Ecology

ParticipantsIn total, 80, 63, and 56 participants in the EM, CM, and control groups, respectively, initially agreed to participate in this study. Nevertheless, 28, 12, and 13 individuals in the EM, CM, and control groups, respectively, withdrew their participation and did not bring any fecal samples to the study site. After providing fecal samples, 10 and 6 individuals with EM and CM, respectively, reported intake of probiotics and were excluded from the analysis. No participant in the control group consumed probiotics during the study period. Eventually, 42, 45, and 43 participants in the EM, CM, and control groups, respectively, were enrolled (Fig. 1). The demographic and clinical characteristics of participants are summarized in Table 1. All participants with EM and CM used acute treatments for migraine. Moreover, 25 (59.5%) and 27 (60.0%) participants with EM and CM, respectively, received prophylactic treatment for migraine. Of the 42 participants with EM, 20 used anti-epileptic medications, 11 used beta blockers, 2 used an anti-depressant, and 1 used a calcium-channel blocker for prophylactic treatment. Of the 45 participants with CM, 23 used anti-epileptic medications, 8 used beta blockers, 1 used an anti-depressant, and no participant used calcium-channel blockers for prophylactic treatment. No participant in the EM, CM, and control groups was infected with SARS-CoV-2 before or during participation in the study.Figure 1Flow of participants in a study on the composition of gut microbiota in participants with episodic or chronic migraine.Full size imageTable 1 Demographic and clinical characteristics of participants with episodic and chronic migraine and the control.Full size tableCollection of 16 s RNA sequencing dataWe obtained 7,802,425 read sequences, accounting for 99.8% of the valid sequences from the fecal samples of 130 participants. According to barcode and primer sequence filtering, an average of 59,305 (range, 3716–90,832) observed sequences per sample was recovered for downstream analysis. Thus, 2,242,325 sequences were obtained from the controls for phylogenetic analysis, whereas 2,747,952 and 2,812,148 sequences were obtained from the EM and CM groups, respectively.Microbial diversityAlpha diversity was defined as microbial community richness and evenness. Alpha diversities in the genus richness, as evaluated by Chao1 (Fig. 2A), Shannon (Fig. 2B), and Simpson (Fig. 2C) indices, did not differ significantly among the EM, CM, and control groups. Beta diversity represented the community composition dissimilarity between samples. PCoA with the weighted UniFrac distance (Fig. 3A and Supplementary Fig. S1A, p = 0.176, permutational multivariate analysis of variance [PERMANOVA]), the unweighted UniFrac distance (Fig. 3B and Supplementary Fig. S1B, p = 0.132, PERMANOVA), and the Bray–Curtis dissimilarity index (Fig. 3C and Supplementary Fig. S1C, p = 0.220, PERMANOVA) for beta diversity at the genus level among the EM, CM, and control groups revealed that these three groups could not be separated.Figure 2Alpha diversity at the genus level using Chao1 (A), Shannon (B), and Simpson (C) indices*,†. *Controls (green) and participants with episodic migraine (blue) and chronic migraine (yellow). †In the box plots, the lower boundary of the box indicates the 25th percentile; a blue line within the box marks the median, and the upper boundary of the box indicates the 75th percentile. Whiskers above (red) and below the box (green) indicate the highest and the lowest values, respectively.Full size imageFigure 3Beta diversity of microbiota in principal coordinate analysis plot with the weighted UniFrac distance (A), the unweighted UniFrac distance (B) and the Bray–Curtis dissimilarity index (C)*. *Controls (green) and participants with episodic migraine (blue) and chronic migraine (yellow).Full size imageRelative abundance of fecal microbes between participants with EM and the controlRelative abundance of fecal microbes at the phylum level did not differ significantly among participants in the control, EM, and CM groups (Supplementary Fig. S2). Moreover, Tissierellales (p = 0.001) and Tissierellia (p = 0.001) were more abundant in the EM group than that in the control group at the order and class levels, respectively (Fig. 4A). At the family level, Peptoniphilaceae (p = 0.001) and Eubacteriaceae (p = 0.045) occurred at a significantly higher proportion in the EM group than that in the control group. Furthermore, at the genus level, the abundance of 11 genera differed significantly between the two groups, including one more abundant and 10 less abundant genera in the EM group. Catenibacterium (p = 0.031) and Olsenella (p = 0.038) had the highest relative abundance in the control and EM groups, respectively.Figure 4Taxonomic differences in fecal microbiota among participants. The fold change (log2) denotes the difference in relative abundance between participants with episodic migraine and the control (A), between those with chronic migraine and the control (B), and between those with episodic and chronic migraine (C). CM chronic migraine; EM episodic migraine.Full size imageRelative abundance of fecal microbes between participants with CM and the controlThe analysis results at the class, order, family, genus, and species levels between CM and control groups are illustrated in Fig. 4B. Tissierellia (p = 0.001), Tissierellales (p = 0.001), and Peptoniphilaceae (p = 0.001) were more abundant in the CM group than that in the control group at the class, order, and family levels, respectively; however, at the genus level, the abundances of 18 genera differed significantly, including four more abundant and 14 less abundant genera in the CM group than in the control group.Relative abundance of fecal microbes between participants with EM and CMThe analysis results at the class, order, family, and genus levels between CM and EM groups are summarized in Fig. 4C. At the class level, Bacilli (p = 0.033) were less abundant in the CM group than that in the EM group; however, at the order level, Selenomonadales (p = 0.016) and Lactobacillales (p = 0.034) were less abundant in the CM group than that in the EM group. Moreover, at the class level, Selenomonadaceae (p = 0.016) and Prevotellaceae (p = 0.012) were less abundant in the CM group than that in the EM group. Furthermore, at the genus level, PAC001212_g (p = 0.019) revealed relative positive predominancy in the CM groups, whereas Prevotella (p = 0.019), Holdemanella (p = 0.009), Olsenella (p = 0.033), Adlercreutzia (p = 0.018), and Coprococcus (p = 0.040) revealed relative positive predominancy in the EM group.Association among fecal microbiota and clinical characteristics and comorbidities of migraineAmong the five genera (Roseburia, Eubacterium_g4, Agathobacter, PAC000195_g, and Catenibacterium) depicting predominance or less-predominance both in EM and CM groups, we conducted additional analyses for clinical characteristics and migraine comorbidities.Combining the results of the 42 and 45 participants with EM and CM, respectively, the Poisson regression analysis for relative abundance of microbiota revealed that a higher composition of PAC000195_g (p = 0.040) was significantly associated with lower headache frequency (Table 2). Furthermore, Agathobacter (p = 0.009) had a negative association with severe headache intensity (Table 3). Anxiety was associated with Catenibacterium (p = 0.027); however, depression did not reveal any association with the five genera (Table 3).Table 2 The association between headache frequency and the relative abundance of microbiota.*Full size tableTable 3 The association of severe headache intensity and comorbidities with the relative abundance of microbiota*.Full size tableRelative abundance of fecal microbes in participants with EM based on prophylactic treatmentAlpha and beta diversities in participants with EM did not differ significantly based on their prophylactic treatment (Supplementary Figs S3A–C, S4A–C, and S5A–C). At the genus level, Klebsiella (p = 0.009), Enterobacteriaceae_g (p = 0.006), and Faecalibacterium (p = 0.046) were more abundant in the prophylactic group than the non-prophylactic group (Supplementary Fig. S6A).Relative abundance of fecal microbes in participants with CM based on prophylactic treatmentAlpha and beta diversities in participants with CM did not differ significantly based on prophylactic treatment (Supplementary Figs S7A–C, S8A–C, and S9A–C). Emergencia (p = 0.043), Ruthenibacterium (p = 0.005), Eggerthella (p = 0.003), PAC000743_g (p = 0.034), and Anaerostipes (p = 0.039) were more abundant in the prophylactic group, whereas PAC000196_g (p = 0.049), Fusicatenibacter (p = 0.028), and Faecalibacterium (p = 0.021) were more abundant in the non-prophylactic group at the genus level (Supplementary Fig. S6B). More

