More stories

  • in

    Low levels of sibship encourage use of larvae in western Atlantic bluefin tuna abundance estimation by close-kin mark-recapture

    Our results show that GoM BFT larval survey samples can provide the crucial mark events for eventual CKMR estimates of adult abundance. The adult parents marked by larval samples can be directly recaptured in the fishery many years later as POPs, and indirectly through their progeny in future samples of larvae, as evidenced by the two cross-cohort HSPs (XHSPs) recovered in this study, which imply that a parent survived and spawned in the GoM in consecutive years. As more cohorts are sampled in future, the growing number of XHSPs could be used to estimate average adult survival rates, in addition to helping with the estimation of adult abundance31, as is now done for southern blue tuna40.There is a modest level of sibship within our 2016 samples, and a high level (involving over half the samples) in 2017, but it turns out not to be high enough to cause serious problems for POP-based CKMR. High sibship per se does not lead to bias in CKMR by virtue of the statistical construction of the estimate, but it does increase variance, which can be summarized through a reduction in effective sample size. In a POP-based CKMR model, our effective sample size would be about 75% of nominal for the two years combined, or 66% of nominal for the targeted sampling of 2017. Since it is actually the product of adult and juvenile sample sizes which drives precision in CKMR14, one way to think about the 75% is that we will need about 33% more adult samples to achieve a given precision on abundance estimates than if we had somehow been able to collect the same number of “independent” juvenile samples (i.e. without oversampling siblings). That increase is appreciable but entirely achievable; for WBFT, it is logistically much easier to collect more feeding-ground adult samples than to collect more larvae, and at present there is no known practical way to collect large numbers of older, more dispersed, and thus more independent, juvenile western origin bluefin tuna (WBFT).This study was motivated by the concern that sibship might be a serious impediment to use of WBFT larvae for CKMR. High levels of sibship have been found in larval collections for other taxa despite a pelagic larval phase, suggesting that abiotic factors can impede random mixing of larvae after a spawning event41. Our larval samples were only a few days old (4–11) and thus had little time to disperse since fertilization; our concern beforehand was that each tow might sample the offspring of a very small number of adults (one spawning group in one night), and in 2017 that repeatedly towing the same water mass might simply be resampling the same “family”. In practice, though, the cumulative effect was limited. Samples were not dominated by progeny from just a few adults; the maximum DPG size (i.e., number of offspring from any one adult) was 5, which is under 2% of the larval sample size. There are several possible reasons for this finding. First, plankton sample tows are typically standardized to a ten-minute duration, covering on average about 0.3 nautical miles. Based on continuous plankton cameras42, each tow is likely to tow through multiple patches of zooplankton, and therefore potentially multiple patches of BFT larvae. Second, spawning aggregations of BFT may contain many adults. For example, on the spawning grounds near the Balearic Islands in the Mediterranean, purse seine fisheries target spawning fish and individual net sets routinely capture upwards of 500 mature individuals43. These numbers suggest that BFT spawner aggregations can be quite large, although the number of individuals that contribute gametes to a single spawning event may be lower. The results of this study pose intriguing scenarios for understanding BFT larval ecology and spawning behavior, which could be explored with larger sample sizes paired with data on oceanographic conditions, direct observation of spawning aggregations, and modeling to compare observed and predicted dispersal. The results of this study are based on just two years of sampling, and numerous practical and theoretical challenges remain to fully understand BFT reproduction in the GoM.Our sibship impact calculations assume use of an unmodified adult-size-based CKMR POP model, where each juvenile is compared to each adult taking into account the latter’s size (e.g.,14). That will give unbiased estimates, which we regard as essential in a CKMR model. However, for WBFT the estimates are not fully statistically efficient, in that some adults receive more statistical weight than others because they are marked more often (by having a large DPG), and thus variance might not be the lowest achievable. Modifying the model to fix that would be simple in a “cartoon” CKMR setting where all adults are identical (e.g., Fig. 1 of14), simply by first condensing each DPG to a single representative, then only using those representatives (rather than all the larvae) in POP comparisons. Each marked parent then receives the same weight, giving maximum efficiency. For the cartoon, this condensed-DPG model still gives an unbiased estimate of abundance, because each DPG has one parent of given sex, and the chance of any sampled cartoon adult of that sex being that parent is 1/N. The DPG-condensed effective sample size is simply half the number of distinct parents, which would be a little larger than the effective sample sizes for the unmodified model shown in Table 3; e.g., in 2017, 504/2 = 252 versus 209. However, no such straightforward improvement is available for an adult-size-based CKMR model such as is needed for WABFT. Using condensed DPGs directly would bias the juvenile sampling against larger more-fecund adults, whose DPGs will tend on average to be larger and thus to experience disproportionate condensation. Those adults would be marked less often by the DPG-condensed juveniles than the model assumes, violating the basic requirements for unbiased CKMR in14. A more sophisticated model might be able to combine unbiasedness with higher efficiency but, since the unmodified adult-size-based POP model that we expect to use is unbiased and only mildly inefficient (at worst 209/252 = 83% efficient, in 2017) there seems no particular need for extra complications at present. However, that may not hold true if we eventually move to a POP + XHSP model, where the impact on unmodified CKMR variance is worse (though there is still no bias, for the same reason as with POPs). Intuitively, the biggest impact that a DPG of size 5 can have in a POP model is to suddenly raise the number of POPs by 5 if its parent happens to be sampled; within a useful total of, say, 75 POPs, the influence is not that large. But if two DPGs both of size 5 in different cohorts happen to share a parent, then the total of XHSPs suddenly jumps by 25— likely a substantial proportion of total XHSPs. Supplementary Material B also includes effective sample size formulae for a simplified XHSP-only model, which demonstrate the increased impact of within-cohort sibship; for our WBFT samples, it turns out that the XHSP-effective size is slightly lower for the targeted 2017 samples (110) than for the 2016 samples (130), unlike the POP-only effective size. Dropping from a maximum theoretical effective sample size of 252 (half the number of DPGs) down to 110 would be rather inefficient and would increase the number of years of sampling required to yield a useful XHSP dataset. This motivates developing a modified POP + XHSP model that retains unbiasedness without sacrificing too much efficiency. In principle, that can be done by condensing each DPG but then conditioning its comparison probabilities on the DPG’s original size, in accordance with the framework in14. This is a topic for subsequent research, and the results will inform future sampling strategy decisions for WBFT.One potential difficulty for western BFT CKMR might occur if a substantial proportion of animals reaching maturity are the offspring of “Western” (in genetic terms) adults who persistently spawn in the western North Atlantic but outside the GoM. However, as long as the adults marked by GoM larvae are well mixed at the time of sampling with any western adults that do spawn outside of the GoM, the total POP-based population estimate of genetically-western BFT from CKMR will remain unbiased. Given evidence from tagging of widespread adult movements within the western North Atlantic2, good mixing in the sampled feeding grounds seems likely; so, even if successful non-GoM western BFT spawning really is commonplace, there should not be a problem with relying on GoM larvae for at least the POP component of CKMR14.Studies of fish early life history have long been considered to have great potential to provide novel insight into the unique population dynamics of fishes44,45,46. Sampling efforts aimed at estimating fish recruitment dynamics have spawned a diversity of larval survey programs. Examples of these long-term programs include the California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations, International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) surveys in the North Atlantic and adjacent areas, Southeast Monitoring and Assessment Program (SEAMAP) in the GoM, Ecosystem Monitoring (EcoMon) in the Northeast U.S., and numerous others, many of which provide indices of larval abundance widely used in fisheries and ecosystem assessments. Yet, as a result of the inherent patchiness of larvae42, sampling variability, and highly variable density dependent mortality45, fisheries scientists have often struggled to determine how larval surveys relate to the adult fish populations. Inclusion of estimates of sibship among larvae collected in surveys could refine estimates of adult spawning stock biomass estimated from these surveys.The results of this study also represent products of decades of work and coordination in obtaining high-quality DNA from larval specimens. Key steps to successful genotyping of larvae include ensuring that larvae are preserved, sorted, and handled in 95% non-denatured ethanol. In addition, strict instrument cleaning protocols must be followed, and stomachs should be removed or avoided (this study used larval tails and, when possible, eyes to avoid cross contamination of prey contents, including possible congeners and other BFT individuals). Exposure to hot lamps during the sorting and dissection processes should also be minimized to ensure that DNA quality is sufficiently high for genotyping-by-sequencing. Although the tissues available for genetic analysis were limited by the needs of other experiments that required BFT tissues, otoliths, gut contents, and other information from the same larvae, we were able to successfully genotype most larvae greater than 6 mm SL and identify thousands of informative SNPs. The lower size limit of larvae could likely be decreased if whole specimens were available for genotyping, although the use of younger larvae could increase the incidence of sibship.In summary, while we observed both FSPs and HSPs in larval collections, with elevated sibship overall and with siblings being more prevalent within tows and in nearby tows, the level of sibship was sufficiently low that collections of GoM BFT larvae can still provide the critical genetic mark of parental genotypes required for CKMR. Our results demonstrate a crucial proof of concept and are the first step towards an operational CKMR modelling estimate of spawning stock abundance for western BFT. More

  • in

    Humid tropical vertebrates are at lower risk of extinction and population decline in forests with higher structural integrity

