Ecology

Microbial community composition in cave sedimentsThe ITS1 dataset generated 5,793,980 raw sequence reads, resulting in 5,458,895 gene quality-filtered reads, ranging from 1252 up to 540,803 per sample. After singletons and rare taxa ( More

Conservationist Jim Groombridge in Hawaii (standing) performing a ‘heli-hook-up’, in which a net full of equipment is hooked up to the hovering helicopter, to save it needing to land.Credit: Jim Groombridge/Maui Forest Bird Recovery Project

Since his undergraduate degree, Jim Groombridge has been part of several teams that work with critically endangered animals, including the Mauritius kestrel (Falco punctatus), which was brought back from the brink of extinction. But he has also experienced the devastation of some species being lost forever, despite all possible interventions. After receiving his PhD from Queen Mary University of London in 2000, he worked as a project coordinator at the Maui Forest Bird Recovery Project in Makawao, Hawaii. Conservation science spans many topics including climate change, working with local communities, epidemiology, genomics and designing protected areas. Projects can range from single-species conservation to ecosystem-level or landscape conservation, such as restoring whole islands. Now a professor in biodiversity conservation at the University of Kent’s Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology in Canterbury, UK, Groombridge teaches bachelor’s and master’s students about leadership of conservation teams and how to motivate them in the face of setbacks.What is special about leading conservation teams?Conservation field teams are slightly quirky, and those quirks can define what makes a team work well or not. One is that team leaders are rarely trained in management tasks, such as overseeing a budget, interacting with project partners and local governments, dealing with team members who feel passionate about what they do and facing the high stakes involved. Team members are enthusiastic, passionate and seldom motivated by money.Another quirk is that, in a small conservation team of four to six people, there is often a mix of skill sets and experience. You can have highly experienced specialists in a particular area, such as screening parrots for diseases, or reintroduction biology, and you might also have volunteers with only passion and enthusiasm to offer.How do you lead a team with such variable experience?Even with those different levels of expertise, you still need to meet high standards for specimen and data collection. At the moment, for example, I’m sequencing the genome of the pink pigeon (Nesoenas mayeri), using samples collected in the 1990s. There’s a sense of responsibility, especially if you’re working with species that are rare, because if you mess it up, they could go extinct. It’s not unusual to have volunteers with only two or three weeks’ worth of experience handling extremely rare samples or working with valuable data sets. Their learning curve is pretty steep. As a leader, you need to make sure that you understand the details — ranging from tasks such as collecting data and monitoring and recording invasive species to, for example, knowing how to trap a mongoose — so that you can make sure that everyone is collecting the data in the same way.

Jim Groombridge (far left), who studies biodiversity conservation at the University of Kent, UK, with one of the field crews involved in an operation to translocate a bird called the po‘ouli in Hawaii.Credit: Jim Groombridge/Maui Forest Bird Recovery Project

What do team members tend to have in common?They often share a passion for nature. They want to save the environment, they want to save a species from going extinct, they want to make a difference. That level of emotion is important. It creates an energy, which needs to be channelled proactively and positively into the project to make it a success.In 2002, for example, I was leading a team working to save a bird called the po‘ouli (Melamprosops phaeosoma) on the island of Maui, part of the Hawaiian archipelago. We were trying to translocate one of the last known birds into the range of another one to give them the opportunity to breed. There was huge excitement, but after four weeks of failing to catch the bird, there was also a lot of frustration.How do you manage a team with such strong emotions?Morale is really important. So is being able to deal with difficulties when they arise. That’s what gets small teams through tough times. With the po‘ouli, I had to make sure that the team had fun, and that people genuinely enjoyed themselves. That meant taking time out with the team in the evenings and ensuring that everyone had a bit of a laugh, so it wasn’t deadly serious all the time. Also, I made sure that team members got to perform the aspects of the job that they were good at, to increase their confidence and well-being. We eventually trapped the po‘ouli and moved it, but even though the birds were in the same territory, they didn’t breed.How do you manage expectations amid failure?I had to remind the team about the broader picture of what we had achieved. This was the first time anyone had followed the po‘ouli in the forest for ten days. I think we learnt more about the ecology of that species in that time than anyone had learnt in 30 years. We held the translocated bird for about two hours before we released it, and it took food items from us, which showed that the birds could be kept in captivity if necessary. We learnt a huge amount that could be applied to another project.
Treading carefully: saving frankincense trees in Yemen
You have to manage people’s expectations and have goals that are achievable. If you are starting a project on a species with fewer than ten individuals left in the wild, and your goal is to have thousands, that’s a difficult leap of imagination. Instead, perhaps start with finding a food that a species would eat in captivity. People need to remain connected with what’s achievable. There’s a delicate balance between being aspirational and being pragmatic.As a team member, what do you wish more conservation leaders knew?Often, there is too much emphasis placed on the command structure. Innovation in a conservation team is undersold, and easily quashed by a type of line-manager approach. The hierarchy in a team is important because people know what to do and who to report to, but you also have to encourage team members to use their initiative and ask questions. I remember when my team and I were in the cloud forests, tropical mountain regions covered by clouds for most of the year in Hawaii, we were struggling with baiting rats, which prey on eggs and fledglings of native birds. It’s one of the wettest places on Earth, and the rat poison basically turns to cottage cheese. However, one of my colleagues designed a bait box, which kept the bait dry for many weeks. When you’re working with critically endangered species and in field conditions, ingenuity is crucial.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity. More