Abigail Meyer from the University of Minnesota, USA, and colleagues from the USA, investigated the physiological and morphological responses to experimental warming and CO2 additions in the widespread forest lichen Evernia mesomorpha. While impacts of CO2 were largely negligible, warming and associated drying was linked to decreases in biomass, carbon assimilation and respiration rates. As well as bleaching of the lichen, indicative of death of the photobiont, the authors found evidence of shifts in internal algal communities, including increased proportions of certain algal clades under warming. While the study reveals the sensitivity of lichen algae to warming, further work is needed to reveal whether photobiont turnover may assist in lichen acclimation and recovery. More

Humpenöder, F. et al. Projected environmental benefits of replacing beef with microbial protein. Nature 605, 90–96 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tilman, D. & Clark, M. Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature 515, 518–522 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Clark, M. A. et al. Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2°C climate change targets. Science 370, 705–708 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Eisler, M. C. et al. Agriculture: steps to sustainable livestock. Nature 507, 32–34 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kamke, J. et al. Rumen metagenome and metatranscriptome analyses of low methane yield sheep reveals a Sharpea-enriched microbiome characterised by lactic acid formation and utilisation. Microbiome 4, 56 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kruger Ben Shabat, S. et al. Specific microbiome-dependent mechanisms underlie the energy harvest efficiency of ruminants. ISME J. 10, 2958–2972 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Janssen, P. H. Influence of hydrogen on rumen methane formation and fermentation balances through microbial growth kinetics and fermentation thermodynamics. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 160, 1–22 (2010).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wallace, R. J. et al. A heritable subset of the core rumen microbiome dictates dairy cow productivity and emissions. Sci. Adv. 5, eaav8391 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Urrutia, N. L. & Harvatine, K. J. Acetate dose-dependently stimulates milk fat synthesis in lactating dairy cows. J. Nutr. 147, 763–769 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Seshadri, R. et al. Cultivation and sequencing of rumen microbiome members from the Hungate1000 Collection. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 359–367 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Anderson, C. J., Koester, L. R. & Schmitz-Esser, S. Rumen epithelial communities share a core bacterial microbiota: a meta-analysis of 16S rRNA Gene Illumina MiSeq sequencing datasets. Front. Microbiol. 12, 625400 (2021).Wallace, R. J., Cheng, K.-J., Dinsdale, D. & Ørskov, E. R. An independent microbial flora of the epithelium and its role in the ecomicrobiology of the rumen. Nature 279, 424–426 (1979).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mann, E., Wetzels, S. U., Wagner, M., Zebeli, Q. & Schmitz-Esser, S. Metatranscriptome sequencing reveals insights into the gene expression and functional potential of rumen wall bacteria. Front. Microbiol. 9, 43 (2018).Pacífico, C. et al. Unveiling the bovine epimural microbiota composition and putative function. Microorganisms 9, 342 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
VanInsberghe, D., Arevalo, P., Chien, D. & Polz, M. F. How can microbial population genomics inform community ecology?. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 375, 20190253 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hunt, D. E. et al. Resource partitioning and sympatric differentiation among closely related bacterioplankton. Science 320, 1081–1085 (2008).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Fraser, C., Hanage, W. P. & Spratt, B. G. Recombination and the nature of bacterial speciation. Science 315, 476–480 (2007).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Shapiro, B. J. et al. Population genomics of early events in the ecological differentiation of bacteria. Science 335, 48–51 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cadillo-Quiroz, H. et al. Patterns of gene flow define species of thermophilic Archaea. PLoS Biol. 10, e1001265 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Koeppel, A. et al. Identifying the fundamental units of bacterial diversity: a paradigm shift to incorporate ecology into bacterial systematics. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 2504–2509 (2008).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Arevalo, P., VanInsberghe, D., Elsherbini, J., Gore, J. & Polz, M. F. A reverse ecology approach based on a biological definition of microbial populations. Cell 178, 820–834.e14 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wetzels, S. U. et al. Epimural bacterial community structure in the rumen of Holstein cows with different responses to a long-term subacute ruminal acidosis diet challenge. J. Dairy Sci. 100, 1829–1844 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Neubauer, V. et al. Effects of clay mineral supplementation on particle-associated and epimural microbiota, and gene expression in the rumen of cows fed high-concentrate diet. Anaerobe 59, 38–48 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Stewart, R. D. et al. Compendium of 4,941 rumen metagenome-assembled genomes for rumen microbiome biology and enzyme discovery. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 953–961 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Waite, D. W. et al. Comparative genomic analysis of the class Epsilonproteobacteria and proposed reclassification to Epsilonbacteraeota (phyl. nov.). Front. Microbiol. 8, 682 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rodriguez-R, L. M. & Konstantinidis, K. T. Bypassing cultivation to identify bacterial species. Microbe Mag. 9, 111–118 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bendall, M. L. et al. Genome-wide selective sweeps and gene-specific sweeps in natural bacterial populations. ISME J. 10, 1589–1601 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Birky, C. W., Adams, J., Gemmel, M. & Perry, J. Using population genetic theory and DNA sequences for species detection and identification in asexual organisms. PLoS ONE 5, e10609 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, W.-H. Unbiased estimation of the rates of synonymous and nonsynonymous substitution. J. Mol. Evol. 36, 96–99 (1993).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Novichkov, P. S., Wolf, Y. I., Dubchak, I. & Koonin, E. V. Trends in prokaryotic evolution revealed by comparison of closely related bacterial and archaeal genomes. J. Bacteriol. 191, 65–73 (2009).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Tilman, D. Resource competition between plankton algae: an experimental and theoretical approach. Ecology 58, 338–348 (1977).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yawata, Y. et al. Competition–dispersal tradeoff ecologically differentiates recently speciated marine bacterioplankton populations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 5622–5627 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Basan, M. et al. A universal trade-off between growth and lag in fluctuating environments. Nature 584, 470–474 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Flamholz, A., Noor, E., Bar-Even, A., Liebermeister, W. & Milo, R. Glycolytic strategy as a tradeoff between energy yield and protein cost. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 10039–10044 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Szymanski, C. M., Yao, R., Ewing, C. P., Trust, T. J. & Guerry, P. Evidence for a system of general protein glycosylation in Campylobacter jejuni. Mol. Microbiol. 32, 1022–1030 (1999).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Roux, D. et al. Identification of poly-N-acetylglucosamine as a major polysaccharide component of the Bacillus subtilis biofilm matrix. J. Biol. Chem. 290, 19261–19272 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Troutman, J. M. & Imperiali, B. Campylobacter jejuni PglH is a single active site processive polymerase that utilizes product inhibition to limit sequential glycosyl transfer reactions. Biochemistry 48, 2807–2816 (2009).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hehemann, J. H. et al. Adaptive radiation by waves of gene transfer leads to fine-scale resource partitioning in marine microbes. Nat. Commun. 7, 12860 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Treangen, T. J. & Rocha, E. P. C. Horizontal transfer, not duplication, drives the expansion of protein families in prokaryotes. PLoS Genet. 7, e1001284 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Castric, P. pilO, a gene required for glycosylation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa 1244 pilin. Microbiology 141, 1247–1254 (1995).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mourkas, E. et al. Host ecology regulates interspecies recombination in bacteria of the genus Campylobacter. eLife 11, e73552 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sheppard, S. K. et al. Genome-wide association study identifies vitamin B 5 biosynthesis as a host specificity factor in Campylobacter. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 11923–11927 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bobay, L.-M. & Ochman, H. Biological species are universal across life’s domains. Genome Biol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evx026 (2017).Dieho, K. et al. Morphological adaptation of rumen papillae during the dry period and early lactation as affected by rate of increase of concentrate allowance. J. Dairy Sci. 99, 2339–2352 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lawson, C. E. et al. Autotrophic and mixotrophic metabolism of an anammox bacterium revealed by in vivo 13C and 2H metabolic network mapping. ISME J. 15, 673–687 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kwong, W. K., Zheng, H. & Moran, N. A. Convergent evolution of a modified, acetate-driven TCA cycle in bacteria. Nat. Microbiol. 