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

    Google Scholar 
    Pillay, R. et al. Tropical forests are home to over half of the world’s vertebrate species. Front. Ecol. Environ. 20, 10–15 (2022).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Turubanova, S., Potapov, P. V., Tyukavina, A. & Hansen, M. C. Ongoing primary forest loss in Brazil, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Indonesia. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 074028 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Matricardi, E. A. T. et al. Long-term forest degradation surpasses deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Science 369, 1378–1382 (2020).Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Gibson, L. et al. Primary forests are irreplaceable for sustaining tropical biodiversity. Nature 478, 378–381 (2011).Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Barlow, J. et al. Anthropogenic disturbance in tropical forests can double biodiversity loss from deforestation. Nature 535, 144–147 (2016).Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Watson, J. E. M. et al. The exceptional value of intact forest ecosystems. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 599–610 (2018).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Hansen, A. et al. Global humid tropics forest structural condition and forest structural integrity maps. Sci. Data 6, 232 (2019).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Hansen, A. J. et al. A policy-driven framework for conserving the best of Earth’s remaining moist tropical forests. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1377–1384 (2020).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    COP 11 Decision X/2. Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010).New York Declaration on Forests (UN, 2014).Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/70/1 Resolution Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (UN, 2015).Adoption of the Paris Agreement. Proposal by the President. Draft Decision -/CP.21 (UNFCCC, 2015).Hansen, A. J. et al. Toward monitoring forest ecosystem integrity within the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. Conserv. Lett. 14, e12822 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Scholes, R. et al. (eds) Summary for Policymakers of the Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration (IPBES, 2018).First Draft of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2021).Williams, B. A. et al. Change in terrestrial human footprint drives continued loss of intact ecosystems. One Earth 3, 371–382 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Version 2020–1 (IUCN, 2020).Dinerstein, E. et al. An ecoregion-based approach to protecting half the terrestrial realm. Bioscience 67, 534–545 (2017).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Ives, A. R. & Garland, T. Phylogenetic logistic regression for binary dependent variables. Syst. Biol. 59, 9–26 (2010).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Di Marco, M., Ferrier, S., Harwood, T. D., Hoskins, A. J. & Watson, J. E. M. Wilderness areas halve the extinction risk of terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 573, 582–585 (2019).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Betts, M. G. et al. Global forest loss disproportionately erodes biodiversity in intact landscapes. Nature 547, 441–444 (2017).Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Fletcher, R. & Fortin, M.-J. Spatial Ecology and Conservation Modeling: Applications with R (Springer, 2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01989-1Briant, G., Gond, V. & Laurance, S. G. W. Habitat fragmentation and the desiccation of forest canopies: a case study from eastern Amazonia. Biol. Conserv. 143, 2763–2769 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Anderegg, W. R. L. et al. Climate-driven risks to the climate mitigation potential of forests. Science 368, eaaz7005 (2020).Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Pillay, R. et al. Using interview surveys and multispecies occupancy models to inform vertebrate conservation. Conserv. Biol. 36, e13832 (2022).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Agresti, A. Categorical Data Analysis (John Wiley and Sons, 2002).Smith, A. C., Koper, N., Francis, C. M. & Fahrig, L. Confronting collinearity: comparing methods for disentangling the effects of habitat loss and fragmentation. Landsc. Ecol. 24, 1271–1285 (2009).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Mittermeier, R. A. et al. Wilderness and biodiversity conservation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 18, 10309–10313 (2003).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Turner, I. M. & Corlett, R. T. The conservation value of small, isolated fragments of lowland tropical rain forest. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11, 330–333 (1996).Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Tulloch, A. I. T., Barnes, M. D., Ringma, J., Fuller, R. A. & Watson, J. E. M. Understanding the importance of small patches of habitat for conservation. J. Appl. Ecol. 53, 418–429 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Wintle, B. A. et al. Global synthesis of conservation studies reveals the importance of small habitat patches for biodiversity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 909–914 (2019).Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Hansen, M. C. et al. The fate of tropical forest fragments. Sci. Adv. 6, eaax8574 (2020).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Prugh, L. R., Hodges, K. E., Sinclair, A. R. E. & Brashares, J. S. Effect of habitat area and isolation on fragmented animal populations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 20770–20775 (2008).Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Grantham, H. S. et al. Anthropogenic modification of forests means only 40% of remaining forests have high ecosystem integrity. Nat. Commun. 11, 5978 (2020).Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Beyer, H. L., Venter, O., Grantham, H. S. & Watson, J. E. M. Substantial losses in ecoregion intactness highlight urgency of globally coordinated action. Conserv. Lett. 13, e12692 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ehbrecht, M. et al. Global patterns and climatic controls of forest structural complexity. Nat. Commun. 12, 519 (2021).Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    França, F. et al. Do space-for-time assessments underestimate the impacts of logging on tropical biodiversity? An Amazonian case study using dung beetles. J. Appl. Ecol. 53, 1098–1105 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Di Marco, M., Venter, O., Possingham, H. P. & Watson, J. E. M. Changes in human footprint drive changes in species extinction risk. Nat. Commun. 9, 4621 (2018).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Betts, M. G. et al. Forest degradation drives widespread avian habitat and population declines. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 6, 709–719 (2022).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Bar-On, Y. M., Phillips, R. & Milo, R. The biomass distribution on Earth. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 6506–6511 (2018).Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Basset, Y. et al. Arthropod diversity in a tropical forest. Science 338, 1481–1484 (2012).Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Cardillo, M. et al. Multiple causes of high extinction risk in large mammal species. Science 309, 1239–1241 (2005).Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Newbold, T. et al. Ecological traits affect the response of tropical forest bird species to land-use intensity. Proc. R. Soc. B 280, 20122131 (2013).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Maron, M., Simmonds, J. S. & Watson, J. E. M. Bold nature retention targets are essential for the global environment agenda. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1194–1195 (2018).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Díaz, S. et al. Set ambitious goals for biodiversity and sustainability. Science 370, 411–413 (2020).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Bird Species Distribution Maps of the World Version 2018.1 (BirdLife International, accessed 16 August 2019).Roll, U. et al. The global distribution of tetrapods reveals a need for targeted reptile conservation. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1677–1682 (2017).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    González-del-Pliego, P. et al. Phylogenetic and trait-based prediction of extinction risk for data-deficient amphibians. Curr. Biol. 29, 1557–1563 (2019).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    IUCN Habitats Classification Scheme Version 3.1 (IUCN, 2012).Böhm, M. et al. The conservation status of the world’s reptiles. Biol. Conserv. 157, 372–385 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hansen, M. C. et al. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 342, 850–853 (2013).Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Hansen, M. C. et al. Mapping tree height distributions in Sub-Saharan Africa using Landsat 7 and 8 data. Remote Sens. Environ. 185, 221–232 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sanderson, E. W. et al. The human footprint and the last of the wild. Bioscience 52, 891–904 (2002).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Venter, O. et al. Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation. Nat. Commun. 7, 12558 (2016).Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Di Marco, M., Watson, J. E. M., Possingham, H. P. & Venter, O. Limitations and trade-offs in the use of species distribution maps for protected area planning. J. Appl. Ecol. 54, 402–411 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Jenkins, C. N., Pimm, S. L. & Joppa, L. N. Global patterns of terrestrial vertebrate diversity and conservation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, E2603–E2610 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Simard, M., Pinto, N., Fisher, J. B. & Baccini, A. Mapping forest canopy height globally with spaceborne lidar. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 116, G04021 (2011).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sexton, J. O. et al. Global, 30-m resolution continuous fields of tree cover: Landsat-based rescaling of MODIS vegetation continuous fields with lidar-based estimates of error. Int. J. Digit. Earth 6, 427–448 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Potapov, P. et al. Mapping global forest canopy height through integration of GEDI and Landsat data. Remote Sens. Environ. 253, 112165 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Upham, N. S., Esselstyn, J. A. & Jetz, W. Inferring the mammal tree: species-level sets of phylogenies for questions in ecology, evolution, and conservation. PLoS Biol. 17, e3000494 (2019).Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    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 
    Tonini, J. F. R., Beard, K. H., Ferreira, R. B., Jetz, W. & Pyron, R. A. Fully-sampled phylogenies of squamates reveal evolutionary patterns in threat status. Biol. Conserv. 204, 23–31 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Jetz, W. & Pyron, R. A. The interplay of past diversification and evolutionary isolation with present imperilment across the amphibian tree of life. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 850–858 (2018).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Ho, L. S. T. & Ané, 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 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020).Verhoeven, K. J. F., Simonsen, K. L. & McIntyre, L. M. Implementing false discovery rate control: increasing your power. Oikos 108, 643–647 (2005).Article 

    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).
    Google Scholar 
    Bivand, R. et al. spdep: Spatial dependence: weighting schemes, statistics and models. R package version 0.7-4 (2017).Bjornstad, O. N. ncf: Spatial covariance functions. R package version 1.2-1 (2018). More

  • in

    The red harvester ant

    Gordon, D. M. Anim. Behav. 49, 649–659 (1995).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Gordon, D. M. The Ecology of Collective Behavior (Princeton Univ. Press, in the press).Gordon, D. M. Anim. Behav. 38, 194–204 (1989).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Greene, M. J. & Gordon, D. M. Nature 423, 32 (2003).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Pinter-Wollman, N. et al. Anim. Behav. 86, 197–207 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Gordon, D. M., Guetz, A., Greene, M. J. & Holmes, S. Behav. Ecol. 22, 429–435 (2011).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Prabhakar, B., Dektar, K. N. & Gordon, D. M. PLOS Comput. Biol. 8, e1002670 (2012).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Davidson, J. D., Arauco-Aliaga, R. P., Crow, S., Gordon, D. M. & Goldman, M. S. Front. Ecol. Evol. 4, 115 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Pagliara, R., Gordon, D. M. & Leonard, N. E. PLOS Comput. Biol. 14, e1006200 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Friedman, D. A. et al. iScience 8, 283–294 (2018).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Gordon, D. M. Ant Encounters: Interaction Networks and Colony Behavior (Princeton Univ. Press, 2010).Sundaram, M., Steiner, E. & Gordon, D. M. Ecol. Monogr. 92, e1503 (2022).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ingram, K. K., Pilko, A., Heer, J. & Gordon, D. M. J. Anim. Ecol. 82, 540–550 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Gordon, D. M. Nature 498, 91–93 (2013).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Fragmentation by major dams and implications for the future viability of platypus populations