Sequence analysisProtein sequence searches were conducted in the GenBank nr database with BLASTP42 using default parameters, including automatically adjusting parameters for short input sequences (Table S1). Conserved domain searches were run against the GenBank Conserved Domain Database (CDD)43. Sequence alignments were conducted in CLC Main Workbench 20.0.4 (Qiagen) with the fast alignment algorithm, gap open cost = 10, and gap extension cost = 1. Biochemical properties of the fish putative thiaminase I protein sequences were predicted with the Create Sequence Statistics function in CLC Main Workbench 20.0.4 (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany). The molecular weights were calculated from the sum of the amino acids in the sequence, and the isoelectric points (pIs) were calculated from the pKa values for the individual amino acids in the sequence.Bacteria culturePure cultures of P. thiaminolyticus strain 818822 were cultured at 37 °C in Terrific Broth (MO BIO Laboratories, Carlsbad, CA) in either a shaking incubator or in a beveled flask with a stir bar and were harvested after 48–80 h of culture. Upon harvest, cultures were processed immediately or frozen whole in 50 mL Falcon tubes at − 80 °C. Fresh or thawed cultures were spun at 14,000×g, and culture supernatant was concentrated using Amicon-ultra 10 kDa molecular weight cut-off (MWCO) filters (EMD Millipore, Billerica, MA).The zebrafish and alewife candidate thiaminase I genes were cloned and overexpressed in E. coli to determine whether they produced functional thiaminases. The recombinant thiaminase I gene from P. thiaminolyticus was overexpressed in E. coli as a positive control. Candidate and control genes were synthesized (Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc., Coralville, Iowa) and placed into the pET52b vector (EMD Millipore). Insert sequences are provided in Supplementary Figs. S10–S13. The empty pET52b vector was used as a negative control. The plasmid was transformed into E. coli (Rosetta 2(DE3)pLysS Singles Competent Cells, EMD Millipore) according to the manufacturer’s instructions, and expression of candidate genes was induced by the addition of IPTG. Cells were lysed in 1X BugBuster (Millipore) according to the manufacturer’s instructions in the presence of benzonase nuclease, and soluble and insoluble fractions were separated by centrifugation.Tissue collectionsAdult common carp were captured from Lake Erie using short-set gill nets. Adult alewife and quagga mussels (Dreissena bugensis) were collected from Sturgeon Bay, Lake Michigan using bottom trawls. Fish collections were completed during July 2007. Sex of sampled fish was not identified. Upon collection, unanesthetized animals were immediately euthanized by flash freezing between slabs of dry ice and stored at − 80 °C. Fish were harvested by the Great Lakes Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Laboratory use of frozen animal tissues and wild type and recombinant bacteria was in accordance with institutional guidelines and biosafety procedures at Oregon State University and USGS. Animal care and use procedures were approved by the Great Lakes Science Center, USGS. All USGS sampling and handling of fish during research are carried out in accordance with guidelines for the care and use of fishes by the American Fisheries Society44. All methods are reported in accordance with applicable ARRIVE guidelines (https://arriveguidelines.org). Zebrafish from OSU’s zebrafish facility were anesthetized and euthanized by overdose with waterborne 200 ppm ethyl 3-aminobenzoate methanesulfonate (MS-222, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) following protocols approved by the OSU Animal Institutional Care and Use Committee and were frozen at − 80 °C after euthanization. Gills, liver, spleen, and the intestinal tract were dissected, and gill tissue was homogenized separately from liver, spleen, and gut, which were homogenized together and designated “viscera.” Homogenization and protein preparation procedures were the same as that for alewife. Zebrafish from Columbia Environmental Research Center (CERC), USGS cultures were anesthetized and euthanized by overdose with 200 ppm ethyl 3-aminobenzoate methanesulfonate (MS-222, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) in water following protocols approved by CERC Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). Whole fish (0.2–0.6 g) were homogenized in 10 mL cold phosphate buffer, pH 6.5. Whole common carp and alewife were thawed until they could just be dissected. Preliminary trial extractions on alewife stomach and intestines, spleen, and gills revealed similar results and revealed that gills and spleen tissue produced the cleanest protein preparations. Therefore, subsequent extractions for common carp and alewife used gill tissue. Samples were pooled from 3 to 5 individual fish, haphazardly chosen from the sampled fish without exclusions. Quagga mussels were thawed just sufficiently to be husked from their shell and were used whole. Researchers were aware of the species and tissue designation of each sample throughout the experiments. Animal tissues were placed in ice-cold (4 °C) beakers containing cold extraction buffer (16 mM K3HPO4, 84 mM KH2PO4, 100 mM NaCl, pH 6.5 with 1 mM DTT, 2 mM EDTA, 3 mM Pepstatin, 1X Protease inhibitor cocktail (Sigma), and 1 mM AEBSF). All extractions were carried out at 4 °C in pre-chilled glassware. Samples were mechanically homogenized using a rotor–stator tissue grinder. Samples were stirred gently for several hours to overnight at 4 °C, centrifuged at 14,000×g to remove debris, and strained through cheesecloth to remove any insoluble lipids. Extracts were then subjected to 30–75% ammonium sulfate precipitation. Pellets from the precipitation were resuspended in buffer (83 mM KH2PO4, 17 mM K2HPO4, and 100 mM NaCl), centrifuged to remove any remaining debris, and stored in 30% glycerol at − 20 °C.Protein electrophoresisNative PAGE was run using either pre-cast TGX gels (BioRad, Hercules, California) of varying percentage (7.5% to 12% or 8–16% gradient gels) or on hand-cast gels (TGX FastCast, BioRad) made according to the manufacturer’s instructions.Blue-native PAGE was used to estimate the mass of thiaminases in their native conformation. Blue-native PAGE45 gels were run using the NativePage Novex Bis–Tris system (Life Technologies) or hand-cast equivalents46. Light blue cathode buffer was used to facilitate visualization of the activity stain.Standard denaturing SDS-PAGE was used to estimate the molecular mass of thiaminases after denaturation. Denaturing SDS-PAGE was run using one of three relatively equivalent methods: pre-cast TGX gels (BioRad) according to the manufacturer’s instructions, hand-cast Tris–HCl gels using standard Laemmli chemistry47 with an operating pH of approximately 9.5, or hand-cast Bis–Tris gels (MOPS buffer) with an operating pH of approximately 7. For all denaturing and non-denaturing SDS-PAGE applications, standard Laemmli sample buffer was used, and samples were heated to 75 °C for 15 min to facilitate denaturation followed by brief centrifugation to eliminate any precipitated debris.Non-denaturing PAGE was used as an alternative to denaturing PAGE for the common carp thiaminase that could not be renatured (i.e., activity could not be recovered) following a denaturing SDS-PAGE. Non-denaturing PAGE was conducted using any of the three aforementioned gel chemistries with SDS-containing running buffers including reductant (DTT), but samples were not heated prior to application to the gel. Samples for non-denaturing PAGE were allowed to incubate in sample buffer at room temperature for 30 min prior to gel loading. This preserves the charge-shift induced by SDS but does not result in protein denaturation, facilitating in-gel analysis of thiaminase I activity after separation.To visualize proteins following electrophoresis, gels were stained with Coomassie stain (CBR-250 at 1 g/L in methanol/acetic acid/water (4:5:1) and destained with methanol/acetic acid/water (1.7:1:11.5). Mini-gels were run on BioRad’s mini-protean gel rigs. Midi-gels (16 cm length) were run on Hoefer’s SE660, and large-format gels (32 cm length) were run on a BioRad’s Protean Slab Cell. Mini-gels were generally run at room temperature, and midi- and large-format gels were run at 4 °C. Blue-native PAGE was always run at 4 °C.Two-dimensional electrophoresis (2DE) separated proteins in the first dimension based on pI and in the second dimension based on mass (either native or denatured). 2DE was performed by combining in-gel IEF with either denaturing SDS-PAGE, non-denaturing SDS-PAGE, or native PAGE. IPG strips were incubated in TRIS-buffered equilibration solution48 either with 6 M urea, SDS, and iodacetamide (denaturing) or without urea, SDS, and iodacetamide (non-denaturing) for 20 min. Low melting point agarose was used to solidify IGP strips in place. Agarose was cooled to just above the gelling temperature, as hot agarose inactivated thiaminase I activity.Isoelectric focusingIsoelectric focusing (IEF) was conducted both in-gel and in-liquid. In-gel IEF was conducted in immobilized pH gradient (IPG) strips using a Multifor II (GE Healthcare Life Sciences). Prior to rehydration, all protein preparations were desalted in low-salt (~ 5 to 10 mM) sodium or potassium phosphate buffer (pH 6.5) using 10 kDA MWCO filters. All samples were applied using sample volumes and protein concentrations recommended by the manufacturer. For standard denaturing in-gel IEF, rehydration solution consisted of 8 M urea, 2% CHAPS, 2% IPG buffer of the appropriate pH-range, 1% bromophenol blue, and 18 mM DTT. The IEF was conducted at maximum of 2 mA total current and 5 W total power, with an EPS3500 XL power supply in gradient mode. Voltage gradients were based on standard protocols recommended by the manufacturer. In-gel IEF was also performed under native conditions to allow thiaminase I activity staining of IPG strips. Protocols were essentially the same as those for denaturing conditions, with the following exceptions: (1) urea was eliminated and the CHAPS concentration was reduced to 0.5% in the rehydration solution; (2) rehydration was conducted at 14 °C; and (3) the water in the cooling tray was cooled to 4 °C.In-liquid IEF was conducted using a Rotofor (BioRad) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Non-denaturing in-liquid IEF was also conducted using a focusing solution including no urea, 2% pH 3–10 biolyte, 0.5% CHAPS, 20% glycerol, and 5 mM DTT. The addition of glycerol helped retain activity but also increased focusing times. The Rotofor was run at a constant 15 W with a maximum current of 20 mA and voltage set for a maximum of 2000 V. Samples containing 8 M urea were cooled to 14 °C during focusing to avoid urea precipitation, whereas samples lacking urea were cooled to 4 °C during focusing. Protein extracts in salt solutions greater than 10 mM were desalted directly in focusing solution using a 10 kDA MWCO filter. Focusing runs were allowed to proceed until the voltage stabilized and fractions were harvested with the needle array and vacuum pump. Ampholytes were removed by addition of NaCl to 1 M and then samples were desalted into phosphate buffer using a 10kD MWCO filter.Thiaminase I activity measurementsFor quantitative measurements of thiaminase I activity, we conducted a radiometric assay at CERC as previously described49. Zebrafish homogenates were diluted 1:8, 1:16, or 1:32 in cold phosphate buffer, pH 6.5. Two replicates per dilution were assayed. Activity was calculated from the greatest dilution that gave activity within the linear range of the assay and was reported as pmol thiamine consumed per g tissue (wet weight) per minute (pmol/g/min).Thiaminase I activity stainingAfter electrophoresis, gels were stained for thiaminase I activity using a previously described diazo-coupling reaction19,50. Briefly, gels were washed 3 times in water, twice in 25 mM sodium phosphate buffer with 1 mM DTT, and once in 25 mM sodium phosphate buffer without DTT. Gels were then incubated in 0.89 mM thiamine-HCl and co-substrate (1.45 mM pyridoxine, 24 mM nicotinic acid, or 20 mM pyridine) in 25 mM sodium phosphate buffer for 10 min. Gels were briefly rinsed in water and placed in a lidded container and incubated at 37 °C for 30 min to allow thiamine degradation by any thiaminases in the gel. The diazo stain19,50 was then applied to detect remaining thiamine in the gel for five minutes with gentle agitation. Stained gels were rinsed with water and photographed, and further stained with Coomassie to visualize proteins. More

