Ecology

Root morphological traitsThe wild-type parent ISR42-8 produced longer root length (RL) than the modern cultivar parent Golf and tested lines (Table S2, Fig. 1A.h,A.f [h = hydroponic; f = field]). The tested lines of the two evolving barley populations displayed significant variations under hydroponic conditions. Barley lines evolved under OCS had on average 3484 mm longer roots compared to CCS under hydroponic treatment (Fig. 1A.h, Table 2). Complementary results under field conditions show as well higher RL for the OCS lines, even though the variance was significantly less pronounced (Fig. 1A.f). In addition, a less evident variance was observed in the field within both groups compared to the hydroponic (Fig. 1A.d). Across both experimental setups, the observed range of RL was higher in the OCS lines [Standard deviation (SD)OCS = 883, SDCCS = 597] (Table 2).Figure 1Significantly variant root morphological phenotypes. Boxplots illustrate the overall distribution of observed data points for the parents Golf and ISR 42-8 as well as for the conventional (CCS) and organic (OCS) lines. Density plots highlight the overall distribution of organic and conventional adapted lines. (A)—Root length (RL)—the sum of all roots harvested in millimeters (mm), illustrated for all four groups. (A.h)—root length measured in the hydroponic experiment; (A.f)—field experiment; A.d—distribution histogram for root length in both field and hydroponic experiment for CCS and OCS adapted lines. (B)—the ratio of root length to volume (L/V). Data available for hydroponics (B.h), field (B.f), and distribution of the ratio of root length to volume illustrated in B.d. (C.f)—Root mass density (RMD) from the field; (D.f)—Root angle (RA) from the field, distribution of the root angle illustrated in (D.d); (E.f)—root tip per plant count from the field, corresponding histogram visualized in (E.d). (F.f)—root fork per plant count from the field.Full size imageTable 2 Comparison of organic and conventional population root phenotypes under field and hydroponic evaluation.Full size tableThe root length to volume (L/V) is an important indicator of the soil volume that can be explored by the roots. Under hydroponics conditions, variations were found for L/V between the parental genotypes as well as between the OCS and CCS populations (Tables 2 & S3). The organic lines were characterized by a significantly higher L/V, indicating a much more distinct exploration of the soil by these lines (Fig. 1B.h,B.f). In comparison to field, highest diversity in L/V was found under hydroponic experiments within both OCS and CCS populations (Fig. 1B.d).The root mass density (RMD) is the ratio of root volume for a given root mass and is a key indicator of root thickness. Although significant variations existed between ISR42-8 and Golf under hydroponics conditions, such significant variations were not found between the OCS and CCS groups (P = 0.09) (Fig. 1C.f and Tables 2 and S3).The root angle (RA) measurements were only performed under field conditions since plants grown under hydroponics conditions were placed in uniform growing vessels and the direction of root growth is restricted by tubes. Significant variation was observed for the RA between the two parental lines, which was also reflected in the CCS and OCS lines (Fig. 1D.f). ISR42-8 was characterized by an 11.5° average narrower RA than Golf (Table S3). The RA was 4.1° bigger in the OCS compared to the CCS population (P = 0.005) (Table 2). However, a higher diversity in RA was observed in the OCS compared to the CCS lines (Fig. 1D.d, Table 2).In addition to the RA, the number of root tips and forks was measured under field conditions only. Both tips and forks indicate a similar pattern, where the OCS lines produced on average more for both PForks = 0.014, PTips = 0.0041 (Fig. 1E.f,F.f). After applying a P-adjustment, the number of forks count was no longer significantly different between OCS and CCS (PForks = 0.07, Table 2). Complementary, ISR 42-8 was observed to produce more tips and forks than Golf, which remained highly significant even after probability adjustment (Fig. 1E.f,F.f, Table S3). The distribution and the standard deviation of observed phenotypes highlight once more the fact that the OCS lines tend to have a higher variation (Fig. 1E.d, Table 2). Similarly, a significant increasing trend was recorded in root surface area (RSA) and root average diameter (RAD) by ISR42-8 as compared to Golf under hydroponics (Table S3). Contrasting to the parental genotypes, no variation was observed between OCS and CCS lines for RSA (Table 2).Root anatomical traitsWithin the observed anatomical traits, four were considered due to their relevance and variation between the systems. In both hydroponic and field experiments, significant variations were observed for the late metaxylem number (LMXN) between the parental lines as well as OCS and CCS lines (Tables 2 & S3, Fig. 2A.h,A.f). An increased LMXN for ISR 42-8 compared to Golf was observed (Fig. 2A.h). Regarding the CCS and OCS lines, a heterogenic scenario was presented over both experimental setups. While the median LMXN under CCS was identical with ISR 42-8 in the seedling stages of plant development (Fig. 2A.h), it was much lower in flowering stages under field conditions (Fig. 1A.f). Additionally, the LMXN was significantly higher in the CCS lines in the seedling stage compared to OCS lines, vice-versa LMXN was observed at the flowering time point (Fig. 2A.d).Figure 2Significantly variant root anatomical traits. Boxplots illustrate the overall distribution of observed data points for the parents Golf and ISR 42-8 as well as for the conventional (CCS) and organic (OCS) lines. (A) –Late metaxylem number (LMN)—the sum of all roots harvested and expressed by plant−1, illustrated for all four groups. A.h—Late metaxylem number measured in the hydroponic experiment; A.f—field experiment; A.d—distribution histogram for late metaxylem number in both field and hydroponic experiment for CCS and OCS adapted lines. (B)—Aerenchyma area (AA). Data available for hydroponics (B.h), field (B.f), and distribution of the aerenchyma area illustrated in (B.d). (C.f)—Total cortical area (TCA) from the field; (D.f)—Root cross-section area (RA) from the field, distribution of the total cortical area and root cross-section area illustrated in C.d and D.d, respectively.Full size imageThe intercellular space, represented by the aerenchyma area (AA), was observed to be significantly more pronounced in the tested CCS compared to OCS lines in both environments (Fig. 2B.h,B.f). Furthermore, the OCS population did not show significant differences to both parents under hydroponics conditions, however, when grown under field conditions, it was noted that Golf had a significantly higher AA mean value as compared to the OCS population (Table S3). As illustrated by the values, the AA expended from early to late stages by a magnitude of 10-folds (Fig. 2B.d). In general, although the two parents did not indicate phenotypic variations, OCS and CCS lines showed significant variations (Table S4).A 0.12 mm2 decreased average total cortical area (TCA) was recorded in the OCS compared to the CCS population under field conditions (P = 0.003, Fig. 2C.f), although substantial variations for TCA was observed within OCS and CCS populations (Fig. 2C.d). The root cross-section area (RXA) is a two-dimensional axis of the root which is an important indicator of root thickness. In the hydroponic examination of the seedling stage, significant variations existed between the CCS and ISR42-8 as well as OCS population (Tables 2 and S3). The complementary study under field conditions observed a noticeable variation for OCS from both parental genotypes and the CCS (Table S3). About 0.13 mm2 increased average value for RXA was identified for CCS (Fig. 2D.f), while consistent significant variations were also observed between the populations in the under field experiment, where 0.13 mm2 increased average value for RXA was identified for CCS (Fig. 2D.f). Analog (Fig. 2D.d). Analogue to the AA, the RXA indicates a lower root extension in the OCS compared to the CCS population. For the stele area (SA), significant variations were only observed at the flowering stage, where ISR42-8 generally had the highest SA and varies significantly between Golf and its progeny lines (Tables 2 and S3).Shoot-related traitsBeyond the root-related phenotypic observations, above-ground characteristics were also recorded to assess the root-borne shoot dynamics (Figs. 3 and S2). Among the OCS and CCS populations and the parents, ISR42-8 had the longest duration of emergence. While CCS-adapted lines took on average 5.8 days of emergence (DE), OCS-adapted lines emerged 1.8 days later (7.6 days) (Fig. S2). No variation was observed for the tiller number (TN) throughout all tested groups, while ISR 42-8 tends to produce much more leaf number (LN), accompanied by a lower plant height (PH) and higher shoot dry weight (SDW) (Table S4, Fig. S2). The OCS and CCS plants significantly differed in PH as well as SDW (Fig. 3B,C). The LN was marginally above the probability threshold of 0.05 (p = 0.058, Fig. 3A), with a clear tendency of increased variability in phenotypic variation (Fig. 3D). Similar trend was recorded for the SDW (Fig. 3F).Figure 3Above-ground plant characteristics. Boxplots illustrate the overall distribution of observed data points for the parents Golf and ISR 42-8 as well as for the conventional (CCS) and organic (OCS) lines under the hydroponic experiment. (A)—Leaf number (LN) expressed by; (B)—Plant height (PH) and C-Shoot dry weight (SDW). The data distribution of the leaf number, plant height and shoot dry weight is illustrated in (D,E,F), respectively.Full size imageInterconnection of root-shoot traitsWe performed inter-trait correlation analysis to unravel association among root traits and in between root and shoot phenotypes (Fig. 4). Pearson correlation coefficient revealed significant correlations among root-shoot traits. LN, PH and SDW had strong positive associations with all root architectural traits under hydroponic conditions (P  0.30) in both CCS and OCS, while DE has negative association with all shoot traits (r = −0.17 to −0.48) (Fig. 4A.h,B.h). A consistent negative relationship was observed for L/V with shoot traits such as LN, PH and SDW and root morphological traits such as RL, RSA and RAD in both CCS and OSC populations (Fig. 4A.h,B.h). A strong negative association existed between RL and all shoot morphological, root architectural and anatomical traits in both populations, except for L/V where a weak negative (r = −0.09) association was displayed only in the OCS. Likewise, all above-ground traits and all root architectural traits exhibited significant positive associations with all root anatomical features in both groups with an exception for the AA (Fig. 4A.h,B.h). Moreover, correlation analysis revealed strong positive relationships in both groups of SDW and root dry weight (RDW) to all above-ground traits, below-ground traits including, RL, SA, and RAD, as well as in all root anatomical traits (Fig. 4A.h,B.h). This means that the growth of tissue and organ is proportional to the increase in total dry biomass. More importantly, we observed a significant positive correlation among most of the root morphological, architectural, and anatomical traits in both OCS and CCS adapted populations, with few exceptions such as L/V (Fig. 4A.h,B.h).Figure 4Correlation matrix for shoot morphological (only in hydroponic conditions; A.h and B.h), root architectural and anatomical traits in two groups of barley populations and their parental lines grown across two growing conditions. (A)—conventional and (B)—organic cropping systems. (A.h)—conventional under hydroponic, (B.h)—organic under hydroponic, (A.f)—conventional under field, and B.f—organic under field conditions. The color scale represents Spearman’s ranked correlation coefficient. A larger circle size indicates a smaller p-value; blank cells represent that correlation was non-significant at P  −0.90) and RDW (r =   > −0.80) (Fig. 4A.f,B.f) for CCS and OCS populations respectively, which means that narrower the angle of the nodal roots, the longer was the root system. The two root branching traits, the number of tips and number of roots forks which were known to be associated and dependent on the RL have a strong positive correlation reflected by r = 0.81 and 0.90 in CCS and r = 0.74 and 0.84 in OCS developed lines, respectively, while they have a significant negative correlation with RA (r = −0.72 to −0.77) in both barley groups. In addition, RA had also strong negative relationship to RDW contributing architectural traits including, RMD (r = −0.81 to −0.84) and L/V (r = −0.34 to −0.44). However, no positive associations were observed for RA and all root anatomical traits in both OCS and CCS populations (Fig. 4A.f,B.f).Allometry analysisThe correlation analysis identified interconnection among root and shoot-related traits. Therefore, we checked if these correlations can be explained by allometric relations (Tables 3 and 4).Table 3 Summary of allometric analysis of root-shoot system traits under hydroponic condition.Full size tableTable 4 Summary of allometric analysis of root-shoot system traits under field condition.Full size tableIn the hydroponic environment, we observed a total of ten allometric relations, from which six were annotated to the PH. The PH was allometrically related to the SDW, the RSA, the RV, the RDW, the SRL, and the RMD (Table 3). Besides, the SDW was allometrically associated with the RSD. Furthermore, the TCA was related to the RXA. Finally, an allometry relationship was detected between the LMXN and AA (Table 3).In the field experimental setup, we detected in total ten allometric relations (P  More