    Zhou, Y. et al. Platypus and echidna genomes reveal mammalian biology and evolution. Nature 592, 756–762 (2021).Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Bino, G. et al. The platypus: evolutionary history, biology, and an uncertain future. J. Mammal. 100, 308–327 (2019).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Veyrunes, F. et al. Bird-like sex chromosomes of platypus imply recent origin of mammal sex chromosomes. Genome Res. 18, 965–973 (2008).Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Anich, P. S. et al. Biofluorescence in the platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus). Mammalia 85, 179–181 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Pavoine, S., Ollier, S. & Dufour, A. B. Is the originality of a species measurable? Ecol. Lett. 8, 579–586 (2005).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Isaac, N. J. B., Turvey, S. T., Collen, B., Waterman, C. & Baillie, J. E. M. Mammals on the EDGE: conservation priorities based on threat and phylogeny. PLoS ONE 2, e296 (2007).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Woinarski, J. & Burbidge, A. In The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e. T40488A21964009 (IUCN, 2016).Victoria Government Gazette. Authority of Victorian Government Printer (2021).Hawke, T., Bino, G. & Kingsford, R. T. A silent demise: Historical insights into population changes of the iconic platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus). Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 20, e00720 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Grant, T. R. & Fanning, D. Platypus (CSIRO PUBLISHING, 2007).Bino, G., Kingsford, R. T. & Wintle, B. A. A stitch in time–Synergistic impacts to platypus metapopulation extinction risk. Biol. Conserv. 242, 108399 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hawke, T., Bino, G. & Kingsford, R. A National Assessment of the Conservation Status of the Platypus (University of New South Wales, 2021).Bino, G., Hawke, T. & Kingsford, R. T. Synergistic effects of a severe drought and fire on platypuses. Sci. Total Environ. 777, 146137 (2021).Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Klamt, M., Thompson, R. & Davis, J. Early response of the platypus to climate warming. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 3011–3018 (2011).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Reid, A. J. et al. Emerging threats and persistent conservation challenges for freshwater biodiversity. Biol. Rev. 94, 849–873 (2019).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Grill, G. et al. An index-based framework for assessing patterns and trends in river fragmentation and flow regulation by global dams at multiple scales. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 015001 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Winemiller, K. O. et al. Balancing hydropower and biodiversity in the Amazon, Congo, and Mekong. Science 351, 128–129 (2016).Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Dugan, P. J. et al. Fish migration, dams, and loss of ecosystem services in the Mekong basin. Ambio 39, 344–348 (2010).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Timpe, K. & Kaplan, D. The changing hydrology of a dammed Amazon. Sci. Adv. 3, e1700611 (2017).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Grant, T. R. & Temple-Smith, P. D. Conservation of the platypus, Ornithorhynchus anatinus: threats and challenges. Aquat. Ecosyst. Health Manag. 6, 5–18 (2003).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hawke, T., Bino, G. & Kingsford, R. T. Damming insights: variable impacts and implications of river regulation on platypus populations. Aquat. Conserv.: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 31, 504–519 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bethge, P., Munks, S., Otley, H. & Nicol, S. Diving behaviour, dive cycles and aerobic dive limit in the platypus Ornithorhynchus anatinus. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. Part A: Mol. Integr. Physiol. 136, 799–809 (2003).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Grant, T. & Llewellyn, L. C. The Biology and Management of the Platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) in NSW (NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, 1991).Grant, T. R. Captures, Capture Mortality, Age and Sex Ratios of Platypuses, Ornithorhynchus Anatinus, during Studies over 30 Years in the Upper Shoalhaven River in New South Wales (Linnean Society of New South Wales, 2004).Marchant, R. & Grant, T. The productivity of the macroinvertebrate prey of the platypus in the upper Shoalhaven River, New South Wales. Mar. Freshw. Res. 66, 1128–1137 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Baguette, M., Blanchet, S., Legrand, D., Stevens, V. M. & Turlure, C. Individual dispersal, landscape connectivity and ecological networks. Biol. Rev. 88, 310–326 (2013).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Frankham, R. et al. Genetic Management of Fragmented Animal and Plant Populations (Oxford University Press, 2017).Frankham, R. Genetic rescue of small inbred populations: meta‐analysis reveals large and consistent benefits of gene flow. Mol. Ecol. 24, 2610–2618 (2015).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Garant, D., Forde, S. E. & Hendry, A. P. The multifarious effects of dispersal and gene flow on contemporary adaptation. Funct. Ecol. 21, 434–443 (2007).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Tigano, A. & Friesen, V. L. Genomics of local adaptation with gene flow. Mol. Ecol. 25, 2144–2164 (2016).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Kolomyjec, S. H. The History and Relationships of Northern Platypus (Ornithorhynchus Anatinus) Populations: A Molecular Approach (James Cook University, 2010).Furlan, E. M. et al. Dispersal patterns and population structuring among platypuses, Ornithorhynchus anatinus, throughout south-eastern Australia. Conserv. Genet. 14, 837–853 (2013).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Balkenhol, N., Cushman, S., Storfer, A. & Waits, L. Landscape Genetics: Concepts, Methods, Applications (John Wiley & Sons, 2015).Ramachandran, S. et al. Support from the relationship of genetic and geographic distance in human populations for a serial founder effect originating in Africa. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 15942–15947 (2005).Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Landguth, E. L. et al. Quantifying the lag time to detect barriers in landscape genetics. Mol. Ecol. 19, 4179–4191 (2010).Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Hoffman, J. R., Willoughby, J. R., Swanson, B. J., Pangle, K. L. & Zanatta, D. T. Detection of barriers to dispersal is masked by long lifespans and large population sizes. Ecol. Evolution 7, 9613–9623 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Meirmans, P. G. & Hedrick, P. W. Assessing population structure: F-ST and related measures. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 11, 5–18 (2011).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Lehner, B. et al. High‐resolution mapping of the world’s reservoirs and dams for sustainable river‐flow management. Front. Ecol. Environ. 9, 494–502 (2011).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Lemopoulos, A. et al. Comparing RADseq and microsatellites for estimating genetic diversity and relatedness—implications for brown trout conservation. Ecol. Evolution 9, 2106–2120 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sunde, J., Yıldırım, Y., Tibblin, P. & Forsman, A. Comparing the performance of microsatellites and RADseq in population genetic studies: Analysis of data for pike (Esox lucius) and a synthesis of previous studies. Front. Genet. 11, 218 (2020).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Sherwin, W. B., Chao, A., Jost, L. & Smouse, P. E. Information theory broadens the spectrum of molecular ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 32, 948–963 (2017).Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Serena, M. & Williams, G. Movements and cumulative range size of the platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) inferred from mark–recapture studies. Aust. J. Zool. 60, 352–359 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hawke, T. et al. Fine‐scale movements and interactions of platypuses, and the impact of an environmental flushing flow. Freshw. Biol. 66, 177–188 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hawke, T. et al. Long-term movements and activity patterns of platypus on regulated rivers. Sci. Rep. 11, 1–11 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Nislow, K. H., Hudy, M., Letcher, B. H. & Smith, E. P. Variation in local abundance and species richness of stream fishes in relation to dispersal barriers: implications for management and conservation. Freshw. Biol. 56, 2135–2144 (2011).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Søndergaard, M. & Jeppesen, E. Anthropogenic impacts on lake and stream ecosystems, and approaches to restoration. J. Appl. Ecol. 44, 1089–1094 (2007).Hoffmann, A. A., Miller, A. D. & Weeks, A. R. Genetic mixing for population management: From genetic rescue to provenancing. Evol. Appl. 14, 634–652 (2020).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Mills, L. S. & Allendorf, F. W. The one-migrant-per-generation rule in conservation and management. Conserv. Biol. 10, 1509–1518 (1996).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Brown, J. J. et al. Fish and hydropower on the US Atlantic coast: failed fisheries policies from half‐way technologies. Conserv. Lett. 6, 280–286 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Silva, A. T. et al. The future of fish passage science, engineering, and practice. Fish. Fish. 19, 340–362 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Broadhurst, B., Ebner, B., Lintermans, M., Thiem, J. & Clear, R. Jailbreak: a fishway releases the endangered Macquarie perch from confinement below an anthropogenic barrier. Mar. Freshw. Res. 64, 900–908 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sainsbury, A. W. & Vaughan‐Higgins, R. J. Analyzing disease risks associated with translocations. Conserv. Biol. 26, 442–452 (2012).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Kolomyjec, S. H., Grant, T. R., Johnson, C. N. & Blair, D. Regional population structuring and conservation units in the platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus). Aust. J. Zool. 61, 378–385 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Drechsler, M. & Burgman, M. A. Combining population viability analysis with decision analysis. Biodivers. Conserv. 13, 115–139 (2004).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kolomyjec, S. H. et al. Population genetics of the platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus): a fine-scale look at adjacent river systems. Aust. J. Zool. 57, 225–234 (2009).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kolomyjec, S. H., Grant, T. R. & Blair, D. Ten polymorphic microsatellite DNA markers for the platypus, Ornithorhynchus anatinus. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 8, 1133–1135 (2008).Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Martin, H. C. et al. Insights into platypus population structure and history from whole-genome sequencing. Mol. Biol. Evol. 35, 1238–1252 (2018).Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Bino, G., Kingsford, R. T., Grant, T., Taylor, M. D. & Vogelnest, L. Use of implanted acoustic tags to assess platypus movement behaviour across spatial and temporal scales. Sci. Rep. 8, 1–12 (2018).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Kilian, A. et al. Diversity arrays technology: a generic genome profiling technology on open platforms. Methods Mol. Biol. 888, 67–89 (2012).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Georges, A. et al. Genomewide SNP markers breathe new life into phylogeography and species delimitation for the problematic short‐necked turtles (Chelidae: Emydura) of eastern Australia. Mol. Ecol. 27, 5195–5213 (2018).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Steane, D. A. et al. Population genetic analysis and phylogeny reconstruction in Eucalyptus (Myrtaceae) using high-throughput, genome-wide genotyping. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 59, 206–224 (2011).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Sunnucks, P. & Hales, D. F. Numerous transposed sequences of mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase I-II in aphids of the genus Sitobion (Hemiptera: Aphididae). Mol. Biol. Evol. 13, 510–524 (1996).Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Schmidt, T. L., Jasper, M. E., Weeks, A. R. & Hoffmann, A. A. Unbiased population heterozygosity estimates from genome‐wide sequence data. Methods Ecol. Evolution 12, 1888–1898 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Pew, J., Muir, P. H., Wang, J. & Frasier, T. R. related: an R package for analysing pairwise relatedness from codominant molecular markers. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 15, 557–561 (2015).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Goudet, J. Hierfstat, a package for R to compute and test hierarchical F‐statistics. Mol. Ecol. Notes 5, 184–186 (2005).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Nei, M. Molecular Evolutionary Genetics (Columbia University Press, 1987).Jost, L. GST and its relatives do not measure differentiation. Mol. Ecol. 17, 4015–4026 (2008).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Pacifici, M. et al. Generation length for mammals. Nat. Conserv. 5, 89 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Mijangos, J. L., Gruber, B., Berry, O., Pacioni, C. & Georges, A. dartR v2: an accessible genetic analysis platform for conservation, ecology, and agriculture. Methods Ecol. Evol. 13, 2150–2158 (2022).McVean, G. A genealogical interpretation of principal components analysis. PLoS Genet. 5, e1000686 (2009).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Pritchard, J. K., Stephens, M. & Donnelly, P. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155, 945–959 (2000).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. https://www.R-project.org/ (2021).Mijangos, J. et al. Datasets and R scripts for Fragmentation by major dams and implications for the future viability of platypus populations (2022).IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) 2008. Ornithorhynchus anatinus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2022-1. https://www.iucnredlist.org (2022).Crossman, S. & Li, O. Surface Hydrology Lines (National) (2015).Crossman, S. & Li, O. Surface Hydrology Polygons (National) (2015).Australian Bureau of Statistics (2021). States and Territories – 2021 – Shapefile [https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/standards/australian-statistical-geography-standard-asgs-edition-3/jul2021-jun2026/access-and-downloads/digital-boundary-files] [Shapefile], Digital boundary files (2022).Australian National Committee on Large Dams Incorporated (ANCOLD). Register of Large Dams Australia (2022). More