2, 17067 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kather, B., Stingl, K., van der Rest, M. E., Altendorf, K. & Molenaar, D. Another unusual type of citric acid cycle enzyme in Helicobacter pylori: the malate:quinone oxidoreductase. J. Bacteriol. 182, 3204–3209 (2000).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mullins, E. A. & Kappock, T. J. Crystal structures of Acetobacter aceti succinyl-coenzyme A (CoA):acetate CoA-transferase reveal specificity determinants and illustrate the mechanism used by class I CoA-transferases. Biochemistry 51, 8422–8434 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Letten, A. D., Hall, A. R. & Levine, J. M. Using ecological coexistence theory to understand antibiotic resistance and microbial competition. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 431–441 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Park, S. Y. et al. Strain-level fitness in the gut microbiome is an emergent property of glycans and a single metabolite. Cell 185, 513–529.e21 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kim, C. H. Control of lymphocyte functions by gut microbiota-derived short-chain fatty acids. Cell Mol. Immunol. 18, 1161–1171 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Morrison, D. J. & Preston, T. Formation of short chain fatty acids by the gut microbiota and their impact on human metabolism. Gut Microbes 7, 189–200 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Frampton, J., Murphy, K. G., Frost, G. & Chambers, E. S. Short-chain fatty acids as potential regulators of skeletal muscle metabolism and function. Nat. Metab. 2, 840–848 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Good, B. H., McDonald, M. J., Barrick, J. E., Lenski, R. E. & Desai, M. M. The dynamics of molecular evolution over 60,000 generations. Nature 551, 45–50 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lang, G. I. et al. Pervasive genetic hitchhiking and clonal interference in forty evolving yeast populations. Nature 500, 571–574 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Shapiro, B. J. & Polz, M. F. Microbial speciation. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 7, a018143 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sheppard, S. K. et al. Evolution of an agriculture-associated disease causing Campylobacter coli clade: evidence from national surveillance data in Scotland. PLoS ONE 5, e15708 (2010).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 
Wang, Q., Garrity, G. M., Tiedje, J. M. & Cole, J. R. Naive Bayesian classifier for rapid assignment of rRNA sequences into the new bacterial taxonomy. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 73, 5261–5267 (2007).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pacífico, C. et al. Bovine rumen epithelial miRNA–mRNA dynamics reveals post-transcriptional regulation of gene expression upon transition to high-grain feeding and phytogenic supplementation. Genomics 114, 110333 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rivera-Chacon, R. et al. Supplementing a phytogenic feed additive modulates the risk of subacute rumen acidosis, rumen fermentation and systemic inflammation in cattle fed acidogenic diets. Animals 12, 1201 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bolger, A. M., Lohse, M. & Usadel, B. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 30, 2114–2120 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bankevich, A. et al. SPAdes: a new genome assembly algorithm and its applications to single-cell sequencing. J. Comput. Biol. 19, 455–477 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Li, H. Aligning sequence reads, clone sequences and assembly contigs with BWA-MEM. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.3997 (2013).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 
Seemann, T. Prokka: rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinformatics 30, 2068–2069 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Putri, G. H., Anders, S., Pyl, P. T., Pimanda, J. E. & Zanini, F. Analysing high-throughput sequencing data in Python with HTSeq 2.0. Bioinformatics 38, 2943–2945 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
O’doherty, A. et al. Development of nalidixic acid amphotericin B vancomycin (NAV) medium for the isolation of Campylobacter ureolyticus from the stools of patients presenting with acute gastroenteritis. Br. J. Biomed. Sci. 71, 6–12 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schmieder, R. & Edwards, R. Quality control and preprocessing of metagenomic datasets. Bioinformatics 27, 863–864 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Karst, S. M., Kirkegaard, R. H. & Albertsen, M. mmgenome: a toolbox for reproducible genome extraction from metagenomes. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/059121 (2014).Edgar, R. C. MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res. 32, 1792–1797 (2004).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jain, C., Rodriguez-R, L. M., Phillippy, A. M., Konstantinidis, K. T. & Aluru, S. High throughput ANI analysis of 90K prokaryotic genomes reveals clear species boundaries. Nat. Commun. 9, 5114 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jukes, T. H. & Cantor, C. R. in Mammalian Protein Metabolism (ed. Munro, H. N.) 21–132 (Elsevier, 1969).Guindon, S. et al. New algorithms and methods to estimate maximum-likelihood phylogenies: assessing the performance of PhyML 3.0. Syst. Biol. 59, 307–321 (2010).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nguyen, L.-T., Schmidt, H. A., von Haeseler, A. & Minh, B. Q. IQ-TREE: a fast and effective stochastic algorithm for estimating maximum-likelihood phylogenies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 32, 268–274 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kalyaanamoorthy, S., Minh, B. Q., Wong, T. K. F., von Haeseler, A. & Jermiin, L. S. ModelFinder: fast model selection for accurate phylogenetic estimates. Nat. Methods 14, 587–589 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hoang, D. T., Chernomor, O., von Haeseler, A., Minh, B. Q. & Vinh, L. S. UFBoot2: improving the ultrafast bootstrap approximation. Mol. Biol. Evol. 35, 518–522 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
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).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Le, S. Q. & Gascuel, O. An improved general amino acid replacement matrix. Mol. Biol. Evol. 25, 1307–1320 (2008).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Danecek, P. et al. Twelve years of SAMtools and BCFtools. Gigascience 10, giab008 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Danecek, P. et al. The variant call format and VCFtools. Bioinformatics 27, 2156–2158 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Love, M. I., Huber, W. & Anders, S. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biol. 15, 550 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tan, R. S. G., Zhou, M., Li, F. & Guan, L. L. Identifying active rumen epithelial associated bacteria and archaea in beef cattle divergent in feed efficiency using total RNA-seq. Curr. Res. Microbial Sci. 2, 100064 (2021).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 https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btz848 (2019).Brewer, M. T., Anderson, K. L., Yoon, I., Scott, M. F. & Carlson, S. A. Amelioration of salmonellosis in pre-weaned dairy calves fed Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation products in feed and milk replacer. Vet. Microbiol. 172, 248–255 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Tilman, D. et al. Future threats to biodiversity and pathways to their prevention. Nature 546, 73. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature22900 (2017).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Laurance, W. F., Sayer, J. & Cassman, K. G. Agricultural expansion and its impacts on tropical nature. Trends Ecol. Evol. 29, 107–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2013.12.001 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ceballos, G. et al. Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction. J. Sci. Adv. 1, e1400253. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1400253 (2015).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Cardillo, M. et al. Human population density and extinction risk in the world’s carnivores. PLoS Biol. 2, e197. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020197 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Estes, J. A. et al. Trophic downgrading of planet earth. Science 333, 301–306 (2011).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ripple, W. J. et al. Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. Science 343, 124–148 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bauer, H. et al. Lion (Panthera leo) populations are declining rapidly across Africa, except in intensively managed areas. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112, 14895–14899 (2015).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Bauer, H., Page-Nicholson, S., Hinks, A. & Dickman, A. Guidelines for the Conservation of lion in Africa 17–24 (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2018).
Google Scholar 
Lindsey, P. A., Roulet, P. A. & Romanach, S. S. Economic and conservation significance of the trophy hunting industry in sub-Saharan Africa. Biol. Conserv. 134, 455–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.09.005 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vucetich, J. A. et al. The value of argument analysis for understanding ethical considerations pertaining to trophy hunting and lion conservation. Biol. Conserv. 235, 260–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.04.012 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dube, N. Voices from the village on trophy hunting in Hwange district, Zimbabwe. Ecol. Econ. 159, 335–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.02.006 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Murombedzi, J. African wildlife and livelihoods. In The Promise and Performance of Community Conservation (eds Hulme, D. & Murphree, M.) 244–255 (James Currey, 2001).
Google Scholar 
Leader-Williams, N., Baldus, R. D. & Smith, R. J. Recreational hunting. In Conservation and Rural Livelihoods (eds Dickson, B. et al.) 296–316 (Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2009).Chapter 

