More stories

  • in

    Diverse MarR bacterial regulators of auxin catabolism in the plant microbiome

    Bacterial strains and mediaA collection of 185 genome-sequenced bacterial isolates, described previously14, was utilized to assemble the synthetic community used in this work. These isolates were obtained from surface-sterilized Brassicaceae roots, primarily Arabidopsis thaliana, grown in two soils from North Carolina, USA35. This isolate collection includes strains V. paradoxus CL14, Arthrobacter CL28, Acinetobacter CL69 and Acinetobacter CL71, which are also used in this work in individual strain contexts. V. paradoxus CL14 ΔHS33, which has a clean deletion of genes with gene ID 2643613677 through 2643613653 was constructed previously14 and used here. Additional strains were obtained from the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC): E. soli LF7 (ATCC BAA-2102), R. pomeroyi (ATCC 700808) and B. japonicum (ATCC 10324). P. phytofirmans PsJN (DSMZ 17436) was obtained from the DSMZ-German Collection of Microorganisms and Cell Cultures. P. putida strain 1290 was generously provided by Johan Leveau (University of California Davis). Pseudomonas strain Root 562 was generously provided by Paul Schulze-Lefert (Max-Planck-Gesellschaft). All bacteria, with exceptions noted below, were routinely grown on LB agar plates (10 g l−1 tryptone, 5 g l−1 yeast extract, 10 g l−1 NaCl, 1.5% (w/v) agar) and in 2xYT liquid medium (16 g l−1 tryptone, 10 g l−1 yeast extract, 5 g l−1 NaCl) at 28 °C. The 175-member (185-member minus 10 Variovorax strains) synthetic community (SC185-10V) was grown on KB medium as was done previously to culture this synthetic community14. B. japonicum (ATCC 10324) was routinely grown on liquid and solidified YM medium (1 g l−1 yeast extract, 10 g l−1 mannitol, 0.5 g l−1 dipotassium phosphate, 0.2 g l−1 magnesium sulfate, 0.1 g l−1 NaCl, 1 g l−1 CaCO4, pH 6.8, solidified with 1.5% agar as necessary) at 28 °C. R. pomeroyi (ATCC 700808) was routinely grown on liquid and solidified LB medium supplemented with 2% sea salt (Millipore Sigma S9883) and solidified with 1.5% (w/v) agar as necessary. M9 base medium was formulated using 1x M9 minimal salts medium (Sigma M6030) supplemented with 2 mM MgSO4, 0.1 mM CaCl2 and 10 µM FeSO4. A carbon source or sources were added to this M9 base medium to support bacterial growth. Unique strains constructed in this study are available upon request.Bacterial 16S rRNA sequencingBacterial colonization of Arabidopsis roots was assessed using a method similar to the previous study14. Roots from 8–10 plants were collected into sterilized 2 ml tubes containing three 4 mm glass beads and root fresh weight in each tube was obtained. Five such samples were collected for each bacterial treatment. The roots were washed three times with sterile distilled water and stored at −80 °C until further processing. The roots were then lyophilised for 48 h using a Labconco freeze-dry system and pulverized using an MPBio tissue homogenizer. DNA was extracted from the root samples and bacterial cell pellets saved from the bacteria for input into the experiment using the DNeasy PowerSoil HTP 96 kit (Qiagen) according to manufacturer instructions. The V3-V4 region of the bacterial 16S rRNA gene was amplified and sequenced as previously described14.16S amplicon sequence data processingThe 16S sequencing data from synthetic community experiments were processed as previously described14. Briefly, usable read output from MT-Toolbox36 (reads with 100% primer sequences that successfully merged with their pair) were filtered for quality with Sickle37 by not allowing any window with Q score under 20. The resulting sequences were globally aligned to a 16S rRNA gene sequence reference dataset from genome assemblies of the synthetic community members. For strains that do not have an intact 16S rRNA sequence in their assembly, Sanger sequencing was used to obtain the 16S rRNA gene sequence of the strains for inclusion in the reference dataset. The reference dataset also included sequences from Arabidopsis organellar sequences and known bacterial contaminants. Sequence alignment was performed with USEARCH v.7.109038 using the optional usearch_global at a 98% identity threshold. On average, 85% of read sequences matched an expected isolate. The 185 isolates of our 185-member synthetic community could not all be distinguished from one another on the basis of the V3-V4 sequence. They were thus classified into 97 unique sequences encompassing a set of identical (clustered at 100%) V3-V4 sequences coming from a single or multiple isolate strains. An isolate abundance table was created from the sequence mapping results.We estimated 16S rRNA absolute abundance using a plasmid spike-in method39. Synthetic DNA was spiked at known quantities into samples before DNA extraction and the ratio of added to recovered synthetic DNA served as a conversion factor by which the total number of 16S rRNA molecules in a given sample was estimated. We designed a plasmid which included 16S V3-V4 primer binding sequences flanking a randomly generated DNA sequence matching the most frequent length and Guanine + Cytosine (GC) content of amplicons generated using the same primer sequences from wild soil. These sequences were synthesized by Geneart (Invitrogen) and supplied cloned in plasmid pMA-T. The plasmid was transformed into E. coli and isolated using a miniprep spin kit (Qiagen). Specific volumes of this isolated plasmid were then added to individual samples before DNA extraction to spike-in approximately 20% of the predicted 16S copies occurring within the sample. We performed colony-forming units (c.f.u.) counting using similarly treated plant samples (that is, growth on SynCom-inoculated agar plates) to obtain an estimate of the 16S copy number per mg fresh weight of plant roots. We plated serial dilutions of plant root samples ground in MgCl2 on LB to perform c.f.u. counts. The c.f.u. count multiplied by a given sample’s fresh weight were used to calculate sample-specific predicted 16S copy numbers.Plant growth conditions and root growth inhibition assayA. thaliana ecotype Col-0 seeds were sterilized in 70% household bleach, 0.2% Tween-20 for 10 min with vigorous agitation and then rinsed 10 times with sterile distilled water. Seeds were stratified at 4 °C in sterile distilled water for 1–2 d. Plants were germinated for 7 d on 0.5x MS agar medium (2.22 g l−1 PhytoTech Labs M-404: Murashige & Skoog modified basal medium with Gamborg vitamins, 0.5 g l−1 MES hydrate, pH adjusted to 5.7, solidified with 1% (w/v) agar) supplemented with 0.5% (w/v) sucrose in vertical 12 ×12 cm square plates under long-day conditions (21 °C/18 °C, 16 h light/8 h dark, day/night cycle). Then 8 to 10 plants were aseptically transferred to 12 ×12 cm plates containing 0.5x MS agar medium without sucrose where the medium surface was spread with the bacterial inoculum. For assays with IAA addition, 100 nM IAA was added to the medium before pouring the plates. The plant root tip location was marked on plates after transfer to record the initial root tip position. The plates containing the plants and bacteria were incubated vertically under short-day conditions (22 °C/18 °C, 9 h light/15 h dark, day/night cycle) for an additional 11 d. Plates were imaged on a document scanner and primary root elongation was determined using imageJ to quantify the change in root tip position from the initial to the final position.Bacterial inoculation of plantsIndividual bacterial strains were grown on agar plates of the media types specified above at 28 °C. Before plant inoculation, a single colony was picked into the appropriate liquid medium and grown at 28 °C to late exponential or early stationary phase. To remove the medium from the bacteria before inoculation, strains were washed three times in sterile 10 mM MgCl2. The optical density at 600 nm (OD600) was measured for each washed strain and normalized to OD600 of 0.01 in 10 mM MgCl2. For plant experiments with mono-association of an individual strain, 100 µl of OD600 = 0.01 washed bacteria was spread on the 12 ×12 cm plate before plant transfer. For experiments in duo-association with Arthrobacter CL28, 100 µl of OD600 = 0.01 washed Arthrobacter CL28 was spread along with 100 µl of OD600 = 0.01 of the second strain.The 175-member synthetic community (SC185-10V) was prepared as described for the 185-member synthetic community used previously14 by leaving out the 10 isolates from the genus Variovorax. Briefly, 7 d before plant transfer, strains were inoculated individually into 600 µl KB medium in a 96-well plate and grown at 28 °C for 5 d. At 2 d before plant transfer, 20 ul from these 5-day-old cultures were transferred to 380 ul fresh KB medium in a new set of 96-well plates and both sets of plates were returned to the incubator for 2 d. This resulted in two cultures of each strain, one 7 d old and the other 2 d old, which were combined. The OD600 of the strains in each well was measured and the strains were combined while normalizing the OD600 of each strain in the pool. This pool was washed twice with 10 mM MgCl2 and diluted to OD600 = 0.2. For experiments with the SC185-10V SynCom, 100 µl of this OD600 = 0.2 washed pool was spread on 12 ×12 cm plates. For treatments where an additional strain was added to the SC185-10V SynCom, the individual strain was washed as described above, diluted to OD600 = 0.0034 in 10 mM MgCl2, and 100 µl of