  • in

    Single-cell measurements and modelling reveal substantial organic carbon acquisition by Prochlorococcus

    Isotope labelling and phylogenetic analysis of a natural marine bacterioplankton population at seaMediterranean seawater was collected during August 2017 (station N1200, 32.45° N, 34.37 °E) from 11 depths by Niskin bottles and divided into triplicate 250 ml polycarbonate bottles. Two bottles from each depth were labelled with 1 mM sodium bicarbonate-13C and 1 mM ammonium-15N chloride (Sigma-Aldrich), and all three bottles (two labelled and one control) were incubated at the original depth and station at sea for 3.5 h around mid-day. The stable isotopes were chosen to enable direct comparison of C and N uptake in single cells, and the short incubation time was chosen to minimize isotope dilution and potential recycling and transfer of 13C and 15N between community members25. After incubation, bottles were brought back on board and the incubations were stopped by fixing with 2× electron-microscopy-grade glutaraldehyde (2.5% final concentration) and stored at 4 °C until sorting analysis. Cell sorting, NanoSIMS analyses and the calculation of uptake rates were performed as described in Roth-Rosenberg et al.26.DNA collection and extraction from seawaterSamples for DNA were collected on 0.22 µm Sterivex filters (Millipore). Excess water was removed using a syringe, 1 ml lysis buffer (40 mM EDTA, 50 mM Tris pH 8.3, and 0.75 M sucrose) was added and both ends of the filter were closed with parafilm. Samples were kept at −80 °C until extraction. DNA was extracted by using a semi-automated protocol including manual chemical cell lysis before automated steps using the QIAamp DNA Mini Protocol: DNA Purification from Blood or Body Fluids (Spin Protocol, starting from step 6, at the BioRap unit, Faculty of Medicine, Technion). The manual protocol began with thawing the samples, then the storage buffer was removed using a syringe and 170 µl lysis buffer added to the filters. Thirty microlitres of Lysozyme (20 mg ml−1) were added to the filters and incubated at 37 °C for 30 min. After incubation, 20 µl proteinase K and 200 µl buffer AL (from the Qiagen kit) were added to the tube for 1 h at 56 °C (with agitation). The supernatant was transferred to a new tube, and DNA was extracted using the QIAcube automated system. All DNA samples were eluted in 100 μl DNA-free distilled water.ITS PCR amplificationPCR amplification of the ITS was carried out with specific primers for Prochlorococcus CS1_16S_1247F (5′-ACACTGACGACATGGTTCTACACGTACTACAATGCTACGG) and Cs2_ITS_Ar (5′-TACGGTAGCAGAGACTTGGTCTGGACCTCACCCTTATCAGGG)21,22. The first PCR was performed in triplicate in a total volume of 25 μl containing 0.5 ng of template, 12.5 μl of MyTaq Red Mix (Bioline) and 0.5 μl of 10 μM of each primer. The amplification conditions comprised steps at 95 °C for 5 min, 28/25 (16 S/ITS) cycles at 95 °C for 30 s, 50 °C for 30 s and 72 °C for 1 min followed by one step of 5 min at 72 °C. All PCR products were validated on a 1% agarose gel, and triplicates were pooled. Subsequently, a second PCR amplification was performed to prepare libraries. These were pooled and after a quality control sequenced (2 × 250 paired-end reads) using an Illumina MiSeq sequencer. Library preparation and pooling were performed at the DNA Services facility, Research Resources Center, University of Illinois at Chicago. MiSeq sequencing was performed at the W.M. Keck Center for Comparative and Functional Genomics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.ITS sequence processingPaired-end reads were analysed using the Dada2 pipeline46. The quality of the sequences per sample was examined using the Dada2 ‘plotQualityProfile’ command. Quality filtering was performed using the Dada2 ‘filterAndTrim’ command with parameters for quality filtering truncLen=c(290,260), maxN=0, maxEE=c(2,2), truncQ=2, rm.phix=TRUE, trimLeft=c(20,20). Following error estimation and dereplication, the Dada2 algorithm was used to correct sequences. Merging of the forward and reverse reads was done with minimum overlap of 4 bp. Detection and removal of suspected chimaeras was done with command ‘removeBimeraDenovo’. In total, 388,417 sequences in 484 amplicon sequence variants were counted. The amplicon sequence variants were aligned in MEGA6 (ref. 47), and the first ~295 nucleotides, corresponding to the 16S gene, were trimmed. The ITS sequences were then classified using BLASTn against a custom database of ITS sequences from cultured Prochlorococcus and Synechococcus strains as well as from uncultured HL and LL clades.Individual-based modelPlanktonIndividuals.jl (v0.1.9) was used to run the individual-based simulations48. Briefly, the cells fix inorganic carbon through photosynthesis and nitrogen, phosphorus and DOC from the water column into intracellular quotas and grow until division or grazing. Cell division is modelled as a probabilistic function of cell size. Grazing is represented by a quadratic probabilistic function of cell population. Cells consume nutrient resources, which are represented as Eulerian, density-based tracers. A full documentation of state variables and model equations are available online at https://juliaocean.github.io/PlanktonIndividuals.jl/dev/. Equations related to mixotrophy are shown below as an addition to the online documentation.$$V_{{mathrm{DOC}}} = V_{{mathrm{DOC}}}^{{mathrm{max}}} cdot {{mathrm{max}}}left( {0.0,{{mathrm{min}}}left( {1.0,,frac{{q_{mathrm{C}}^{{mathrm{max}}} – q_{mathrm{C}}}}{{q_{mathrm{C}}^{{mathrm{max}}} – q_{mathrm{C}}^{{mathrm{min}}}}}} right)} right) cdot frac{{{mathrm{DOC}}}}{{{mathrm{DOC}} + K_{{mathrm{DOC}}}^{{mathrm{sat}}}}}$$
    (1)
    $$f_{{mathrm{PS}}} = frac{{P_{mathrm{S}}}}{{P_{mathrm{S}} + V_{{mathrm{DOC}}}}}$$
    (2)