Each sedimentary sequence from the three excavated ponds (Tampolove [TAMP], Ankatoke [ANKA], and Andranobe [ANDR]) includes a layer of clay (defined as zone 2), which separates the surface soil formation (zone 1) from the underlying fossiliferous muddy sand and bedrock (zone 3, Figs. S4–S7 & S9). Details regarding the composition of this sediment and its microfossils are given in Appendix-Results-Excavation (Figs. S9–S12).Subfossils and chronologyCoastal survey recovered mostly zebu bones on exposed sandy surfaces, some pygmy hippo and giant tortoise bones on the margins of shallow ponds, and giant tortoise carapace under overhanging limestone outcrops (Appendix-Results-Survey, Fig. S3). A high proportion of surface bone failed 14C analysis (~ 55%, Table S1), yet the successfully analyzed specimens (n = 8) span up to 3390–3220 calibrated years before present (cal BP, PSUAMS 8681, 3150 ± 15 14C BP, a hippo molar). Pond deposits that are relatively deep include bones that cover a relatively long period of time (Figs. S14–S16, Dataset S6). This span ranges from ~ 6000 years at TAMP (~ 120 cm deep) to ~ 2500 years at ANDR (~ 100 cm deep), with the oldest bones present in the fossiliferous sedimentary zone 3 and scarce bones in the overlying clay (zone 2).Zone 3Most bones in this layer are relatively intact and include readily identifiable pygmy hippo long bones and cranial fragments (e.g., Fig. S13a,f), giant tortoise carapace and plastron fragments (Fig. S13d), ratite eggshell and long bones (Fig. S13c,m), and crocodile scutes, cranial fragments, and teeth (Fig. S13b). Scarce bones of a duck (genus Anas) were recovered at ANDR. Remains of subfossil lemurs were scarce or absent, but they may be represented by an unknown type of bone fragment identified through protein fingerprinting (ANDR-1-5-55, Dataset S3). The widespread success of collagen extraction from these bones attests to the excellent preservation of organics in this zone. ANKA also includes keratin (mostly in the form of crocodile claws, e.g., Fig. S13i), as well as two rounded agates found associated with ratite eggshell (Fig. S13m).Remains of a juvenile pygmy hippo were recovered from both TAMP and ANDR (a femur and tibia, respectively, Dataset S3). The epiphyses of some of the pygmy hippo long bones have gnaw marks (Fig. S13f), and none of the bones include chop marks. In association with these bones towards the top of this zone are some large ( > 1 cm diameter) charcoal fragments and scarce bones of bushpig (Fig. S13k) and zebu (Fig. S13e). Protein fingerprinting identified a screened fragment of a non-zebu bovid in ANKA zone 3 and confirmed that a tentatively identified bushpig canine fragment (ANKA 1-4-151) belonged to a hippo. This zone at TAMP and ANDR also includes occasional mangrove whelk (Terebralia palustris) shells (Fig. S13g). These whelks currently live at least ~ 500 m distant from these ponds, and whelk shells at ANDR each have an irregular hole above the operculum.The span of time represented by bones in zone 3 ranges up to ~ 4000 years (~ 6000–2000 cal BP at TAMP, Fig. S14). Confirmed introduced animal bones from zone 3 failed direct 14C analysis. There are multiple examples of directly 14C-dated bone in close stratigraphic association that nonetheless differ in age by  > 1000 years, and there are a couple of examples of bones from the same individual that are separated stratigraphically. For example, two giant tortoise carapace and plastron fragments from TAMP that have indistinguishable 14C ages are separated by 22 cm of sediment (PSUAMS 8670 comes from 112 cm depth, and PSUAMS 8668 comes from 90 cm depth).Although ANKA produced what is thus far the oldest directly 14C dated pygmy hippo bone from a coastal subfossil site (PSUAMS 9383, 4380 ± 25 BP, 5030–4840 cal BP), the mean calibrated age of hippos from the Tampolove excavations (n = 11, x̄ = 2858 cal BP, SD = 972 yr) is significantly less than that of the giant tortoises (n = 9, x̄ = 4582 cal BP, SD = 705 yr, t(18) = − 4.4, p  2000 years older than a closely associated charcoal sample (38 cm depth, PSUAMS 8849, 575 ± 30 14C BP, 630–510 cal BP), which makes this molar comparable in age to bone from zone 3. Consequently, the youngest directly 14C-dated ancient bone from the Tampolove excavations comes from the lowermost zone 3: a pygmy hippo’s vertebra recovered at 90 cm depth at TAMP (PSUAMS 8730, 1865 ± 15 14C BP, 1819–1705 cal BP). Though poorly constrained in time, the deposition of zone 2 sediment came sometime within the past two millennia, which witnessed marine regression and dry intervals recorded in both the δ18O record of a nearby speleothem27 and the salinization of a nearby pan36. Previously directly 14C-dated bone collected around Tampolove attests to the local persistence of at least pygmy hippos and giant tortoises until the start of the last millennium (n = 15), and an atlas from Lamboara/Lamboharana is in fact the most recent confidently dated pygmy hippo bone from the island (PSUAMS 5629, 1100 ± 15 14C BP, 980–930 cal BP).Figure 4Cutmarked pygmy hippo femur recovered from Tampolove during recent excavation at ~ 40 cm depth (TAMP-1-2-61, above), and previously-recovered and directly 14C-dated (~ 3500 and 1600 cal BP37) cutmarked pygmy hippo femora from the nearby site of Lamboara/Lamboharana that are currently housed in the National Museum of Natural History in Paris (MAD 1709 & MAD 1710, below). Four views highlight three locations of cutmarks on the broken shaft of TAMP-1-2-61, and the inset frames show 20 × magnification of these areas, with corresponding orientations given by red lines. Note that the false color insets of TAMP-1-2-61 are meant to highlight linear edges and crevices, and the overview photos of all three femur fragments are on the same scale.Full size imageZone 1A fragment of iron (from TAMP, 16 cm depth) and sparse ceramic fragments (from ANKA, 3 & 9 cm depth) are present only in zone 1, and three 14C dates from TAMP and ANKA suggest that these specimens span the past ~ 200 years (Figs. S14–S15).CharcoalThe directly 14C dated charcoal spans all three stratigraphic zones yet consistently dates to the past millennium (Figs. S14–16). Multiple charcoal samples from different excavated ponds have practically indistinguishable 14C ages (Table S2), and much of the charcoal from Tampolove formed during peaks in the deposition of macrocharcoal at nearby Namonte (17 km distant; Fig. 5A). The onset of directly 14C-dated charcoal deposition approximately coincides with a decrease in Asafora speleothem δ18O values and with multiple directly 14C-dated first and final local occurrences of large animals. While directly 14C dated charcoal is limited to the past millennium, microcharcoal particles were abundant in all TAMP sediment samples (x̄ ± SD = 2.0 × 106 ± 2.8 × 106 particles). Additionally, microcharcoal is relatively abundant near the bottom of TAMP and ANKA, which contains bones that span ~ 6000–2000 cal BP (Fig. 5B).Figure 5Records of fire, drought, and faunal turnover from the vicinity of Tampolove within the past 1200 years, with dashed horizontal lines for reference (5A), and macrocharcoal concentrations from the excavated ponds, with depth intervals containing directly 14C-dated charcoal that spans the past millennium marked in red (5B). The past 1200 years includes the entire summed calibrated distribution of the 10 directly dated prebomb charcoal fragments from the Tampolove excavations. The calibrated probability distributions associated with the latest dates from endemic megafauna bone (giant tortoises and pygmy hippos) and earliest dates from introduced animal bone (zebu cattle and bushpigs) are shown as black distributions, and 95% of each distribution is bracketed. Considering directly dated remains within the past 4 ka from hippos (n = 26), giant tortoises (n = 18), and zebu (n = 9) and the assumption that bones were deposited uniformly over time, the grey distributions and bracketed 95% credible intervals give estimates of extirpation and arrival times. As in Fig. 3, the red line on the Asafora record follows from BCPA.Full size image More

Caro, T., Izzo, A., Reiner, R. C., Walker, H. & Stankowich, T. The function of zebra stripes. Nat. Commun. 5, 3535 (2014).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Merilaita, S., Scott-Samuel, N. E. & Cuthill, I. C. How camouflage works. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 372, 20160341 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rowland, H. M. From Abbott Thayer to the present day: what have we learned about the function of countershading? Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 364, 519–527 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rogalla, S. et al. The evolution of darker wings in seabirds in relation to temperature-dependent flight efficiency. J. R. Soc. Interface 18, 20210236.Malling Olsen, K. Gulls of the World. (Princeton University Press, 2018).Jawor, J. M. & Breitwisch, R. Melanin Ornaments, Honesty, and Sexual Selection. Auk 120, 249–265 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Field, D. J. et al. Melanin Concentration Gradients in Modern and Fossil Feathers. PLOS ONE 8, e59451 (2013).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
McNamara, M. E. et al. Decoding the Evolution of Melanin in Vertebrates. Trends Ecol. Evol. 36, 430–443 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Dufour, P. et al. Plumage colouration in gulls responds to their non-breeding climatic niche. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 29, 1704–1715 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hassanalian, M., Abdelmoula, H., Ben Ayed, S. & Abdelkefi, A. Thermal impact of migrating birds’ wing color on their flight performance: Possibility of new generation of biologically inspired drones. J. Therm. Biol. 66, 27–32 (2017).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hassanalian, M., Throneberry, G., Ali, M., Ben Ayed, S. & Abdelkefi, A. Role of wing color and seasonal changes in ambient temperature and solar irradiation on predicted flight efficiency of the Albatross. J. Therm. Biol. 71, 112–122 (2018).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Spear, L. B. & Ainley, D. G. Flight behaviour of seabirds in relation to wind direction and wing morphology. Ibis 139, 221–233 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sullivan, T. N., Meyers, M. A. & Arzt, E. Scaling of bird wings and feathers for efficient flight. Sci. Adv. 5, eaat4269.Pennycuick, C. J. Modelling the Flying Bird. (Elsevier, 2008).Buffo, J., Fritschen, L. J. & Murphy, J. L. Direct Solar Radiation on Various Slopes from 0 to 60 Degrees North Latitude. (Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1972).Hansen, T. F. Stabilizing Selection and the Comparative Analysis of Adaptation. Evolution 51, 1341–1351 (1997).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hansen, T. F., Pienaar, J. & Orzack, S. H. A Comparative Method for Studying Adaptation to a Randomly Evolving Environment. Evolution 62, 1965–1977 (2008).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Roulin, A. Condition-dependence, pleiotropy and the handicap principle of sexual selection in melanin-based colouration. Biol. Rev. 91, 328–348 (2016).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Rayner, J. M. V. FORM AND FUNCTION IN AVIAN FLIGHT. in Current Ornithology vol. 5 1–66 (Plenum Press, 1988).Schreiber, E. A. & Burger, J. Biology of Marine Birds. (CRC Press, 2001).Clusella Trullas, S., van Wyk, J. H. & Spotila, J. R. Thermal melanism in ectotherms. J. Therm. Biol. 32, 235–245 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shamoun-Baranes, J. & van Loon, E. Energetic influence on gull flight strategy selection. J. Exp. Biol. 209, 3489–3498 (2006).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pennycuick, C. J. & Lighthill, M. J. The flight of petrels and albatrosses (procellariiformes), observed in South Georgia and its vicinity. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 300, 75–106 (1982).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rogalla, S., Shawkey, M. D. & D’Alba, L. Thermal effects of plumage coloration. Ibis 164, 933–948 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Flinks, H. & Salewski, V. Quantifying the effect of feather abrasion on wing and tail lengths measurements. J. Ornithol. 153, 1053–1065 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hill, G. E. Sexiness, Individual Condition, and Species Identity: The Information Signaled by Ornaments and Assessed by Choosing Females. Evol. Biol. 42, 251–259 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sonsthagen, S. A. et al. Recurrent hybridization and recent origin obscure phylogenetic relationships within the ‘white-headed’ gull (Larus sp.) complex. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 103, 41–54 (2016).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Howell, S. & Dunn, J. A reference guide to gulls of the Americas. (Houghton Mifflin Company, 2007).Jetz, W., Thomas, G. H., Joy, J. B., Hartmann, K. & Mooers, A. O. The global diversity of birds in space and time. Nature 491, 444–448 (2012).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Tobias, J. A. et al. AVONET: morphological, ecological and geographical data for all birds. Ecol. Lett. 25, 581–597 (2022).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Yalden, D. Wing area, wing growth and wing loading of Common Sandpipers Actitis hypoleucos. Wader Study Group Bull. 119, 84–88 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Ho, L. S. T. & Ane, C. A linear-time algorithm for Gaussian and non-Gaussian trait evolution models. Syst. Biol. 63, 397–408 (2014).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (2021).Cooper, N., Thomas, G. H., Venditti, C., Meade, A. & Freckleton, R. P. A cautionary note on the use of Ornstein Uhlenbeck models in macroevolutionary studies. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 118, 64–77 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Harmon, L. J. Phylogenetic Comparative Methods: Learning from Trees. (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2018).Revell, L. J. phytools: An R package for phylogenetic comparative biology (and other things). Methods Ecol. Evol. 3, 217–223 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Douma, J. C. & Weedon, J. T. Analysing continuous proportions in ecology and evolution: a practical introduction to beta and Dirichlet regression. Methods Ecol. Evol. 10, 1412–1430 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, M. & Bolker, B. wzmli/phyloglmm: First release of phylogenetic comparative analysis in lme4-verse. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2639887 (2019).Smithson, M. & Verkuilen, J. A better lemon squeezer? Maximum-likelihood regression with beta-distributed dependent variables. Psychol. Methods 11, 54–71 (2006).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Goumas, M. Dark wing pigmentation as a mechanism for improved flight efficiency in the Larinae. Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7156454 (2022). More