this dilution was spread on the plates with the SC185-10V SynCom. This addition of the individual strain corresponded to an OD600 three times that of a single strain in the SC185-10V SynCom (0.0034 = (0.2/175) × 3). For the addition of the 10 Variovorax strains to the SC185-10V SynCom experiment, the 10 Variovorax strains were grown individually in 2xYT medium from colonies grown on plates. The OD600 values of the 10 cultures were measured and the 10 strains were pooled while normalizing the OD600 of each strain to the same value. This mixture of the 10 Variovorax strains was then treated as the individual strains for washing and addition of 100 µl of OD600 = 0.0034 to the SC185-10V SynCom on plates.Construction of vectors with Variovorax CL14 iad gene insertsPortions of the V. paradoxus CL14 IAA degradation locus were subcloned into broad host range vector pBBR1MCS-232. Primers JMC579 through JMC604 (Supplementary Table 8) were used to amplify 3–5 kb segments of the locus by PCR using Q5 DNA polymerase (New England Biolabs). These primers were designed to amplify sections beginning and ending at gene start codons and with appropriate overlapping sequences for Gibson assembly either into the pBBR1MCS-2 backbone or to the adjacent section to make larger vector inserts, as appropriate. The pBBR1MCS-2 vector backbone was prepared for Gibson assembly by amplifying the vector by PCR using primers JMC577 and JMC578 (Supplementary Table 8) and subsequently treating with DpnI to remove circular vector template. PCR fragments were cleaned up as necessary using the QIAquick PCR purification kit (Qiagen). Appropriate fragments were mixed to construct the vectors by Gibson assembly using HiFi DNA Assembly Mastermix (New England Biolabs) according to manufacturer instructions. Gibson assembly products were transformed into NEB 10beta chemically competent E. coli (New England Biolabs) and selected on LB plates supplemented with 50 µg ml−1 kanamycin. Vectors were miniprepped using either the ZR plasmid miniprep classic kit or Zymo BAC DNA miniprep kit (Zymo Research) and confirmed via restriction mapping with PstI-HF (New England Biolabs) and Sanger sequencing (Genewiz).To construct vectors that are derivatives of pBBR1::70–66, the Q5 site-directed mutagenesis kit (New England Biolabs) was used for gene deletion. Briefly, vector pBBR1::70–66 was used as a PCR template and portions of this vector were amplified by PCR using primers JMC641 through JMC650 (Supplementary Table 8) and Q5 DNA polymerase (New England Biolabs). PCR products were cleaned up and circularized using KLD Mastermix (New England Biolabs). The product was transformed into NEB 10beta chemically competent E. coli (New England Biolabs) and selected on LB plates supplemented with 50 µg ml−1 kanamycin. Vectors were miniprepped and Sanger sequenced as described above to confirm the construction of the correct vectors.Conjugation of vectors to V. paradoxus CL14 ΔHS33Vectors were conjugated into V. paradoxus CL14 ΔHS33 using tri-parental mating. The helper E. coli strain carrying plasmid pRK201340 and donor NEB 10beta E. coli strains containing the pBBR1MCS-2-based vectors with Variovorax IAA degradation locus gene inserts were cultured in LB media containing 50 µg ml−1 kanamycin at 37 °C. V. paradoxus CL14 ΔHS33 was grown in 2xYT medium containing 100 µg ml−1 ampicillin at 28 °C. V. paradoxus CL14 wild type and derivative strains such as ΔHS33 are naturally resistant to ampicillin and this ampicillin selection allows for recovery of only Variovorax from the conjugation reaction. To prepare for conjugation, all bacteria were pelleted by centrifugation at 5,000 × g for 5 min and washed 3 times in 2xYT medium without antibiotics. For each conjugation reaction, equal volumes (100–300 µl) of each of the three washed bacteria: recipient V. paradoxus CL14 ΔHS33, donor NEB 10beta E. coli containing a pBBR1MCS-2-based vector, and helper E. coli pRK2013 were mixed. Control conjugation mixtures of each pair of strains and individual strains alone were performed in parallel to ensure successful selection of exconjugants only from mixtures of all three strains together. Conjugation mixtures were pelleted by centrifugation at 5,000 × g for 5 min, resuspended in 50 µl 2xYT media, transferred to LB media plates without antibiotics and allowed to dry in a laminar flow hood. These conjugation plates were incubated overnight at 28 °C. After 18–24 h, exconjugants were selected by streaking from the pooled conjugation mixtures on the LB plate without antibiotics to LB plates containing 50 µg ml−1 kanamycin and 100 µg ml−1 ampicillin. This selects for only V. paradoxus CL14 ΔHS33 (ampicillin resistant) containing the pBBR1MCS-2-based vector (kanamycin resistant). Individual colonies were picked into and subsequently cultured in 2xYT medium containing 50 µg ml−1 kanamycin and 100 µg ml−1 ampicillin at 28 °C.Construction of V. paradoxus CL14 gene deletionsUnmarked gene deletions in V. paradoxus CL14 were constructed as described previously14 using the suicide vector backbone pMo130 originally developed for gene knockouts in Burkholderia spp.41. Primers JMC203 and JMC204 (Supplementary Table 8) were used to amplify the pMO130 vector backbone by PCR. This product was subsequently treated with DpnI (New England Biolabs) to digest circular template DNA. Primers JMC605 through JMC612 and JMC671 through JMC677 (Supplementary Table 8) were used to amplify flanking regions for the gene deletion targets from V. paradoxus CL14 genomic DNA. All PCR was performed using Q5 DNA polymerase (New England Biolabs) and products were cleaned up, as appropriate, with the QIAquick PCR purification kit (Qiagen). These PCR products were assembled into suicide vectors using HiFi Gibson Assembly Mastermix (New England Biolabs), transformed into chemically competent NEB 5alpha E. coli (New England Biolabs), and selected on LB plates with 50 µg ml−1 kanamycin. Vectors were miniprepped using the ZR plasmid miniprep classic kit (Zymo Research) and confirmed by Sanger sequencing (Genewiz). Confirmed vectors were transformed into the chemically competent bi-parental mating strain E. coli WM3064. Transformants were selected at 37 °C on LB media supplemented with 50 µg ml−1 kanamycin and 0.3 mM diaminopimelic acid (DAP), and single colonies picked into LB medium also with 50 µg ml−1 kanamycin and 0.3 mM DAP.Bi-parental mating was performed by growing E. coli WM3064 containing the appropriate suicide vector as described above, and V. paradoxus CL14 was grown in 2xYT medium containing 100 µg ml−1 ampicillin at 28 °C. Both E. coli and Variovorax were washed separately three times using 2xYT medium, then mixed in a 1:1 ratio and pelleted. All centrifugation steps were performed at 5,000 × g for 5 min. The pelleted conjugation mixtures were resuspended in 1/10 the volume of 2xYT, plated on LB agar with 0.3 mM DAP and grown at 28 °C overnight. Exconjugants from these plates were streaked out and grown on LB agar with 100 µg ml−1 ampicillin, 50 µg ml−1 kanamycin, and no DAP at 28 °C. These strains were purified by streaking and growing on plates of the same medium once more. These strains with suicide vector integration were then grown once in liquid LB containing 100 µg ml−1 ampicillin and 1 mM isopropyl 1-thio-d-galactopyranoside (IPTG) at 28 °C and then streaked on plates containing media with 10 g l−1 tryptone, 5 g l−1 yeast extract, 100 g l−1 sucrose, 1.5% agar, 100 µg ml−1 ampicillin and 1 mM IPTG. Colonies from these plates were picked and grown in the same liquid media. These strains were then assessed for gene deletion by PCR using primers JMC657 through JMC660 and JMC697 through JMC699 (Supplementary Table 8). The Quick-DNA miniprep kit (Zymo Research) was used to isolate all genomic DNA for PCR screening. To purify the knockout strains, they were streaked and grown out three times on LB plates containing 100 µg ml−1 ampicillin before a final PCR confirmation. To check the purity of the final strains, PCR was performed with one primer outside the deletion region and one inside the deleted gene to ensure no product is produced for the knockout strain. The sequences for the primers used for this PCR reaction (JMC691, JMC717, JMC718, JMC693 and JMC694) can be found in Supplementary Table 8.Measurement of bacterial growth and IAA degradationIndividual strains were grown in 5 ml cultures in various media types supplemented with IAA at 28 °C and 250 r.p.m. To screen the V. paradoxus CL14 ΔHS33 pBBR1 vector complemented mutants, 2xYT medium supplemented with 0.1 mg ml−1 IAA was used. For comparison of other V. paradoxus CL14 mutants, M9 medium with 15 mM succinate and 0.1 mg ml−1 (0.57 mM) IAA was used. For comparison of IAA-degrading strains from diverse genera, M9 medium with 0.1% (w/v) casamino acids (Bacto) and 0.1 mg ml−1 IAA was used. For R. pomeroyi, 2% (w/v) sea salts were added to this M9 medium with casamino acids and IAA. The pBBR1 vector library in E. coli NEB 10beta was screened in LB medium supplemented with 0.04 mg ml−1 IAA and grown at 37 °C and 250 r.p.m. For all media types, IAA was solubilized in 100% ethanol at 20 mg ml−1 and diluted to 0.1 mg ml−1 in the media, resulting in 0.5% (v/v) ethanol in the media.To measure growth, a 200 µl sample was taken from the growing cultures and OD600 was determined on an Infinite M200 Pro plate reader (Tecan). Subsequently, cells were pelleted by centrifugation at 4,200 × g for 15 min and 50 µl of