    $$V_{{mathrm{DOC}}} = 0,,{mathrm{if}},f_{{mathrm{PS}}} < f_{{mathrm{PS}}}^{{mathrm{min}}}$$ (3) where VDOC is the cell-specific DOC uptake rate (mol C cell−1 s−1), (V_{{mathrm{DOC}}}^{{mathrm{max}}}) is the maximum cell-specific DOC uptake rate (mol C cell−1 s−1), (q_{mathrm{C}}^{{mathrm{max}}}) is the maximum cell carbon quota (mol C cell−1), (q_{mathrm{C}}^{{mathrm{min}}}) is the minimum cell carbon quota (mol C cell−1). The maximum and minimum functions here is used to keep qC between (q_{mathrm{C}}^{{mathrm{min}}}) and (q_{mathrm{C}}^{{mathrm{max}}}). (K_{{mathrm{DOC}}}^{{mathrm{sat}}}) is the half-saturation constant for DOC uptake (mol C m−3). fPS is the fraction of fixed C originating from photosynthesis (PS, mol C cell−1 s−1). DOC uptake stops when fPS is smaller than (f_{{mathrm{PS}}}^{{mathrm{min}}})(minimum fraction of fixed C originating form photosynthesis, 1% by default) according to laboratory studies of Prochlorococcus that showed that they cannot survive long exposure to darkness (beyond several days) even when supplied with organic carbon sources13. (1 − fPS) is also shown in Fig. 3 as the contribution of DOC uptake.We set up two separate simulations; each of them has a population of either an obligate photo-autotroph or a mixotroph that also consumes DOC. The initial conditions and parameters (Supplementary Table 3) are the same for the two simulations except the ability of mixotrophy. The simulations were run with a timestep of 1 min for 360 simulated days to achieve a steady state. We run the two simulations for multiple times in order to get the range of the stochastic processes.Evaluation of autotrophic growth ratesWe evaluated the carbon-specific, daily-averaged carbon fixation rate, ℙ as a function of light intensity (I, µE), following Platt et al.33:$${Bbb P} = frac{1}{{Delta t}}{int}_0^{Delta t} {frac{{q_{{mathrm{Chl}}}}}{{q_{mathrm{C}}}}} P_{mathrm{S}}^{{mathrm{Chl}}}left( {1 - e^{ - alpha _{{mathrm{Chl}}}I/P_{mathrm{S}}^{{mathrm{Chl}}}}} right)e^{ - beta _{{mathrm{Chl}}}I/P_{mathrm{S}}^{{mathrm{Chl}}}}Delta t$$ (4) Here, (P_{mathrm{S}}^{{mathrm{Chl}}}), αChl and βChl are empirically determined coefficients representing the chlorophyll-a-specific carbon fixation rate (mol C (mol Chl)−1 s−1), the initial slope of the photosynthesis–light relationship and photo-inhibition effects at high photon fluxes, respectively. We impose empirically determined values for (P_{mathrm{S}}^{{mathrm{Chl}}}), αChl and βChl from the published study of Moore and Chisholm24. The natural Prochlorococcus community comprises HL and LL ecotypes, which have different values of (P_{mathrm{S}}^{{mathrm{Chl}}}), αChl and βChl, and the community growth rate is expected to be between that of HL extremes and LL extremes. Therefore, we use photo-physiological parameters for an HL-adapted ecotype (MIT9215), acclimated at 70 µmol photons m−2 s−1 and an LL-adapted ecotype (MIT9211), acclimated 9 µmol photons m−2 s−1. The models with these values are shown as the different lines in Fig. 2b,d. I is the hourly PAR, estimated by scaling the observed noon value at each depth with a diurnal variation evaluated from astronomical formulae based on geographic location and time of year37,38.(frac{{q_{{mathrm{Chl}}}}}{{q_{mathrm{C}}}}) is the molar chlorophyll-a to carbon ratio, which is modelled as a function of growth rate and light intensity using the Inomura34 model (equation 17 therein) where parameters were calibrated with laboratory data from Healey49. In addition, the maximum growth rate ((mu _{{mathrm{max}}}^I)) based on macromolecular allocation is also estimated using the Inomura model (equation 30 therein). An initial guess of the growth rate and the empirically informed light intensity are used to estimate (frac{{q_{{mathrm{Chl}}}}}{{q_{mathrm{C}}}}), which is then used to evaluate the light-limited, photoautotrophic growth rate$${Bbb V}_{mathrm{C}}^{{mathrm{auto}}} = min left( {{Bbb P} - K_{mathrm{R}},mu _{{mathrm{max}}}^I} right)$$ (5) from which the (frac{{q_{{mathrm{Chl}}}}}{{q_{mathrm{C}}}}) is again updated. The light-limited growth rate is used to re-evaluate the (frac{{q_{{mathrm{Chl}}}}}{{q_{mathrm{C}}}}). Repeating this sequence until the values converge, ({Bbb V}_{mathrm{C}}^{{mathrm{auto}}}) and (frac{{q_{{mathrm{Chl}}}}}{{q_{mathrm{C}}}}) are solved iteratively.The nitrogen-specific uptake rate of fixed nitrogen (day−1) is modelled as$${Bbb V}_{{{mathrm{N}}}} = {Bbb V}_{mathrm{N}}^{{mathrm{max}}}frac{1}{{Q_{mathrm{N}}}}frac{N}{{N + K_{{{mathrm{N}}}}}}$$ (6) where values of the maximum uptake rate, ({Bbb V}_{mathrm{N}}^{{mathrm{max}}}), and half-saturation, KN, are determined from empirical allometric scalings35, along with a nitrogen cell quota QN from Bertilsson et al.39.The P-limited growth rate, or the phosphorus-specific uptake rate of phosphate (day−1), is modelled as$${Bbb V}_{mathrm{P}} = {Bbb V}_{mathrm{P}}^{{mathrm{max}}}frac{1}{{Q_{mathrm{P}}}}frac{{{mathrm{PO}_{4}}^{3 - }}}{{{mathrm{PO}_{4}}^{3 - } + K_{mathrm{P}}}}$$ (7) where values of the maximum uptake rate, ({Bbb V}_{mathrm{P}}^{{mathrm{max}}}). and half-saturation, KP, are determined from empirical allometric scalings35, along with a nitrogen cell quota QP from Bertilsson et al.39.Iron uptake is modelled as a linear function of cell surface area (SA), with rate constant ((k_{{mathrm{Fe}}}^{{mathrm{SA}}})) following Lis et al.36.$${Bbb V}_{{mathrm{Fe}}} = k_{{mathrm{Fe}}}^{{mathrm{SA}}} cdot {mathrm{SA}}frac{1}{{Q_{{mathrm{Fe}}}}}{mathrm{Fe}}$$ (8) The potential light-, nitrogen-, phosphorus- and iron-limited growth rates (({Bbb V}_{mathrm{C}},{Bbb V}_{mathrm{N}},{Bbb V}_{mathrm{P}},{Bbb V}_{{mathrm{Fe}}})) were evaluated at each depth in the water column and the minimum is the local modelled photo-autotrophic growth rate estimate, assuming no mixotrophy (Fig. 2b,d, blue lines). Parameters used in this evaluation are listed in Supplementary Table 2.An important premise of this study is that heterotrophy is providing for the shortfall in carbon under very low light conditions, but not nitrogen. It is known that Prochlorococcus can assimilate amino acids9 and therefore the stoichiometry of the heterotrophic contribution might alter the interpretations. However, it is also known that Prochlorococcus can exude amino acids40, which might cancel out the effects on the stoichiometry of Prochlorococcus.For the estimates of phototrophic growth rate from local environmental conditions (Fig. 2) we employed photo-physiological parameters from laboratory cultures of Prochlorococcus24. For the purposes of this study, we have assumed that the photosynthetic rates predicted are net primary production, which means that autotrophic respiration has been accounted for in the measurement. However, the incubations in that study were of relatively short timescale (45 min), which might suggest they are perhaps more representative of gross primary production. If this is the case, our estimates of photo-autotrophic would be even lower after accounting for autotrophic respiration, and thus would demand a higher contribution from heterotrophic carbon uptake. In this regard, our estimates might be considered a lower bound for organic carbon assimilation.Reporting summaryFurther information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article. More