Foley, J. A. et al. Global consequences of land use. Science 309, 570–574 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tscharntke, T. et al. Global food security, biodiversity conservation and the future of agricultural intensification. Biol. Conserv. 151, 53–59 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
DeFries, R. S., Foley, J. A. & Asner, G. P. Land-use choices: balancing human needs and ecosystem function. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2, 249–257 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Matson, P. A., Parton, W. J., Power, A. G. & Swift, M. J. Agricultural intensification and ecosystem properties. Science 277, 504–509 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zabel, F. et al. Global impacts of future cropland expansion and intensification on agricultural markets and biodiversity. Nat. Commun. 10, 2844 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tsiafouli, M. A. et al. Intensive agriculture reduces soil biodiversity across Europe. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 973–985 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J. & Befort, B. L. Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 20260–20264 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mehrabi, Z., Ellis, E. C. & Ramankutty, N. The challenge of feeding the world while conserving half the planet. Nat. Sustain. 1, 409–412 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kopittke, P. M., Menzies, N. W., Wang, P., McKenna, B. A. & Lombi, E. Soil and the intensification of agriculture for global food security. Environ. Int. 132, 105078 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pereira, P., Bogunovic, I., Muñoz-Rojas, M. & Brevik, E. C. Soil ecosystem services, sustainability, valuation and management. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 5, 7–13 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bai, Z. G., Dent, D. L., Olsson, L. & Schaepman, M. E. Proxy global assessment of land degradation. Soil Use Manage. 24, 223–234 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stockmann, U., Minasny, B. & McBratney, A. B. How fast does soil grow? Geoderma 216, 48–61 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wall, D. H., Nielsen, U. N. & Six, J. Soil biodiversity and human health. Nature 528, 69–76 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wilhelm, R. C., van Es, H. M. & Buckley, D. H. Predicting measures of soil health using the microbiome and supervised machine learning. Soil Biol. Biochem. 164, 108472 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
König, S., Vogel, H.-J., Harms, H. & Worrich, A. Physical, chemical and biological effects on soil bacterial dynamics in microscale models. Front. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2020.00053 (2020).Six, J., Frey, S. D., Thiet, R. K. & Batten, K. M. Bacterial and fungal contributions to carbon sequestration in agroecosystems. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 70, 555–569 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Status of the World’s Soil Resources (SWSR) — Main Report, 650 (FAO/Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soils, 2015).Singh, B. K., Bardgett, R. D., Smith, P. & Reay, D. S. Microorganisms and climate change: terrestrial feedbacks and mitigation options. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 8, 779–790 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gougoulias, C., Clark, J. M. & Shaw, L. J. The role of soil microbes in the global carbon cycle: tracking the below-ground microbial processing of plant-derived carbon for manipulating carbon dynamics in agricultural systems. J. Sci. Food Agric. 94, 2362–2371 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Naylor, D. et al. Soil microbiomes under climate change and implications for carbon cycling. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 45, 29–59 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Berg, I. A. Ecological aspects of the distribution of different autotrophic CO2 fixation pathways. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 77, 1925–1936 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yuan, H., Ge, T., Chen, C., O’Donnell, A. G. & Wu, J. Significant role for microbial autotrophy in the sequestration of soil carbon. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 78, 2328–2336 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stevenson, F. J. Humus Chemistry: Genesis, Composition, Reactions 2nd edition (Wiley, 1994).Liang, C., Amelung, W., Lehmann, J. & Kästner, M. Quantitative assessment of microbial necromass contribution to soil organic matter. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 3578–3590 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Crowther, T. W. et al. Biotic interactions mediate soil microbial feedbacks to climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 7033–7038 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Angel, R., Claus, P. & Conrad, R. Methanogenic archaea are globally ubiquitous in aerated soils and become active under wet anoxic conditions. ISME J. 6, 847–862 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Conrad, R. The global methane cycle: recent advances in understanding the microbial processes involved. Environ. Microbiol. Rep. 1, 285–292 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Saunois, M. et al. The global methane budget 2000–2017. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 12, 1561–1623 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dutta, H. & Dutta, A. The microbial aspect of climate change. Energy Ecol. Environ. 1, 209–232 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hu, H.-W., Chen, D. & He, J.-Z. Microbial regulation of terrestrial nitrous oxide formation: understanding the biological pathways for prediction of emission rates. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 39, 729–749 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tian, H. et al. A comprehensive quantification of global nitrous oxide sources and sinks. Nature 586, 248–256 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Marschner, P. in Nutrient Cycling in Terrestrial Ecosystems (eds Petra, M. & Zdenko, R.) 159–182 (Springer, 2007).Falkowski, P. G., Fenchel, T. & Delong, E. F. The microbial engines that drive Earth’s biogeochemical cycles. Science 320, 1034–1039 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Saccá, M. L., Barra Caracciolo, A., Di Lenola, M. & Grenni, P. Soil Biological Communities and Ecosystem Resilience (eds Martin, L., Paola, G. & Mauro, G.) 9–24 (Springer, 2017).Jetten, M. S. M. The microbial nitrogen cycle. Environ. Microbiol. 10, 2903–2909 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kuypers, M. M. M., Marchant, H. K. & Kartal, B. The microbial nitrogen-cycling network. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 16, 263–276 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Canfield, D. E., Glazer, A. N. & Falkowski, P. G. The evolution and future of Earth’s nitrogen cycle. Science 330, 192–196 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Clark, I. M., Hughes, D. J., Fu, Q., Abadie, M. & Hirsch, P. R. Metagenomic approaches reveal differences in genetic diversity and relative abundance of nitrifying bacteria and archaea in contrasting soils. Sci. Rep. 11, 15905 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Philippot, L., Hallin, S. & Schloter, M. in Advances in Agronomy Vol. 96, 249–305 (Academic, 2007).Hayatsu, M., Tago, K. & Saito, M. Various players in the nitrogen cycle: diversity and functions of the microorganisms involved in nitrification and denitrification. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 54, 33–45 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mackey, K. R. M. & Paytan, A. in Encyclopedia of Microbiology 3rd edition (ed. Moselio, S.) 322–334 (Academic, 2009).Richardson, A. E., Barea, J.-M., McNeill, A. M. & Prigent-Combaret, C. Acquisition of phosphorus and nitrogen in the rhizosphere and plant growth promotion by microorganisms. Plant. Soil. 321, 305–339 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Richardson, A. E. & Simpson, R. J. Soil microorganisms mediating phosphorus availability. Plant. Physiol. 156, 989–996 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, J.-t. et al. A comprehensive synthesis unveils the mysteries of phosphate-solubilizing microbes. Biol. Rev. 96, 2771–2793 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kobae, Y. Dynamic phosphate uptake in arbuscular mycorrhizal roots under field conditions. Front. Env. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2018.00159 (2019).Oberson, A. & Joner, E. J. in Organic Phosphorus in the Environment (eds Turner, B. L. et al.) 133–164 (CABI, 2005).Compant, S., Samad, A., Faist, H. & Sessitsch, A. A review on the plant microbiome: ecology, functions, and emerging trends in microbial application. J. Adv. Res. 19, 29–37 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Eichmann, R., Richards, L. & Schäfer, P. Hormones as go-betweens in plant microbiome assembly. Plant J. 105, 518–541 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nascimento, F. X., Hernandez, A. G., Glick, B. R. & Rossi, M. J. The extreme plant-growth-promoting properties of Pantoea phytobeneficialis MSR2 revealed by functional and genomic analysis. Environ. Microbiol. 22, 1341–1355 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Valliere, J. M., Wong, W. S., Nevill, P. G., Zhong, H. & Dixon, K. W. Preparing for the worst: utilizing stress-tolerant soil microbial communities to aid ecological restoration in the Anthropocene. Ecol. Solut. Evid. 1, e12027 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Trivedi, P., Leach, J. E., Tringe, S. G., Sa, T. & Singh, B. K. Plant–microbiome interactions: from community assembly to plant health. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 18, 607–621 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rolfe, S. A., Griffiths, J. & Ton, J. Crying out for help with root exudates: adaptive mechanisms by which stressed plants assemble health-promoting soil microbiomes. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 49, 73–82 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Costa, O. Y. A., Raaijmakers, J. M. & Kuramae, E. E. Microbial extracellular polymeric substances: ecological function and impact on soil aggregation. Front. Microbiol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.01636 (2018).Sharma, A. et al. Phytohormones regulate accumulation of osmolytes under abiotic stress. Biomolecules 9, 285 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Singh, D. P. et al. Microbial inoculation in rice regulates antioxidative reactions and defense related genes to mitigate drought stress. Sci. Rep. 10, 4818 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bárzana, G., Aroca, R., Bienert, G. P., Chaumont, F. & Ruiz-Lozano, J. M. New insights into the regulation of aquaporins by the arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis in maize plants under drought stress and possible implications for plant performance. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 27, 349–363 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gamalero, E. & Glick, B. R. Bacterial modulation of plant ethylene levels. Plant Physiol. 169, 13–22 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Le Pioufle, O., Ganoudi, M., Calonne-Salmon, M., Ben Dhaou, F. & Declerck, S. Rhizophagus irregularis MUCL 41833 improves phosphorus uptake and water use efficiency in maize plants during recovery from drought stress. Front. Plant Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.00897 (2019).Begum, N. et al. Role of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in plant growth regulation: implications in abiotic stress tolerance. Front. Plant Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.01068 (2019).Köhl, J., Kolnaar, R. & Ravensberg, W. J. Mode of action of microbial biological control agents against plant diseases: relevance beyond efficacy. Front. Plant Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.00845 (2019).Hu, L. et al. Root exudate metabolites drive plant–soil feedbacks on growth and defense by shaping the rhizosphere microbiota. Nat. Commun. 9, 2738 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Granato, E. T., Meiller-Legrand, T. A. & Foster, K. R. The evolution and ecology of bacterial warfare. Curr. Biol. 29, R521–R537 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shah, P. A. & Pell, J. K. Entomopathogenic fungi as biological control agents. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 61, 413–423 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Soares, F. Ed. F., Sufiate, B. L. & de Queiroz, J. H. Nematophagous fungi: far beyond the endoparasite, predator and ovicidal groups. Agric. Nat. Resour. 52, 1–8 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Nordbring-Hertz, B., Jansson, H.-B. & Tunlid, A. in eLS (Wiley, 2011); https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470015902.a0000374.pub3.Tian, B., Yang, J. & Zhang, K.-Q. Bacteria used in the biological control of plant-parasitic nematodes: populations, mechanisms of action, and future prospects. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 61, 197–213 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shafi, J., Tian, H. & Ji, M. Bacillus species as versatile weapons for plant pathogens: a review. Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 31, 446–459 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bravo, A., Likitvivatanavong, S., Gill, S. S. & Soberón, M. Bacillus thuringiensis: a story of a successful bioinsecticide. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 41, 423–431 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schnepf, E. et al. Bacillus thuringiensis and its pesticidal crystal proteins. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 62, 775–806 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wei, J.-Z. et al. Bacillus thuringiensis crystal proteins that target nematodes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 2760–2765 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Flury, P. et al. Insect pathogenicity in plant-beneficial pseudomonads: phylogenetic distribution and comparative genomics. ISME J. 10, 2527–2542 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vurukonda, S. S. K. P., Giovanardi, D. & Stefani, E. Plant growth promoting and biocontrol activity of Streptomyces spp. as endophytes. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 19, 952 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Whipps, J. M. Microbial interactions and biocontrol in the rhizosphere. J. Exp. Bot. 52, 487–511 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
MacLeod, M., Arp, H. P. H., Tekman, M. B. & Jahnke, A. The global threat from plastic pollution. Science 373, 61–65 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sharma, A. et al. Worldwide pesticide usage and its impacts on ecosystem. SN Appl. Sci. 1, 1446 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gworek, B., Kijeńska, M., Wrzosek, J. & Graniewska, M. Pharmaceuticals in the soil and plant environment: a review. Water Air Soil Pollut. 232, 145 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tang, F. H. M., Lenzen, M., McBratney, A. & Maggi, F. Risk of pesticide pollution at the global scale. Nat. Geosci. 14, 206–210 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zumstein, M. T. et al. Biodegradation of synthetic polymers in soils: tracking carbon into CO2 and microbial biomass. Sci. Adv. 4, eaas9024 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Singh, B. & Singh, K. Microbial degradation of herbicides. Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 42, 245–261 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Teng, Y. & Chen, W. Soil microbiomes — a promising strategy for contaminated soil remediation: a review. Pedosphere 29, 283–297 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vogt, C. & Richnow, H. H. in Geobiotechnology II: Energy Resources, Subsurface Technologies, Organic Pollutants and Mining Legal Principles (eds Schippers, A. et al.) 123–146 (Springer, 2014).Mishra, S. et al. Recent advanced technologies for the characterization of xenobiotic-degrading microorganisms and microbial communities. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2021.632059 (2021).Rolli, E. et al. ‘Cry-for-help’ in contaminated soil: a dialogue among plants and soil microbiome to survive in hostile conditions. Environ. Microbiol. 23, 5690–5703 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wilpiszeski, R. L. et al. Soil aggregate microbial communities: towards understanding microbiome interactions at biologically relevant scales. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.00324-19 (2019).Blott, S. J. & Pye, K. Particle size scales and classification of sediment types based on particle size distributions: review and recommended procedures. Sedimentology 59, 2071–2096 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Totsche, K. U. et al. Microaggregates in soils. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 181, 104–136 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Martin, J. P., Martin, W. P., Page, J. B., Raney, W. A. & de Ment, J. D. in Advances in Agronomy Vol. 7 (ed. Norman, A. G.) 1–37 (Academic, 1955).Chotte, J.-L. in Microorganisms in Soils: Roles in Genesis and Functions (eds Varma, A. & Buscot, F.) 107–119 (Springer, 2005).Oades, J. M. Soil organic matter and structural stability: mechanisms and implications for management. Plant. Soil. 76, 319–337 (1984).Article 