supernatant was transferred to a new 96-well plate and frozen at −80 °C until further analysis. IAA degradation was determined by thawing the plates containing 50 µl aliquots of culture supernatant and combining this with 100 µl of Salkowski reagent (10 mM ferric chloride and 35% perchloric acid)42. This was performed alongside mixing 50 µl of IAA standards with 100 µl of Salkowski reagent in the same 96-well plate format. Colour development was allowed to proceed for 1 h and absorbance was read at 530 nm on the Infinite M200 Pro plate reader (Tecan). The absorbances measured were converted to IAA concentration on the basis of the absorbances measured for the IAA standards.Liquid Chromatography Dual Mass Spectroscopy (LC–MS/MS) metabolomics on Variovorax IAA degradationV. paradoxus CL14 was grown in 5 ml cultures of M9 minimal medium supplemented with either 0.1 mg ml−1 IAA, 0.1 mg ml−1 13C6-IAA (with the 6 carbons of the benzene ring of the indole labelled, Cambridge Isotope Laboratories CLM-1896-PK), and/or 15 mM succinate. Cultures and parallel media controls were incubated at 28 °C with shaking at 250 r.p.m. Cultures and media controls were centrifuged (4,200 × g for 15 min at 4 °C) to pellet cells; supernatants were transferred to new tubes and both pellets (intracellular fraction) and supernatants (extracellular fraction) were stored frozen at −80 °C until extraction. All subsequent work was performed over dry ice or in chilled cold blocks. Frozen pellets from the intracellular fraction were thawed for 3 h at 4 °C, then 800 µl of cold LCMS-grade water was added to the pellets with repeated pipetting to break up the pellet until visually homogeneous. Samples were then quickly returned to −80 °C to freeze the suspension. Frozen pellet suspensions and extracellular solutions were lyophilised until dry. The cells from the dried pellet suspensions were lysed and homogenized with a bead mill (BioSpec Mini-Beadbeater-96) using one sterile 3.2 mm steel ball in each tube for 3 rounds of 5 s each with 10 s breaks in between to reduce heat production. Dried extracellular samples were concentrated by resuspension in 100 µl LCMS- grade methanol, vortexed 3 times for 10 s each, water bath sonicated for 20 min, incubated at 4 °C overnight, centrifuged (1,000 × g, 4 °C, 5 min), and the methanol supernatant was dried using a speed vacuum concentrator. On the day of LC–MS/MS analysis, homogenized dry material was suspended in LCMS-grade methanol with internal standard mix (100 µM U-13C/15N-labelled amino acids, SIGMA 767964). Intracellular samples were suspended at 11.1 µl mg−1 of original sample cell pellet wet weight; extracellular samples were suspended at 38.9 µl mg−1 of corresponding cell pellet wet weight from the culture. The solutions were vortexed 3 times for 10 s each, bath sonicated in ice water for 10 min, chilled at −20 °C for 10 min, then centrifuged (10,000 × g, 5 min, 10 °C) to pellet insoluble material. Supernatants containing the methanol extracts were filtered through 0.22 µm PVDF microcentrifuge filtration tubes (10,000 × g, 5 min, 10 °C); filtrates were transferred to glass vials and immediately capped. Filtrates were then analysed by LC–MS/MS using an Agilent 1290 UHPLC system connected to a Thermo Q Exactive Hybrid Quadrupole-Orbitrap mass spectrometer equipped with a heated electrospray ionization (HESI-II) source probe. Extracts were chromatographically separated on a ZORBAX RRHD Eclipse Plus C18, 95 Å, 2.1 × 50 mm, 1.8 µm column (Agilent) for non-polar metabolomics. Separation, ionization, fragmentation and data acquisition parameters are specified in Supplementary Table 7. Briefly, metabolites were separated by gradient elution followed by MS1 and data-dependent (top 2 most abundant MS1 ions not previously fragmented in last 7 s) MS2 collection; targeted data analysis was performed by comparison of sample peaks to a library of analytical standards analysed under the same conditions or by searching the raw data files for predicted m/z values based on structural information of compounds of interest. Three parameters were compared: matching m/z, retention time and fragmentation spectra using Metabolite Atlas (https://github.com/biorack/metatlas)43,44. Identification and standard reference comparison details are provided in Supplementary Table 6. Raw and processed data are available for download at the JGI Joint Genome Portal under ID 1340427. Statistical comparisons were performed using R version 3.6.2, using package agricolae 1.3–5 and stats 3.6.245; boxplots were generated with base R graphics using the boxplot function.Phylogenomic analysisTo guide the delineation of the IAA degradation operons across the bacterial tree of life, we constructed two Hidden Markov Model (HMM) profiles of the genes iacC and iacD by subsetting all homologous genes from the previously validated operons (Extended Data Fig. 4). In parallel, we downloaded the assembly files for all available complete genomes deposited in the NCBI RefSeq 202 repository46. For the 220,000 assembly files downloaded, we performed open reading frame (ORF) prediction using prodigal. We then used the two HMM profiles described above to query the predicted ORFs. Utilizing ad hoc scripts, we constructed a table of HMM hits along the genomes scanned and subset genomic loci where both iacC and iacD genes appeared adjacent to one another. The logic of using the iacC and iacD genes as anchor genes for our search is that the adjacent physical location of both iacC and iacD homologues is a conserved feature across all previously experimentally validated IAA-degrading operons (Extended Data Fig. 4). Next, for each region containing the adjacent iacC and iacD homologue genes, we extracted the gene neighbourhood adjacent to the anchor hit by extracting the amino acid sequence of ORFs +10 kb and −10kb with respect to the anchor hit. Using hmmscan from the Hmmer v3.1.b2 suite47, we performed HMM profiling in all ORFs extracted via our neighbourhood delineation against the COG database version 2003. Finally, we used the COG profiles across the neighbourhoods to create a matrix describing the prevalence of COGs across the regions (candidate regions) with the adjacent iacC and iacD homologue genes.For each genome containing at least one candidate region, we performed taxonomic classification using the GTDB database48. Due to the size of our estimated genomic matrix and to reduce potential biases due to over-representation of certain lineages within RefSeq, we performed principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) using a reduced matrix containing one representative candidate region per species. Species labelling was obtained from the GTDB taxonomic classification described above. PCoA was performed using the oh.pco function from the ohchibi package49, taking as input a binary version of the gene matrix described above. We classified candidate reads into the two types of IAA-degrading operon (iac-like and iad-like), utilizing a majority count-based approach using marker COGs conserved between the previously experimentally validated IAA-degrading operons (Extended Data Fig. 4). Specifically, for each potential operon, we determined the prevalence of COGs that a priori (Extended Data Fig. 4) showed differential prevalence across the two degrading operons (for example, iacA, iacB and iacI are markers of the iac operon, while iorB/iadB and iotA/iadA are exclusive markers of the iad-like operon). Hybrid gene clusters were defined as operons that exhibited the hallmark COGs of both operons.In parallel, we performed phylogenetic inference over all the genomes belonging to genera with at least one representative strain harbouring any of the two types of IAA-degrading operon. This phylogenetic tree was constructed using a super-matrix-based approach as previously described35. Finally, for each genus with at least one assembly harbouring a positive IAA-degrading operon, we estimated the prevalence of the trait across the genus by dividing the total number of isolates with detectable IAA degradation locus by the total number of isolates belonging to that genus in the dataset. In addition, to see the phylogenetic evenness of the distribution of the IAA degradation trait across each genus, we calculated the phylogenetic ratio by calculating the ratio between the average phylogenetic distance (computed via the cophenetic.phylo function from the ape R package50) of isolates with a detectable IAA degradation locus and the total average phylogenetic distance of all isolates within that genus. We constructed the MarR phylogeny using the MarR sequences from candidate regions with 100% markers of one of the two types of IAA-degrading operon. Amino acid sequences of the MarR homologues were aligned using MAFFT51 and phylogenetic inference was performed using FastTree 252.RNA-seq on Variovorax strainsV. paradoxus CL14 was grown in 5 ml cultures of M9 minimal medium supplemented with 15 mM succinate and 0.5% (v/v) ethanol alone or containing IAA. IAA was at a final concentration of 0.1 mg ml−1 in the medium to which it was added. Cultures were prepared at a starting OD600 of 0.02 and incubated at 28 °C, shaking at 250 r.p.m. Cells from all samples were collected for RNA-seq at 18 h to ensure IAA was still present in the cultures of strains that degraded IAA most rapidly. Cells were pelleted by centrifuging the culture at 4,200 × g for 15 min and removing the supernatant. Cell pellets were frozen at −80 °C