  • in

    Ensembles of data-efficient vision transformers as a new paradigm for automated classification in ecology

    DataWe tested our models on ten publicly available datasets. In Fig. 4 we show examples of images from each of the datasets. When applicable, the training and test splits were kept the same as in the original dataset. For example, the ZooScan, Kaggle, EILAT, and RSMAS datasets lack a specific training and test set; in these cases, benchmarks come from k-fold cross-validation51,52, and we followed the exact same procedures in order to allow for a fair comparison.Figure 4Examples of images from each of the datasets.(a) RSMAS (b) EILAT (c) ZooLake (d) WHOI (e) Kaggle (f) ZooScan (g) NA-Birds (h) Stanford dogs (i) SriLankan Beetles (j) Florida Wildtrap.Full size imageRSMAS This is a small coral dataset of 766 RGB image patches with a size of (256times 256) pixels each53. The patches were cropped out of bigger images obtained by the University of Miami’s Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences. These images were captured using various cameras in various locations. The data is separated into 14 unbalanced groups and whose labels correspond to the names of the coral species in Latin. The current SOTA for the classification of this dataset is by52. They use the ensemble of best performing 11 CNN models. The best models were chosen based on sequential forward feature selection (SFFS) approach. Since an independent test is not available, they make use of 5-fold cross-validation for benchmarking the performances.EILAT This is a coral dataset of 1123 64-pixel RGB image patches53 that were created from larger images that were taken from coral reefs near Eilat in the Red sea. The image dataset is partitioned into eight classes, with an unequal distribution of data. The names of the classes correspond to the shorter version of the scientific names of the coral species. The current SOTA52 for the classification of this dataset uses the ensemble of best performing 11 CNN models similar to RSMAS dataset and 5-fold cross-validation for benchmarking the performances.ZooLake This dataset consists of 17943 images of lake plankton from 35 classes, acquired using a Dual-magnification Scripps Plankton Camera (DSPC) in Lake Greifensee (Switzerland) between 2018 and 2020 14,54. The images are colored, with a black background and an uneven class distribution. The current SOTA22 on this dataset is based on a stacking ensemble of 6 CNN models on an independent test set.WHOI This dataset 55 contains images of marine plankton acquired by Image FlowCytobot56, from Woods Hole Harbor water. The sampling was done between late fall and early spring in 2004 and 2005. It contains 6600 greyscale images of different sizes, from 22 manually categorized plankton classes with an equal number of samples for each class. The majority of the classes belonging to phytoplankton at genus level. This dataset was later extended to include 3.4M images and 103 classes. The WHOI subset that we use was previously used for benchmarking plankton classification models51,52. The current SOTA22 on this dataset is based on average ensemble of 6 CNN models on an independent test set.Kaggle-plankton The original Kaggle-plankton dataset consists of plankton images that were acquired by In-situ Ichthyoplankton Imaging System (ISIIS) technology from May to June 2014 in the Straits of Florida. The dataset was published on Kaggle (https://www.kaggle.com/c/datasciencebowl) with images originating from the Hatfield Marine Science Center at Oregon State University. A subset of the original Kaggle-plankton dataset was published by51 to benchmark the plankton classification tasks. This subset comprises of 14,374 greyscale images from 38 classes, and the distribution among classes is not uniform, but each class has at least 100 samples. The current SOTA22 uses average ensemble of 6 CNN models and benchmarks the performance using 5-fold cross-validation.ZooScan The ZooScan dataset consists of 3771 greyscale plankton images acquired using the Zooscan technology from the Bay of Villefranche-sur-mer57. This dataset was used for benchmarking the classification models in previous plankton recognition papers51,52. The dataset consists of 20 classes with a variable number of samples for each class ranging from 28 to 427. The current SOTA22 uses average ensemble of 6 CNN models and benchmarks the performance using 2-fold cross-validation.NA-Birds NA-Birds58 is a collection of 48,000 captioned pictures of North America’s 400 most often seen bird species. For each species, there are over 100 images accessible, with distinct annotations for males, females, and juveniles, totaling 555 visual categories. The current SOTA59 called TransFG modifies the pure ViT model by adding contrastive feature learning and part selection module that replaces the original input sequence to the transformer layer with tokens corresponding to informative regions such that the distance of representations between confusing subcategories can be enlarged. They make use of an independent test set for benchmarking the model performances.Stanford Dogs The Stanford Dogs dataset comprises 20,580 color images of 120 different dog breeds from all around the globe, separated into 12,000 training images and 8,580 testing images60. The current SOTA59 makes use of modified ViT model called TransFG as explained above in NA-Birds dataset. They make use of an independent test set for benchmarking the model performances.Sri Lankan Beetles The arboreal tiger beetle data61 consists of 380 images that were taken between August 2017 and September 2020 from 22 places in Sri Lanka, including all climatic zones and provinces, as well as 14 districts. Tricondyla (3 species), Derocrania (5 species), and Neocollyris (1 species) were among the nine species discovered, with six of them being endemic . The current SOTA61 makes use of CNN-based SqueezeNet architecture and was trained using pre-trained weights of ImageNet. The benchmarking of the model performances was done on an independent test set.Florida Wild Traps The wildlife camera trap62 classification dataset comprises 104,495 images with visually similar species, varied lighting conditions, skewed class distribution, and samples of endangered species, such as Florida panthers. These were collected from two locations in Southwestern Florida. These images are categorized in to 22 classes. The current SOTA62 makes use of CNN-based ResNet-50 architecture and the performance of the model was benchmarked on an independent test set.ModelsVision transformers (ViTs)31 are an adaptation to computer vision of the Transformers, which were originally developed for natural language processing30. Their distinguishing feature is that, instead of exploiting translational symmetry, as CNNs do, they have an attention mechanism which identifies the most relevant part of an image. ViTs have recently outperformed CNNs in image classification tasks where vast amounts of training data and processing resources are available30,63. However, for the vast majority of use cases and consumers, where data and/or computational resources are limiting, ViTs are essentially untrainable, even when the network architecture is defined and no architectural optimization is required. To settle this issue, Data-efficient Image Transformers (DeiTs) were proposed32. These are transformer models that are designed to be trained with much less data and with far less computing resources32. In DeiTs, the transformer architecture has been modified to allow native distillation64, in which a student neural network learns from the results of a teacher model. Here, a CNN is used as the teacher model, and the pure vision transformer is used as the student network. All the DeiT models we report on here are DeiT-Base models32. The ViTs are ViT-B16, ViT-B32, and ViT-L32 models31.ImplementationTo train our models, we used transfer learning65: we took a model that was already pre-trained on the ImageNet43 dataset, changed the last layers depending on the number of classes, and then fine-tuned the whole network with a very low learning rate. All the models were trained with two Nvidia GTX 2080Ti GPUs.DeiTs We used DeiT-Base32 architecture, using the Python package TIMM66, which includes many of the well-known deep learning architectures, along with their pre-trained weights computed from the ImageNet dataset43. We resized the input images to 224 x 224 pixels and then, to prevent the model from overfitting at the pixel level and help it generalize better, we employed typical image augmentations during training such as horizontal and vertical flips, rotations up to 180 degrees, small zoom up’s to 20%, a small Gaussian blur, and shearing up to 10%. To handle class imbalance, we used class reweighting, which reweights errors on each example by how present that class is in the dataset67. We used sklearn utilities68 to calculate the class weights which we employed during the training phase.The training phase started with a default pytorch69 initial conditions (Kaiming uniform initializer), an AdamW optimizer with cosine annealing70, with a base learning rate of (10^{-4}), and a weight decay value of 0.03, batch size of 32 and was supervised using cross-entropy loss. We trained with early stopping, interrupting training if the validation F1-score did not improve for 5 epochs. The learning rate was then dropped by a factor of 10. We iterated until the learning rate reached its final value of (10^{-6}). This procedure amounted to around 100 epochs in total, independent of the dataset. The training time varied depending on the size of the datasets. It ranged between 20min (SriLankan Beetles) to 9h (Florida Wildtrap). We used the same procedure for all the datasets: no extra time was needed for hyperparameter tuning.ViTs We implemented the ViT-B16, ViT-B32 and ViT-L32 models using the Python package vit-keras (https://github.com/faustomorales/vit-keras), which includes pre-trained weights computed from the ImageNet43 dataset and the Tensorflow library71.First, we resized input images to 128 × 128 and employed typical image augmentations during training such as horizontal and vertical flips, rotations up to 180 degrees, small zooms up to 20%, small Gaussian blur, and shearing up to 10%. To handle class imbalance, we calculated the class weights and use them during the training phase.Using transfer learning, we imported the pre-trained model and froze all of the layers to train the model. We removed the last layer, and in its place we added a dense layer with (n_c) outputs (being (n_c) the number of classes), was preceded and followed by a dropout layer. We used the Keras-tuner72 with Bayesian optimization search73 to determine the best set of hyperparameters, which included the dropout rate, learning-rate, and dense layer parameters (10 trials and 100 epochs). After that, the model with the best hyperparameters was trained with a default tensorflow71 initial condition (Glorot uniform initializer) for 150 epochs using early stopping, which involved halting the training if the validation loss did not decrease after 50 epochs and retaining the model parameters that had the lowest validation loss.CNNs CNNs included DenseNet38, MobileNet39, EfficientNet-B240, EfficientNet-B540, EfficientNet-B640, and EfficientNet-B740 architectures. We followed the training procedure described in Ref.22, and carried out the training in tensorflow.Ensemble learningWe adopted average ensembling, which takes the confidence vectors of different learners, and produces a prediction based on the average among the confidence vectors. With this procedure, all the individual models contribute equally to the final prediction, irrespective of their validation performance. Ensembling usually results in superior overall classification metrics and model robustness74,75.Given a set of n models, with prediction vectors (vec c_i~(i=1,ldots ,n)), these are typically aggregated through an arithmetic average. The components of the ensembled confidence vector (vec c_{AA}), related to each class (alpha ) are then$$begin{aligned} c_{AA,alpha } = frac{1}{n}sum _{i=1}^n c_{i,alpha },. end{aligned}$$
    (2)
    Another option is to use a geometric average,$$begin{aligned} c_{GA,alpha } = root n of {prod _{i=1}^n c_{i,alpha }},. end{aligned}$$
    (3)
    We can normalize the vector (vec c_g), but this is not relevant, since we are interested in its largest component, (displaystyle max _alpha (c_{GA,alpha })), and normalization affects all the components in the same way. As a matter of fact, also the nth root does not change the relative magnitude of the components, so instead of (vec c_{GA}) we can use a product rule: (displaystyle max _alpha (c_{GA,alpha })=max _alpha (c_{PROD,alpha })), with (displaystyle c_{PROD,alpha } = prod _{i=1}^n c_{i,alpha }).While these two kinds of averaging are equivalent in the case of two models and two classes, they are generally different in any other case33. For example, it can easily be seen that the geometric average penalizes more strongly the classes for which at least one learner has a very low confidence value, a property that was termed veto mechanism36 (note that, while in Ref.36 the term veto is used when the confidence value is exactly zero, here we use this term in a slightly looser way). More

  • in

    Optimization of oviposition trap settings to monitor populations of Aedes mosquitoes, vectors of arboviruses in La Reunion