Google Scholar 
DiMinin, E., Leader-Williams, N. & Bradshaw, C. J. A. Banning trophy hunting will exacerbate biodiversity loss. Trends Ecol. Evol. 31, 99–102 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Whitman, K., Starfield, A. M., Quadling, H. S. & Packer, C. Sustainable trophy hunting of African lions. Nature 428, 175–178 (2004).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Packer, C. et al. Sport hunting, predator control and conservation of large carnivores. PLoS ONE 4, e5941. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005941 (2009).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mweetwa, T. et al. Quantifying lion (Panthera leo) demographic response following a three-year moratorium on trophy hunting. PLoS ONE 13, e0197030. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197030 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Loveridge, A. J. et al. Conservation of large predator populations: Demographic and spatial responses of African lions to the intensity of trophy hunting. Biol. Conserv. 204, 247–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.10.024 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Starfield, A. M., Shiell, J. D. & Smuts, G. L. Simulation of lion control strategies in a large game reserve. Ecol. Model. 13, 17–28 (1981).Article 

Google Scholar 
Venter, J. & Hopkins, M. E. Use of a simulation model in the management of a lion population. S. Afr. J. Wildl. Res. 18, 126–130 (1988).
Google Scholar 
Starfield, A. M. & Bleloch, A. L. Modelling the effect of contraception on part of the lion population in Etosha National Park. Applied Mathematic Dept. Report R3/82, Witwaterstrand University, South Africa. 7 (1982).Dickman, A., Becker, M., Begg, C., Loveridge, A. J. & Macdonald, D. W. Guidelines for the Conservation of Lions in Africa, Ch. 6 69–75 (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2018).
Google Scholar 
Creel, S. et al. Assessing the sustainability of lion trophy hunting with recomendations for policy. Ecol. Appl. 26, 2347–2357. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1377 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Barthold, J., Loveridge, A. J., Macdonald, D. W., Packer, C. & Colchero, F. Bayesian estimates of male and female African lion mortality for future use in population management. J. Appl. Ecol. 53, 295–304 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Loveridge, A. J., Valeix, M., Elliot, N. B. & Macdonald, D. W. The landscape of anthropogenic mortality: How African lions respond to spatial variation in risk. J. Appl. Ecol. 54, 815–825. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12794 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Loveridge, A. J. et al. Evaluating the spatial intensity and demographic impacts of wire-snare bush-meat poaching on large carnivores. Biol. Conserv. 244, 108504 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Becker, M. S. et al. Estimating past and future male loss in three Zambian lion populations. J. Wildl. Manag. 77, 128–142 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kiffner, C., Meyer, B., Muhlenberg, M. & Waltert, M. Plenty of prey, few predators: What limits lions Panthera leo in Katavi National park, western Tanzania?. Oryx 43, 52–59 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Loveridge, A. J., Searle, A. W., Murindagomo, F. & Macdonald, D. W. The impact of sport hunting on the population dynamics of an African lion population in a protected area. Biol. Conserv. 134, 548–558 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Miller, J. R. B. et al. Aging traits and sustainable trophy hunting of African lions. Biol. Conserv. 201, 160–168 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Woodroffe, R. & Ginsberg, J. R. Edge effects and the extinction of populations inside protected areas. Science 280, 2126–2128 (1998).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gervasi, V., Linnell, J. D. C., Brøseth, H. & Gimenez, O. Failure to coordinate management in transboundary populations hinders the achievement of national management goals: The case of wolverines in Scandinavia. J. Appl. Ecol. 56, 1905–1915. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13379 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Breitenmoser, U. & Nobbe, C. Guidelines for the Conservation of Lions in Africa (ed IUCN CSG/SSC) 29–30 (IUCN, 2018).du Preez, B. & Lopez-Bao, J. V. Guidelines for the Conservation of the Lion in Africa (ed IUCN CSG/SSC) 76–78 (IUCN, 2018).Loveridge, A. J., Hemson, G., Davidson, Z. & Macdonald, D. W. African lions on the edge: reserve boundaries as ‘attractive sinks’ In Biology and Conservation of Wild Felids, Ch. 11 (eds Macdonald, D. W. & Loveridge, A. J.) 283–304 (Oxford University Press, London, 2010).