before RNA extraction. To extract RNA, cells were lysed in TRIzol reagent (Invitrogen) according to manufacturer instructions for lysis and phase separation. After these steps, RNA was purified from the aqueous phase using the RNeasy mini kit (Qiagen) including the optional on-column DNase digestion with RNase-free DNase set (Qiagen). Total RNA was quantified using the Qubit 2.0 fluorometer (Invitrogen) and RNA-seq libraries were prepared using the Universal Prokaryotic RNA-Seq Prokaryotic AnyDeplete kit (Tecan) according to manufacturer instructions. The resulting libraries were pooled and sequenced on the Illumina HiSeq4000 to generate 50 bp single-end reads.RNA-seq data analysisThe V. paradoxus CL14 RNA-seq sequence data were analysed as described previously14. Briefly, the raw reads were mapped to the V. paradoxus CL14 genome (fasta file available at https://github.com/isaisg/variovoraxRGI/blob/master/rawdata/2643221508.fna) using bowtie253 with the ‘very sensitive’ flag. Hits to each individual coding sequence were counted and annotated using the function featureCounts from the R package Rsubread54, inputting the V. paradoxus CL14 gff file (available at https://github.com/isaisg/variovoraxRGI/blob/master/rawdata/2643221508.gff) and using the default parameters with the flag allowMultiOverlap = FALSE. Finally, DESeq255 was used to estimate Differentially Expressed Genes (DEGs) between treatments, with the corresponding fold-change estimates and False Discovery Rate (FDR) adjusted P values. For visualization purposes, we performed z-score standardization of each gene across samples and we visualized this standardized expression values utilizing a heat map constructed using ggplot256. These data can be found in Supplementary Table 9.MarR protein expression and purificationThe coding sequence for each gene can be found in Supplementary Table 10. MarR expression plasmids were synthesized as codon-optimized genes for E. coli expression by BioBasic in the pLIC-His N-term vector (pMCSG7) and transformed into E. coli BL21 (DE3) Gold cells for expression. Cells were grown in the presence of ampicillin in LB medium with shaking at 225 r.p.m. at 37 °C to an OD600 of 0.5, at which point the temperature was reduced to 18 °C. At an OD600 of 0.8, protein expression was induced by the addition of 0.1 mM IPTG and incubation continued overnight. Cells were collected by centrifugation at 4,500 × g for 20 min at 4 °C in a Sorvall (model RC-3B) swinging bucket centrifuge. Cell pellets were resuspended in buffer A (20 mM potassium phosphate, pH 7.4, 50 mM imidazole, 500 mM NaCl), DNase, lysozyme and a Roche Complete EDTA-free protease inhibitor tablet. Resuspended cells were sonicated and clarified via centrifugation at 17,000 × g for 60 min in a Sorvall (model RC-5B) swinging bucket centrifuge. The lysate was applied to a nickel-nitrilotriacetic acid HP column (GE Healthcare) on an Aktaxpress Fast Performance Liquid Chromatography (FPLC) system (Amersham Bioscience) and washed with buffer A. Protein was eluted with buffer B (20 mM potassium phosphate, pH 7.4, 500 mM imidazole, 500 mM NaCl). Fractions containing the protein of interest were combined and passed over a HiLoadTM 16/60 SuperdexTM 200 gel filtration column. Proteins were eluted in S200 buffer (20 mM HEPES, pH 7.4, 300 mM NaCl). Fractions were combined and concentrated for long-term storage at −80 °C.MarR mutant proteins were created by site-directed mutagenesis using primers from Integrated DNA Technologies. The mutant plasmids were sequenced to confirm the mutations. The mutants were produced and purified using E. coli BL21 (DE3) Gold as described above.Ligand binding studies by isothermal titration calorimetry (ITC)All ITC measurements were performed at 25 °C using an Auto-ITC200 microcalorimeter (MicroCal/GE Healthcare). The buffer employed was 20 mM HEPES, pH 7.4, 50 mM NaCl and 0.5% dimethly sulfoxide (DMSO) for protein/ligand binding and 20 mM HEPES, pH 7.4 and 300 mM NaCl for DNA/protein binding experiments. For ligand binding experiments, the calorimetry cell (volume 200 ml) was loaded with MarR wild-type, mutant or homologue protein at a concentration of 50 μM. The syringe was loaded with a ligand concentration of 0.5 or 2 mM. For DNA binding experiments, wild-type MarR_73 did not bind any of the DNA oligos examined; however, we hypothesized that this arose from the ability of this native receptor to remain bound to ligands retained from its recombinant expression in E. coli. Thus, we employed the MarR_73 S28A protein with reduced ligand binding capacity. Here, the calorimetry cell was loaded with duplex oligo at a concentration of 25 μM and the syringe was loaded with MarR S28A mutant protein, which was necessary to prevent ligand binding during expression and purification, at a concentration of 0.5 mM. A typical injection protocol included a single 0.2 μl first injection followed by 20 1.5 μl injections of the syringe sample into the calorimetry cell. The spacing between injections was kept at 180 s and the reference power at 8 μcal s−1. The data were analysed using Origin for ITC version 7.0 software supplied by the manufacturer and fit well to a one-site binding model. Two independent ITC measurements were performed for each condition. A non-integer N value (for example, 0.73 in Fig. 2a) indicates that some protein monomers may not be in an active conformation, and thus do not bind ligand. Additionally, small measurement errors in assessing the protein or ligand concentrations may also contribute to non-integer N values in ITC. To confirm that 300 mM NaCl did not negatively impact DNA binding, MarR_73 S28A was examined by ITC in 150 mM NaCl. In this condition, the KD for the 22 bp duplex was 0.428 ± 0.002 μM (N = 1.75 ± 0.014), while the KD for 24 bp duplex was 0.151 ± 0.025 μM (N = 2.51 ± 0.26).Protein crystallographyV. paradoxus MarR_73 was crystallized using the sitting drop vapour diffusion method at 20 °C in conditions outlined in Supplementary Table 4. Crystallization drops were set up using the Oryx4 protein crystallization robot (Douglas Instruments) and contained 0.15 μl protein and 0.15 μl well solution. For all V. paradoxus MarR_73 wild-type conditions, ligands were added at 10-fold molar excess before crystallization trials and crystals appeared within 2–5 d. V. paradoxus MarR_73 with the S28A and R46A mutations was crystallized in similar conditions as the wild-type protein. Similarly, P. putida MarR_iacR, B. japonicum MarR_Bj1, A. baumannii MarR_Ab and E. soli MarR_Es were crystallized using vapour diffusion methods in sitting drop trays at 20 °C and crystals appeared within 3–5 d. All crystallization conditions are outlined in Supplementary Table 4. Crystal specimens were cryoprotected with the well solution supplemented with glycerol to 20% (v/v) (Supplementary Table 4). X-ray diffraction data were collected at the Advanced Photon Source beamline 23-ID-D (Supplementary Table 3). Diffraction images were reduced using either XDS or Denzo and scaled with either Aimless or Scalepack57,58,59. The V. paradoxus MarR_73 structure in complex with IAA was determined by molecular replacement using the structure of 3CDH as a search model in Phaser60. All subsequent structures of V. paradoxus MarR_73 were determined using the V. paradoxus MarR_73 IAA complex structure (PDB: 7KFO) as a search model. The P. putida MarR_iacR and B. japonicum MarR_Bj1 structures were determined by molecular replacement using the structure of 3CJN as the search model. P. putida MarR_iacR (PDB: 7KUA) was subsequently used as the search model for molecular replacement to solve A. baumannii MarR_Ab and E. soli MarR_Es. A nickel ion was placed in the model of MarR_Ab. The following ions or molecules were examined and refined in this location in the MarR_Ab structure: water, Na, Mg, K, Ca, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn and Ba. Water, Na, Mg, K, Ca and Ba were deemed unacceptable in this site due to poor difference density. Of the remaining ions considered, there were no sources of Mn, Fe, Co, Cu or Zn in the protein expression media, protein purification buffers, protein storage buffer, crystallization condition or cryoprotectant solutions. Thus, we concluded that the ion present in this structure is Ni due to the use of a nickel-affinity column during the protein’s purification. It is unclear why this ion remained bound to MarR_Ab even after the subsequent size exclusion chromatography purification step, or why such an ion is only observed in this structure of the proteins examined. All structures were refined with either Phenix.refine or Refmac using iterative model building in Coot to the final parameters outlined in Supplementary Table 361,62. MarR_73 is a dimer with one protein monomer in the asymmetric unit and the dimer generated by crystallographic symmetry. PDB accession codes and associated crystallographic data are reported in Supplementary Table 3.Statistics and reproducibilityNo statistical method was used to predetermine sample size, but our sample sizes are similar to those reported in previous publications14,63,64. No data were excluded from the analyses. The experiments were randomized. The investigators were not blinded to allocation during experiments and outcome assessment. Where not stated, data distribution was assumed to be normal, but this was not formally tested.Reporting summaryFurther information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article. More