Google Scholar 
Six, J., Elliott, E. T. & Paustian, K. Soil macroaggregate turnover and microaggregate formation: a mechanism for C sequestration under no-tillage agriculture. Soil Biol. Biochem. 32, 2099–2103 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Six, J., Bossuyt, H., Degryze, S. & Denef, K. A history of research on the link between (micro)aggregates, soil biota, and soil organic matter dynamics. Soil Tillage Res. 79, 7–31 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schlüter, S. et al. Microscale carbon distribution around pores and particulate organic matter varies with soil moisture regime. Nat. Commun. 13, 2098 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Acosta, J. A., Martínez-Martínez, S., Faz, A. & Arocena, J. Accumulations of major and trace elements in particle size fractions of soils on eight different parent materials. Geoderma 161, 30–42 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sessitsch, A., Weilharter, A., Gerzabek, M. H., Kirchmann, H. & Kandeler, E. Microbial population structures in soil particle size fractions of a long-term fertilizer field experiment. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 67, 4215–4224 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, Q. et al. Fatty-acid profiles and enzyme activities in soil particle-size fractions under long-term fertilization. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 80, 97–111 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hemkemeyer, M., Christensen, B. T., Martens, R. & Tebbe, C. C. Soil particle size fractions harbour distinct microbial communities and differ in potential for microbial mineralisation of organic pollutants. Soil Biol. Biochem. 90, 255–265 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Briar, S. S. et al. The distribution of nematodes and soil microbial communities across soil aggregate fractions and farm management systems. Soil Biol. Biochem. 43, 905–914 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hemkemeyer, M., Dohrmann, A. B., Christensen, B. T. & Tebbe, C. C. Bacterial preferences for specific soil particle size fractions revealed by community analyses. Front. Microbiol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.00149 (2018).Hemkemeyer, M., Christensen, B. T., Tebbe, C. C. & Hartmann, M. Taxon-specific fungal preference for distinct soil particle size fractions. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 94, 103103 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Christensen, B. T. & Olesen, J. E. Nitrogen mineralization potential of organomineral size separates from soils with annual straw incorporation. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 49, 25–36 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Christensen, B. T. Decomposability of organic matter in particle size fractions from field soils with straw incorporation. Soil Biol. Biochem. 19, 429–435 (1987).Article 

Google Scholar 
Luo, G. et al. Long-term fertilisation regimes affect the composition of the alkaline phosphomonoesterase encoding microbial community of a vertisol and its derivative soil fractions. Biol. Fertil. Soils 53, 375–388 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mummey, D., Holben, W., Six, J. & Stahl, P. Spatial stratification of soil bacterial populations in aggregates of diverse soils. Microb. Ecol. 51, 404–411 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ranjard, L. et al. Heterogeneous cell density and genetic structure of bacterial pools associated with various soil microenvironments as determined by enumeration and DNA fingerprinting approach (RISA). Microb. Ecol. 39, 263–272 (2000).
Google Scholar 
Raynaud, X. & Nunan, N. Spatial ecology of bacteria at the microscale in soil. PLoS One 9, e87217 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rillig, M. C., Muller, L. A. H. & Lehmann, A. Soil aggregates as massively concurrent evolutionary incubators. ISME J. 11, 1943–1948 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Trivedi, P. et al. Soil aggregation and associated microbial communities modify the impact of agricultural management on carbon content. Environ. Microbiol. 19, 3070–3086 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Borer, B., Tecon, R. & Or, D. Spatial organization of bacterial populations in response to oxygen and carbon counter-gradients in pore networks. Nat. Commun. 9, 769 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kong, A. Y. Y., Hristova, K., Scow, K. M. & Six, J. Impacts of different N management regimes on nitrifier and denitrifier communities and N cycling in soil microenvironments. Soil Biol. Biochem. 42, 1523–1533 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bhattacharyya, S. S. et al. Soil carbon sequestration, greenhouse gas emissions, and water pollution under different tillage practices. Sci. Total Environ. 826, 154161 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, W. et al. Differences in the nitrous oxide emission and the nitrifier and denitrifier communities among varying aggregate sizes of an arable soil in China. Geoderma 389, 114970 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tilman, D. et al. Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental change. Science 292, 281–284 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tilman, D., Cassman, K. G., Matson, P. A., Naylor, R. & Polasky, S. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418, 671–677 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hartmann, M., Frey, B., Mayer, J., Mader, P. & Widmer, F. Distinct soil microbial diversity under long-term organic and conventional farming. ISME J. 9, 1177–1194 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Degrune, F. et al. The pedological context modulates the response of soil microbial communities to agroecological management. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7, 261 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Longepierre, M. et al. Limited resilience of the soil microbiome to mechanical compaction within four growing seasons of agricultural management. ISME Commun. 1, 44 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Delitte, M., Caulier, S., Bragard, C. & Desoignies, N. Plant microbiota beyond farming practices: a review. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.624203 (2021).Hobbs, P. R., Sayre, K. & Gupta, R. The role of conservation agriculture in sustainable agriculture. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 363, 543–555 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Van den Putte, A., Govers, G., Diels, J., Gillijns, K. & Demuzere, M. Assessing the effect of soil tillage on crop growth: a meta-regression analysis on European crop yields under conservation agriculture. Eur. J. Agron. 33, 231–241 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Six, J. et al. Soil organic matter, biota and aggregation in temperate and tropical soils — effects of no-tillage. Agronomie 22, 755–775 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Young, I. M. & Ritz, K. Tillage, habitat space and function of soil microbes. Soil Tillage Res. 53, 201–213 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Degrune, F. et al. Temporal dynamics of soil microbial communities below the seedbed under two contrasting tillage regimes. Front. Microbiol. 8, 1127 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pittelkow, C. M. et al. Productivity limits and potentials of the principles of conservation agriculture. Nature 517, 365–368 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Babin, D. et al. Impact of long-term agricultural management practices on soil prokaryotic communities. Soil Biol. Biochem. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.11.002 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Srour, A. Y. et al. Microbial communities associated with long-term tillage and fertility treatments in a corn–soybean cropping system. Front. Microbiol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.01363 (2020).Cania, B. et al. Site-specific conditions change the response of bacterial producers of soil structure-stabilizing agents such as exopolysaccharides and lipopolysaccharides to tillage intensity. Front. Microbiol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.00568 (2020).Cooper, H. V., Sjögersten, S., Lark, R. M. & Mooney, S. J. To till or not to till in a temperate ecosystem? Implications for climate change mitigation. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 054022 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mangalassery, S. et al. To what extent can zero tillage lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from temperate soils? Sci. Rep. 4, 4586 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Abdalla, M. et al. Conservation tillage systems: a review of its consequences for greenhouse gas emissions. Soil Use Manage. 29, 199–209 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Six, J. et al. The potential to mitigate global warming with no-tillage management is only realized when practised in the long term. Glob. Change Biol. 10, 155–160 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
van Kessel, C. et al. Climate, duration, and N placement determine N2O emissions in reduced tillage systems: a meta-analysis. Glob. Change Biol. 19, 33–44 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hamza, M. A. & Anderson, W. K. Soil compaction in cropping systems: a review of the nature, causes and possible solutions. Soil Tillage Res. 82, 121–145 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schäffer, B., Stauber, M., Mueller, T. L., Muller, R. & Schulin, R. Soil and macro-pores under uniaxial compression. I. Mechanical stability of repacked soil and deformation of different types of macro-pores. Geoderma 146, 183–191 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hartmann, M. et al. Resistance and resilience of the forest soil microbiome to logging-associated compaction. ISME J. 8, 226–244 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sitaula, B. K., Hansen, S., Sitaula, J. I. B. & Bakken, L. R. Methane oxidation potentials and fluxes in agricultural soil: effects of fertilisation and soil compaction. Biogeochemistry 48, 323–339 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sitaula, B. K., Hansen, S., Sitaula, J. I. B. & Bakken, L. R. Effects of soil compaction on N2O emission in agricultural soil. Chemosphere Glob. Change Sci. 2, 367–371 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Beckett, C. T. S. et al. Compaction conditions greatly affect growth during early plant establishment. Ecol. Eng. 106, 471–481 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Reichert, J. M., Suzuki, L. E. A. S., Reinert, D. J., Horn, R. & Håkansson, I. Reference bulk density and critical degree-of-compactness for no-till crop production in subtropical highly weathered soils. Soil Tillage Res. 102, 242–254 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
von Wilpert, K. & Schäffer, J. Ecological effects of soil compaction and initial recovery dynamics: a preliminary study. Eur. J. For. Res. 125, 129–138 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tim Chamen, W. C., Moxey, A. P., Towers, W., Balana, B. & Hallett, P. D. Mitigating arable soil compaction: a review and analysis of available cost and benefit data. Soil Tillage Res. 146, 10–25 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Beillouin, D., Ben-Ari, T., Malézieux, E., Seufert, V. & Makowski, D. Positive but variable effects of crop diversification on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 4697–4710 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Smith, R. G., Gross, K. L. & Robertson, G. P. Effects of crop diversity on agroecosystem function: crop yield response. Ecosystems 11, 355–366 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hooper, D. U. et al. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol. Monogr. 75, 3–35 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Galindo-Castañeda, T., Lynch, J. P., Six, J. & Hartmann, M. Improving soil resource uptake by plants through capitalizing on synergies between root architecture and anatomy and root-associated microorganisms. Front. Plant Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.827369 (2022).Venter, Z. S., Jacobs, K. & Hawkins, H.-J. The impact of crop rotation on soil microbial diversity: a meta-analysis. Pedobiologia 59, 215–223 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stefan, L., Hartmann, M., Engbersen, N., Six, J. & Schöb, C. Positive effects of crop diversity on productivity driven by changes in soil microbial composition. Front. Microbiol. 12, 660749 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Peralta, A. L., Sun, Y., McDaniel, M. D. & Lennon, J. T. Crop rotational diversity increases disease suppressive capacity of soil microbiomes. Ecosphere 9, e02235 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Abdalla, M. et al. A critical review of the impacts of cover crops on nitrogen leaching, net greenhouse gas balance and crop productivity. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 2530–2543 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bacq-Labreuil, A., Crawford, J., Mooney, S. J., Neal, A. L. & Ritz, K. Cover crop species have contrasting influence upon soil structural genesis and microbial community phenotype. Sci. Rep. 9, 7473 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kong, A. Y. Y. & Six, J. Microbial community assimilation of cover crop rhizodeposition within soil microenvironments in alternative and conventional cropping systems. Plant Soil 356, 315–330 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kim, N., Zabaloy, M. C., Guan, K. & Villamil, M. B. Do cover crops benefit soil microbiome? A meta-analysis of current research. Soil Biol. Biochem. 142, 107701 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Alahmad, A. et al. Cover crops in arable lands increase functional complementarity and redundancy of bacterial communities. J. Appl. Ecol. 56, 651–664 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cloutier, M. L. et al. Fungal community shifts in soils with varied cover crop treatments and edaphic properties. Sci. Rep. 10, 6198 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Finney, D. M., Buyer, J. S. & Kaye, J. P. Living cover crops have immediate impacts on soil microbial community structure and function. J. Soil Water Conserv. 72, 361–373 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vukicevich, E., Lowery, T., Bowen, P., Úrbez-Torres, J. R. & Hart, M. Cover crops to increase soil microbial diversity and mitigate decline in perennial agriculture. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 36, 48 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sanz-Cobena, A. et al. Do cover crops enhance N2O, CO2 or CH4 emissions from soil in Mediterranean arable systems? Sci. Total Environ. 466-467, 164–174 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Basche, A. D., Miguez, F. E., Kaspar, T. C. & Castellano, M. J. Do cover crops increase or decrease nitrous oxide emissions? A meta-analysis. J. Soil Water Conserv. 69, 471–482 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tribouillois, H., Constantin, J. & Justes, E. Cover crops mitigate direct greenhouse gases balance but reduce drainage under climate change scenarios in temperate climate with dry summers. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 2513–2529 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vanlauwe, B. et al. Integrated soil fertility management: operational definition and consequences for implementation and dissemination. Outlook Agric. 39, 17–24 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Barzman, M. et al. Eight principles of integrated pest management. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 35, 1199–1215 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Francioli, D. et al. Mineral vs. organic amendments: microbial community structure, activity and abundance of agriculturally relevant microbes are driven by long-term fertilization strategies. Front. Microbiol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.01446 (2016).Lentendu, G. et al. Effects of long-term differential fertilization on eukaryotic microbial communities in an arable soil: a multiple barcoding approach. Mol. Ecol. 23, 3341–3355 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lori, M., Symnaczik, S., Mäder, P., De Deyn, G. & Gattinger, A. Organic farming enhances soil microbial abundance and activity — a meta-analysis and meta-regression. PLoS One 12, e0180442 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bebber, D. P. & Richards, V. R. A meta-analysis of the effect of organic and mineral fertilizers on soil microbial diversity. Appl. Soil Ecol. 175, 104450 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rillig, M. C., Tsang, A. & Roy, J. Microbial community coalescence for microbiome engineering. Front. Microbiol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.01967 (2016).Loaiza Puerta, V., Pujol Pereira, E. I., Wittwer, R., van der Heijden, M. & Six, J. Improvement of soil structure through organic crop management, conservation tillage and grass-clover ley. Soil Tillage Res. 180, 1–9 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Řezáčová, V. et al. Organic fertilization improves soil aggregation through increases in abundance of eubacteria and products of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Sci. Rep. 11, 12548 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fonte, S. J., Kong, A. Y. Y., van Kessel, C., Hendrix, P. F. & Six, J. Influence of earthworm activity on aggregate-associated carbon and nitrogen dynamics differs with agroecosystem management. Soil Biol. Biochem. 39, 1014–1022 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fu, B., Chen, L., Huang, H., Qu, P. & Wei, Z. Impacts of crop residues on soil health: a review. Environ. Pollut. Bioavailab. 33, 164–173 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Blanco-Canqui, H. & Lal, R. Crop residue removal impacts on soil productivity and environmental quality. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 28, 139–163 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yang, H. et al. Wheat straw return influences nitrogen-cycling and pathogen associated soil microbiota in a wheat–soybean rotation system. Front. Microbiol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.01811 (2019).Enebe, M. C. & Babalola, O. O. Soil fertilization affects the abundance and distribution of carbon and nitrogen cycling genes in the maize rhizosphere. AMB Express 11, 24 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Skinner, C. et al. The impact of long-term organic farming on soil-derived greenhouse gas emissions. Sci. Rep. 9, 1702 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lazcano, C., Zhu-Barker, X. & Decock, C. Effects of organic fertilizers on the soil microorganisms responsible for N2O emissions: a review. Microorganisms https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9050983 (2021).Tilston, E. L., Pitt, D. & Groenhof, A. C. Composted recycled organic matter suppresses soil-borne diseases of field crops. N. Phytol. 154, 731–740 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bonanomi, G., Antignani, V., Capodilupo, M. & Scala, F. Identifying the characteristics of organic soil amendments that suppress soilborne plant diseases. Soil Biol. Biochem. 42, 136–144 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Briceño, G., Palma, G. & Durán, N. Influence of organic amendment on the biodegradation and movement of pesticides. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 37, 233–271 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lehmann, J. & Joseph, S. Biochar for Environmental Management: Science, Technology and Implementation (Routledge, 2015).Wang, D., Fonte, S. J., Parikh, S. J., Six, J. & Scow, K. M. Biochar additions can enhance soil structure and the physical stabilization of C in aggregates. Geoderma 303, 110–117 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, J., Xiong, Z. & Kuzyakov, Y. Biochar stability in soil: meta-analysis of decomposition and priming effects. GCB Bioenergy 8, 512–523 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lehmann, J. et al. Biochar effects on soil biota — a review. Soil Biol. Biochem. 43, 1812–1836 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu, X., Shi, Y., Zhang, Q. & Li, G. Effects of biochar on nitrification and denitrification-mediated N2O emissions and the associated microbial community in an agricultural soil. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 28, 6649–6663 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, L. et al. Effects of biochar application on soil nitrogen transformation, microbial functional genes, enzyme activity, and plant nitrogen uptake: a meta-analysis of field studies. GCB Bioenergy 13, 1859–1873 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Deb, D., Kloft, M., Lässig, J. & Walsh, S. Variable effects of biochar and P solubilizing microbes on crop productivity in different soil conditions. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 40, 145–168 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, X., Wang, T., Chang, S. X., Jiang, X. & Song, Y. Biochar increases soil microbial biomass but has variable effects on microbial diversity: a meta-analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 749, 141593 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yoo, G., Lee, Y. O., Won, T. J., Hyun, J. G. & Ding, W. Variable effects of biochar application to soils on nitrification-mediated N2O emissions. Sci. Total Environ. 626, 603–611 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Verhoeven, E. et al. Toward a better assessment of biochar–nitrous oxide mitigation potential at the field scale. J. Environ. Qual. 46, 237–246 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
He, Y. et al. Effects of biochar application on soil greenhouse gas fluxes: a meta-analysis. GCB Bioenergy 9, 743–755 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, W. et al. Biochar application alleviated negative plant–soil feedback by modifying soil microbiome. Front. Microbiol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.00799 (2020).Duan, M. et al. Effects of biochar on reducing the abundance of oxytetracycline, antibiotic resistance genes, and human pathogenic bacteria in soil and lettuce. Environ. Pollut. 224, 787–795 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu, Y., Lonappan, L., Brar, S. K. & Yang, S. Impact of biochar amendment in agricultural soils on the sorption, desorption, and degradation of pesticides: a review. Sci. Total Environ. 645, 60–70 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
du Jardin, P. Plant biostimulants: definition, concept, main categories and regulation. Sci. Hortic. 196, 3–14 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Le Mire, G. et al. Review: implementing plant biostimulants and biocontrol strategies in the agroecological management of cultivated ecosystems. Biotechnol. Agron. Soc. Environ. 20, 1–15 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Leggett, M. et al. Soybean response to inoculation with Bradyrhizobium japonicum in the United States and Argentina. Agron. J. 109, 1031–1038 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Coniglio, A., Mora, V., Puente, M. & Cassán, F. in Microbial Probiotics for Agricultural Systems: Advances in Agronomic Use (eds Zúñiga-Dávila, D. et al.) 45–70 (Springer, 2019).Alori, E. T., Dare, M. O. & Babalola, O. O. in Sustainable Agriculture Reviews (ed. Lichtfouse, E.) 281–307 (Springer, 2017).Rillig, M. C. & Mummey, D. L. Mycorrhizas and soil structure. N. Phytol. 171, 41–53 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mawarda, P. C., Le Roux, X., Dirk van Elsas, J. & Salles, J. F. Deliberate introduction of invisible invaders: a critical appraisal of the impact of microbial inoculants on soil microbial communities. Soil. Biol. Biochem. 148, 107874 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu, X., Le Roux, X. & Salles, J. F. The legacy of microbial inoculants in agroecosystems and potential for tackling climate change challenges. iScience 25, 103821 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cornell, C. et al. Do bioinoculants affect resident microbial communities? A meta-analysis. Front. Agron. https://doi.org/10.3389/fagro.2021.753474 (2021).Bender, S. F., Schlaeppi, K., Held, A. & Van der Heijden, M. G. A. Establishment success and crop growth effects of an arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus inoculated into Swiss corn fields. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 273, 13–24 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schreiter, S. et al. Soil type-dependent effects of a potential biocontrol inoculant on indigenous bacterial communities in the rhizosphere of field-grown lettuce. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 90, 718–730 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mueller, U. G. & Sachs, J. L. Engineering microbiomes to improve plant and animal health. Trends Microbiol. 23, 606–617 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kennedy, T. L., Suddick, E. C. & Six, J. Reduced nitrous oxide emissions and increased yields in California tomato cropping systems under drip irrigation and fertigation. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 170, 16–27 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fonte, S. J., Barrios, E. & Six, J. Earthworms, soil fertility and aggregate-associated soil organic matter dynamics in the Quesungual agroforestry system. Geoderma 155, 320–328 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pauli, N., Barrios, E., Conacher, A. J. & Oberthür, T. Soil macrofauna in agricultural landscapes dominated by the Quesungual slash-and-mulch agroforestry system, western Honduras. Appl. Soil. Ecol. 47, 119–132 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Eichorst, S. A. et al. Advancements in the application of NanoSIMS and Raman microspectroscopy to investigate the activity of microbial cells in soils. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiv106 (2015).Musat, N., Musat, F., Weber, P. K. & Pett-Ridge, J. Tracking microbial interactions with NanoSIMS. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 41, 114–121 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bronick, C. J. & Lal, R. Soil structure and management: a review. Geoderma 124, 3–22 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar  More