Google Scholar 
Borrego, N., Ozgul, A., Slotow, R. & Packer, C. Lion population dynamics: Do nomadic males matter?. Behav. Ecol. 29, 660–666. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ary018%JBehavioralEcology (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Packer, C. et al. The case for fencing remains intact. Ecol. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12171 (2013).Balme, G. et al. Big cats at large: Density, structure, and spatio-temporal patterns of a leopard population free of anthropogenic mortality. Popul. Ecol. 61, 256–267. https://doi.org/10.1002/1438-390x.1023 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Grünewald, C., Schleuning, M. & Böhning-Gaese, K. Biodiversity, scenery and infrastructure: Factors driving wildlife tourism in an African savannah national park. Biol. Conserv. 201, 60–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.036 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pulliam, H. R. Sources, sinks, and population. Regulation 132, 652–661. https://doi.org/10.1086/284880 (1988).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lamb, C. T. et al. The ecology of human–carnivore coexistence. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 117, 17876–17883. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1922097117 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Robinson, H. S., Weilgus, R. B., Cooley, H. & Cooley, S. Source—sink populations in carnivore management: cougar demography and immigration in a hunted population. Ecol. Appl. 18, 1028–1037 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Creel, S. et al. Questionable policy for large carnivore hunting. Science 350, 1473–1475 (2015).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cushman, S. A. et al. Prioritizing core areas, corridors and conflict hotspots for lion conservation in southern Africa. PLoS ONE 13, e0196213. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0196213 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kelly, M. J. & Durant, S. M. Viability of the Serengeti cheetah population. Conserv. Biol. 14, 786–797 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Skalski, J. R., Ryding, K. & Millspaug, J. J. Wildlife Demography: Analysis of Sex, Age, and Count Data (Elsevier Academic Press, 2005).
Google Scholar 
Hamlin, K. L., Pac, D. F., Sime, C. A., DeSimone, R. M. & Dusek, G. L. Evaluating the accuracy of ages obtained by two methods for montana ungulates. J. Wildl. Manag. 64, 441–449. https://doi.org/10.2307/3803242 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Storm, D. J. et al. Estimating ages of white-tailed deer: Age and sex patterns of error using tooth wear-and-replacement and consistency of cementum annuli. Wildl Soc Bull 38, 849–856. https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.457 (2014).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Balme, G. A., Hunter, L. & Braczkowski, A. R. Applicability of age-based hunting regulations for African Leopards. PLoS ONE 7, e35209. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0035209 (2012).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gipson, P. S., Ballard, W. B., Nowak, R. M. & Mech, L. D. Accuracy and precision of estimating age of gray wolves by tooth wear. J. Wildl. Manag. 64, 752–758. https://doi.org/10.2307/3802745 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hiller, T. L. Comparison of two age-estimation techniques for cougars. J. Northwest. Nat. 77–82, 76 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Begg, C. M., Miller, J. R. B. & Begg, K. S. Effective implementation of age restrictions increases selectivity of sport hunting of the African lion. J. Appl. Ecol. 55, 139–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12951 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mandisodza-Chikerema, R., Jooste, D. & Funston, P. J. Lion aging and adaptive quota management report: Ages of lions hunted and recommended quotas for 2019 in Zimbabwe. 12 (Unpublished report, Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management and Panthera, Harare, Zimbabwe, 2019).Smuts, G. L., Anderson, J. L. & Austin, J. C. Age determination of the African lion (Panthera leo). J. Zool. Lond. 185, 115–146 (1978).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lindsey, P. A. et al. The trophy hunting of African lions: Scale, current management practices and factors undermining sustainability. PLoS ONE 8, 1–11 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/ (2022).Packer, C. et al. Effects of trophy hunting on lion and leopard populations in Tanzania. Conserv. Biol. 25, 142–153 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mace, G. M. & Reynolds, J. Exploitation as a conservation issue. In Conservation of Exploited Species, Ch. 1 (eds Reynolds, J. et al.) 3–15 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001).
Google Scholar 
Struhsaker, T. T. A biologists perspective on the role of sustainable harvest in conservation. Conserv. Biol. 12, 930–932 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Auffret, M. D. et al. The role of microbial community composition in controlling soil respiration responses to temperature. PLoS ONE 11, e0165448 (2016).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Yao, Y. et al. A data-driven global soil heterotrophic respiration dataset and the drivers of its inter‐annual variability. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycle 35, e2020GB006918 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Davidson, E. A., Janssens, I. A. & Luo, Y. On the variability of respiration in terrestrial ecosystems: moving beyond Q10. Glob. Change Biol. 12, 154–164 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, Q. et al. Soil microbial respiration rate and temperature sensitivity along a north–south forest transect in eastern China: patterns and influencing factors. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 121, 399–410 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sihi, D. et al. Merging a mechanistic enzymatic model of soil heterotrophic respiration into an ecosystem model in two AmeriFlux sites of northeastern USA. Agric. Meteorol. 252, 155–166 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shao, P., Zeng, X., Moore, D. J. P. & Zeng, X. Soil microbial respiration from observations and Earth system models. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 034034 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Davidson, E. A., Samanta, S., Caramori, S. S. & Savage, K. The dual Arrhenius and Michaelis–Menten kinetics model for decomposition of soil organic matter at hourly to seasonal time scales. Glob. Change Biol. 18, 371–384 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Oechel, W. C. et al. Acclimation of ecosystem CO2 exchange in the Alaskan Arctic in response to decadal climate warming. Nature 406, 978–981 (2000).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Alster, C. J., von Fischer, J. C., Allison, S. D. & Treseder, K. K. Embracing a new paradigm for temperature sensitivity of soil microbes. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 3221–3229 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nie, M. et al. Positive climate feedbacks of soil microbial communities in a semi-arid grassland. Ecol. Lett. 16, 234–241 (2013).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ji, F., Wu, Z., Huang, J. & Chassignet, E. P. Evolution of land surface air temperature trend. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 462–466 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Huntingford, C., Jones, P. D., Livina, V. N., Lenton, T. M. & Cox, P. M. No increase in global temperature variability despite changing regional patterns. Nature 500, 327–330 (2013).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hansen, J., Sato, M. & Ruedy, R. Perception of climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, E2415–E2423 (2012).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Byrne, M. P. Amplified warming of extreme temperatures over tropical land. Nat. Geosci. 14, 837–841 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
IPCC Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2021).Chan, W. P. et al. Seasonal and daily climate variation have opposite effects on species elevational range size. Science 351, 1437–1439 (2016).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Biederbeck, V. O. & Campbell, C. A. Soil microbial activity as influenced by temperature trends and fluctuations. Can. J. Soil Sci. 53, 363–375 (1973).Article 