  • in

    Asian elephants mostly roam outside protected areas — and it’s a problem

    Asian elephants spend most of their time outside protected areas because they prefer the food they find there, an international team of scientists reports. But this behaviour is putting the animals and people in harm’s way, say researchers.The finding has important implications for the long-term survival of the animals because protected areas are a cornerstone of global conservation strategies to protect threatened species, say researchers.If protected areas do not contain animals’ preferred habitats, they will wander out, says Ahimsa Campos-Arceiz, who studies Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) at the Chinese Academy of Sciences’ Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden in Menglun, China. “It’s a good intention, but doesn’t always work out that way.”Human–elephant conflict is the biggest threat for Asian elephants. Over the past few decades, animals in protected areas have increasingly wandered into villages. They often cause destruction, damaging crops and infrastructure and injuring and even killing people.Wandering elephantsTo understand how effective protected areas are for conserving Asian elephants, Campos-Arceiz and his colleagues set out to get a precise picture of Asian-elephant movements. They collared 102 individuals in Peninsular Malaysia and Borneo, recording 600,000 GPS locations over a decade. They found that most elephants spent most of their time in habitats outside the protected areas, at the forest edge and in areas of regrowth. The findings were published in the Journal of Applied Ecology1 on 18 October.The researchers suspect that the elephants venture out because they like to eat grasses, bamboo, palms and fast-growing trees, which are common in disturbed forests and relatively scarce under the canopy of old-growth forests.Philip Nyhus, a conservation biologist who specializes in human–wildlife conflict at Colby College in Waterville, Maine, says Asian elephants live deep in dense forest and so are much more difficult to study than African elephants, which roam open savannahs. “The sample size is impressive,” he says.The finding is not unexpected given past anecdotal observations of elephant behaviour, says Nyhus. But now the data show that this is a common strategy for the survival of these animals, and not just something seen in a subset of the population. The research provides strong evidence for how to set up suitable protected areas that reduce the risk of elephants wandering out, he says.‘There will be conflict’The results do not diminish the importance of protected areas, which provide long-term safety for the animals, says Campos-Arceiz, who did the field work while at the University of Nottingham Malaysia in Selangor. “But they are clearly not enough.”The study suggests that “there will be conflict between humans and elephants”, says Guo Xianming, director of the Research Institute of Xishuangbanna National Nature Reserve in Jinghong.Asian elephants wander into villages owing to a combination of reasons: an increase in elephant populations, forests in many reserves have grown denser and have become unsuitable for the animals, and increasing habitat loss and degradation outside.Last year, two herds of elephants made global headlines as they wandered out of the Xishuangbanna National Nature Reserve and travelled for hundreds of kilometers, wreaking havoc along the way. One herd spent five weeks at the botanical garden where Campos-Arceiz works. “It was intense,” he says.There is an urgent need to understand how people and elephants can better share the landscape, says Guo. And the first step is by better protecting people’s lives and livelihoods. “It’s the only way of peaceful co-existence.”
    The reporting of the story was supported by International Women’s Media Foundation’s Howard G. Buffett Fund for Women Journalists. More

  • in

    How monkeypox is spreading, and more — this week’s best science graphics

    Adolescents losing sleepEpidemiological studies in US school students aged 14–18 have shown that declines in mental health mirror reductions in the amount of sleep they are getting. Although it is hard to show a causal link between these changes, the authors of this Comment article argue that ensuring that young people get enough sleep is crucial for them to thrive. Various factors could be contributing to this drop-off in sleep, they say, including the use of digital media before bed, schoolwork pressures and extracurricular activities late in the evening or early in the morning.

    Sources: J. M. Twenge et al. Sleep Med. 39, 47–53 (2017)/US CDC YRBSS

    Monkeypox trajectoryAlmost six months after the monkeypox virus started to spread globally, vaccination efforts and behavioural changes seem to be containing the current strain — at least in the United States and Europe. The number of cases in these regions peaked in August and is now falling. But the situation could still play out in several ways, as this News story reports. At best, the outbreak might fizzle out over the next few months or years. At worst, the virus could become endemic outside Africa.

    Source: WHO

    The most valuable soilsThis map shows the regions of the world where the conservation of soil should be prioritized. Soils contain a wealth of biodiversity, such as bacteria, fungi, nematode worms and earthworms. These organisms have important roles in ecosystem processes, such as carbon and nutrient cycling, water storage and supporting plant growth. The authors of a paper in Nature set out to identify global hotspots for conservation by surveying soil biodiversity and ecosystem functions at 615 sites around the world. They found hotspots of biodiversity in temperate and Mediterranean regions and in alpine tundra, whereas hotspots of species uniqueness occurred in the tropics and drylands. More than 70% of the hotspots are not adequately covered by protected areas. More

  • in

    ReSurveyGermany: Vegetation-plot time-series over the past hundred years in Germany