McFall-Ngai M, Hadfield MG, Bosch TCG, Carey HV, Domazet-Lošo T, Douglas AE, et al. Animals in a bacterial world, a new imperative for the life sciences. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2013;110:3229–36.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hammer TJ, Sanders JG, Fierer N. Not all animals need a microbiome. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2019;366:fnz117.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bagge LE, Osborn KJ, Johnsen S. Nanostructures and monolayers of spheres reduce surface reflections in hyperiid amphipods. Curr Biol. 2016;26:3071–6.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Apprill A. Marine animal microbiomes: toward understanding host–microbiome interactions in a changing ocean. Front Mar Sci. 2017;4:222.Article 

Google Scholar 
Wilkins LGE, Leray M, O’Dea A, Yuen B, Peixoto RS, Pereira TJ, et al. Host-associated microbiomes drive structure and function of marine ecosystems. PLoS Biol. 2019;17:e3000533.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Moitinho-Silva L, Nielsen S, Amir A, Gonzalez A, Ackermann GL, Cerrano C, et al. The sponge microbiome project. GigaScience. 2017;6:gix077.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
van Oppen MJH, Blackall LL. Coral microbiome dynamics, functions and design in a changing world. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2019;17:557–67.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Henehan MJ, Hull PM, Penman DE, Rae JWB, Schmidt DN. Biogeochemical significance of pelagic ecosystem function: an end-Cretaceous case study. Phil Trans R Soc B. 2016;371:20150510.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
De Corte D, Srivastava A, Koski M, Garcia JAL, Takaki Y, Yokokawa T, et al. Metagenomic insights into zooplankton-associated bacterial communities. Environ Microbiol. 2018;20:492–505.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Egerton S, Culloty S, Whooley J, Stanton C, Ross RP. The gut microbiota of marine fish. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:873.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Scott JJ, Adam TC, Duran A, Burkepile DE, Rasher DB. Intestinal microbes: an axis of functional diversity among large marine consumers. Proc R Soc B. 2020;287:20192367.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Sanders JG, Beichman AC, Roman J, Scott JJ, Emerson D, McCarthy JJ, et al. Baleen whales host a unique gut microbiome with similarities to both carnivores and herbivores. Nat Commun. 2015;6:8285.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Preheim SP, Boucher Y, Wildschutte H, David LA, Veneziano D, Alm EJ, et al. Metapopulation structure of Vibrionaceae among coastal marine invertebrates. Environ Microbiol. 2011;13:265–75.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Sullam KE, Essinger SD, Lozupone CA, O’Connor MP, Rosen GL, Knight R, et al. Environmental and ecological factors that shape the gut bacterial communities of fish: a meta-analysis. Mol Ecol. 2012;21:3363–78.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Huang Q, Sham RC, Deng Y, Mao Y, Wang C, Zhang T, et al. Diversity of gut microbiomes in marine fishes is shaped by host‐related factors. Mol Ecol. 2020;29:5019–34.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Webb TJ, Vanden Berghe E, O’Dor R. Biodiversity’s big wet secret: the global distribution of marine biological records reveals chronic under-exploration of the deep pelagic ocean. PLoS ONE. 2010;5:e10223.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Irigoien X, Klevjer TA, Røstad A, Martinez U, Boyra G, Acuña JL, et al. Large mesopelagic fishes biomass and trophic efficiency in the open ocean. Nat Commun. 2014;5:3271.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Drazen JC, Sutton TT. Dining in the deep: the feeding ecology of deep-sea fishes. Annu Rev Mar Sci. 2017;9:337–66.Article 

Google Scholar 
Boyd PW, Claustre H, Levy M, Siegel DA, Weber T. Multi-faceted particle pumps drive carbon sequestration in the ocean. Nature. 2019;568:327–35.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Klevjer TA, Irigoien X, Røstad A, Fraile-Nuez E, Benítez-Barrios VM, Kaartvedt S. Large scale patterns in vertical distribution and behaviour of mesopelagic scattering layers. Sci Rep. 2016;6:19873.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Davison PC, Checkley DM, Koslow JA, Barlow J. Carbon export mediated by mesopelagic fishes in the northeast Pacific Ocean. Prog Oceanogr. 2013;116:14–30.Article 