Google Scholar 
Karhu, K. et al. Temperature sensitivity of soil respiration rates enhanced by microbial community response. Nature 513, 81–84 (2014).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Chen, H., Zhu, T., Li, B., Fang, C. & Nie, M. The thermal response of soil microbial methanogenesis decreases in magnitude with changing temperature. Nat. Commun. 11, 5733 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Allison, S. D., Wallenstein, M. D. & Bradford, M. A. Soil-carbon response to warming dependent on microbial physiology. Nat. Geosci. 3, 336–340 (2010).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nottingham, A. T. et al. Microbial responses to warming enhance soil carbon loss following translocation across a tropical forest elevation gradient. Ecol. Lett. 22, 1889–1899 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Alster, C. J., Robinson, J. M., Arcus, V. L. & Schipper, L. A. Assessing thermal acclimation of soil microbial respiration using macromolecular rate theory. Biogeochemistry 158, 131–141 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Moinet, G. Y. K. et al. Soil microbial sensitivity to temperature remains unchanged despite community compositional shifts along geothermal gradients. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 6217–6231 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Feng, J. et al. Soil microbial trait-based strategies drive metabolic efficiency along an altitude gradient. ISME Commun. 1, 71 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, J. et al. Key microorganisms mediate soil carbon-climate feedbacks in forest ecosystems. Sci. Bull. 66, 2036–2044 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Trivedi, P. et al. Microbial regulation of the soil carbon cycle: evidence from gene–enzyme relationships. ISME J. 10, 2593–2604 (2016).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Zhu, B. & Cheng, W. Constant and diurnally-varying temperature regimes lead to different temperature sensitivities of soil organic carbon decomposition. Soil Biol. Biochem. 43, 866–869 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bradford, M. A. et al. Thermal adaptation of soil microbial respiration to elevated temperature. Ecol. Lett. 11, 1316–1327 (2008).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hartley, I. P., Hopkins, D. W., Garnett, M. H., Sommerkorn, M. & Wookey, P. A. Soil microbial respiration in Arctic soil does not acclimate to temperature. Ecol. Lett. 11, 1092–1100 (2008).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bradford, M. A. et al. Cross-biome patterns in soil microbial respiration predictable from evolutionary theory on thermal adaptation. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 223–231 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Tian, W. et al. Thermal adaptation occurs in the respiration and growth of widely distributed bacteria. Glob. Change Biol. 28, 2820–2829 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bradford, M. A., Watts, B. W. & Davies, C. A. Thermal adaptation of heterotrophic soil respiration in laboratory microcosms. Glob. Change Biol. 16, 1576–1588 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Walker, T. W. N. et al. Microbial temperature sensitivity and biomass change explain soil carbon loss with warming. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 885–889 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chen, H. et al. Microbial respiratory thermal adaptation is regulated by r-/K-strategy dominance. Ecol. Lett. 25, 2489–2499 (2022).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wang, C. et al. The temperature sensitivity of soil: microbial biodiversity, growth, and carbon mineralization. ISME J. 15, 2738–2747 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ramadhin, C., Yi, C. & Hendrey, G. Temperature variance portends and indicates the extent of abrupt climate shifts. IOP SciNotes 2, 014002 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sun, Y. Q. & Ge, Y. Temporal changes in the function of bacterial assemblages associated with decomposing earthworms. Front. Microbiol. 12, 682224 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Shi, Z., Xu, J., Li, X., Li, R. & Li, Q. Links of extracellular enzyme activities, microbial metabolism, and community composition in the river-impacted coastal waters. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 124, 3507–3520 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Razanamalala, K. et al. Soil microbial diversity drives the priming effect along climate gradients: a case study in Madagascar. ISME J. 12, 451–462 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Xu, M. et al. High microbial diversity stabilizes the responses of soil organic carbon decomposition to warming in the subsoil on the Tibetan Plateau. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 2061–2075 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Clemmensen, K. E. et al. Roots and associated fungi drive long-term carbon sequestration in boreal forest. Science 339, 1615–1618 (2013).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Qiao, N. et al. Labile carbon retention compensates for CO2 released by priming in forest soils. Glob. Change Biol. 20, 1943–1954 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ning, Q. et al. Carbon limitation overrides acidification in mediating soil microbial activity to nitrogen enrichment in a temperate grassland. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 5976–5988 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wan, S. & Luo, Y. Substrate regulation of soil respiration in a tallgrass prairie: results of a clipping and shading experiment. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycle 17, 1054 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gillabel, J., Cebrian-Lopez, B., Six, J. & Merckx, R. Experimental evidence for the attenuating effect of SOM protection on temperature sensitivity of SOM decomposition. Glob. Change Biol. 16, 2789–2798 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Xia, J. et al. Terrestrial carbon cycle affected by non-uniform climate warming. Nat. Geosci. 7, 173–180 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Balesdent, J. et al. Atmosphere–soil carbon transfer as a function of soil depth. Nature 559, 599–602 (2018).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Howard, D. M. & Howard, P. J. A. Relationships between CO2 evolution, moisture-content and temperature for a range of soil types. Soil Biol. Biochem. 25, 1537–1546 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hoyle, F. C., Murphy, D. V. & Brookes, P. C. Microbial response to the addition of glucose in low-fertility soils. Biol. Fertil. Soils 44, 571–579 (2008).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mau, R. L. et al. Linking soil bacterial biodiversity and soil carbon stability. ISME J. 9, 1477–1480 (2015).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Tucker, C. L., Bell, J., Pendall, E. & Ogle, K. Does declining carbon-use efficiency explain thermal acclimation of soil respiration with warming? Glob. Change Biol. 19, 252–263 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Billings, S. A. & Ballantyne, F. T. How interactions between microbial resource demands, soil organic matter stoichiometry, and substrate reactivity determine the direction and magnitude of soil respiratory responses to warming. Glob. Change Biol. 19, 90–102 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, J. et al. Biogeographic variation in temperature sensitivity of decomposition in forest soils. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 1873–1885 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Min, K. et al. Temperature sensitivity of biomass-specific microbial exo-enzyme activities and CO2 efflux is resistant to change across short- and long-term timescales. Glob. Change Biol. 5, 1793–1807 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dacal, M., Bradford, M. A., Plaza, C., Maestre, F. T. & Garcia-Palacios, P. Soil microbial respiration adapts to ambient temperature in global drylands. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 232–238 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Field-Fote, E. E. Mediators and moderators, confounders and covariates: exploring the variables that illuminate or obscure the “active ingredients” in neurorehabilitation. J. Neurol. Phys. Ther. 43, 83–84 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Anderson, T. H. & Domsch, K. H. Soil microbial biomass: the eco-physiological approach. Soil Biol. Biochem. 12, 2039–2043 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vance, E. D., Brookes, P. C. & Jenkinson, D. S. Microbial biomass measurements in forest soils—the use of the chloroform fumigation incubation method in strongly acid soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 19, 697–702 (1987).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bolger, A. M., Lohse, M. & Usadel, B. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 30, 2114–2120 (2014).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

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

Google Scholar 
Edgar, R. C., Haas, B. J., Clemente, J. C., Quince, C. & Knight, R. UCHIME improves sensitivity and speed of chimera detection. Bioinformatics 27, 2194–2200 (2011).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Edgar, R. C. UPARSE: highly accurate OTU sequences from microbial amplicon reads. Nat. Methods 10, 996–998 (2013).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bolyen, E. et al. Reproducible, interactive, scalable and extensible microbiome data science using QIIME 2. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 852–857 (2019).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

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

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 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Koljalg, U. et al. UNITE: a database providing web-based methods for the molecular identification of ectomycorrhizal fungi. N. Phytol. 166, 1063–1068 (2005).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
German, D. P. et al. Optimization of hydrolytic and oxidative enzyme methods for ecosystem studies. Soil Biol. Biochem. 43, 1387–1397 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mazerolle, M. Improving data analysis in herpetology: using Akaike’s information criterion (AIC) to assess the strength of biological hypotheses. Amphib. Reptil. 2, 169–180 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Moinet, G. Y. K. et al. Temperature sensitivity of decomposition decreases with increasing soil organic matter stability. Sci. Total Environ. 704, 135460 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Moinet, G. Y. K. et al. The temperature sensitivity of soil organic matter decomposition is constrained by microbial access to substrates. Soil Biol. Biochem. 116, 333–339 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dixon, P. VEGAN, a package of R functions for community ecology. J. Veg. Sci. 14, 927–930 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Galperin, M. Y. Environ. Microbiol. 6, 552–567 (2004).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Higgins, D. & Dworkin, J. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 36, 131–148 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Maamar, H., Raj, A. & Dubnau, D. Science 317, 526–529 (2007).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ackermann, M. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 13, 497–508 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Robinson, R. W. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 52, 17–27 (1986).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
McIlroy, S. J. et al. Nat. Microbiol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-022-01292-9 (2023).Article 

