of the 19th European Marine Biology Symposium, Plymouth, Devon, UK, 16–21 September 1984 (ed Gibbs, P. E.) 361–370 (Cambridge University Press, 1985).

69.
Blanchet, A., Chevalier, C., Gaffet, J. & Hamon, D. Bionomie benthique subtidale en baie de Douarnenez. DEL/EC/BB.RST.04.01, Ifremer (2004).

70.
Del Amo, Y. et al. Impacts of high-nitrate freshwater inputs on macrotidal ecosystems. I. Seasonal evolution of nutrient limitation for the diatom-dominated phytoplankton of the Bay of Brest (France). Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 161, 213–224 (1997).
ADS  Google Scholar 

71.
Bowmer, T. Reproduction in Amphiura filiformis (Echinodermata: Ophiuroidea): Seasonality in gonad development. Mar. Biol. 68, 281–290 (1982).
Google Scholar 

72.
Lefebvre, A., Davoult, D., Gentil, F. & Janquin, M. Spatio-temporal variability in the gonad growth of Ophiothrix fragilis (Echinodermata: Ophiuroidea) in the English Channel and estimation of carbon and nitrogen outputs towards the pelagic system. Hydrobiologia 414, 25–34 (1999).
Google Scholar 

73.
Narasimhamurti, N. The development of Ophiocoma nigra. Q. J. Microsc. Sci. 76, 63–88 (1933).
Google Scholar 

74.
Morgan, R. & Jangoux, M. Larval morphometrics and influence of adults on settlement in the gregarious ophiuroid Ophiothrix fragilis (Echinodermata). Biol. Bull. 208, 92–99 (2005).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

75.
Dupont, S., Thorndyke, W., Thorndyke, M. C. & Burke, R. D. Neural development of the brittlestar Amphiura filiformis. Dev. Genes Evol. 219, 159–166 (2009).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

76.
Schlitzer, R. Ocean Data View. odv.awi.de (2018).

77.
Lazure, P. & Dumas, F. An external-internal mode coupling for a 3D hydrodynamical model for applications at regional scale (MARS). Adv. Water Resour. 31, 233–250 (2008).
ADS  Google Scholar 

78.
Jouanneau, N., Sentchev, A. & Dumas, F. Numerical modelling of circulation and dispersion processes in Boulogne-sur-mer harbour (Eastern English Channel): Sensitivity to physical forcing and harbour design. Ocean Dyn. 63, 1321–1340 (2013).
ADS  Google Scholar 

79.
Smagorinsky, J. General circulation experiments with the primitive equation. I. The basic experiment. Mon. Weather Rev. 111, 99–165 (1963).
ADS  Google Scholar 

80.
Lazure, P., Garnier, V., Dumas, F., Herry, C. & Chifflet, M. Development of a hydrodynamic model of the Bay of Biscay: Validation of hydrology. Cont. Shelf Res. 29, 985–997 (2009).
ADS  Google Scholar 

81.
Caillaud, M., Petton, S., Dumas, F., Rochette, S. & Mickael, V. Rejeu hydrodynamique à 500 m de résolution avec le modèle MARS3D-AGRIF-Zone Manche-Gascogne. Ifremer https://doi.org/10.12770/3edee80f-5a3e-42f4-9427-9684073c87f5 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

82.
Frontier, S. Sur une méthode d’analyse faunistique rapide du zooplancton. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 3, 18–26 (1969).
Google Scholar 

83.
MacBride, E. W. The development of Ophiothrix fragilis. J. Cell Sci. 51, 557–606 (1907).
Google Scholar 

84.
Mortensen, T. Handbook of the Echinoderms of the British Isles (Oxford University Press, London, 1927).
Google Scholar 

85.
Geiger, S. R. Echinodermata: Larvae. Classes: Ophiuroidea and Echinoidea (Plutei). In Fiches d’identification du zooplancton, Sheet 105 (eds Fraser, J. H. & Hansen, V. K.) 1–5 (Andr. Fred. Høst & Fils, Copenhagen, 1964).
Google Scholar 

86.
Stöhr, S. Who’s who among baby brittle stars (Echinodermata: Ophiuroidea): Postmetamorphic development of some North Atlantic forms. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 143, 543–576 (2005).
Google Scholar 

87.
Planque, B., Lazure, P. & Jegou, A. M. Typology of hydrological structures modelled and observed over the Bay of Biscay shelf. Sci. Mar. 70, 43–50 (2006).
Google Scholar 

88.
Tapia, F. J., DiBacco, C., Jarrett, J. & Pineda, J. Vertical distribution of barnacle larvae at a fixed nearshore station in southern California: stage-specific and diel patterns. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 86, 265–270 (2010).
ADS  Google Scholar 

89.
Beet, A., Solow, A. R. & Bollens, S. M. Comparing vertical plankton profiles with replication. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 262, 285–287 (2003).
ADS  Google Scholar 

90.
Hayek, L.-A. C. & Buzas, M. A. Surveying natural populations: quantitative tools for assessing biodiversity (Columbia University Press, New York, 1997).
Google Scholar 

91.
Rowe, P. M. & Epifanio, C. E. Flux and transport of larval weakfish in Delaware Bay, USA. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 110, 115–120 (1994).
ADS  Google Scholar  More