    Díaz, S. et al. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science 366, eaax3100 (2019).Chase, J. M. et al. Species richness change across spatial scales. Oikos 128, 1079–1091 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Vellend, M. et al. Global meta-analysis reveals no net change in local-scale plant biodiversity over time. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, 19456–19459 (2013).Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Blowes, S. A. et al. The geography of biodiversity change in marine and terrestrial assemblages. Science 366, 339–345 (2019).Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Riedel, T., Polley, H. & Klatt, S. Germany. in National Forest Inventories (eds. Vidal, C., Alberdi, I. A., Hernández Mateo, L. & Redmond, J. J.) 405–421, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44015-6 (Springer International Publishing, 2016).Braun-Blanquet, J. Pflanzensoziologie. Grundzüge der Vegetationskunde. vol. Seite: (Julius Springer, 1928).Bernhardt-Römermann, M. et al. Drivers of temporal changes in temperate forest plant diversity vary across spatial scales. Glob Change Biol 21, 3726–3737 (2015).Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    Ahrns, C. & Hofmann, G. Vegetationsdynamik und Florenwandel im ehemaligen mitteldeutschen Waldschutzgebiet ‘Hainich’ im Intervall 1963–1995. Hercynia N.F. 31, 33–64 (1998).
    Google Scholar 
    Dittmann, T., Heinken, T. & Schmidt, M. Die Wälder von Magdeburgerforth (Fläming, Sachsen-Anhalt) – eine Wiederholungsuntersuchung nach sechs Jahrzehnten, https://doi.org/10.14471/2018.38.009 (2018).Günther, K., Schmidt, M., Quitt, H. & Heinken, T. Veränderungen der Waldvegetation im Elbe-Havelwinkel von 1960 bis 2015. Tuexenia 41, 53–85 (2021).
    Google Scholar 
    Janiesch, P. Vegetationsökologische Untersuchungen in einem Erlenbruchwald im nördlichen Münsterland. 25 Jahre im Vergleich. Abhandlungen aus dem Westfälischen Museum für Naturkunde 71–80 (2003).Naaf, T. & Wulf, M. Habitat specialists and generalists drive homogenization and differentiation of temperate forest plant communities at the regional scale. Biological Conservation 143, 848–855 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Reinecke, J., Klemm, G. & Heinken, T. Vegetation change and homogenization of species composition in temperate nutrient deficient Scots pine forests after 45 yr. J Veg Sci 25, 113–121 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Mölder, A., Streit, M. & Schmidt, W. When beech strikes back: How strict nature conservation reduces herb-layer diversity and productivity in Central European deciduous forests. Forest Ecology and Management 319, 51–61 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Fischer, C., Parth, A. & Schmidt, W. Vegetationsdynamik in Buchen-Naturwäldern. Ein Vergleich aus Süd-Niedersachsen. Hercynia N.F. 45–68 (2009).Schmidt, W. Die Naturschutzgebiete Hainholz und Staufenberg am Harzrand – Sukzessionsforschung in Buchenwäldern ohne Bewirtschaftung (Exkursion E). Tuexenia 22, 151–213 (2002).
    Google Scholar 
    Strubelt, I., Diekmann, M. & Zacharias, D. Changes in species composition and richness in an alluvial hardwood forest over 52 yrs. J Veg Sci 28, 401–412 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Strubelt, I., Diekmann, M., Peppler-Lisbach, C., Gerken, A. & Zacharias, D. Vegetation changes in the Hasbruch forest nature reserve (NW Germany) depend on management and habitat type. Forest Ecology and Management 444, 78–88 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Wilmanns, O. & Bogenrieder, A. Veränderungen der Buchenwälder des Kaiserstuhls im Laufe von vier Jahrzehnten und ihre Interpretation – pflanzensoziologische Tabellen als Dokumente. Abh. Landesmus. Naturk. Münster Westfalen 48, 55–79 (1986).
    Google Scholar 
    Huwer, A. & Wittig, R. Changes in the species composition of hedgerows in the Westphalian Basin over a thirty-five-year period. Tuexenia 32, 31–53 (2012).
    Google Scholar 
    Immoor, A., Zacharias, D., Müller, J. & Diekmann, M. A re-visitation study (1948–2015) of wet grassland vegetation in the Stedinger Land near Bremen, North-western Germany, https://doi.org/10.14471/2017.37.013 (2017).Rosenthal, G. Erhaltung und Regeneration von Feuchtwiesen. Vegetationsökologische Untersuchungen auf Dauerflächen. Diss. Bot. 182, 1–283 (1992).
    Google Scholar 
    Poptcheva, K., Schwartze, P., Vogel, A., Kleinebecker, T. & Hölzel, N. Changes in wet meadow vegetation after 20 years of different management in a field experiment (North-West Germany). Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 134, 108–114 (2009).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Diekmann, M. et al. Patterns of long‐term vegetation change vary between different types of semi‐natural grasslands in Western and Central Europe. J Veg Sci 30, 187–202 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hundt, R. Ökologisch‐geobotanische Untersuchungen an den mitteldeutschen Wiesengesellschaften unter besonderer Berücksichtigung ihres Wasserhaushaltes und ihrer Veränderung durch die Intensivbewirtschaftung. (Wehry-Druck OHG, 2001).Kuhn, G., Heinz, S. & Mayer, F. Grünlandmonitoring Bayern. Ersterhebung der Vegetation 2002–2008. Schriftenreihe LfL Bayerische Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft 3, 1–161 (2011).
    Google Scholar 
    Raehse, S. Veränderungen der hessischen Grünlandvegetation seit Beginn der 50er Jahre am Beispiel ausgewählter Tal- und Bergregionen Nord- und Mittelhessens. (University Press GmbH, 2001).Scheidel, U. & Bruelheide, H. Versuche zur Beweidung von Bergwiesen im Harz. Hercynia N.F 37, 87–101 (2004).
    Google Scholar 
    Sommer, S. & Hachmöller, B. Auswertung der Vegetationsaufnahmen von Dauerbeobachtungenflächen auf Bergwiesen im NSG Oelsen bei variierter Mahd im Vergleich zur Brache. Ber. Arbeitsgem. Sächs. Bot. N.F. 18, 99–135 (2001).
    Google Scholar 
    Wegener, U. Vegetationswandel des Berggrünlands nach Untersuchungen von 1954 bis 2016 – Wege zur Erhaltung der Bergwiesen. Mountain grasslands vegetation change after research from 1954 to 2016 – ways to preserve mountain meadows. Abhandlungen und Berichte aus dem Museum Heineanum 11, 35–101 (2018).
    Google Scholar 
    Wittig, B., Müller, J. & Mahnke-Ritoff, A. Talauen-Glatthaferwiesen im Verdener Wesertal (Niedersachsen). Tuexenia 39, 249–265 (2019).
    Google Scholar 
    Heinrich, W., Marstaller, R. & Voigt, W. Eine Langzeitstudie zur Sukzession in Halbtrockenrasen – Strukturwandlungen in einer Dauerbeobachtungsfläche im Naturschutzgebiet “Leutratal und Cospoth” bei Jena (Thüringen). Artenschutzreport Jena 30, 1–80 (2012).
    Google Scholar 
    Hüllbusch, E., Brand, L. M., Ende, P. & Dengler, J. Little vegetation change during two decades in a dry grassland complex in the Biosphere Reserve Schorfheide-Chorin (NE Germany). Tuexenia 36, 395–412 (2016).
    Google Scholar 
    Knapp, R. Dauerflächen-Untersuchungen über die Einwirkung von Haustieren und Wild während trockener und feuchter Zeiten in Mesobromion-Halbtrockenrasen in Hessen. Mitt. Florist.-Soziol. Arbeitsgem. N.F. 19/20, 269–274 (1977).
    Google Scholar 
    Matesanz, S., Brooker, R. W., Valladares, F. & Klotz, S. Temporal dynamics of marginal steppic vegetation over a 26-year period of substantial environmental change: Temporal dynamics of marginal steppic vegetation over a 26-year period. Journal of Vegetation Science 20, 299–310 (2009).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Schwabe, A., Zehm, A., Nobis, M., Storm, C. & Süß, K. Auswirkungen von Schaf-Erstbeweidung auf die Vegetation primär basenreicher Sand-Ökosysteme. NNA Berichte 1/2004, 39–54 (2004).
    Google Scholar 
    Schwabe, A., Süss, K. & Storm, C. What are the long-term effects of livestock grazing in steppic sandy grassland with high conservation value? Results from a 12-year field study. Tuexenia 33, 189–212 (2013).
    Google Scholar 
    Peppler‐Lisbach, C., Stanik, N., Könitz, N. & Rosenthal, G. Long‐term vegetation changes in Nardus grasslands indicate eutrophication, recovery from acidification, and management change as the main drivers. Appl Veg Sci 23, 508–521 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Peppler-Lisbach, C. & Könitz, N. Vegetationsveränderungen in Borstgrasrasen des Werra-Meißner-Gebietes (Hessen, Niedersachsen) nach 25 Jahren. Tuexenia 37, 201–228 (2017).
    Google Scholar 
    Wittig, B., Müller, J., Quast, R. & Miehlich, H. Arnica montana in Calluna-Heiden auf dem Schießplatz Unterlüß (Niedersachsen). Tuexenia 40, 131–146 (2020).
    Google Scholar 
    Rumpf, S. B. et al. Range dynamics of mountain plants decrease with elevation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 115, 1848–1853 (2018).Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Kudernatsch, T. et al. Vegetationsveränderungen alpiner Kalk-Magerrasen im Nationalpark Berchtesgaden während der letzten drei Jahrzehnte. Tuexenia 36, 205–221 (2016).
    Google Scholar 
    Poschlod, P. et al. Long‐term monitoring in rivers of south Germany since the 1970ies. Macrophytes as indicators for the assessment of water quality. in Long‐term ecological research. Between Theory and Application (eds. Müller, F., Baessler, C., Schubert, H. & Klotz, S.) 189–199 (Springer, 2006).Dierschke, H. Dynamik und Konstanz an naturnahen Flussufern. 27 Jahre Dauerflächenuntersuchungen am Oderufer (Harzvorland). Braunschweiger Geobotanische Arbeiten 9, 119–138 (2008).
    Google Scholar 
    Kreyling, J. et al. Rewetting does not return drained fen peatlands to their old selves. Nat Commun 12, 5693 (2021).Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Bohn, U. & Schniotalle, S. Hochmoor-, Grünland- und Waldrenaturierung im Naturschutzgebiet ‘Rotes Moor’/Hohe Rhön 1981–2001. (Landwirtschaftsverlag, 2008).Koch, M. & Jurasinski, G. Four decades of vegetation development in a percolation mire complex following intensive drainage and abandonment. Plant Ecology & Diversity 8, 49–60 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Walther, K. Die Vegetation des Maujahn 1984. Wiederholung der vegetationskundlichen Untersuchung eines wendländischen Moores. Tuexenia 6, 145–193 (1986).