Google Scholar 
Leu, A. O. et al. ISME J. 14, 1030–1041 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cui, M., Ma, A., Qi, H., Zhuang, X. & Zhuang, G. Microbiologyopen 4, 1–11 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Haroon, M. F. et al. Nature 500, 567–570 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Fritts, R. K., McCully, A. L. & McKinlay, J. B. Microbiol. Molec. Biol. Rev. 85, e00135-20 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Ethics statementAnimals’ care was in accordance with institutional guidelines. Ethical permit was issued by Malmö-Lund djurförsöksetiska nämnd 5.8.18-00848/2018.Field workWe carried out the field work in Sweden during four breeding seasons (2018–2021). Adult male willow warblers were captured in their breeding territories using mist nets and playback of a song. From each bird, we collected the innermost primary feather from the right wing. From the birds that returned with a logger we also collected ~20 μl of blood from the brachial wing vein. The blood was stored in SET buffer (0.015 M NaCl, 0.05 M Tris, 0.001 M of EDTA, pH 8.0) at room temperature until deposited for permanent storage at −20 °C. We deployed Migrate Technology Ltd geolocators (Intigeo-W30Z11-DIP 12 × 5 × 4 mm, 0.32 g) and used a nylon string to mount them on birds with the “leg-loop” harness method as outlined in our previous work24. The mass of the logger relative to that of the bird was on average 3.3% (range 2.7–3.8%).The tagged birds were ringed with a numbered aluminum ring, and two, colored plastic rings for later identification in the field. In total, we tagged 466 males (349 in 2018 and 117 in 2020) at breeding territories. During the first tagging season (2018), birds were trapped at 17 locations (average 22 birds per site; range 7–30) distributed across Sweden (Fig. S1). Three of the sites were in southern Sweden to document migration routes of allopatric trochilus and three sites were located above the Arctic circle to record migratory routes of allopatric acredula, whereas the remaining (239) loggers were spread over 11 sites located in the migratory divide. Given the observed densities and distribution of hybrids after analyzing returning birds in 2019, we deployed 117 more loggers at one single site (63.439°N, 14.831°E) in 2020. We successfully retrieved tracks from 57 birds tagged in 2019 and 16 from birds tagged in 2021. In search for birds with loggers, we checked circa 3000 willow warbler males and covered an area of at least 0.5 km radius around each site the year after tagging.Geolocator data treatmentThe R package GeoLight (version 2.0)25 was used to extract and analyze locations from raw geolocator data. All twilight events were obtained with light threshold of 3 lux. The most extreme outliers were trimmed with “loessFilter” function and a K value of 3. We used GeoLight’s function “getElevation” for estimating the sun elevation angle for the breeding period: these sets of locations were used to infer the positions for autumn departure direction. In addition, we carried out a “Hill-Ekström” calibration for the longest stationary winter site during the period before the spring equinox. Winter calibration produced location sets that better reflected the winter coordinates of the main winter site in sub-Saharan Africa26. We reduced some of the inherent geolocation “noise” by applying cantered 5-day rolling means to the coordinates. The equinox periods were visually identified by inspecting standard deviations in latitude. Latitudes from equinox periods were omitted (on average autumn equinox obscured data for 45 days (range 25–68). For the main winter site, we used the longest period at which bird stayed stationary and from which in all cases begun the spring migration (mean = 118, SD = 23 days). Timing of autumn departure was estimated by manual inspection of longitudes and latitudes plotted in time series. To estimate at which longitude the birds crossed the Mediterranean, we extracted the longitude when birds crossed latitude 35 N° (Mediterranean crossing longitude). For 29 birds, it was possible to directly extract the longitude at crossing latitude 35 N°. For the rest of the cases, the birds had not reached latitude 35 N° before the latitude was obscured by the equinox, we calculated the mean longitude of 10 days from the onset of fall equinox as a measure of the Mediterranean crossing. This measurement correlated highly with the winter longitude (r = 0.78, p = 2.8 × 10−16). To control for the birds relative breeding site longitude, we extracted the departure direction (1°–360°) relative from the tagging site to the location where the birds crossed the Mediterranean (departure direction). The departure data was of circular type (measured in 360°), however the variance did not span more than 180° degrees (range 151°–224°). Therefore, we proceeded with analyses using linear statistics. Geographic distances and departure direction were calculated using R package “geosphere” (version 1.5-10). Complete set of positions of each individual bird with equinoxes excluded is presented in Supplementary Data 1.Laboratory work and molecular data extractionWe extracted DNA from blood samples following the ammonium acetate protocol16. Genotyping for divergent regions on chromosome 1 (InvP-Ch1) and chromosome 5 (InvP-Ch5) was done using a qPCR SNP assay16, which is based on one informative SNP per region (SNP 65 for chromosome 1 and SNP 285 for chromosome 5). Probes and primers were produced by Thermo Fisher Scientific and were designed using the online Custom TaqMan® Assay Design tool (Table S4). We used Bio-Rad CFX96™ Real-time PCR system (Bio-Rad Laboratories, CA, USA) and the universal Fast-two-steps protocol: 95 °C, 15 min—40*(95 °C, 10 s–60 °C, 30 s, plate read. Both regions contain inversion polymorphisms that restrict recombination between subspecies-specific haplotypes and contain nearly all the SNPs separating the two subspecies13. For each region, we scored genotypes as either “Tro” (homozygous for trochilus haplotypes), “Acr” (homozygous for acredula haplotypes) or “Het” (heterozygous). The method that we used to assess the presence of MARB-a is based on a qPCR assay that quantifies the copy number of a novel TE (previously known as AFLP-WW212) that has expanded in acredula. The quantification of repeats by this method has been shown to be highly repeatable (R2 = 0.88) when comparing estimates obtained from DNA in blood and feathers15. We used the forward (5′-CCTTGCATACTTCTATTTCTCCC-3′) and reverse (5′-CATAGGACAGACATTGTTGAGG-3′) primers developed by Caballero-López et al.15 to amplify the TE motif. For reference of a single copy region we used the primers SFRS3F and SFRS3R27. We diluted DNA to 1 ng/μl−1 and used a Bio-Rad CFX96™ Real-time PCR system (Bio-Rad Laboratories, CA, USA) with SYBR-green-based detection. Total reaction volume was 25 μl of which 4 μl of DNA, 12.5 μl of SuperMix, 0.1 μl ROX, 1 μl of primer (forward and reverse), and 6.4 μl of double distilled H2O. We ran quantifications of the single copy gene and the TE variant found on MARB-a on separate plates with the following settings: 50 °C for 2 min as initial incubation, 95 °C for 2 min X 43 (94 °C for 30 s [55.3 °C SFRS3 and 55.5 °C for TE, 30 s] and 72 °C for 45 s). Each sample was run in duplicate and together with a two-fold serial standard dilution (2.5–7.8 × 10−2 ng). Allopatric trochilus have 0–6 copies whereas allopatric acredula have 8–45 copies15; a bimodal distribution was also confirmed in this new data set (Fig. S2). Accordingly, for the present analyses, we split the data in two groups: birds with ≤6 TE copies and birds with >7, translating into absence or presence of MARB-a, with the former assumed to be homozygous for the absence of MARB-a and the latter heterozygous or homozygous for the presence of MARB-a. Data from two investigated willow warbler families suggest a Mendelian inheritance pattern and provide support for our interpretation of how TE copy numbers reflect the three genotypes (Table S5). Moreover, the TE copy numbers within the hybrid swarm have a distribution similar to a combination of allopatric trochilus and acredula, further supporting that the copies are inherited as intact blocks (haplotypes). However, a precise distinction between heterozygotes and homozygotes on MARB-a is still not possible15.Statistical analysisWe used linear models with departure direction, winter longitude, migration distance and departure timing as response variables and the three genetic markers: MARB-a (a factor with two levels), InvP-Ch1 (a factor with three levels) and InvP-Ch5 (a factor with three levels) as explanatory variables. Models were constructed with R base package “stats”. We reported Type II ANOVA for models with more than one explanatory variable and no interactions and type III ANOVA results for models with interaction term by using R package “Car” (version 3.0-12)28. We initially constructed mixed effect models with timing of departure and tagging year as random factors however, this delivered singular fits due to insufficient sample sizes across categories. Normality of residuals was checked with a Shapiro–Wilk test. For carrying out circular statistics on autumn migration direction we used the R package “circular” (version 0.4-93). Watson’s U2 pairwise comparisons of different groups delivered the same results as linear models (Table S2 and Fig. S5). Circular means were identical to conventional linear means in our data set, which we take as another evidence that linear models are appropriate for the analysis of our data (Table S3 and Fig. S5). Maps in Figs. 1 and 2b and S1, S3 and S4 were created with R package “ggplot2” (version 3.3.6) using continent contours from Natural Earth, naturalearthdata.com/. Heat gradient over the maps in Fig. 1a–d were created with R package “gstat” (version 2.0-8) and the inverse distance weighting power of 3.0. Circular plots were created with ORIANA (version 4.02). All analyses were carried out with R version 4.1.1 (R Core Team 2021).Reporting summaryFurther information on research design is available in the Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary linked to this article. More