Google Scholar 
Steinberg DK, Landry MR. Zooplankton and the ocean carbon cycle. Annu Rev Mar Sci. 2017;9:413–44.Article 

Google Scholar 
Stenvers VI, Hauss H, Osborn KJ, Neitzel P, Merten V, Scheer S, et al. Distribution, associations and role in the biological carbon pump of Pyrosoma atlanticum (Tunicata, Thaliacea) off Cabo Verde, NE Atlantic. Sci Rep. 2021;11:9231.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Robinson C, Steinberg DK, Anderson TR, Aristegui J, Carlson CA, Frost JR, et al. Mesopelagic zone ecology and biogeochemistry–a synthesis. Deep Sea Res II. 2010;57:1504–18.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Iacuaniello CM. An examination of intestinal microbiota of mesopelagic fish reveals microbial community diversity across fish families. Master’s Thesis, University of California San Diego. 2019.Sunagawa S, Coelho LP, Chaffron S, Kultima JR, Labadie K, Salazar G, et al. Structure and function of the global ocean microbiome. Science. 2015;348:1261359.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bernal A, Olivar MP, Maynou F, Fernández de Puelles ML. Diet and feeding strategies of mesopelagic fishes in the western Mediterranean. Prog Oceanogr. 2015;135:1–17.Article 

Google Scholar 
Bollens SM, Frost BW, Lin TS. Recruitment, growth, and diel vertical migration of Euphausia pacifica in a temperate fjord. Mar Biol. 1992;114:219–28.Article 

Google Scholar 
Hoving HJT, Neitzel P, Hauss H, Christiansen S, Kiko R, Robison BH, et al. In situ observations show vertical community structure of pelagic fauna in the eastern tropical North Atlantic off Cape Verde. Sci Rep. 2020;10:21798.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Judkins H, Vecchione M. Vertical distribution patterns of cephalopods in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Front Mar Sci. 2020;7:47.Article 

Google Scholar 
Miya M, Nemoto T. Reproduction, growth and vertical distribution of the meso- and bathypelagic fish Cyclothone atraria (Pisces: Gonostomatidae) in Sagami Bay, Central Japan. Deep Sea Res I. 1987;34:1565–77.Article 

Google Scholar 
Osborn KJ. Phylogenetics and ecology of pelagic munnopsid isopods (Crustacea, Asellota). Dissertation, University of California Berkeley. 2007.Pearcy WG, Forss CA. Depth distribution of oceanic shrimps (Decapoda; Natantia) off Oregon. J Fish Res Bd Can. 1966;23:1135–43.Article 

Google Scholar 
Russell FS. The vertical distribution of marine macroplankton. An observation on diurnal changes. J Mar Biol Ass. 1925;13:769–809.Article 

Google Scholar 
Watanabe H, Moku M, Kawaguchi K, Ishimaru K, Ohno A. Diel vertical migration of myctophid fishes (family Myctophidae) in the transitional waters of the western North Pacific. Fish Oceanogr. 1999;8:115–27.Article 

Google Scholar 
Madin LP. Gelatinous grazers: an underestimated force in ocean carbon cycles. 4th International Zooplankton Production Symposium, May 28–June 1. Hiroshima, Japan. 2007.Caporaso JG, Lauber CL, Walters WA, Berg-Lyons D, Lozupone CA, Turnbaugh PJ, et al. Global patterns of 16S rRNA diversity at a depth of millions of sequences per sample. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108:4516–22.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ivanova NV, Zemlak TS, Hanner RH, Hebert PDN. Universal primer cocktails for fish DNA barcoding. Mol Ecol Notes. 2007;7:544–8.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Geller J, Meyer C, Parker M, Hawk H. Redesign of PCR primers for mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I for marine invertebrates and application in all‐taxa biotic surveys. Mol Ecol Resour. 2013;13:851–61.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Leray M, Yang JY, Meyer CP, Mills SC, Agudelo N, Ranwez V, et al. A new versatile primer set targeting a short fragment of the mitochondrial COI region for metabarcoding metazoan diversity: application for characterizing coral reef fish gut contents. Front Zool. 2013;10:34.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics. 2014;30:2114–20.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Edgar RC. Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics. 2010;26:2460–1.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Quast C, Pruesse E, Yilmaz P, Gerken J, Schweer T, Yarza P, et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucl Acids Res. 2013;41:D590–6.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Robeson MS II, O’Rourke DR, Kaehler BD, Ziemski M, Dillon MR, Foster JT, et al. RESCRIPt: reproducible sequence taxonomy reference database management. PLoS Comput Biol. 2021;17:e1009581.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bokulich NA, Kaehler BD, Rideout JR, Dillon M, Bolyen E, Knight R, et al. Optimizing taxonomic classification of marker-gene amplicon sequences with QIIME 2’s q2-feature-classifier plugin. Microbiome. 2018;6:90.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Camacho C, Coulouris G, Avagyan V, Ma N, Papadopoulos J, Bealer K, et al. BLAST+: architecture and applications. BMC Bioinformatics. 2009;10:421.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Janssen S, McDonald D, Gonzalez A, Navas-Molina JA, Jiang L, Xu ZZ, et al. Phylogenetic placement of exact amplicon sequences improves associations with clinical information. mSystems. 2018;3:e00021–18.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
McMurdie PJ, Holmes S. phyloseq: an R Package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e61217.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria; 2021.Hillmann B, Al-Ghalith GA, Shields-Cutler RR, Zhu Q, Knight R, Knights D. SHOGUN: a modular, accurate and scalable framework for microbiome quantification. Bioinformatics. 2020;36:4088–90.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Al-Ghalith G, Knights D. Faster and lower-memory metagenomic profiling with UTree. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.998252.Jovel J, Patterson J, Wang W, Hotte N, O’Keefe S, Mitchel T, et al. Characterization of the gut microbiome using 16S or shotgun metagenomics. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:459.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
DeWitt FA, Cailliet GM. Feeding habits of two bristlemouth fishes, Cyclothone acclinidens and C. signata (Gonostomatidae). Copeia. 1972;1972:868.Article 

Google Scholar 
Fauchald K, Jumars PA. The diet of worms: a study of polychaete feeding guilds. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev. 1979;17:193–284.
Google Scholar 
Flock ME, Hopkins TL. Species composition, vertical distribution, and food habits of the sergestid shrimp assemblage in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. J Crustacean Biol. 1992;12:210–23.Article 

Google Scholar 
Uttal L, Buck KR. Dietary study of the midwater polychaete Poeobius meseres in Monterey Bay, California. Mar Biol. 1996;125:333–43.Article 

Google Scholar 
Tanimata N, Yamamura O, Sakurai Y, Azumaya T. Dietary shift and feeding intensity of Stenobrachius leucopsarus in the Bering Sea. J Oceanogr. 2008;64:185–94.Article 

Google Scholar 
Hoving HJT, Robison BH. Vampire squid: detritivores in the oxygen minimum zone. Proc R Soc B. 2012;279:4559–67.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Berning M. The feeding ecology of two species of holopelagic munnopsid isopods from the North Pacific (Acanthamunnopsis milleri and Munneurycope murrayi) using SEM analysis. Honors Thesis, Florida State University. 2014.Du X, Peterson W. Feeding rates and selectivity of adult Euphausia pacifica on natural particle assemblages in the coastal upwelling zone off Oregon, USA, 2010. J Plankton Res. 2014;36:1031–46.Article 

Google Scholar 
Henschke N, Everett JD, Richardson AJ, Suthers IM. Rethinking the role of salps in the ocean. Trends Ecol Evol. 2016;31:720–33.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gruber-Vodicka HR, Seah BKB, Pruesse E. phyloFlash: rapid small-subunit rRNA profiling and targeted assembly from metagenomes. mSystems. 2020;5:e00920–20.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Nurk S, Meleshko D, Korobeynikov A, Pevzner PA. metaSPAdes: a new versatile metagenomic assembler. Genome Res. 2017;27:824–34.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Karlicki M, Antonowicz S, Karnkowska A. Tiara: deep learning-based classification system for eukaryotic sequences. Bioinformatics. 2022;38:344–50.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Levy Karin E, Mirdita M, Söding J. MetaEuk—sensitive, high-throughput gene discovery, and annotation for large-scale eukaryotic metagenomics. Microbiome. 2020;8:48Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Suzek BE, Wang Y, Huang H, McGarvey PB, Wu CH.UniProt Consortium UniRef clusters: a comprehensive and scalable alternative for improving sequence similarity searches. Bioinformatics. 2015;31:926–32.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

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 Bioinformatics. 2010;11:119.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Chamberlain SA, Szöcs E. taxize: taxonomic search and retrieval in R. F1000Res. 2013;2:191.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Louca S, Parfrey LW, Doebeli M. Decoupling function and taxonomy in the global ocean microbiome. Science. 2016;353:1272–7.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gu Z, Eils R, Schlesner M. Complex heatmaps reveal patterns and correlations in multidimensional genomic data. Bioinformatics. 2016;32:2847–9.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Weiss S, Xu ZZ, Peddada S, Amir A, Bittinger K, Gonzalez A, et al. Normalization and microbial differential abundance strategies depend upon data characteristics. Microbiome. 2017;5:27.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
McKnight DT, Huerlimann R, Bower DS, Schwarzkopf L, Alford RA, Zenger KR. Methods for normalizing microbiome data: an ecological perspective. Methods Ecol Evol. 2019;10:389–400.Article 

Google Scholar 
Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Friendly M, Kindt R, Legendre P, McGlinn D, et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. 2020.Paulson JN, Stine OC, Bravo HC, Pop M. Differential abundance analysis for microbial marker-gene surveys. Nat Methods. 2013;10:1200–2.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Molnár K, Ostoros G, Dunams-Morel D, Rosenthal B. Eimeria that infect fish are diverse and are related to, but distinct from, those that infect terrestrial vertebrates. Infect Genet Evol. 2012;12:1810–5.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Domozych D. Algal cell walls. In: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, editor. eLS. 1st ed. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ; 2019. p. 1–11.Gallet A, Koubbi P, Léger N, Scheifler M, Ruiz-Rodriguez M, Suzuki MT, et al. Low-diversity bacterial microbiota in Southern Ocean representatives of lanternfish genera Electrona, Protomyctophum and Gymnoscopelus (family Myctophidae). PLoS ONE. 2019;14:e0226159.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Reji L, Tolar BB, Chavez FP, Francis CA. Depth-differentiation and seasonality of planktonic microbial assemblages in the Monterey Bay upwelling system. Front Microbiol. 2020;11:1075.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
De Corte D, Lekunberri I, Sintes E, Garcia J, Gonzales S, Herndl G. Linkage between copepods and bacteria in the North Atlantic Ocean. Aquat Microb Ecol. 2014;72:215–25.Article 

Google Scholar 
Russell SL. Transmission mode is associated with environment type and taxa across bacteria-eukaryote symbioses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2019;366:fnz013.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Akbar S, Li X, Ding Z, Liu Q, Huang J, Zhou Q, et al. Disentangling diet- and medium-associated microbes in shaping Daphnia gut microbiome. Microb Ecol. 2022;84:911–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-021-01900-x.Eckert EM, Anicic N, Fontaneto D. Freshwater zooplankton microbiome composition is highly flexible and strongly influenced by the environment. Mol Ecol. 2021;30:1545–58.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Rakusa-Suszczewski S. Predation of chaetognatha by Tomopteris helgolandica Greff. ICES J Mar Sci. 1968;32:226–31.Article 

Google Scholar 
Aldredge AL, Silver MW. Characteristics, dynamics and significance of marine snow. Prog Oceanogr. 1988;20:41–82.Article 

Google Scholar 
Jumars PA, Dorgan KM, Lindsay SM. Diet of worms emended: an update of polychaete feeding guilds. Ann Rev Mar Sci. 2015;7:497–520.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pfenning-Butterworth A, Cooper RO, Cressler CE. Daily feeding rhythm linked to microbiome composition in two zooplankton species. PLoS ONE. 2022;17:e0263538.Pappalardo P, Collins AG, Pagenkopp Lohan KM, Hanson KM, Truskey SB, et al. The role of taxonomic expertise in interpretation of metabarcoding studies. ICES J Mar Sci. 2021;78:3397–410.Article 

Google Scholar 
Hunt DE, Gevers D, Vahora NM, Polz MF. Conservation of the chitin utilization pathway in the Vibrionaceae. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2008;74:44–51.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Turner JT. Zooplankton fecal pellets, marine snow, phytodetritus and the ocean’s biological pump. Prog Oceanogr. 2015;130:205–48.Article 

Google Scholar 
Chavez FP. Forcing and biological impact of onset of the 1992 El Niño in central California. Geophys Res Lett. 1996;23:265–8.Article 