Evapotranspiration measurements and above-ground biomassFigure 1 shows daily evapotranspiration (ET, mm day−1) of each CC tested before mowing (DOY, day of the year, 184) and at 2, 8, 17 and 25 days after mowing (DOY 190, 196, 205 and 213); bare soil was also included as a reference. Before mowing, ET rates showed significant differences between and within the three groups. CR plants had a mean ET of 8.1 mm day−1, which was lower, compared to the other two groups (10.6 and 18.6 mm day−1 for GR and LE, respectively) and the bare soil control (8.5 mm day−1). On DOY 184, values as high as 9.4 (Glechoma hederacea L., GH) and 9.8 mm day−1 (Trifolium subterraneum L. cv. Denmark, TS) were found (Fig. 1), while ranging around 7 mm day-1, Dichondra repens J.R.Forst. & G.Forst. (DR), Hieracium pilosella L. (HP), and Sagina subulata (Swartz) C. Presl (SS) ET were lower than soil evaporation itself.Figure 1Vertical bars represent the daily water use as referred to unit of soil (ET, mm day−1) for the bare soil (yellow) and all the cover crop species as divided into creeping plants (shades of blue), legumes (shades of green) and grasses (shades of orange). Evapotranspiration was measured though a gravimetric method before (i.e. − 4) and at 2, 8, 17 and 25 days after mowing. ET data are mean values ± SE (n = 4).Full size imageOn the same day, a large ET variation was recorded within the GR group as Festuca arundinacea Schreb. cv. Thor (FA) scored the highest daily ET values (13.4 mm day−1), whereas in Festuca ovina L. cv. Ridu (FO), water loss was reduced by 45% (7.5 mm day−1). Within the 15 CCs, LE registered the highest pre-mowing ET with Trifolium michelianum Savi cv. Bolta (TM) peaking at 22.6 mm day−1. However, within LE, Medicago polymorpha L. cv. Scimitar (MP) showed ET values as low as 12.1 mm day−1 (Fig. 1).Two days after mowing, all tested CCs recorded ET values lower than 9 mm day−1 (Fig. 1). Moreover, water use reduction among LE ranged between 56% (M. polymorpha, MP) and 73% (T. michelianum, TM), such that T. michelianum (TM, 6.1 mm day−1), Medicago truncatula Gaertn. cv. Paraggio (MT, 5.6 mm day−1) and M. polymorpha (MP, 5.2 mm day−1) registered ET values lower than the bare soil (7.0 mm day−1). Even though registering a consistent ET reduction after mowing, GR retained ET rates slightly higher than bare soil, except for F. ovina (FO), which recorded the lowest at 6.3 mm day−1. Subsequent samplings showed that most of the CCs had a progressive recovery in water use (Fig. 1) and data taken 17 days after mowing confirmed that Lotus corniculatus L. cv. Leo (LC) and all GR fetched pre-mowing ET rates. Medicago lupulina L. cv. Virgo (ML) registered a partial recovery with similar rates (about 13 mm day−1) at 17 and 25 days after the mowing event. F. ovina and all remaining LE stayed below 10 mm day−1 with ET values close to the control until the end of the trial. At 17 days from grass cutting, under a quite high exceeding-the-pot biomass, both G. hederacea (GH) and T. subterraneum (TS) reached ET values as high as 12.0 and 11.4 mm day−1, respectively. On the other hand, D. repens (DR), H. pilosella (HP), and S. subulata (SS) even though with slightly higher ET values than those registered at the beginning of the trial (DOY 184), remained close to the soil evaporation rates until DOY 213.Aboveground dry clipped biomass at the first mowing date (ADW_MW1, DOY 188) showed large differences among groups, as represented in Table 1. ADW_MW1 within LE was quite variable, as values ranged between 274.3 g m−2 (M. polymorpha, MP) and 750.0 g m−2 (T. michelianum, TM). With a mean value of 565.9 g m−2, LE aboveground biomass was 80% higher than the mean GR ADW_MW1 (110.2 g m-2). F. ovina (FO) scored the lowest value at 48.4 g m−2 among grasses, while within the creeping group, G. hederacea (GH) and T. subterraneum (TS) had biomass development outside the pot edges totalling 89.6 g m−2 and 23.2 g m−2, respectively.Table 1 Aboveground dry biomass clipped at the first mowing event (ADW _MW1), the corresponding leaf area surface index (LAI) and water use per leaf area unit (ETLEAF) of all cover crops tested.Full size tableLeaf area index (LAI, m2 m−2) at mowing showed the highest values in LE with LAI peaking at 12.4 (Table 1). Among GR, LAI did not show significant differences, being around 1.2. Concerning CR, LAI was assessed at 0.2 and 0.8 for T. subterraneum (TS) and G. hederacea (GH) respectively, while LAI estimated through photo analysis ranged between 1.3 (D. repens, DR) and 3.6 (T. subterraneum TS).Evapotranspiration per leaf area unit (ETLEAF) was notably higher in GR, ranging between 7.75 (F. ovina, FO) and 9.22 (Lolium perenne L. cv. Playfast, LP) mm m−2 day−1 (Table 1). In descending order, ETLEAF was the highest in D. repens (DR, 5.46 mm m−2 day−1). Similar ETLEAF was found when comparing some LE and CR species such as M. truncatula (MT, 3.40 mm m−2 day−1), M. lupulina (ML, 4.05 mm m−2 day−1), G. hederacea (GH, 3.68 mm m−2 day−1), H. pilosella (HP, 3.86 mm m-2 day-1) and T. subterraneum (TS, 2.74 mm m−2 day−1). T. michelianum (TM), with 1.81 mm m-2 day-1 scored the lowest ETLEAF of all species (Table 1).Plotting LAI versus the before-mowing ET yielded a significant quadratic relationship (R2  > 0.76) (Fig. 2a) which helped to distinguish two different data clouds. Till LAI values of about 6, the model was linear, having at its lower end all GR and CR species with the inclusion of M. polymorpha (MP) as a legume, while, at the other end, M. truncatula (MT), L. corniculatus (LC) and M. lupulina (ML) were grouped together. T. michelianum (TM) was isolated from all CCs at 22.56 mm day−1.Figure 2Panel (a): quadratic regression of leaf area index (LAI, m2 m−2) vs cover crop evapotranspiration per unit of soil (ET, mm day−1). Each data point is mean value ± SE (n = 4). The quadratic model equation is y = − 0.128×2 + 2.9968x + 5.4716, R2 = 0.76. Panel (b): the quadratic regression between LAI corresponding to the clipped biomass (m2 m−2) and cover crop ET reduction (%). Each data point is mean value ± SE (n = 4). Quadratic model equation is y = − 0.8985×2 + 16.503x + 5.1491, R2 = 0.94.Full size imageWhen regressing the fraction of ET reduction, compared to pre-mowing values vs LAI (Fig. 2b), the same quadratic model achieved a very close fit (R2 = 0.94, p  1 mm) root diameters as affected by soil cover.Full size tableThe highest values of diameter class length (DCL, mm cm−3) for very fine roots (DCL_VF,  1.0 mm) roots although, most notably, L. corniculatus roots showed the highest abundance for both DCL_M (23.08 cm cm−3) and DCL_C (0.54 cm cm−3).At the 10–20 cm soil depth, GR confirmed the highest values for both very fine and fine roots, with F. arundinacea reaching maximum DCL of 2.269 and 5.215 cm cm-3, respectively (Table 2). L. corniculatus largely outscored any other species for both medium and coarse root diameter (6.173 and 0.037 cm cm−3, respectively), with F. arundinacea ranking second (3.157 and 0.016 cm cm−3, respectively).The highest root dry weight (RDW, mg cm-3) within the topsoil layer was reached by L. corniculatus (8.7 mg cm−3) and F. arundinacea (7.6 mg cm-3). Notably, such values were significantly higher than those recorded on the remaining species, except for the F. arundinacea vs F. rubra commutata comparison (Table 2). At 10–20 depth, scant variation was recorded in RDW measured in grasses, whereas L. corniculatus held its supremacy within legumes (4.5 mg cm−3). Within the creeping type, D. repens (DR) and G. hederacea (GH) scored RDW values as high as those determined for grass species (namely F. arundinacea , P. pratensis and F. rubra commutata), whereas S. subulata (SS) essentially had no root development.Soil aggregates and mean weight diameter (MWD)Table 3 reports the proportional aggregate weight (g kg−1) for both 0–10 and 10–20 cm soil depths. Compared to bare soil, the largest increase in large macroaggregates (LM,  > 2000 µm) in the top 10 cm of soil was achieved by L. corniculatus with 461 g kg−1. L. corniculatus differed from the rest of the LE group, whose grand mean (90 g kg−1) was the lowest of the three tested groups. As a legume, T. subterraneum (TS, 122 g kg−1) recorded the lowest values compared to fellow CR species, ranging between 211 (D. repens, DR) and 316 g kg−1 (G. hederacea, GH). GR recorded LM values slightly lower than those of CR, with a mean value of 217 vs 224 g kg-1.Table 3 Proportional aggregate weight (g kg−1) of sand-free aggregate-size fractions acquired from wet sieving as affected by soil cover and mean weight diameter (MWD). Aggregate-size fraction divided as macroaggregates with large size ( > 2 mm, LM) and small size (2 mm—250 μm, sM), microaggregates (250 μm—53 μm, m), and silt and clay ( More

Crowther, T. W. et al. Mapping tree density at a global scale. Nature 525, 201–205 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Asner, G. P. et al. A universal airborne LiDAR approach for tropical forest carbon mapping. Oecologia 168, 1147–1160 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Walker, A. P. et al. Predicting long‐term carbon sequestration in response to CO2 enrichment: How and why do current ecosystem models differ? Glob. Biogeochem. Cy. 29, 476–495 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Madrigal-González, J. et al. Climate reverses directionality in the richness–abundance relationship across the World’s main forest biomes. Nat. Commun. 11, 1–7 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stephenson, N. L. Climatic control of vegetation distribution: the role of the water balance. Am. Nat. 135, 649–670 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
Weiskittel, A. R., Maguire, D. A., Monserud, R. A. Development of a hybrid model for intensively managed Douglas-fir in the Pacific Northwest. In Forest Growth and Timber Quality, 49 (USDA, Portland, 2009).Paoli, G. D., Curran, L. M. & Slik, J. W. F. Soil nutrients affect spatial patterns of aboveground biomass and emergent tree density in southwestern Borneo. Oecologia 155, 287–299 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yoda, K., Kira, T., Ogawa, H. & Hozami, K. Self-thinning in overcrowded pure stands under cultivated and natural conditions. J. Biol. Osaka City Univ. 14, 107–129 (1963).
Google Scholar 
Westoby, M. The self-thinning rule. Adv. Ecol. Res. 14, 167–225 (1984).Article 