Chase, J. M. et al. The interaction between predation and competition: A review and synthesis. Ecol. Lett. 5, 302–315. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2002.00315.x (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Droge, E., Creel, S., Becker, M. S. & M’Soka, J. Risky times and risky places interact to affect prey behaviour. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1123–1128. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0220-9 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Allesina, S. & Levine Jonathan, M. A competitive network theory of species diversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108, 5638–5642. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1014428108 (2011).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Bairey, E., Kelsic, E. D. & Kishony, R. High-order species interactions shape ecosystem diversity. Nat. Commun. 7, 12285. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12285 (2016).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Letten, A. D. & Stouffer, D. B. The mechanistic basis for higher-order interactions and non-additivity in competitive communities. Ecol. Lett. 22, 423–436. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13211 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lotka, A. J. Elements of physical biology. Sci. Prog. Twent. Century (1919–1933) 21, 341–343 (1926).
Google Scholar 
Volterra, V. Variazioni e Fluttuazioni del Numero d’Individui in Specie Animali Conviventi. (Società Anonima Tipografica “Leonardo da Vinci”, 1926).Schmitz, O. J. Top predator control of plant biodiversity and productivity in an old-field ecosystem. Ecol. Lett. 6, 156–163. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2003.00412.x (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fey, K., Banks, P. B., Oksanen, L. & Korpimäki, E. Does removal of an alien predator from small islands in the Baltic Sea induce a trophic cascade?. Ecography 32, 546–552. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2008.05637.x (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Terborgh John, W. Toward a trophic theory of species diversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, 11415–11422. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1501070112 (2015).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pringle, R. M. et al. Predator-induced collapse of niche structure and species coexistence. Nature 570, 58–64. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1264-6 (2019).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sandom, C. et al. Mammal predator and prey species richness are strongly linked at macroscales. Ecology 94, 1112–1122. https://doi.org/10.1890/12-1342.1 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Louette, G. & De Meester, L. Predation and priority effects in experimental zooplankton communities. Oikos 116, 419–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2006.0030-1299.15381.x (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Johnston, N. K., Pu, Z. & Jiang, L. Predator identity influences metacommunity assembly. J. Anim. Ecol. 85, 1161–1170. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12551 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Karakoc, C., Radchuk, V., Harms, H. & Chatzinotas, A. Interactions between predation and disturbances shape prey communities. Sci. Rep. 8, 2968. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-21219-x (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hubbell, S. P. The Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography (MPB-32) (Princeton University Press, 2011).Book 

Google Scholar 
MacArthur, R. H. & Wilson, E. O. The Theory of Island Biogeography (Princeton University Press, 2001).Book 

Google Scholar 
Daniel, J., Gleason, J. E., Cottenie, K. & Rooney, R. C. Stochastic and deterministic processes drive wetland community assembly across a gradient of environmental filtering. Oikos 128, 1158–1169. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.05987 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lehner, B. & Döll, P. Development and validation of a global database of lakes, reservoirs and wetlands. J. Hydrol. 296, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.03.028 (2004).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Chase, J. M., Biro, E. G., Ryberg, W. A. & Smith, K. G. Predators temper the relative importance of stochastic processes in the assembly of prey metacommunities. Ecol. Lett. 12, 1210–1218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01362.x (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Werner, E. E. & Peacor, S. D. A review of trait-mediated indirect interactions in ecological communities. Ecology 84, 1083–1100. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2003)084[1083:AROTII]2.0.CO;2 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pearson, D. E., Ortega, Y. K., Eren, Ö. & Hierro, J. L. Community assembly theory as a framework for biological invasions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 33, 313–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2018.03.002 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Duchesne, É. et al. Variable strength of predator-mediated effects on species occurrence in an arctic terrestrial vertebrate community. Ecography 44, 1236–1248. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.05760 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ryberg, W. A., Smith, K. G. & Chase, J. M. Predators alter the scaling of diversity in prey metacommunities. Oikos 121, 1995–2000. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2012.19620.x (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Carrete Vega, G. & Wiens, J. J. Why are there so few fish in the sea?. Proc. R. Soc. B 279, 2323–2329. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.0075 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Barrett, M. et al. Living planet report 2018: Aiming higher. (2018).Reid, A. J. et al. Emerging threats and persistent conservation challenges for freshwater biodiversity. Biol. Rev. 94, 849–873. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12480 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Di Marco, M. et al. Changing trends and persisting biases in three decades of conservation science. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 10, 32–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2017.01.008 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hammerschlag, N. et al. Ecosystem function and services of aquatic predators in the anthropocene. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34, 369–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2019.01.005 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, T. et al. Amur tigers and leopards returning to China: direct evidence and a landscape conservation plan. Landsc Ecol 31, 491–503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0278-1 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hong, S. et al. Stream health, topography, and land use influences on the distribution of the Eurasian otter Lutra lutra in the Nakdong River basin, South Korea. Ecol. Indic. 88, 241–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.01.004 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Guter, A., Dolev, A., Saltz, D. & Kronfeld-Schor, N. Using videotaping to validate the use of spraints as an index of Eurasian otter (Lutra lutra) activity. Ecol. Indic. 8, 462–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2007.04.009 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sittenthaler, M., Bayerl, H., Unfer, G., Kuehn, R. & Parz-Gollner, R. Impact of fish stocking on Eurasian otter (Lutra lutra) densities: A case study on two salmonid streams. Mamm. Biol. 80, 106–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2015.01.004 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zheng, B., Huang, H., Zhang, Y. & Dai, D. The Fishes of Tumen River (Jilin People’s Publishing House, 1980).
Google Scholar 
Fleishman, E., Murphy, D. D. & Brussard, P. F. A new method for selection of umbrella species for conservation planning. Ecol Appl 10, 569–579. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[0569:ANMFSO]2.0.CO;2 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Roberge, J.-M. & Angelstam, P. E. R. Usefulness of the umbrella species concept as a conservation tool. Conserv. Biol. 18, 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00450.x (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
McGowan, J. et al. Conservation prioritization can resolve the flagship species conundrum. Nat. Commun. 11, 994. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-14554-z (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Katano, I., Doi, H., Eriksson, B. K. & Hillebrand, H. A cross-system meta-analysis reveals coupled predation effects on prey biomass and diversity. Oikos 124, 1427–1435. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.02430 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Leibold, M. A. A graphical model of keystone predators in food webs: Trophic regulation of abundance, incidence, and diversity patterns in communities. Am. Nat. 147, 784–812. https://doi.org/10.1086/285879 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
McPeek, M. A. The consequences of changing the top predator in a food web: A comparative experimental approach. Ecol. Monogr. 68, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9615(1998)068[0001:TCOCTT]2.0.CO;2 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chase, J. M. & Leibold, M. A. Ecological Niches: Linking Classical and Contemporary Approaches (University of Chicago Press, 2003).Book 

Google Scholar 
Gravel, D., Canham, C. D., Beaudet, M. & Messier, C. Reconciling niche and neutrality: The continuum hypothesis. Ecol. Lett. 9, 399–409. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00884.x (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yoshida, T., Jones, L. E., Ellner, S. P., Fussmann, G. F. & Hairston, N. G. Rapid evolution drives ecological dynamics in a predator–prey system. Nature 424, 303–306. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01767 (2003).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yin, X., Wang, J., Yin, H. & Ruan, Y. Does inducible defense mitigate physiological stress responses of prey to predation risk?. Hydrobiologia 843, 173–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-019-04046-7 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chalcraft, D. R. & Resetarits, W. J. Jr. Predator identity and ecological impacts: Functional redundancy or functional diversity?. Ecology 84, 2407–2418. https://doi.org/10.1890/02-0550 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Petchey, O. L. & Gaston, K. J. Functional diversity: Back to basics and looking forward. Ecol. Lett. 9, 741–758. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00924.x (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Burner, R. C. et al. Functional structure of European forest beetle communities is enhanced by rare species. Biol. Conserv. 267, 109491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109491 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar  More