    Google Scholar 
    Berg, C. & Mahn, E.-G. Anthropogene Vegetationsveränderungen der Straßenrandvegetation in den letzten 30 Jahren – die Glatthaferwiesen des Raumes Halle/Saale. Tuexenia 10, 185–195 (1990).
    Google Scholar 
    Meyer, S., Wesche, K., Krause, B. & Leuschner, C. Dramatic losses of specialist arable plants in Central Germany since the 1950s/60s – a cross-regional analysis. Diversity Distribution 19, 1175–1187 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Meyer, S., Wesche, K., Krause, B. & Leuschner, C. Veränderungen in der Segetalflora in den letzten Jahrzehnten und mögliche Konsequenzen für Agrarvögel. Julius-Kühn-Archiv 442, 64–78 (2013).
    Google Scholar 
    Kutzelnigg, H. Veränderungen der Ackerwildkrautflora im Gebiet um Moers/Niederrhein seit 1950 und ihre Ursachen. Tuexenia 4, 81–102 (1984).
    Google Scholar 
    Milligan, G., Rose, R. J. & Marrs, R. H. Winners and losers in a long-term study of vegetation change at Moor House NNR: Effects of sheep-grazing and its removal on British upland vegetation. Ecological Indicators 68, 89–101 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Wittig, B., Waldman, T. & Diekmann, M. Veränderungen der Grünlandvegetation im Holtumer Moor über vier Jahrzehnte. Hercynia N.F 40, 285–300 (2007).
    Google Scholar 
    Henning, K., Lorenz, A., von Oheimb, G., Härdtle, W. & Tischew, S. Year-round cattle and horse grazing supports the restoration of abandoned, dry sandy grassland and heathland communities by supressing Calamagrostis epigejos and enhancing species richness. Journal for Nature Conservation 40, 120–130 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Blüml, V. Langfristige Veränderungen von Flora und Vegetation des Grünlandes in der Dümmerniederung (Niedersachsen) unter dem Einfluss von Naturschutzmaßnahmen. (Bremen, 2011).Von Oheimb, G. et al. Halboffene Weidelandschaft Höltigbaum. Perspektiven für den Erhalt und die naturverträgliche Nutzung von Offenlandlebensräumen. (Landwirschaftsverlag, 2006).Dornelas, M. et al. BioTIME: A database of biodiversity time series for the Anthropocene. Global Ecol Biogeogr 27, 760–786 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Pimm, S. L. et al. The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science 344, 1246752–1246752 (2014).Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Barnosky, A. D. et al. Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature 471, 51–57 (2011).Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Vellend, M. The Biodiversity Conservation Paradox. Am. Sci. 105, 94 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Cardinale, B. J., Gonzalez, A., Allington, G. R. H. & Loreau, M. Is local biodiversity declining or not? A summary of the debate over analysis of species richness time trends. Biological Conservation 219, 175–183 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Perring, M. P. et al. Understanding context dependency in the response of forest understorey plant communities to nitrogen deposition. Environmental Pollution 242, 1787–1799 (2018).Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Steinbauer, M. J. et al. Accelerated increase in plant species richness on mountain summits is linked to warming. Nature 556, 231–234 (2018).Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Braun-Blanquet, J. Prinzipien einer Systematik der Pflanzengesellschaften auf floristischer Grundlage. Jahrb. St. Gallischen Naturwiss. Ges. 57, 305–351 (1921).
    Google Scholar 
    Becking, R. W. The Zürich-Montpellier school of phytosociology. Bot. Rev. 23, 411–488 (1957).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bruelheide, H. et al. sPlot – A new tool for global vegetation analyses. J Veg Sci 30, 161–186 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    O L Pescott, T A Humphrey & K J Walker. A short guide to using British and Irish plant occurrence data for research, https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.33746.86720 (2018).Eichenberg, D. et al. Widespread decline in Central European plant diversity across six decades. Global Change Biology 27, 1097–1110 (2021).Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Chytrý, M. et al. European Vegetation Archive (EVA): an integrated database of European vegetation plots. Appl Veg Sci 19, 173–180 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Van der Maarel, E. Transformation of cover-abundance values in phytosociology and its effects on community similarity. Vegetatio 39, 97–114 (1979).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Tichý, L. et al. Optimal transformation of species cover for vegetation classification. Appl Veg Sci 23, 710–717 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Podani, J. Braun-Blanquet’s legacy and data analysis in vegetation science. Journal of Vegetation Science 17, 113–117 (2006).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Londo, G. Dezimalskala für die vegetationskundliche Aufnahme von Dauerquadraten. in Sukzessionsforschung (ed. Schmidt, W.). Ber. Int. Symp. Int. Vereinig. Vegetationsk. Rinteln vol. 1973, 613–617 (Cramer, 1975).Bruelheide, H. & Luginbühl, U. Peeking at ecosystem stability: making use of a natural disturbance experiment to analyze resistance and resilience. Ecology 90, 1314–1325 (2009).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Hennekens, S. M. & Schaminée, J. H. J. TURBOVEG, a comprehensive data base management system for vegetation data. J. Veg. Sc. 12, 589–591 (2001).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Gaston, K. J. & Curnutt, J. L. The dynamics of abundance-range size relationships. Oikos 81, 38 (1998).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Gaston, K. J. et al. Abundance-occupancy relationships. J Appl Ecology 37, 39–59 (2000).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sporbert, M. et al. Testing macroecological abundance patterns: The relationship between local abundance and range size, range position and climatic suitability among European vascular plants. J Biogeogr jbi.13926, https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.13926 (2020).European Commission. Report on the Conservation Status of Habitat Types and Species as required under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52009DC0358 (2009).Poschlod, P. Geschichte der Kulturlandschaft. (Ulmer, 2017).Mcgill, B., Enquist, B., Weiher, E. & Westoby, M. Rebuilding community ecology from functional traits. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21, 178–185 (2006).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Jandt, U. et al. More losses than gains during one century of plant biodiversity change in Germany. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05320-w (2022).Schaminée, J. H. J., Hennekens, S. M., Chytrý, M. & Rodwell, J. S. Vegetation-plot data and databases in Europe: an overview. Preslia 81, 173–185 (2009).
    Google Scholar 
    ESA. Land Cover CCI product user guide ver. 2. Tech. Rep. https://maps.elie.ucl.ac.be/CCI/viewer/download/ESACCI-LC-Ph2-PUGv2_2.0.pdf (2017).Kadmon, R., Farber, O. & Danin, A. Effect of roadside bias on the accuracy of predictive maps produced by bioclimatic models. Ecological Applications 14, 401–413 (2004).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Davies, C. E., Moss, D. & Hill, M. O. EUNIS Habitat Classification Revised 2004. 310 https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/eunis-habitat-classification/documentation/eunis-2004-report.pdf/download (2004).Chytrý, M. et al. EUNIS Habitat Classification: Expert system, characteristic species combinations and distribution maps of European habitats. Appl Veg Sci 23, 648–675 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bruelheide, H., Tichý, L., Chytrý, M. & Jansen, F. Implementing the formal language of the vegetation classification expert systems (ESy) in the statistical computing environment R. Appl Veg Sci, https://doi.org/10.1111/avsc.12562 (2021).Jandt, U., Bruelheide, H. & ReSurveyGermany Consortium. ReSurvey Germany: vegetation-plot resurvey data from Germany. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig https://doi.org/10.25829/idiv.3514-0qsq70 (2022).Jansen, F. & Dengler, J. GermanSL – eine universelle taxonomische Referenzliste für Vegetationsdatenbanken. Tuexenia 28, 239–253 (2008).
    Google Scholar 
    Wisskirchen, R. & Haeupler, H. Standardliste der Farn-und Blütenpflanzen Deutschlands. (Ulmer, 1998).Jansen, F. & Dengler, J. Plant names in vegetation databases–a neglected source of bias. Journal of Vegetation Science 21, 1179–1186 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Fischer, H. S. On the combination of species cover values from different vegetation layers. Applied Vegetation Science 18, 169–170 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Schwabe, A. & Kratochwil, A. Pflanzensoziologische Dauerflächen-Untersuchungen im Bannwald ‘Flüh’ (Südschwarzwald) unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Weidfeld-Sukzession. Standort.Wald 49, 5–49 (2015).
    Google Scholar 
    Poschlod, P., Schreiber, K.-F., Mitlacher, K., Römermann, C. & Bernhardt-Römermann, M. Entwicklung der Vegetation und ihre naturschutzfachliche Bewertung. in Landschaftspflege und Naturschutz im Extensivgrünland. 30 Jahre Offenhaltungsversuche Baden-Württemberg (eds. Schreiber, K.-F., Brauckmann, H.-J., Broll, G., Krebs, S. & Poschlod, P.) vol. 97 243–288 (2009).Gonzalez, A. et al. Estimating local biodiversity change: a critique of papers claiming no net loss of local diversity. Ecology 97, 1949–1960 (2016).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Determining the potential distribution of Oryctes monoceros and Oryctes rhinoceros by combining machine-learning with high-dimensional multidisciplinary environmental variables