Google Scholar 
Weiner, J. & Freckleton, R. P. Constant final yield. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. S. 41, 173–192 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pillet, M. et al. Disentangling competitive vs. climatic drivers of tropical forest mortality. J. Ecol. 106, 1165–1179 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schluter, D. Experimental evidence that competition promotes divergence in adaptive radiation. Science 266, 798–801 (1994).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pacala, S.W. & Levin, S.A. Biologically generated spatial pattern and the coexistence of competing species. Spatial Ecology: The Role of Space in Population Dynamics and Interspecific Interactions. (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, p. 204-232, 1997).Asefa, M., Cao, M., Zhang, G., Ci, X. & Li, J. Yang Environmental filtering structures tree functional traits combination and lineages across space in tropical tree assemblages. Sci. Rep. 7, 1–10 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pretzsch, H. & Biber, P. Tree species mixing can increase maximum stand density. Can. J. For. Res. 46, 1179–1193 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Escudero, A. et al. Every bit helps: The functional role of individuals in assembling any plant community, from the richest to monospecific ones. J. Veg. Sci. 32, e13059 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jump, A. S. et al. Structural overshoot of tree growth with climate variability and the global spectrum of drought-induced forest dieback. Glob. Chang. Biol. 23, 3742–3757 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
M. Takyu, Y. Kubota, S.I. Aiba, T. Seino, T. Nishimura. Pattern of changes in species diversity, structure and dynamics of forest ecosystems along latitudinal gradients in East Asia. In Forest Ecosystems and Environments (Springer, Tokyo, 2005), pp. 49–58.Rivoire, M. & Le, G. A. Moguedec, generalized self-thinning relationship for multi-species and mixed-size forests. Ann. Sci. 69, 207–219 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Salas‐Eljatib, C. & Weiskittel, A. R. Evaluation of modelling strategies for assessing self‐thinning behaviour and carrying capacity. Ecol. Evol. 8, 10768–10779 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schietti, J. et al. Forest structure along a 600 km transect of natural disturbances and seasonality gradients in central‐southern Amazonia. J. Ecol. 104, 1335–1346 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vanclay, J. K. & Sands, P. J. Calibrating the self-thinning frontier. For. Ecol. Manag. 259, 81–85 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sapijanskas, J., Paquette, A., Potvin, C., Kunert, N. & Loreau, M. Tropical tree diversity enhances light capture through crown plasticity and spatial and temporal niche differences. Ecology 95, 2479–2492 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lieth, H. Modeling the primary productivity of the world. In H. Lieth & R. H. Whittaker, eds. Primary Productivity of the Biosphere (Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA, 1975), pp. 237–264.Grieser, J., Gommes, R., Cofield, S., Bernardi, M. World Maps of Climatological net Primary Production of Biomass, NPP. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (GEONETWORK. FAO, Rome, Italy, 2006).Hengl, T. et al. SoilGrids250m: global gridded soil information based on machine learning. PLoS One 12, e0169748 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wood, S. N. Stable and efficient multiple smoothing parameter estimation for generalized additive models. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 99, 673–686 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
J.B. Grace. Structural Equation Modeling and Natural Systems. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006).Aho, K., Derryberry, D. & Peterson, T. Model selection for ecologists: the worldviews of AIC and BIC. Ecology 95, 631–636 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/).Wood, S., Scheipl, F. & Wood, M. S. Package ‘gamm4’. Am. Stat. 45, 339 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Lefcheck, J. S. piecewiseSEM: Piecewise structural equation modelling in r for ecology, evolution, and systematics. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 573–579 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pinheiro, J., Bates, D., DebRoy, S., Sarkar, D. R. Core Team nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models. R package version 3.1-148 (2020).Latham J, Cumani R, Rosati I, Bloise M. FAO Global Land Cover (GLC-SHARE) Database Beta-Release 1.0, Land and Water Division. 2014. http://www.fao.org/uploads/media/glc-share-doc.pdf. More

Hsu-Kim H, Kucharzyk KH, Zhang T, Deshusses MA. Mechanisms regulating mercury bioavailability for methylating microorganisms in the aquatic environment: A critical review. Environ Sci Technol. 2013;47:2441–56.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Podar M, Gilmour CC, Brandt CC, Soren A, Brown SD, Crable BR, et al. Global prevalence and distribution of genes and microorganisms involved in mercury methylation. Sci Adv. 2015;1:e1500675.Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu YR, Johs A, Bi L, Lu X, Hu HW, Sun D, et al. Unraveling microbial communities associated with methylmercury production in paddy soils. Environ Sci Technol. 2018;52:13110–8.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lee C-S, Fisher NS. Bioaccumulation of methylmercury in a marine copepod. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2017;36:1287–93.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Parks JM, Johs A, Podar M, Bridou R, Hurt RAJ, Smith SD, et al. The genetic basis for bacterial mercury methylation. Science 2013;339:1332–5.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
McDaniel EA, Peterson BD, Stevens SLR, Tran PQ, Anantharaman K, McMahon KD. Expanded phylogenetic diversity and metabolic flexibility of mercury-methylating microorganisms. mSystems 2020;5:e00299–20.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cooper CJ, Zheng K, Rush KW, Johs A, Sanders BC, Pavlopoulos GA, et al. Structure determination of the HgcAB complex using metagenome sequence data: Insights into microbial mercury methylation. Commun Biol. 2020;3:320.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kerin EJ, Gilmour CC, Roden E, Suzuki MT, Coates JD, Mason RP. Mercury methylation by dissimilatory iron-reducing bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006;72:7919–21.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gilmour CC, Podar M, Bullock AL, Graham AM, Brown SD, Somenahally AC, et al. Mercury methylation by novel microorganisms from new environments. Environ Sci Technol. 2013;47:11810–20.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Capo E, Bravo AG, Soerensen AL, Bertilsson S, Pinhassi J, Feng C, et al. Deltaproteobacteria and Spirochaetes-like bacteria are abundant putative mercury methylators in oxygen-deficient water and marine particles in the Baltic Sea. Front Microbiol. 2020;11:574080.Article 

Google Scholar 
Gionfriddo CM, Tate MT, Wick RR, Schultz MB, Zemla A, Thelen MP, et al. Microbial mercury methylation in Antarctic sea ice. Nat Microbiol. 2016;1:16127.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jones DS, Walker GM, Johnson NW, Mitchell CPJ, Coleman Wasik JK, Bailey JV. Molecular evidence for novel mercury methylating microorganisms in sulfate-impacted lakes. ISME J. 2019;13:1659–75.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Christensen GA, Gionfriddo CM, King AJ, Moberly JG, Miller CL, Somenahally AC, et al. Determining the reliability of measuring mercury cycling gene abundance with correlations with mercury and methylmercury concentrations. Environ Sci Technol. 2019;53:8649–63.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Villar E, Cabrol L, Heimburger-Boavida LE. Widespread microbial mercury methylation genes in the global ocean. Environ Microbiol Rep. 2020;12:277–87.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lin H, Ascher DB, Myung Y, Lamborg CH, Hallam SJ, Gionfriddo CM, et al. Mercury methylation by metabolically versatile and cosmopolitan marine bacteria. ISME J. 2021;15:1810–25.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
King JK, Kostka JE, Frischer ME, Saunders FM, Jahnke RA. A quantitative relationship that demonstrates mercury methylation rates in marine sediments are based on the community composition and activity of sulfate-reducing bacteria. Environ Sci Technol. 2001;35:2491–6.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Regnell O, Watras CJ. Microbial mercury methylation in aquatic environments: A critical review of published field and laboratory studies. Environ Sci Technol. 2019;53:4–19.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Xie R, Wang Y, Huang D, Hou J, Li L, Hu H, et al. Expanding Asgard members in the domain of Archaea sheds new light on the origin of eukaryotes. Sci China Life Sci. 2022;65:818–29.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Seitz KW, Dombrowski N, Eme L, Spang A, Lombard J, Sieber JR, et al. Asgard archaea capable of anaerobic hydrocarbon cycling. Nat Commun. 2019;10:1822.Article 