Google Scholar 
Pennington TJ, Chavez FP. Seasonal fluctuations of temperature, salinity, nitrate, chlorophyll and primary production at station H3/M1 over 1989-96 in Monterey Bay, California. Deep Sea Res II. 2000;47:947–73.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar  More

Bond-Lamberty, B. & Thomson, A. Temperature-associated increases in the global soil respiration record. Nature 464, 579–582 (2010).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Crippa, M. et al. Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nat. Food 2, 198–209 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Shakoor, A. et al. Effect of animal manure, crop type, climate zone, and soil attributes on greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural soils—A global meta-analysis. J. Clean Prod. 278, 124019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124019 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wu, L. et al. Soil organic matter priming and carbon balance after straw addition is regulated by long-term fertilization. Soil Biol. Biochem. 135, 383–391 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chen, F. et al. Effects of N addition and precipitation reduction on soil respiration and its components in a temperate forest. Agr. Forest. Meteorol. 271, 336–345 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lei, J. et al. Temporal changes in global soil respiration since 1987. Nat. Commun. 12, 1–9 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Wang, R. et al. Nitrogen application increases soil respiration but decreases temperature sensitivity: Combined effects of crop and soil properties in a semiarid agroecosystem. Geoderma 353, 320–330 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Du, K. et al. Influence of no-tillage and precipitation pulse on continuous soil respiration of summer maize affected by soil water in the North China Plain. Sci. Total Environ. 766, 144384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144384 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Chen, X. & Chen, H. Y. Plant diversity loss reduces soil respiration across terrestrial ecosystems. Global Change Biol. 25, 1482–1492 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lang, A. K., Jevon, F. V., Ayres, M. P. & Matthes, J. H. Higher soil respiration rate beneath arbuscular mycorrhizal trees in a northern hardwood forest is driven by associated soil properties. Ecosystems 23, 1243–1253 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Huang, N. et al. Spatial and temporal variations in global soil respiration and their relationships with climate and land cover. Sci. Adv. 6, eabb8508 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Xiao, H. et al. The regulatory effects of biotic and abiotic factors on soil respiration under different land-use types. Ecol. Indic. 127, 107787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107787 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Liu, Y.-R. et al. New insights into the role of microbial community composition in driving soil respiration rates. Soil Biol. Biochem. 118, 35–41 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wagg, C., Schlaeppi, K., Banerjee, S., Kuramae, E. E. & van der Heijden, M. G. Fungal-bacterial diversity and microbiome complexity predict ecosystem functioning. Nat. Commun. 10, 1–10 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chen, L.-F. et al. Linkages between soil respiration and microbial communities following afforestation of alpine grasslands in the northeastern Tibetan Plateau. Appl. Soil Ecol. 161, 103882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2021.103882 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Choudhary, M. et al. Long-term effects of organic manure and inorganic fertilization on sustainability and chemical soil quality indicators of soybean-wheat cropping system in the Indian mid-Himalayas. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 257, 38–46 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, M. et al. Increasing yield and N use efficiency with organic fertilizer in Chinese intensive rice cropping systems. Field Crop. Res. 227, 102–109 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bonanomi, G. et al. Repeated applications of organic amendments promote beneficial microbiota, improve soil fertility and increase crop yield. Appl. Soil Ecol. 156, 103714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2020.103714 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gai, X. et al. Long-term benefits of combining chemical fertilizer and manure applications on crop yields and soil carbon and nitrogen stocks in North China Plain. Agr. Water Manage. 208, 384–392 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lai, R. et al. Manure fertilization increases soil respiration and creates a negative carbon budget in a Mediterranean maize (Zea mays L.)-based cropping system. Catena 151, 202–212 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yan, T. et al. Negative effect of nitrogen addition on soil respiration dependent on stand age: Evidence from a 7-year field study of larch plantations in northern China. Agr. Forest Meteorol. 262, 24–33 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Peng, Q. et al. Effects of nitrogen fertilization on soil respiration in temperate grassland in Inner Mongolia. China. Environ. Earth Sci. 62, 1163–1171 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zeng, J. et al. Nitrogen fertilization directly affects soil bacterial diversity and indirectly affects bacterial community composition. Soil Biol. Biochem. 92, 41–49 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Levine, U. Y., Teal, T. K., Robertson, G. P. & Schmidt, T. M. Agriculture’s impact on microbial diversity and associated fluxes of carbon dioxide and methane. ISME J. 5, 1683–1691 (2011).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Chen, Q., Liu, Z., Zhou, J., Xu, X. & Zhu, Y. Long-term straw mulching with nitrogen fertilization increases nutrient and microbial determinants of soil quality in a maize–wheat rotation on China’s Loess Plateau. Sci. Total. Environ. 775, 145930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145930 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wang, J. et al. The impact of fertilizer amendments on soil autotrophic bacteria and carbon emissions in maize field on the semiarid Loess Plateau. Front. Microbiol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2021.664120 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Subke, J. A., Inglima, I. & Francesca Cotrufo, M. Trends and methodological impacts in soil CO2 efflux partitioning: a metaanalytical review. Global Change Biol. 12, 921–943 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yan, W., Zhong, Y., Liu, J. & Shangguan, Z. Response of soil respiration to nitrogen fertilization: Evidence from a 6-year field study of croplands. Geoderma 384, 114829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114829 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lamptey, S., Xie, J., Li, L., Coulter, J. A. & Jagadabhi, P. S. Influence of organic amendment on soil respiration and maize productivity in a semi-arid environment. Agronomy 9, 611. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9100611 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chen, Z. et al. Nitrogen fertilization stimulated soil heterotrophic but not autotrophic respiration in cropland soils: A greater role of organic over inorganic fertilizer. Soil Biol. Biochem. 116, 253–264 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zheng, J., Zhang, X., Li, L., Zhang, P. & Pan, G. Effect of long-term fertilization on C mineralization and production of CH4 and CO2 under anaerobic incubation from bulk samples and particle size fractions of a typical paddy soil. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 120, 129–138 (2007).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Shen, J., Zhang, L., Guo, J., Ray, J. & He, J. Impact of long-term fertilization practices on the abundance and composition of soil bacterial communities in Northeast China. Appl. Soil Ecol. 46, 119–124 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chen, Q., An, X., Zheng, B., Ma, Y. & Su, J. Long-term organic fertilization increased antibiotic resistome in phyllosphere of maize. Sci. Total. Environ. 645, 1230–1237 (2018).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, W., Yu, C., Wang, X. & Hai, L. Increased abundance of nitrogen transforming bacteria by higher C/N ratio reduces the total losses of N and C in chicken manure and corn stover mix composting. Bioresource Technol. 297, 122410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122410 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chen, X. et al. Microbial carbon use efficiency, biomass turnover, and necromass accumulation in paddy soil depending on fertilization. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 292, 106816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2020.106816 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wang, J. et al. Nitrogen application increases soil microbial carbon fixation and maize productivity on the semiarid Loess Plateau. Plant Soil https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-022-05457-7 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, J. et al. The more straw we deep-bury, the more soil TOC will be accumulated: When soil bacteria abundance keeps growing. J. Soil Sediment 22, 162–171 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Siczek, A., Frąc, M., Wielbo, J. & Kidaj, D. Benefits of flavonoids and straw mulch application on soil microbial activity in pea rhizosphere. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Te. 15, 755–764 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zhao, S. et al. Change in straw decomposition rate and soil microbial community composition after straw addition in different long-term fertilization soils. Appl. Soil Ecol. 138, 123–133 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, S. et al. Cow manure application effectively regulates the soil bacterial community in tea plantation. BMC Microbiol. 20, 1–11 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jiang, Y. et al. Crop rotations alter bacterial and fungal diversity in paddy soils across East Asia. Soil Biol. Biochem. 95, 250–261 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Drenovsky, R., Vo, D., Graham, K. & Scow, K. Soil water content and organic carbon availability are major determinants of soil microbial community composition. Microb. Ecol. 48, 424–430 (2004).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Rath, K. M., Fierer, N., Murphy, D. V. & Rousk, J. Linking bacterial community composition to soil salinity along environmental gradients. ISME J. 13, 836–846 (2019).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Zhao, F. et al. Changes of the organic carbon content and stability of soil aggregates affected by soil bacterial community after afforestation. CATENA 171, 622–631 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Goldfarb, K. C. et al. Differential growth responses of soil bacterial taxa to carbon substrates of varying chemical recalcitrance. Front. Microbiol. 2, 94. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2011.00094 (2011).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Zhao, J. et al. Response of soil microbial community to vegetation reconstruction modes in mining areas of the Loess Plateau, China. Front. Microbiol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2021.714967 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, Y. et al. Fertilization shapes bacterial community structure by alteration of soil pH. Front. Microbiol. 8, 1325. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.01325 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wang, X. et al. Organic amendments drive shifts in microbial community structure and keystone taxa which increase C mineralization across aggregate size classes. Soil Biol. Biochem. 153, 108062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2020.108062 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lin, Y. et al. Long-term manure application increases soil organic matter and aggregation, and alters microbial community structure and keystone taxa. Soil Biol. Biochem. 134, 187–196 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Woyke, T. et al. Symbiosis insights through metagenomic analysis of a microbial consortium. Nature 443, 950–955 (2006).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, B., Zhang, J., Liu, Y., Shi, P. & Wei, G. Co-occurrence patterns of soybean rhizosphere microbiome at a continental scale. Soil Biol. Biochem. 118, 178–186 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wiens, J. J. et al. Niche conservatism as an emerging principle in ecology and conservation biology. Ecol. Lett. 13, 1310–1324 (2010).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Deng, Y. et al. Molecular ecological network analyses. BMC Bioinf. 13, 1–20 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Liao, H. et al. Complexity of bacterial and fungal network increases with soil aggregate size in an agricultural Inceptisol. Appl. Soil Ecol. 154, 103640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2020.103640 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Herren, C. M. & McMahon, K. D. Keystone taxa predict compositional change in microbial communities. Environ. Microbiol. 20, 2207–2217 (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, C., Jiao, S., Shu, D. & Wei, G. Inter-phylum negative interactions affect soil bacterial community dynamics and functions during soybean development under long-term nitrogen fertilization. Stress Biol. 1, 1–13 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Su, Y. G., Huang, G., Lin, Y. J. & Zhang, Y. M. No synergistic effects of water and nitrogen addition on soil microbial communities and soil respiration in a temperate desert. CATENA 142, 126–133 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yang, C. et al. Assessing the effect of soil salinization on soil microbial respiration and diversities under incubation conditions. Appl. Soil Ecol. 155, 103671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2020.103671 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Banerjee, S. et al. Network analysis reveals functional redundancy and keystone taxa amongst bacterial and fungal communities during organic matter decomposition in an arable soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 97, 188–198 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chen, L.-F., He, Z.-B., Zhao, W.-Z., Kong, J.-Q. & Gao, Y. Empirical evidence for microbial regulation of soil respiration in alpine forests. Ecol. Indic. 126, 107710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107710 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Liu, S. et al. Decoupled diversity patterns in bacteria and fungi across continental forest ecosystems. Soil Biol. Biochem. 144, 107763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2020.107763 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lynch, M. D. & Neufeld, J. D. Ecology and exploration of the rare biosphere. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 13, 217–229 (2015).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Chen, L. et al. Competitive interaction with keystone taxa induced negative priming under biochar amendments. Microbiome 7, 1–18 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Chiba, A. et al. Soil bacterial diversity is positively correlated with decomposition rates during early phases of maize litter decomposition. Microorganisms 9, 357 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Li, S., Wang, S., Fan, M., Wu, Y. & Shangguan, Z. Interactions between biochar and nitrogen impact soil carbon mineralization and the microbial community. Soil Till. Res. 196, 104437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2019.104437 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bao, S. Soil agrochemical analysis 30 (China Agricultural Press, Beijing, Chinese, 2000).
Google Scholar 
Zhai, L., Liu, H., Zhang, J., Huang, J. & Wang, B. Long-term application of organic manure and mineral fertilizer on N2O and CO2 emissions in a red soil from cultivated maize-wheat rotation in China. Agr. Sci. China 10, 1748–1757 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Xia, W. et al. Autotrophic growth of nitrifying community in an agricultural soil. ISME J. 5, 1226–1236 (2011).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Pruesse, E. et al. SILVA: A comprehensive online resource for quality checked and aligned ribosomal RNA sequence data compatible with ARB. Nucleic Acids. Res. 35, 7188–7196 (2007).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

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

Google Scholar 
Layeghifard, M., Hwang, D. M. & Guttman, D. S. Disentangling interactions in the microbiome: A network perspective. Trends Microbiol. 25, 217–228 (2017).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Liaw, A. & Wiener, M. Classification and regression by randomForest. R news 2, 18–22 (2002).
Google Scholar 
Archer, E. rfPermute: Estimate permutation p-values for random Forest importance metrics. R package version 2(1), 81 (2020).MathSciNet 