    Yang, X., Quam, M. B., Zhang, T. & Sang, S. Global burden for dengue and the evolving pattern in the past 30 years. J. Travel Med. 28, taab146 (2021).Simmons, C. P., Farrar, J. J., van Vinh Chau, N. & Wills, B. Dengue. N. Engl. J. Med. 366, 1423–1432 (2012).Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Brady, O. J. et al. Refining the global spatial limits of dengue virus transmission by evidence-based consensus. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 6, e1760 (2012).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Morin, C. W., Comrie, A. C. & Ernst, K. Climate and dengue transmission: Evidence and implications. Environ. Health Perspect. 121, 1264–1272 (2013).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Brady, O. J. et al. Global temperature constraints on Aedes aegypti and Ae. albopictus persistence and competence for dengue virus transmission. Parasites Vectors 7, 338 (2014).Betanzos-Reyes, Á. F. et al. Association of dengue fever with Aedes spp. abundance and climatological effects. Salud Pública de México 60, 12 (2017).WHO. Dengue and severe dengue. (2022).Gubler, D. J. Dengue and dengue hemorrhagic fever. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 11, 480–496 (1998).Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Delatte, H. et al. Aedes albopictus, vecteur des virus du chikungunya et de la dengue à La Réunion : biologie et contrôle. Parasite 15, 3–13 (2008).Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Kles, V., Michault, A., Rodhain, F., Mevel, F. & Chastel, C. A serological survey regarding Flaviviridae infections on the island of Reunion (1971–1989). Bull. Soc. Pathol. Exot. 1990(87), 71–76 (1994).
    Google Scholar 
    Pierre, V. et al. Epidémie de dengue 1 à la Réunion en 2004. Journal de Veille Sanitaire (2005).Vincent, M. et al. From the threat to the large outbreak: dengue on Reunion Island, 2015 to 2018. Eurosurveillance 24, (2019).Cellule Santé Publique France en Région, ARS. Situation de la dengue à La Réunion au 15 décembre 2020. https://www.lareunion.ars.sante.fr/avec-le-retour-de-lete-agissons-des-maintenant-contre-la-dengue (2020).Agence Régionale de Santé. Communiqué de presse: dengue à La Réunion. Situation au 28 juillet 2021. https://www.lareunion.ars.sante.fr/system/files/2021-07/2021-07-28-Dengue-Situation à La Réunion_0.pdf (2021).Hafsia, S. et al. Overview of dengue outbreaks in the southwestern Indian Ocean and analysis of factors involved in the shift toward endemicity in Reunion Island: A systematic review. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 16, e0010547 (2022).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Reiter, P., Fontenille, D. & Paupy, C. Aedes albopictus as an epidemic vector of chikungunya virus: Another emerging problem?. Lancet. Infect. Dis 6, 463–464 (2006).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Njenga, M. K. et al. Tracking epidemic Chikungunya virus into the Indian Ocean from East Africa. J. Gen. Virol. 89, 2754–2760 (2008).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Soumahoro, M.-K. et al. The Chikungunya epidemic on La Réunion Island in 2005–2006: a cost-of-illness study. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 5, e1197 (2011).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Larrieu, S., Balleydier, E., Renault, P., Baville, M. & Filleul, L. [Epidemiological surveillance du chikungunya on Reunion Island from 2005 to 2011]. Médecine tropicale : Revue du Corps de Santé colonial 72 Spec No, 38–42 (2012).Soghigian, J. et al. Genetic evidence for the origin of Aedes aegypti, the yellow fever mosquito, in the southwestern Indian Ocean. Mol. Ecol. 29, 3593–3606 (2020).Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Kotsakiozi, P. et al. Population structure of a vector of human diseases: Aedes aegypti in its ancestral range Africa. Ecol. Evol. 8, 7835–7848 (2018).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    MacGregor, M. E. Aedes (Stegomyia) mascarensis, MacGregor: A new Mosquito from Mauritius. Bull. Entomol. Res. 14, 409–412 (1924).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Salvan, M. & Mouchet, J. Aedes albopictus et Aedes aegypti à l’Ile de La Réunion. Ann. Soc. Belg. Med. Trop. 74, 323–326 (1994).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Bagny, L., Delatte, H., Quilici, S. & Fontenille, D. Progressive Decrease in Aedes aegypti distribution in Reunion Island since the 1900s. J. Med. Entomol. 46, 1541–1545 (2009).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Le Vassal, J. J. paludisme à l’Ile de La Réunion. Per Gli Stud Della Maria 8, 18–27 (1907).
    Google Scholar 
    Delatte, H. et al. Geographic distribution and developmental sites of Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) during a chikungunya epidemic event. Vector-Borne Zoon. Dis. 8, 25–34 (2008).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Hamon, J. Etudes biologique et systématique des Culicinae de l’Ile de La Réunion. Mem. Inst. Scient. Madagascar 4, 521–541 (1953).
    Google Scholar 
    Bouyer, J. & Lefrançois, T. Boosting the sterile insect technique to control mosquitoes. Trends Parasitol. 30, 271–273 (2014).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Haramboure, M. et al. Modelling the control of Aedes albopictus mosquitoes based on sterile males release techniques in a tropical environment. Ecol. Model. 424, 109002 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bouyer, J., Yamada, H., Pereira, R., Bourtzis, K. & Vreysen, M. J. B. Phased conditional approach for mosquito management using sterile insect technique. Trends Parasitol. 36, 325–336 (2020).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Bouyer, J. & Vreysen, M. J. B. Yes, irradiated sterile male mosquitoes can be sexually competitive!. Trends Parasitol. 36, 877–880 (2020).Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Organization, W. H. Guidelines for laboratory and field testing of mosquito larvicides. WHO/CDS/WHOPES/GCDPP/2005.13 (2005).World Health Organization and Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases and World Health Organization. Department of Control of Neglected Tropical Diseases and World Health Organization. Epidemic and Pandemic Alert. Dengue: Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment, prevention and control. (World Health Organization, 2009).Yap, H. H. Preliminary report on the color preference for oviposition by Aedes albopictus (Skuse) in the field. Southeast Asian J. Trop. Med. Public Health 6, 1–2 (1975).
    Google Scholar 
    Yap, H. H., Lee, C. Y., Chong, N. L., Foo, A. E. S. & Lim, M. P. Oviposition site preference of Aedes albopictus in the laboratory. J. Am. Mosquito Control Assoc. Mosquito News 11, 128–132 (1995).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Marin, G., Mahiba, B., Arivoli, S. & Tennyson, S. Does colour of ovitrap influence the ovipositional preference of Aedes aegypti Linnaeus 1762 (Diptera: Culicidae). Int. J. Mosq. Res 7, 11–15 (2020).CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Claudel, I. et al. To bait or not to bait? Optimizing the use of adult mosquito traps for monitoring arbovirus vector populations in La Réunion Island. (2022). https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1798972/v1.Cleveland, W. S. Visualizing data. (Hobart press, 1993).Lamigueiro, Ó. P. Displaying time series, spatial, and space-time data with R. (Chapman; Hall/CRC, 2018).Yoshioka, M. et al. Diet and density dependent competition affect larval performance and oviposition site selection in the mosquito species Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae). Parasites Vectors 5, (2012).Wong, J., Stoddard, S. T., Astete, H., Morrison, A. C. & Scott, T. W. Oviposition site selection by the dengue vector Aedes aegypti and its implications for dengue control. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 5, e1015 (2011).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Hawley, W. A. The biology of aedes albopictus. J. Am. Mosquito Control Assoc. Suppl 1, 1–39 (1988).Delatte, H., Gimonneau, G., Triboire, A. & Fontenille, D. Influence of temperature on immature development, survival, longevity, fecundity, and gonotrophic cycles of Aedes albopictus, vector of Chikungunya and dengue in the Indian Ocean. J. Med. Entomol. 46, 33–41 (2009).Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Daugherty, M. P., Alto, B. W. & Juliano, S. A. Invertebrate carcasses as a resource for competing Aedes albopictus and Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). J. Med. Entomol. 37, 364–372 (2000).Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Papaj, D. R. & Rausher, M. D. Individual variation in host location by phytophagous insects. Herbivorous Insects: Host seeking behavior and mechanisms 77–127 (1983).Valladares, G. & Lawton, J. H. Host-plant selection in the holly leaf-miner: Does mother know best?. J. Anim. Ecol. 60, 227 (1991).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ellis, A. M. Incorporating density dependence into the oviposition preference-offspring performance hypothesis. J. Anim. Ecol. 77, 247–256 (2008).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Juliano, S. A., OMeara, G. F., Morrill, J. R. & Cutwa, M. M. Desiccation and thermal tolerance of eggs and the coexistence of competing mosquitoes. Oecologia 130, 458–469 (2002).Costanzo, K. S., Kesavaraju, B. & Juliano, S. A. Condition-specific competion in container mosquitoes: The role of non-competing life-history stages. Ecology 86, 3289–3295 (2005).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Sanchez, M. & Probst, J.-M. Distribution and conservation status of the Manapany day gecko, Phelsuma inexpectata MERTENS, 1966, an endemic threatened reptile from Réunion Island (Squamata: Gekkonidae). Cahiers scientifiques de l’océan Indien occidental 2, (2011).Braks, M. A. H., Honório, N. A., Lounibos, L. P., De-Oliveira, R. L. & Juliano, S. A. Interspecific competition between two invasive species of container mosquitoes, Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae), in Brazil. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 97, 130–139 (2004).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Moore, C. G. & Fisher, B. R. Competition in mosquitoes.1 Density and species ratio effects on growth, mortality, fecundity, and production of growth retardant2. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 62, 1325–1331 (1969).Madeira, N. G., Macharelli, C. A. & Carvalho, L. R. Variation of the Oviposition Preferences of Aedes aegypti in Function of Substratum and Humidity. Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz 97, 415–420 (2002).Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Bellini, R. et al. Use of the sterile insect technique against Aedes albopictus in Italy: first results of a pilot trial. in Area-wide control of insect pests 505–515 (Springer, 2007).Boussès, P., Dehecq, J. S., Brengues, C. & Fontenille, D. Inventaire actualisé des moustiques (Diptera : Culicidae) de l’île de La Réunion, océan Indien. Bulletin de la Société de pathologie exotique 106, 113–125 (2013).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Zeileis, A., Kleiber, C. & Jackman, S. Regression models for count data in R. J. Stat. Softw. 27, (2008).Sileshi, G. Selecting the right statistical model for analysis of insect count data by using information theoretic measures. Bull. Entomol. Res. 96, 479–488 (2006).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Guthery, F. S., Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical information-theoretic approach. J. Wildl. Manag. 67, 655 (2003).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hurvich, C. M. & Tsai, C.-L. Model selection for extended quasi-likelihood models in small samples. Biometrics 51, 1077–1084 (1995).Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    MATH 

    Google Scholar 
    Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. 496 (Springer-Verlag, 2002).Manly, B. F. J. Randomization, bootstrap and Monte Carlo methods in biology. 399 (CRC Press / Chapman & Hall, 2006). https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315273075.Holm, S. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand. J. Stat. 65–70 (1979).R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2022).Lesnoff, M. & Lancelot, R. aods3: analysis of overdispersed data using S3 methods. (2018).Barton, K. MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference. (2022).Xie, Y., Dervieux, C. & Riederer, E. R Markdown Cookbook. (Chapman; Hall/CRC, 2020). https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003097471. More

  • in

    Fish feeds supplemented with calcium-based buffering minerals decrease stomach acidity, increase the blood alkaline tide and cost more to digest