Google Scholar 
Zaremba-Niedzwiedzka K, Caceres EF, Saw JH, Backstrom D, Juzokaite L, Vancaester E, et al. Asgard archaea illuminate the origin of eukaryotic cellular complexity. Nature 2017;541:353–8.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Liu Y, Makarova KS, Huang W-C, Wolf YI, Nikolskaya AN, Zhang X, et al. Expanded diversity of Asgard archaea and their relationships with eukaryotes. Nature 2021;593:553–7.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zhang JW, Dong HP, Hou LJ, Liu Y, Ou YF, Zheng YL, et al. Newly discovered Asgard archaea Hermodarchaeota potentially degrade alkanes and aromatics via alkyl/benzyl-succinate synthase and benzoyl-CoA pathway. ISME J. 2021;15:1826–43.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cai M, Liu Y, Yin X, Zhou Z, Friedrich MW, Richter-Heitmann T, et al. Diverse Asgard archaea including the novel phylum Gerdarchaeota participate in organic matter degradation. Sci China Life Sci. 2020;63:886–97.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Baker BJ, De Anda V, Seitz KW, Dombrowski N, Santoro AE, Lloyd KG. Diversity, ecology and evolution of Archaea. Nat Microbiol. 2020;5:887–900.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Farag Ibrahim F, Zhao R, Biddle Jennifer F, Atomi H. “Sifarchaeota,” a novel Asgard phylum from Costa Rican sediment capable of polysaccharide degradation and anaerobic methylotrophy. Appl Environ Micro. 2021;87:e02584–20.
Google Scholar 
Adam PS, Borrel G, Brochier-Armanet C, Gribaldo S. The growing tree of Archaea: new perspectives on their diversity, evolution and ecology. ISME J. 2017;11:2407–25.Article 

Google Scholar 
Cai M, Richter-Heitmann T, Yin X, Huang W-C, Yang Y, Zhang C, et al. Ecological features and global distribution of Asgard archaea. Sci Total Environ. 2021;758:143581.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zhang C-J, Chen Y-L, Sun Y-H, Pan J, Cai M-W, Li M. Diversity, metabolism and cultivation of archaea in mangrove ecosystems. Mar Life Sci Tech. 2020;3:252–62.Article 

Google Scholar 
Dai SS, Yang Z, Tong Y, Chen L, Liu SY, Pan R, et al. Global distribution and environmental drivers of methylmercury production in sediments. J Hazard Mater. 2021;407:124700.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Tang WL, Liu YR, Guan WY, Zhong H, Qu XM, Zhang T. Understanding mercury methylation in the changing environment: Recent advances in assessing microbial methylators and mercury bioavailability. Sci Total Environ. 2020;714:136827.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Tsui MTK, Finlay JC, Balogh SJ, Nollet YH. In situ production of methylmercury within a stream channel in northern California. Environ Sci Technol. 2010;44:6998–7004.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Liu Y, Zhou Z, Pan J, Baker BJ, Gu JD, Li M. Comparative genomic inference suggests mixotrophic lifestyle for Thorarchaeota. ISME J. 2018;12:1021–31.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lei P, Zhong H, Duan D, Pan K. A review on mercury biogeochemistry in mangrove sediments: Hotspots of methylmercury production? Sci Total Environ. 2019;680:140–50.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Beckers F, Rinklebe J. Cycling of mercury in the environment: Sources, fate, and human health implications: A review. Crit Rev Env Sci Tec. 2017;47:693–794.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
de Oliveira DC, Correia RR, Marinho CC, Guimaraes JR. Mercury methylation in sediments of a Brazilian mangrove under different vegetation covers and salinities. Chemosphere 2015;127:214–21.Article 

Google Scholar 
Li R, Xu H, Chai M, Qiu GY. Distribution and accumulation of mercury and copper in mangrove sediments in Shenzhen, the world’s most rapid urbanized city. Environ Moni Assess. 2016;188:87.Article 

Google Scholar 
O’Connor D, Hou D, Ok YS, Mulder J, Duan L, Wu Q, et al. Mercury speciation, transformation, and transportation in soils, atmospheric flux, and implications for risk management: A critical review. Environ Int. 2019;126:747–61.Article 

Google Scholar 
Obrist D, Kirk JL, Zhang L, Sunderland EM, Jiskra M, Selin NE. A review of global environmental mercury processes in response to human and natural perturbations: Changes of emissions, climate, and land use. Ambio 2018;47:116–40.Article 

Google Scholar 
Capo E, Peterson BD, Kim M, Jones DS, Acinas SG, Amyot M, et al. A consensus protocol for the recovery of mercury methylation genes from metagenomes. Mol Ecol Resour. 2022; https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13687.Gionfriddo CM, Wymore AM, Jones DS, Wilpiszeski RL, Lynes MM, Christensen GA, et al. An improved hgcAB primer set and direct high-throughput sequencing expand Hg-methylator diversity in nature. Front Microbiol. 2020;11:541554.Article 

Google Scholar 
Yu R-Q, Barkay T. Chapter two – microbial mercury transformations: Molecules, functions and organisms. Adv Appl Microbiol. 2022;118:31–90.Article 

Google Scholar 
Chételat J, Richardson MC, MacMillan GA, Amyot M, Poulain AJ. Ratio of methylmercury to dissolved organic carbon in water explains methylmercury bioaccumulation across a latitudinal gradient from north-temperate to arctic lakes. Environ Sci Technol. 2018;52:79–88.Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu Y-R, Dong J-X, Han L-L, Zheng Y-M, He J-Z. Influence of rice straw amendment on mercury methylation and nitrification in paddy soils. Environ Pollut. 2016;209:53–9.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Moreau JW, Gionfriddo CM, Krabbenhoft DP, Ogorek JM, DeWild JF, Aiken GR, et al. The effect of natural organic matter on mercury methylation by Desulfobulbus propionicus 1pr3. Front Microbiol. 2015;6:1389.Article 

Google Scholar 
Chen C-F, Ju Y-R, Chen C-W, Dong C-D. The distribution of methylmercury in estuary and harbor sediments. Sci Total Environ. 2019;691:55–63.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bravo AG, Bouchet S, Guédron S, Amouroux D, Dominik J, Zopfi J. High methylmercury production under ferruginous conditions in sediments impacted by sewage treatment plant discharges. Water Res. 2015;80:245–55.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wang H, Su J, Zheng T, Yang X. Insights into the role of plant on ammonia-oxidizing bacteria and archaea in the mangrove ecosystem. J Soil Sediment. 2015;15:1212–23.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Imachi H, Nobu MK, Nakahara N, Morono Y, Ogawara M, Takaki Y, et al. Isolation of an archaeon at the prokaryote–eukaryote interface. Nature 2020;577:519–25.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zhou J, Riccardi D, Beste A, Smith JC, Parks JM. Mercury methylation by HgcA: Theory supports carbanion transfer to Hg(II). Inorg Chem. 2014;53:772–7.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Smith Steven D, Bridou R, Johs A, Parks Jerry M, Elias Dwayne A, Hurt Richard A, et al. Site-directed mutagenesis of HgcA and HgcB reveals amino acid residues important for mercury methylation. Appl Environ Micro. 2015;81:3205–17.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sousa FL, Neukirchen S, Allen JF, Lane N, Martin WF. Lokiarchaeon is hydrogen dependent. Nat Microbiol. 2016;1:16034.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Schaefer JK, Rocks SS, Zheng W, Liang L, Gu B, Morel FMM. Active transport, substrate specificity, and methylation of Hg(II) in anaerobic bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2011;108:8714.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sakai S, Imachi H, Hanada S, Ohashi A, Harada H, Kamagata Y. Methanocella paludicola gen. nov., sp. nov., a methane-producing archaeon, the first isolate of the lineage ‘Rice Cluster I’, and proposal of the new archaeal order Methanocellales ord. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2008;58:929–36.Article 

Google Scholar 
Dridi B, Fardeau ML, Ollivier B, Raoult D, Drancourt M. Methanomassiliicoccus luminyensis gen. nov., sp. nov., a methanogenic archaeon isolated from human faeces. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2012;62:1902–7.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dietz R, Sonne C, Basu N, Braune B, O’Hara T, Letcher RJ, et al. What are the toxicological effects of mercury in arctic biota? Sci Total Environ. 2013;443:775–90.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gilmour Cynthia C, Bullock Allyson L, McBurney A, Podar M, Elias Dwayne A, Lovley Derek R. Robust mercury methylation across diverse methanogenic archaea. mBio 2018;9:e02403–17.
Google Scholar 
Pan J, Chen Y, Wang Y, Zhou Z, Li M. Vertical distribution of Bathyarchaeotal communities in mangrove wetlands suggests distinct niche preference of Bathyarchaeota subgroup 6. Micro Ecol. 2019;77:417–28.Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang C-J, Pan J, Duan C-H, Wang Y-M, Liu Y, Sun J, et al. Prokaryotic diversity in mangrove sediments across southeastern China fundamentally differs from that in other biomes. mSystems 2019;4:e00442–19.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Peng Y, Leung HC, Yiu SM, Chin FY. IDBA-UD: a de novo assembler for single-cell and metagenomic sequencing data with highly uneven depth. Bioinformatics 2012;28:1420–8.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Li D, Liu C-M, Luo R, Sadakane K, Lam T-W. MEGAHIT: an ultra-fast single-node solution for large and complex metagenomics assembly via succinct de Bruijn graph. Bioinformatics 2015;31:1674–6.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hyatt D, Chen G-L, LoCascio PF, Land ML, Larimer FW, Hauser LJ. Prodigal: prokaryotic gene recognition and translation initiation site identification. BMC Bioinforma. 2010;11:119.Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang C-J, Pan J, Liu Y, Duan C-H, Li M. Genomic and transcriptomic insights into methanogenesis potential of novel methanogens from mangrove sediments. Microbiome. 2020;8:94.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kang DD, Froula J, Egan R, Wang Z. MetaBAT, an efficient tool for accurately reconstructing single genomes from complex microbial communities. PeerJ 2015;3:e1165.Article 