Google Scholar 
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J. & Mullen, M. Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electron. J. Bus. Res. Methods 6(1), 53–60 (2008).
Google Scholar  More

MaterialsTrunk wash was collected from one male (Tembo, born 1985) and five female (Tonga, 1984; Numbi, 1992; Mongu, 2003; Iqhwa, 2013; Kibali, 2019) African elephants at the Vienna Zoo during routine procedures. Briefly, 100 mL of a sterile 0.9% saline solution is injected in each nostril of the trunk, which is kept in a lifted position, so that the solution is running up to the base of the trunk. The mixture of the solution and trunk mucus is collected in sterile plastic bags by active blowing of the elephant. Chemicals were all from Merck, Austria, unless otherwise stated. Restriction enzymes and kits for DNA extraction and purification were from New England Biolabs, USA. Oligonucleotides and synthetic genes were custom synthesised at Eurofins Genomics, Germany.Ethics declarationWe confirm that the trunk wash performed to provide a sample of the mucus was carried out as a routine procedure to monitor the health of elephants at the Vienna Zoo and in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.Trunk wash fractionationTrunk wash was centrifuged for 1 h at 10,000 g, the supernatant was dialyzed against 50 mM Tris–HCl buffer, pH 7.4 and concentrated by ultrafiltration in the Amicon stirred cell, then fractionated by anion-exchange chromatography on HiPrep-Q 16/10 column, 20 mL (Bio-Rad), along with standard protocols.Protein alkylation and digestion, and mass spectrometry analysisSDS-PAGE gel portions of proteins from whole elephant trunk wash (for component identification), chromatographic fractions of the elephant trunk wash (for PTMs analysis) or SDS-PAGE gel bands of LafrOBP1 expressed in P. pastoris were in parallel triturated, washed with water, in gel-reduced, S-alkylated, and digested with trypsin (Sigma, sequencing grade). Resulting peptide mixtures were desalted by μZip-TipC18 (Millipore) using 50% (v/v) acetonitrile, 5% (v/v) formic acid as eluent, vacuum-dried by SpeedVac (Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA), and then dissolved in 20 μL of aqueous 0.1% (v/v) formic acid for subsequent MS analyses by means of a nanoLC-ESI-Q-Orbitrap-MS/MS system, comprising an UltiMate 3000 HPLC RSLC nano-chromatographer (Thermo Fisher Scientific) interfaced with a Q-ExactivePlus mass spectrometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific) mounting a nano-Spray ion source (Thermo Fisher Scientific). Chromatographic separations were obtained on an Acclaim PepMap RSLC C18 column (150 mm × 75 μm ID; 2 μm particle size; 100 Å pore size, Thermo Fisher Scientific), eluting the peptide mixtures with a gradient of solvent B (19.92/80/0.08 v/v/v water/acetonitrile/formic acid) in solvent A (99.9/0.1 v/v water/formic acid), at a flow rate of 300 nL/min. In particular, solvent B started at 3%, increased linearly to 40% in 45 min, then achieved 80% in 5 min, remaining at this percentage for 4 min, and finally returned to 3% in 1 min. The mass spectrometer operated in data-dependent mode in positive polarity, carrying out a full MS1 scan in the range m/z 345–1350, at a nominal resolution of 70,000, followed by MS/MS scans of the 10 most abundant ions in high energy collisional dissociation (HCD) mode. Tandem mass spectra were acquired in a dynamic m/z range, with a nominal resolution of 17,500, a normalized collision energy of 28%, an automatic gain control target of 50,000, a maximum ion injection time of 110 ms, and an isolation window of 1.2 m/z. Dynamic exclusion was set to 20 s36.Bioinformatics for peptide identification and post-translational modification assignmentRaw mass data files were searched by Proteome Discoverer v. 2.4 package (Thermo Fisher Scientific), running the search engine Mascot v. 2.6.1 (Matrix Science, UK), Byonic™ v. 2.6.46 (Protein Metrics, USA) and Peaks Studio 8.0 (BSI, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada) software, both for peptide assignment/protein identification and for post-translational modification analysis.In the first case, analyses were carried out against a customized database containing protein sequences downloaded from NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) for superorder Afrotheria (consisting of 192,838 protein sequences, December 2021) plus the most common protein contaminants and trypsin. Parameters for database searching were fixed carbamidomethylation at Cys, and variable oxidation at Met, deamidation at Asn/Gln, and pyroglutamate formation at Gln. Mass tolerance was set to ± 10 ppm for precursors and to ± 0.05 Da for MS/MS fragments. Proteolytic enzyme and maximum number of missed cleavages were set to trypsin and 3, respectively. All other parameters were kept at default values. In the latter case, raw mass data were analyzed against a customized database containing LafrOBP1 (XP_023395442.1) protein sequence plus the most common protein contaminants and trypsin, allowing to search Lys-acetylation (Δm =  + 42.01), Ser/Thr/Tyr-phosphorylation (Δm =  + 79.97), and the most common mammals N-linked glycans at Asn and O-linked glycans at Ser/Thr/Tyr, using the same parameters previously set. The max PTM sites per peptide was set to 2.Proteome Discoverer peptide candidates were considered confidently identified only when the following criteria were satisfied: (i) protein and peptide false discovery rate (FDR) confidence: high; (ii) peptide Mascot score:  > 30; (iii) peptide spectrum matches (PSMs): unambiguous; (iv) peptide rank (rank of the peptide match): 1; (v) Delta CN (normalized score difference between the selected PSM and the highest-scoring PSM for that spectrum): 0. Byonic peptide candidates were considered confidently identified only when the following criteria were satisfied: (i) PEP 2D and PEP 1D:  More

DNA sample collectionTo analyze the population structure of wild medaka populations, we selected samples from the DNA collection of Takehana et al.29, deposited in University of Shizuoka. The original DNA collection had been made throughout 1980s and 2000s. The selected samples covered the major mitotypes and contained more than three individuals of each population (Table S11, Fig. 3), which were collected from three collection sites for O. sakaizumii and 12 collection sites for O. latipes. We also examined several artificial strains: HNI and Hd-rR, which are inbred strains derived from O. sakaizumii and O. latipes, respectively, and four Himedaka individuals from commercial stock (Uruma city, Okinawa Prefecture, Japan).In addition, samples were newly collected at Kunigami Village, Okinawa Prefecture. Live fish were anesthetized with MS-222 (aminobenzene methanesulfonate, FUJIFILM Wako Pure Chemical Corporation, Osaka, Japan) and then fixed in 99% ethanol. Genomic DNA was extracted using a DNeasy kit (Qiagen Inc., Hilden, Germany) from ethanol-fixed pectoral fin samples according to the manufacturer’s protocol. The DNA concentration was measured using a spectrophotometer (Nanodrop 1000, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA), and the DNA was diluted with PCR-grade water to a concentration of c.a. 10 ng/µl (UltraPure™ DNase/RNase-Free Distilled Water, Thermo Fisher Scientific).Ethic statementAll methods were carried out in accordance with the Regulation for Animal Experiments at University of the Ryukyus for handling live fish. All experiments were approved by the Animal Care Ethics Committee of University of the Ryukyus (R2019035). All experimental methods are reported in accordance with ARRIVE guidelines.PCR primer designThe following steps were used to select primers for MAAS (Fig. 1). (1) All possible 10-mer sequence combinations (i.e., 410 = 1,048,576 sequences) were generated in silico. (2) The sequences containing simple sequence repeats, some of which had been used in the MIG-seq method17, were excluded. (3) Sequences containing a functional motif, such as a transcription factor-binding site, were also excluded because they may not be suitable for examining neutral genetic markers. We obtained a catalog of motifs from the JASPAR CORE40 (http://jaspar.genereg.net). (4) To avoid taxon-dependency in primer performance, we used information about the k-mer (k = 10) frequency of reference genomes from multiple phyla. Sequences that showed marked differences in frequency among taxa were excluded. The frequencies of each 10-mer sequence in the reference genomes of 17 species belonging to 12 phyla of metazoa were counted (Table S12) using the “oligonucleotideFrequency” function in the “Biostrings” package ver. 2.441. In each of these taxa, the frequencies of sequences were stratified into three grades ( 103). We then selected the sequences that showed the same grade in more than 80% (14/17) of the species. (5) To avoid synthesizing primer dimers, self-complementary sequences were excluded, taking Illumina adapter sequences (5′-CGCTCTTCCGATCT-3′ and 5′-TGCTCTTCCGATCT-3′) into account. Self-complementation of two bases at the 3′-end or every three continuous bases in primer sequences was then evaluated using a custom script in R ver. 3.5.0 (R Development Core Team, http://cran.r-project.org). Based on the selected 10-mer sequences (i.e., 129 sequences, Fig. 1), 7-mer primer sequences were designed by removing the 3 bases at the 3′ end. Finally, we selected 24 candidate sequences for both 10-mer and 7-mer primers for the subsequent step (Table S1).The primer sequence consisted of three parts17: partial sequence of the Illimina adapter, 7 N bases, and a short priming sequence, e.g., 5′-CGCTCTTCCGATCTNNNNNNNGTCGCCC-3′. PCR amplification was performed using the candidate primers using the first PCR protocol described below (Table S1). Banding patterns were observed by electrophoresis on 1% agarose gels (agarose S; TaKaRa, Japan). Of the candidate primers, we selected four 7-mer primers and four 10-mer primers that each gave a smeared banding pattern with amplification products ranging from 500 to 2000 bp, indicating uniform amplification of multiple target sequences (Table S1).Library construction and sequencingThe library was constructed by a two-step PCR approach using a modification of a MIG-seq protocol14. In the first PCR step, multiple regions of genomic DNA were amplified using a cocktail of primers with a Multiplex PCR Assay Kit Ver.2 (TaKaRa) (Table 1). The volume of the PCR reaction mixture was 7 μl, containing 1 μl of template DNA, 2 μM of each PCR primer, 3.5 μl of 2 × Multiplex PCR Buffer, and 0.035 μl of Multiplex PCR Enzyme Mix. PCR was performed under the following conditions: denaturation at 94 °C for 1 min; 25 cycles of 94 °C for 30 s, 38 °C for 1 min, and 72 °C for 1 min, followed by a final extension step at 72 °C for 10 min.The primers in the second PCR step contained the Illumina sequencing adapter and an index sequence to identify each sample. Following the Truseq indexes, we used the combinations of eight forward indexes (i5) and 12 reverse indexes (i7), which resulted in a total of 96 combinations. To be used as a template for the second PCR, the first PCR product from each sample was diluted 50 times with PCR-grade water. The second PCR was performed in a 15-μl reaction mixture containing, 3 μl of diluted first PCR product, 3 μl of 5 × PrimeSTAR GXL Buffer, 200 μM of each dNTP, 0.2 μM of forward index primer and reverse index primer, 0.375 U of PrimeSTAR GXL DNA Polymerase (TaKaRa). The PCR conditions were as follows: 12 cycles at 98 °C for 10 s, 54 °C for 15 s, and 68 °C for 30 s.The second PCR product of each sample was pooled by equal volume and size-selected from 600 to 1000 bp using solid phase reversible immobilization (SPRI) select beads (Beckman Coulter Inc, Brea, California, USA) according to the manufacturer’s protocol. The DNA concentration of the pooled library was measured using a Qubit fluorometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific). We sequenced the libraries using two NGS platforms, MiSeq (Illumina, MiSeq Reagent Kit v2 Micro, Paired-End (PE), 150 bp) and HiSeq X (Illumina, PE, 150 bp). Sequencing using the HiSeq X platform was performed by Macrogen Japan (Tokyo, Japan).To compare primer performance, the DNA libraries constructed using the 7-mer and 10-mer primers for one individual were sequenced using MiSeq. Then, a 7-mer primer cocktail containing four sets of mixed primers was used for the subsequent analyses (Table 1). We also constructed DNA libraries using 7-mer and MIG-seq primer cocktails for three individuals and sequenced them using the HiSeq X platform. Finally, we constructed DNA libraries using 7-mer primer cocktails for 67 wild individuals and six artificial strain individuals for population genetics analyses (Table S11, Fig. 3).Mapping and SNV callingGenotyping was conducted using the following BWA-GATK best-practices pipeline for each sample42. Primer sequences were removed using cutadapt with the –b option selected43. The Illumina adapter sequences were also removed and quality filtering was performed using fastp ver. 0.20.0 with the “–detect_adapter_for_pe, –cut_front” option selected44. The remaining reads were mapped on the reference genome of medaka, Hd-rR strain, GCA_002234675.1; ASM223467v127 using Burrows-Wheeler Alignment tool, BWA mem ver. 0.7.1745. After mapping, output files were converted to Binary Alignment/Map (BAM) format using SAMtools ver. 1.746. SNVs and InDels in the sample were determined following the best practice guidelines set out in the Genome Analysis Tool Kit (GATK ver. 3.8.0)42. We then filtered out SNVs and InDels based on the following criteria: “QD  60.0 || MQ  More