    Animal ethicsAll experiments were conducted under the UK Home Office licence P88687E07 and with approval from the University of Exeter Ethics Committee.Fish husbandryJuvenile rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (n = 42; body mass: 159.9 ± 5.2 g), were obtained from Houghton Spring Fish Farm (Dorset, UK) and housed in the Aquatic Research Centre at the University of Exeter (UK). Before transfer to individual experimental chambers, all fish were housed across two 400 L tanks (n = 21 per tank) supplied with recirculated fresh water for 14 days. During this 14 day acclimation period, fish were maintained at 15 °C and fed on a 1% ration of commercial trout feed (Aller platinum 4.5 mm (Aller AQUA ©) three times a week. Prior to experimentation, fish were fasted for seven days.Acid buffering dietsDiets were prepared by adding one of three calcium-based salts, CaCO3, Ca3(PO4)2 or CaCl2 (as non-buffering control) with isomolar quantities of calcium to a commercial trout pelleted diet (Skretting 4.5 mm Horizon, Skretting, UK). The quantities of these salts used were designed to mimic the calcium content of the skeletal component of crustacean or bony fish prey.Cameron (1985)50 estimated that the bone of teleost fish represents 16.3% of whole-body mass (and therefore soft tissue represents 83.7%). However, bone is not just calcium phosphate, but includes numerous organic components as well as water content. By comparing titrations of pure calcium phosphate salt and samples of ground-up teleost (rainbow trout) bone, we established that it required 10.25 times less calcium phosphate salt to achieve the same acid-buffering capacity as that of an equal mass of bone. We therefore created a diet that was supplemented with 1.9 g calcium phosphate for every 100 g of trout pellets (i.e. [16.3 g ÷ 10.25] x [100 ÷ 83.7 g] = 1.9 g), in order to match the bone content of calcium phosphate typically found in fish prey as a proportion of the soft tissue mass. This amounted to 18.4 mmoles of calcium phosphate salt (Ca3(PO4)2; M.W. = 310.2) per 100 g of trout pellets. For the two other diets we aimed to maintain the same molar amount of calcium cation added whilst varying the anionic component of the salt added. So, for the unbuffered version of the diet 2.7 g of calcium chloride (CaCl2.2H2O; M.W. = 147.0) was added, whilst for the calcium carbonate (CaCO3; M.W. = 100.0) buffered diet 1.84 g was added, per 100 g of trout pellets.To form each diet, 100 g of Skretting 4.5 mm Horizon trout pellets were ground to a fine powder using a pestle and mortar. Following grinding, 1.9, 1.84 and 2.7 g of Ca3(PO4)2, CaCO3 and CaCl2 were added to the ground pellet and mixed. Then, 70 ml of ultrapure water was added to the dry material to form a paste. This paste was pressed into commercial 4 mm moulds, removed and dried at 70 °C for 24 h. An acid titration test was conducted to ensure that diets remained representative of the buffer capacity of prey and each calcium salt. For this test, 60 ml of ultrapure water were added to 1 g of each experimental diet and titrated down to pH 3.5 using 0.05 mol L−1 HCl. The CaCl2 diet treatment required 4.56 ml of the acid which was only slightly less than the 6.4 ml required to titrate the Ca3(PO4)2 diet. In contrast it took almost double the amount of acid (11 ml) to titrate the CaCO3 diet. In molar terms it took 228, 320 and 550 µmoles of HCl to titrate 1 g of the CaCl2, Ca3(PO4)2 and CaCO3 feeds to pH 3.5, respectively. To calculate the total acid-buffering consumed, the buffer capacity (per g of food) was multiplied by the actual ration ingested for each individual. Based on manufacturer details each diet had a gross energy of 23 kJ per gram of feed.Acid secretion in the stomach and the blood alkaline tideTo investigate the effect of dietary buffer capacity on the blood acid–base chemistry (alkaline tide) and gut secretions, blood and gut samples were taken from fish to determine blood gas and acid–base balance and haematology variables of fish fed each experimental diet. Fish were fasted for 7 days and then fed a 2.5% ration of one of three experimental feeds. Diet was randomly allocated to each individual (n = 6 per diet). At 24 and 48 h following meal ingestion fish were anesthetised using benzocaine (100 mg l−1). Once fish had lost equilibrium and were un-responsive to a tail pinch, fish were transferred to a gill irrigation system dosed with a lower concentration of benzocaine (75 mg l−1). Fish were placed upside down within the irrigation chamber so that the head was fully submerged, and the entire gill basket covered. A micro pump was used to artificially ventilate the gills via a tube placed into the fish mouth. This allowed for the continuous ventilation of fish gills and ensured there was no build-up of CO2 or lactic acid during blood sampling that could unintentionally affect blood acid–base status. Blood was then drawn into a sodium-heparinised syringe via caudal puncture. Fish were then euthanased via pithing and dissected to collect stomach and intestinal contents. Gut samples were centrifuged to isolate gastric and intestinal juices.Blood and gastric pH were measured using an Accumet CP-620-96 MicroProbe (Accumet Engineering Corporation, USA) connected to a Hanna HI 8424 m (Hanna Instruments, Woonsocket, Rhode Island, USA). Whole blood PO2 was measured using a Strathkelvin 1302 electrode, housed within a thermostatted glass chamber (Strathkelvin), and connected to Strathkelvin 781 m (Strathkelvin Instruments Ltd., Scotland)51. Blood was drawn into three micro-haematocrit tubes (Hawksley) via capillary action and anaerobically sealed using Hawksley Critaseal Wax Sealant, then centrifuged (Hawksley microhaematocrit centrifuge, 10,000 rpm for 2 min) and then used to record haematocrit and held on ice before using the plasma. Plasma and intestinal total CO2 was then measured using a Mettler Toledo 965 carbon dioxide analyser and together with blood and intestinal pH measurements was used to calculate plasma and intestinal HCO3− and PCO2 by rearranging the Henderson–Hasselbalch equation and using values for solubility and pKapp from Boutilier et al. (1985)52.Net acid–base fluxes to the external waterThe effect of diet on the net flux of acid–base relevant ions to the external water was measured in a separate subset of juvenile rainbow trout (n = 10, 161.8 ± 6.9 g). Prior to measurements fish were weighed and transferred to individual 25 L chambers supplied with recirculated freshwater maintained at 15 °C. Following a 3-week acclimation period, fish were fed weekly on a 2.5% ration of one of three experimental feeds, with diet order randomised to each individual (See Supplementary Table 4). Initial and final water samples were taken from each chamber over six flux periods each week for three weeks (−23 to 1 (fasted), 0–6, 7–23, 24–47, 48–71 and 72–96 h post feed). Water inflow to each chamber was turned off during each flux period whilst aeration was maintained. Following the final measurement from each flux period, tanks were flushed with dechlorinated freshwater for 60 min so to ensure solid faeces and dissolved waste products (e.g., ammonia) were removed.Total ammonia was measured in triplicate on 200 µL water samples using the colourimetric salicylate-based method adapted from Cooper and Wilson (2008)19 and Verdouw et al. (1978)53 and the Infinite 200 PRO microplate reader (Tecan Trading AG Switzerland ©). Titratable alkalinity was measured in 20 ml water samples using an auto-titrator with autosampler (Metrohm 907 Titrando with 815 Robotic USB Autosampler XL) running double titrations with 0.02 mol l−1 of HCl and 0.005 mol l−1 NaOH. The double titration method calculates titratable alkalinity based on the difference in HCl required to titrate each water sample down to pH 3.9 and the amount of NaOH required to bring the sample back to the starting pH. During the titration, the sample is continuously bubbled or ‘purged’ with the inert gas N2 to remove any CO2. The net fluxes of titratable alkalinity (JTalk) and total ammonia (JTamm) were calculated using the following equation from Cooper and Wilson 2008:$${J}_{mathrm{net}}mathrm{X}=frac{[left(left[{mathrm{X}]}_{i}-{left[mathrm{X}right]}_{mathrm{f}}right) times Vright]}{(M times t)}$$
    (1)

    where Xi and Xf are the initial and final ion concentration in each tank (μmol l−1) from each flux period, V is the tank volume (L), M is the animal mass (kg) and t is the flux duration (h).The net acid–base flux was calculated as the difference between the flux of titratable alkalinity (JTalk) and the flux of total ammonia (JTamm).Measuring the SDAIntermittent flow-through respirometry was used to determine the rate of oxygen consumption (MO2) by juvenile rainbow trout fed voluntarily on a 2.5% ration of three experimental feeds. Prior to measurements, juvenile rainbow trout (n = 8, 162.2 ± 7.5 g) were weighed and transferred to individual 25 L chambers supplied with recirculated freshwater at 15 °C for 3 weeks. During this acclimation period, fish were fed weekly on a 2.5% ration of Skretting 4.5 mm Horizon trout pellets (Skretting UK). Following this acclimation period, measurements were conducted after 7 days of fasting. Each fish was fed once per week on all three diets over a 3-week period, with diet order randomised for each individual.During experimentation, fresh water was supplied continuously to two aerated 160 L sumps each fitted with a ballcock valve and overflow. Aerated freshwater was then pumped from the sump to the eight respirometry chambers in a loop for the duration of the testing period. Water within each fish chamber was continuously mixed using a submerged mini-pump (WP300; Tetra Werke, Melle, Germany). During measurements, water inflow to each chamber was shut off and the decline in O2 was recorded by PO2 OxyGuard Mini Probe (OxyGuard ® International, Denmark) connected directly to the mini-pump. Oxygen partial pressure values were logged continuously by Pyro Oxygen Logger software (Pyroscience GmBH, Germany) which interfaced with a respirometry software package (AquaResp3: aquaresp.com, see Svendsen et al. 2016 54) to instantaneously convert PO2 into O2 content and calculate the rate of oxygen consumption (MO2, mg O2 kg−1 body mass h−1) based on the fish body mass in kg (m), chamber water volume in L after discounting the fish body volume (Vresp), and the slope (s) of the decline in oxygen concentration (kPa O2 h−1) versus time using the following equation from Svendsen et al. (2016)54:$${MO}_{2}= {sV}_{Resp}{alpha m}^{-1}$$where:$$s= frac{{O}_{2}, initial- {O}_{2}, final}{time, initial-time, final}$$Following each closed measurement period, the chamber was automatically flushed with freshwater from the aerated sumps by two AquaMedic Ocean Runner pumps (Aqua Medic, Ocean Runner 6500). The length of the flush and measurement periods was controlled by two USB- 4 Cleware switches (Cleware GmbH, Germany) which were also interfaced with the AquaResp software to ensure that the partial pressure of oxygen (PO2) within the respirometry chambers never fell below 90% of the starting value. This meant that the measurement period of 15 min was followed by a flushing period of 2 min and a wait time of 60 s.Prior to feeding a baseline 24 h period of standard metabolic rate (SMR) was recorded. The mean SMR of each individual was calculated using the R package ‘fishMO2’ and the ‘calcSMR’ function. Following Chabot et al. (2016)55, the coefficient of variation (CVmlnd) was used to determine whether the mean of the lowest normal distribution (MLND) or the quantile method (P = 0.2) was used to estimate SMR for each individual. Following the SMR measurement, fish voluntarily fed on a 2.5% ration of experimental feed and MO2 recorded continuously for six days. This procedure was repeated for two more consecutive weeks to measure MO2 in fish fed all three experimental diets. Background oxygen consumption was recorded overnight (18 h) in blank (no fish) chambers. Oxygen consumption was not corrected for background respiration as it was considered negligible ( More