Google Scholar 
Sieber CMK, Probst AJ, Sharrar A, Thomas BC, Hess M, Tringe SG, et al. Recovery of genomes from metagenomes via a dereplication, aggregation and scoring strategy. Nat Microbiol. 2018;3:836–43.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Parks DH, Imelfort M, Skennerton CT, Hugenholtz P, Tyson GW. CheckM: assessing the quality of microbial genomes recovered from isolates, single cells, and metagenomes. Genome Res. 2015;25:1043–55.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Olm MR, Brown CT, Brooks B, Banfield JF. dRep: A tool for fast and accurate genomic comparisons that enables improved genome recovery from metagenomes through de-replication. ISME J. 2017;11:2864–8.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chaumeil PA, Mussig AJ, Hugenholtz P, Parks DH. GTDB-Tk: a toolkit to classify genomes with the Genome Taxonomy Database. Bioinformatics 2019;36:1925–7.
Google Scholar 
Kanehisa M, Sato Y, Morishima K. BlastKOALA and GhostKOALA: KEGG tools for functional characterization of genome and metagenome sequences. J Mol Biol. 2016;428:726–31.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Huerta-Cepas J, Forslund K, Szklarczyk D, Jensen LJ, von Mering C, Bork P. Fast genome-wide functional annotation through orthology assignment by eggNOG-mapper. Mol Biol Evol. 2017;34:2115–22.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Finn RD, Clements J, Eddy SR. HMMER web server: interactive sequence similarity searching. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011;39:W29–W37.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Eddy SR. Accelerated profile HMM searches. PLoS Comput Biol. 2011;7:e1002195.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Edgar RC. MUSCLE: Multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32:1792–7.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Capella-Gutiérrez S, Silla-Martínez JM, Gabaldón T. trimAl: a tool for automated alignment trimming in large-scale phylogenetic analyses. Bioinformatics 2009;25:1972–3.Article 

Google Scholar 
Nguyen L-T, Schmidt HA, von Haeseler A, Minh BQ. IQ-TREE: a fast and effective stochastic algorithm for estimating maximum-likelihood phylogenies. Mol Biol Evol. 2015;32:268–74.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Price MN, Dehal PS, Arkin AP. FastTree 2 – approximately maximum-likelihood trees for large alignments. Plos ONE. 2010;5:e9490.Article 

Google Scholar 
Letunic I, Bork P. Interactive tree of life (iTOL) v3: an online tool for the display and annotation of phylogenetic and other trees. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44:W242–5.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jumper J, Evans R, Pritzel A, Green T, Figurnov M, Ronneberger O, et al. Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold. Nature 2021;596:583–9.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Trott O, Olson AJ. AutoDock Vina: Improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization, and multithreading. J Comput Chem. 2010;31:455–61.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Langmead B, Salzberg SL. Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nat Methods. 2012;9:357–9.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Quinlan AR, Hall IM. BEDTools: a flexible suite of utilities for comparing genomic features. Bioinforma (Oxf, Engl). 2010;26:841–2.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Li H, Durbin R. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics 2009;25:1754–60.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar  More

Mace, G. M. et al. Aiming higher to bend the curve of biodiversity loss. Nat. Sustain. 1, 448–451 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Díaz, S., et al. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science 366, eaax3100 (2019).Díaz, S. et al. Set ambitious goals for biodiversity and sustainability. Science 370, 411 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Locke, H., et al. A Nature-Positive World: The Global Goal for Nature (Wildlife Conservation Society, 2020); https://library.wcs.org/doi/ctl/view/mid/33065/pubid/DMX3974900000.aspxOpen-ended Working Group on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. First Draft of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework CBD/WG2020/3/3 (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2021).Open-Ended Working Group on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. Draft Recommendation Submitted by the Co-Chairs CBD/WG2020/4/L.2-ANNEX (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2022).Environment Act 2021 (UK) (HM Government, 2021); https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2021/30/contents/enactedBull, J. W. & Strange, N. The global extent of biodiversity offset implementation under no net loss policies. Nat. Sustain. 1, 790–798 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Prendeville, S., Cherim, E. & Bocken, N. Circular cities: mapping six cities in transition. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 26, 171–194 (2018).de Silva, G. C., Regan, E. C., Pollard, E. H. B. & Addison, P. F. E. The evolution of corporate no net loss and net positive impact biodiversity commitments: understanding appetite and addressing challenges. Bus. Strategy Environ. 28, 1481–1495 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
zu Ermgassen, S. O. S. E. et al. Exploring the ecological outcomes of mandatory biodiversity net gain using evidence from early‐adopter jurisdictions in England. Conserv. Lett. 14, e12820 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
McGlyn, J., et al. Science-Based Targets for Nature: Initial Guidance for Business (Science Based Targets Network, 2020); https://sciencebasedtargetsnetwork.org/resource-repository/zu Ermgassen, S. O. S. E. et al. Are corporate biodiversity commitments consistent with delivering ‘nature-positive’ outcomes? A review of ‘nature-positive’ definitions, company progress and challenges. J. Clean. Prod. 379, 134798 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Addison, P. F. E., Bull, J. W. & Milner‐Gulland, E. J. Using conservation science to advance corporate biodiversity accountability. Conserv. Biol. 33, 307–318 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Smith, T. et al. Biodiversity means business: reframing global biodiversity goals for the private sector. Conserv. Lett. 13, e12690 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Maron, M. et al. Setting robust biodiversity goals. Conserv. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12816 (2021).Newing, H. & Perram, A. What do you know about conservation and human rights? Oryx 53, 595–596 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Standard on Biodiversity Offsets (The Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme, 2012).Arlidge, W. N. S., et al. A mitigation hierarchy approach for managing sea turtle captures in small-scale fisheries. Front. Mar. Sci. 7, 49 (2020).Squires, D. & Garcia, S. The least-cost biodiversity impact mitigation hierarchy with a focus on marine fisheries and bycatch issues. Conserv. Biol. 32, 989–997 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Booth, H., Squires, D. & Milner-Gulland, E. J. The mitigation hierarchy for sharks: a risk-based framework for reconciling trade-offs between shark conservation and fisheries objectives. Fish Fish. 21, 269–289 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gupta, T. et al. Mitigation of elasmobranch bycatch in trawlers: a case study in Indian fisheries. Front. Mari. Sci. 7, 571 (2020).Budiharta, S. et al. Restoration to offset the impacts of developments at a landscape scale reveals opportunities, challenges and tough choices. Global Environ. Change 52, 152–161 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bull, J. W. et al. Net positive outcomes for nature. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 4–7 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Arlidge, W. N. S. et al. A global mitigation hierarchy for nature conservation. BioScience 68, 336–347 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Milner-Gulland, E. J. et al. Four steps for the Earth: mainstreaming the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. One Earth 4, 75–87 (2021).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Wolff, A., Gondran, N. & Brodhag, C. Detecting unsustainable pressures exerted on biodiversity by a company. Application to the food portfolio of a retailer. J. Clean. Prod. 166, 784–797 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
FAOSTAT Analytical Brief 15 Land Use and Land Cover Statistics: Global, Regional and Country Trends, 1990–2018 (FAO, 2020).Williams, D. R. et al. Proactive conservation to prevent habitat losses to agricultural expansion. Nat. Sustain. 4, 314–322 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Leclère, D. et al. Bending the curve of terrestrial biodiversity needs an integrated strategy. Nature 585, 551–556 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Springmann, M. et al. Health and nutritional aspects of sustainable diet strategies and their association with environmental impacts: a global modelling analysis with country-level detail. Lancet Planet. Health 2, e451–e461 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Clark, M. A., Springmann, M., Hill, J. & Tilman, D. Multiple health and environmental impacts of foods. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 23357 (2019).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Willett, W. et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 393, 447–492 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360, 987 (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wiedmann, T., Lenzen, M., Keyßer, L. T. & Steinberger, J. K. Scientists’ warning on affluence. Nat. Commun. 11, 3107 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Benton, T. G. et al. A ‘net zero’ equivalent target is needed to transform food systems. Nat. Food 2, 905–906 (2021). 2021.Article 

Google Scholar 
Crenna, E., Sinkko, T. & Sala, S. Biodiversity impacts due to food consumption in Europe. J. Clean. Prod. 227, 378–391 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bull, J. W., et al. Analysis: the biodiversity footprint of the University of Oxford. Nature 604, 420–424 (2022).Harrington, R. A., Adhikari, V., Rayner, M. & Scarborough, P. Nutrient composition databases in the age of big data: foodDB, a comprehensive, real-time database infrastructure. BMJ Open 9, e026652 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chaudhary, A., Verones, F., De Baan, L. & Hellweg, S. Quantifying land use impacts on biodiversity: combining species–area models and vulnerability indicators. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 9987–9995 (2015).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Winter, L., Lehmann, A., Finogenova, N. & Finkbeiner, M. Including biodiversity in life cycle assessment—state of the art, gaps and research needs. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 67, 88–100 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chaudhary, A. & Kastner, T. Land use biodiversity impacts embodied in international food trade. Global Environ. Change 38, 195–204 (2016).Article 

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

Google Scholar 
Bates, B., et al. National Diet and Nutrition Survey Years 1 to 9 of the Rolling Programme (2008/2009–2016/2017): Time Trend and Income Analyses (Public Health England & Food Standards Agency, 2019).Stewart, C., Piernas, C., Cook, B. & Jebb, S. A. Trends in UK meat consumption: analysis of data from years 1–11 (2008–09 to 2018–19) of the National Diet and Nutrition Survey rolling programme. Lancet Planet. Health 5, e699–e708 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nielsen, K. S. et al. Improving climate change mitigation analysis: a framework for examining feasibility. One Earth 3, 325–336 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Selinske, M. J. et al. We have a steak in it: eliciting interventions to reduce beef consumption and its impact on biodiversity. Conserv. Lett. 13, e12721 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hollands, G. J. et al. The TIPPME intervention typology for changing environments to change behaviour. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, 1–9 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Marteau, T. M., Hollands, G. J. & Fletcher, P. C. Changing human behavior to prevent disease: the importance of targeting automatic processes. Science 337, 1492–1495 (2012).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M. & West, R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement. Sci. 6, 42 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Moran, D., Giljum, S., Kanemoto, K. & Godar, J. From satellite to supply chain: new approaches connect earth observation to economic decisions. One Earth 3, 5–8 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Godar, J., Suavet, C., Gardner, T. A., Dawkins, E. & Meyfroidt, P. Balancing detail and scale in assessing transparency to improve the governance of agricultural commodity supply chains. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 035015 (2016).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
DeFries, R. S., Fanzo, J., Mondal, P., Remans, R. & Wood, S. A. Is voluntary certification of tropical agricultural commodities achieving sustainability goals for small-scale producers? A review of the evidence. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 033001 (2017).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Bull, J. W., Suttle, K. B., Gordon, A., Singh, N. J. & Milner-Gulland, E. J. Biodiversity offsets in theory and practice. Oryx 47, 369–380 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
zu Ermgassen, S. O. S. E. et al. The ecological outcomes of biodiversity offsets under “no net loss” policies: a global review. Conserv. Lett. 12, e12664 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Waddock, S. Achieving sustainability requires systemic business transformation. Glob. Sustain. 3, e12 (2020).Travers, H., Walsh, J., Vogt, S., Clements, T. & Milner-Gulland, E. J. Delivering behavioural change at scale: what conservation can learn from other fields. Biol. Conserv. 257, 109092 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gaupp, F. et al. Food system development pathways for healthy, nature-positive and inclusive food systems. Nat. Food 2, 928–934 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Astill, J. et al. Transparency in food supply chains: a review of enabling technology solutions. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 91, 240–247 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Poore, J & Nemecek, T. Full Excel model: life-cycle environmental impacts of food drink products. Oxford University Research Archive https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:a63fb28c-98f8-4313-add6-e9eca99320a5 (2018).Clark, M., et al. Estimating the environmental impacts of 57,000 food products. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2120584119 (2022).Clark, M., et al. Supplemental Data for ‘Estimating the environmental impacts of 57,000 food products’. Oxford University Research Archive https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:4ad0b594-3e81-4e61-aefc-5d869c799a87 (2022).Bianchi, F., Dorsel, C., Garnett, E., Aveyard, P. & Jebb, S. A. Interventions targeting conscious determinants of human behaviour to reduce the demand for meat: a systematic review with qualitative comparative analysis. IJBNPA 15, 102 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Bianchi, F., Garnett, E., Dorsel, C., Aveyard, P. & Jebb, S. A. Restructuring physical micro-environments to reduce the demand for meat: a systematic review and qualitative comparative analysis. Lancet Planet. Health 2, e384–e397 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hillier-Brown, F. C. et al. The impact of interventions to promote healthier ready-to-eat meals (to eat in, to take away or to be delivered) sold by specific food outlets open to the general public: a systematic review. Obes. Rev. 18, 227–246 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
von Philipsborn, P. et al. Environmental interventions to reduce the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and their effects on health. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 6, Cd012292 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Attwood, S., Voorheis, P., Mercer, C., Davies, K. & Vennard, D. Playbook for Guiding Diners toward Plant-Rich Dishes in Food Service (World Resources Institute, 2020); https://www.wri.org/research/playbook-guiding-diners-toward-plant-rich-dishes-food-serviceGarnett, E. E., Balmford, A., Sandbrook, C., Pilling, M. A. & Marteau, T. M. Impact of increasing vegetarian availability on meal selection and sales in cafeterias. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 20923 (2019).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Reinders, M. J., Huitink, M., Dijkstra, S. C., Maaskant, A. J. & Heijnen, J. Menu-engineering in restaurants—adapting portion sizes on plates to enhance vegetable consumption: a real-life experiment. IJBNPA 14, 41 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Brunner, F., Kurz, V., Bryngelsson, D. & Hedenus, F. Carbon label at a university restaurant—label implementation and evaluation. Ecol. Econ. 146, 658–667 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
McClain, A. D., Hekler, E. B. & Gardner, C. D. Incorporating prototyping and iteration into intervention development: a case study of a dining hall-based intervention. J. Am. Coll. Health 61, 122–131 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
de Vaan, J. Eating Less Meat: How to Stimulate the Choice for a Vegetarian Option without Inducing Reactance. MSc thesis, Radboud Univ. (2018). More

Reeburgh, W. S. Oceanic methane biogeochemistry. Chem. Rev. 107, 486–513 (2007).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chadwick, G. L. et al. Comparative genomics reveals electron transfer and syntrophic mechanisms differentiating methanotrophic and methanogenic archaea. PLoS Biol. 20, e3001508 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Haroon, M. F. et al. Anaerobic oxidation of methane coupled to nitrate reduction in a novel archaeal lineage. Nature 500, 567–570 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hallam, S. J. et al. Reverse methanogenesis: testing the hypothesis with environmental genomics. Science 305, 1457–1462 (2004).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
McGlynn, S. E. Energy metabolism during anaerobic methane oxidation in ANME Archaea. Microbes Environ. 32, 5–13 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Beal, E. J., House, C. H. & Orphan, V. J. Manganese- and iron-dependent marine methane oxidation. Science 325, 184–187 (2009).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
McGlynn, S. E., Chadwick, G. L., Kempes, C. P. & Orphan, V. J. Single cell activity reveals direct electron transfer in methanotrophic consortia. Nature 526, 531–535 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wegener, G., Krukenberg, V., Riedel, D., Tegetmeyer, H. E. & Boetius, A. Intercellular wiring enables electron transfer between methanotrophic archaea and bacteria. Nature 526, 587–590 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cai, C. et al. A methanotrophic archaeon couples anaerobic oxidation of methane to Fe(III) reduction. ISME J. 12, 1929–1939 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ettwig, K. F. et al. Archaea catalyze iron-dependent anaerobic oxidation of methane. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 12792–12796 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Leu, A. O. et al. Anaerobic methane oxidation coupled to manganese reduction by members of the Methanoperedenaceae. ISME J. 14, 1030–1041 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Leu, A. O. et al. Lateral gene transfer drives metabolic flexibility in the anaerobic methane-oxidizing archaeal family Methanoperedenaceae. mBio 11, e01325-20 (2020).Cai, C. et al. Response of the anaerobic methanotrophic archaeon Candidatus ‘Methanoperedens nitroreducens’ to the long-term ferrihydrite amendment. Front. Microbiol. 13, 799859 (2022).Arshad, A. et al. A metagenomics-based metabolic model of nitrate-dependent anaerobic oxidation of methane by Methanoperedens-like Archaea. Front. Microbiol. 6, 1423 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Raghoebarsing, A. A. et al. A microbial consortium couples anaerobic methane oxidation to denitrification. Nature 440, 918–921 (2006).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Walker, D. J. F. et al. The archaellum of Methanospirillum hungatei is electrically conductive. mBio 10, e00579-19 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Krukenberg, V. et al. Gene expression and ultrastructure of meso- and thermophilic methanotrophic consortia. Environ. Microbiol. 20, 1651–1666 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Schubert, C. J. et al. Evidence for anaerobic oxidation of methane in sediments of a freshwater system (Lago di Cadagno). FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 76, 26–38 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Stahl, D. A. & Amann, R. in Nucleic Acid Techniques in Bacterial Systematics (eds Stackebrandt, E. & Goodfellow, M.) 205–248 (Wiley, 1991).Wallner, G., Amann, R. & Beisker, W. Optimizing fluorescent in situ hybridization with rRNA-targeted oligonucleotide probes for flow cytometric identification of microorganisms. Cytometry 14, 136–143 (1993).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bowers, R. M. et al. Minimum information about a single amplified genome (MISAG) and a metagenome- assembled genome (MIMAG) of Bacteria and Archaea. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 660 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Vo, C. H., Goyal, N., Karimi, I. A. & Kraft, M. First observation of an acetate switch in a methanogenic autotroph (Methanococcus maripaludis S2). Microbiol. Insights 13, 1178636120945300 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cai, C. et al. Acetate production from anaerobic oxidation of methane via intracellular storage compounds. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 7371–7379 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ratcliff, W. C. & Denison, R. F. Bacterial persistence and bet hedging in Sinorhizobium meliloti. Commun. Integr. Biol. 4, 98–100 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ma, K., Schicho, R. N., Kelly, R. M. & Adams, M. W. Hydrogenase of the hyperthermophile Pyrococcus furiosus is an elemental sulfur reductase or sulfhydrogenase: evidence for a sulfur-reducing hydrogenase ancestor. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 90, 5341–5344 (1993).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Simon, G.-C. et al. Response of the anaerobic methanotroph “Candidatus Methanoperedens nitroreducens” to oxygen stress. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 84, e01832-18 (2018).
Google Scholar 
van der Star, W. R. L. et al. The membrane bioreactor: a novel tool to grow anammox bacteria as free cells. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 101, 286–294 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Duggin, I. G. et al. CetZ tubulin-like proteins control archaeal cell shape. Nature 519, 362–365 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Schwarzer, S., Rodriguez-Franco, M., Oksanen, H. M. & Quax, T. E. F. Growth phase dependent cell shape of Haloarcula. Microorganisms 9, 231 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dang, H. Y. & Lovell, C. R. Microbial surface colonization and biofilm development in marine environments. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 80, 91–138 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Howard-Varona, C., Hargreaves, K. R., Abedon, S. T. & Sullivan, M. B. Lysogeny in nature: mechanisms, impact and ecology of temperate phages. ISME J. 11, 1511–1520 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pires, D. P., Melo, L. D. R. & Azeredo, J. Understanding the complex phage–host interactions in biofilm communities. Annu. Rev. Virol. 8, 73–94 (2021).Canchaya, C., Proux, C., Fournous, G., Bruttin, A. & Brüssow, H. Prophage genomics. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 67, 238–276 (2003).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, X. et al. Polyhydroxyalkanoate-driven current generation via acetate by an anaerobic methanotrophic consortium. Water Res. 221, 118743 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Knittel, K., Lösekann, T., Boetius, A., Kort, R. & Amann, R. Diversity and distribution of methanotrophic Archaea at cold seeps. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71, 467–479 (2005).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Orphan, V. J., House, C. H., Hinrichs, K.-U., McKeegan, K. D. & DeLong, E. F. Multiple archaeal groups mediate methane oxidation in anoxic cold seep sediments. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99, 7663–7668 (2002).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Orphan, V. J. et al. Geological, geochemical, and microbiological heterogeneity of the seafloor around methane vents in the Eel River Basin, offshore California. Chem. Geol. 205, 265–289 (2004).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ackermann, M. A functional perspective on phenotypic heterogeneity in microorganisms. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 13, 497–508 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Robinson, R. W. Life cycles in the methanogenic archaebacterium Methanosarcina mazei. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 52, 17–27 (1986).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Daims, H., Stoecker, K. & Wagner, M. in Molecular Microbial Ecology (eds Osborn, A. M. & Smith, C. J.) 213–239 (Taylor & Francis, 2005).Ludwig, W. et al. ARB: a software environment for sequence data. Nucleic Acids Res. 32, 1363–1371 (2004).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Quast, C. et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, D590–D596 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yilmaz, L. S., Parnerkar, S. & Noguera, D. R. mathFISH, a web tool that uses thermodynamics-based mathematical models for in silico evaluation of oligonucleotide probes for fluorescence in situ hybridization. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 77, 1118–1122 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Stoecker, K., Dorninger, C., Daims, H. & Wagner, M. Double labeling of oligonucleotide probes for fluorescence in situ hybridization (DOPE-FISH) improves signal intensity and increases rRNA accessibility. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 76, 922–926 (2010).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Fuchs, B. M., Glockner, F. O., Wulf, J. & Amann, R. Unlabeled helper oligonucleotides increase the in situ accessibility to 16S rRNA of fluorescently labeled oligonucleotide probes. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 66, 3603–3607 (2000).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Manz, W., Amann, R., Ludwig, W., Wagner, M. & Schleifer, K.-H. Phylogenetic oligodeoxynucleotide probes for the major subclasses of Proteobacteria: problems and solutions. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 15, 593–600 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ostle, A. G. & Holt, J. G. Nile blue A as a fluorescent stain for poly-beta-hydroxybutyrate. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 44, 238–241 (1982).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Klindworth, A. et al. Evaluation of general 16S ribosomal RNA gene PCR primers for classical and next-generation sequencing-based diversity studies. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, e1 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Martin, M. Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet J. 17, 10–12 (2011).Bolger, A. M., Lohse, M. & Usadel, B. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 30, 2114–2120 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bolyen, E. et al. Reproducible, interactive, scalable and extensible microbiome data science using QIIME 2. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 1091 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Callahan, B. J. et al. DADA2: high-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat. Methods 13, 581–583 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Eren, A. M., Vineis, J. H., Morrison, H. G. & Sogin, M. L. A filtering method to generate high quality short reads using Illumina paired-end technology. PLoS ONE 8, e66643 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Minoche, A. E., Dohm, J. C. & Himmelbauer, H. Evaluation of genomic high-throughput sequencing data generated on Illumina HiSeq and genome analyzer systems. Genome Biol. 12, R112 (2011).Parks, D. H., Imelfort, M., Skennerton, C. T., Hugenholtz, P. & Tyson, G. W. CheckM: assessing the quality of microbial genomes recovered from isolates, single cells, and metagenomes. Genome Res. 25, 1043–1055 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Warren, R. L. et al. LINKS: scalable, alignment-free scaffolding of draft genomes with long reads. GigaScience 4, 35 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Walker, B. J. et al. Pilon: an integrated tool for comprehensive microbial variant detection and genome assembly improvement. PLoS ONE 9, e112963 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wick, R. R., Schultz, M. B., Zobel, J. & Holt, K. E. Bandage: interactive visualization of de novo genome assemblies. Bioinformatics 31, 3350–3352 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wick, R. R. et al. Trycycler: consensus long-read assemblies for bacterial genomes. Genome Biol. 22, 266 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kolmogorov, M., Yuan, J., Lin, Y. & Pevzner, P. A. Assembly of long, error-prone reads using repeat graphs. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 540–546 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wick, R. R. & Holt, K. E. Benchmarking of long-read assemblers for prokaryote whole genome sequencing. F1000Res. 8, 2138 (2021).Vaser, R. & Šikić, M. Time- and memory-efficient genome assembly with Raven. Nat. Comput. Sci. 1, 332–336 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wick, R. R. & Holt, K. E. Polypolish: short-read polishing of long-read bacterial genome assemblies. PLoS Comput. Biol. 18, e1009802 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chaumeil, P.-A., Mussig, A. J., Hugenholtz, P. & Parks, D. H. GTDB-Tk: a toolkit to classify genomes with the Genome Taxonomy Database. Bioinformatics 36, 1925–1927 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Li, H. Minimap2: pairwise alignment for nucleotide sequences. Bioinformatics 34, 3094–3100 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Poplin, R. et al. Scaling accurate genetic variant discovery to tens of thousands of samples. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/201178 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Heller, D. & Vingron, M. SVIM: structural variant identification using mapped long reads. Bioinformatics 35, 2907–2915 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Seemann, T. Prokka: rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinformatics 30, 2068–2069 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Buchfink, B., Xie, C. & Huson, D. H. Fast and sensitive protein alignment using DIAMOND. Nat. Methods 12, 59–60 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Suzek, B. E., Huang, H., McGarvey, P., Mazumder, R. & Wu, C. H. UniRef: comprehensive and non-redundant UniProt reference clusters. Bioinformatics 23, 1282–1288 (2007).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Tatusov, R. L. et al. The COG database: an updated version includes eukaryotes. BMC Bioinformatics 4, 41 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Finn, R. D. et al. The Pfam protein families database: towards a more sustainable future. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, D279–D285 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Haft, D. H. et al. TIGRFAMs and genome properties in 2013. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, D387–D395 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zhou, Z. et al. METABOLIC: high-throughput profiling of microbial genomes for functional traits, metabolism, biogeochemistry, and community-scale functional networks. Microbiome 10, 33 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Eddy, S. R. Accelerated profile HMM searches. PLoS Comput. Biol. 7, e1002195 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bateman, A. et al. The Pfam protein families database. Nucleic Acids Res. 32, D138–D141 (2004).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Amann, R. I. et al. Combination of 16S rRNA-targeted oligonucleotide probes with flow cytometry for analyzing mixed microbial populations. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 56, 1919–1925 (1990).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Daims, H., Brühl, A., Amann, R., Schleifer, K. H. & Wagner, M. The domain-specific probe EUB338 is insufficient for the detection of all Bacteria: development and evaluation of a more comprehensive probe set. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 22, 434–444 (1999).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Schmid, M. C. et al. Biomarkers for in situ detection of anaerobic ammonium-oxidizing (anammox) bacteria. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71, 1677–1684 (2005).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yu, N. Y. et al. PSORTb 3.0: improved protein subcellular localization prediction with refined localization subcategories and predictive capabilities for all prokaryotes. Bioinformatics 26, 1608–1615 (2010).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bendtsen, J. D., Nielsen, H., von Heijne, G. & Brunak, S. Improved prediction of signal peptides: SignalP 3.0. J. Mol. Biol. 340, 783–795 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar  More