    Manjeri, G., Muhamad, R. & Tan, S. G. Oryctes rhinoceros beetles, an oil palm pest in Malaysia. Annu. Res. Rev. Biol. 4, 3429–3439 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Allou, K., Morin, J. P., Kouassi, P., Nklo, F. H. & Rochat, D. Oryctes monoceros trapping with synthetic pheromone and palm material in Ivory Coast. J. Chem. Ecol. 32, 1743–1754 (2006).Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Alibert, H. Study on the insect pests of oil palm in Dahomey. Rev. Botan. Appl. 18, 745–773 (1936).
    Google Scholar 
    Catley, A. The coconut rhinoceros beetle Oryctes rhinoceros (L) [Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Dynastinae]. PANS Pest Articles News Summar. 15, 18–30 (1969).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Fauzana, H., Sutikno, A. & Salbiah, D. Population fluctuations Oryctes rhinoceros L. beetle in plant oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) given mulching oil palm empty bunch. Cropsaver Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci. 1, 42–47 (2018).
    Google Scholar 
    Paudel, S., Mansfield, S., Villamizar, L. F., Jackson, T. A. & Marshall, S. D. Can biological control overcome the threat from newly invasive coconut rhinoceros beetle populations (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae)? A review. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 114, 247–256 (2021).Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Molet, T. In CPHST Pest Datasheet for Oryctes rhinoceros. USDA-APHIS-PPQCPHST. Revised July 2014 (2013).Hinckley, A. D. Ecology of the coconut rhinoceros beetle, Oryctes rhinoceros (L.) (Coleoptera: Dynastidae). Biotropica 1973, 111–116 (1973).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sitepu, D., Kharie, S., Waroka, JS & Motulo, HFJ. Methods for the production and use of Marhizium anisopliae against Oryctes rhinoceros. In Integrated Coconut Pest Control Project—Annual report of Coconut Research Institute—Manado, North Sulawesi, Indonesia 104–111 (1988).Philippe, R. & Dery, S. K. Coconut research and development. CORD 20, 43–51 (2004).
    Google Scholar 
    Purrini, K. Baculovirus oryctes release into Oryctes monoceros population in Tanzania, with special reference to the interaction of virus isolates used in our laboratory infection experiments. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 53, 285–300 (1989).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ukeh, D. A., Usua, E. J. & Umoetok, S. B. A. Notes on the biology of Oryctes monoceros (OLIV.) A pest of palms in Nigeria. World J. Agric. Res. 2, 33–36 (2003).
    Google Scholar 
    Dry, F. W. Notes on the coconut beetle (Oryctes monoceros, Ol.) in Kenya Colony. Bull. Entomol. Res. 13, 103–107 (1922).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bedford, G. O. Biology, ecology, and control of palm rhinoceros beetles. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 25, 309–339 (1980).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Khoo, K. C., Yusoff, M. N. M. & Lee, T. W. Pulp and paper of oil palm trunk. In Research Pamphlet No.107: Oil Palm Stem Utilisation, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, FRIM 51–65 (1991).Giblin-Davis, R. M. Borers of palms. In Insects on Palms (eds Moore, D. et al.) (CABI Publishing, Wallingford, 2001).
    Google Scholar 
    Drumoni, A. & Ponchel, Y. Première capture au Yémen d’ Oryctes (Rykanoryctes) monoceros (Olivier, 1789) et confirmation de la présence de cette espèce africaine dans la Péninsule Arabique (Coleoptera, Dynastidae). Entomol. Afr. 15, 25–29 (2010).
    Google Scholar 
    Lever, R. J. A. W. Pests of the Coconut Palm (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 1969).Moore, A. Rhinoceros beetle pest found in Guam and Saipan. In Pest Alert, Suva, Fiji: Plant Protection Service, Secretariat of the Pacific Community (2007).Zhang, K., Yao, L., Meng, J. & Tao, J. Maxent modeling for predicting the potential geographical distribution of two peony species under climate change. Sci. Total Environ. Sci. 634, 1326–1334 (2018).Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Ding, F., Fu, J., Jiang, D., Hao, M. & Lin, G. Mapping the spatial distribution of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus. Acta Trop. 178, 155–162 (2018).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Valencia-Rodríguez, D., Jiménez-Segura, L., Rogéliz, C. A. & Parra, J. L. Ecological niche modeling as an effective tool to predict the distribution of freshwater organisms: The case of the Sabaleta Brycon henni (Eigenmann, 1913). PLoS ONE 16, e0247876 (2021).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Escobar, L. E., Qiao, H., Cabello, J. & Peterson, A. T. Ecological niche modeling re-examined: A case study with the Darwin’s fox. Ecol. Evol. 8, 4757–4770 (2018).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Warren, D. L. & Seifert, S. N. Ecological niche modeling in Maxent: The importance of model complexity and the performance of model selection criteria. Ecol. Appl. 21, 335–342 (2011).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Phillips, S. J., Anderson, R. P. & Schapire, R. E. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol. Model. 190, 231–259 (2006).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Phillips, S. J. Transferability, sample selection bias and background data in presence-only modelling: A response to Peterson et al. (2007). Ecography 31, 272–278 (2008).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Elith, J. et al. A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists. Divers. Distrib. 17, 43–57 (2011).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Phillips, S. J. & Dudík, M. Modeling of species distributions with MaxEnt: New extensions and a comprehensive evaluation. Ecography 31, 161–175 (2008).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Arnold, J. D., Brewer, S. C. & Dennison, P. E. Modeling climate-fire connections within the Great basin and Upper Colorado River Basin. Fire Ecol. 10, 64–75 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Phillips, J. S. & Elith, J. On estimating probability of presence from use-availability or presence-background data. Ecology 94, 1409–1419 (2013).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Santana, P. A. Jr., Kumar, L., Da Silva, R. S., Pereira, J. L. & Picanço, M. C. Assessing the impact of climate change on the worldwide distribution of Dalbulus maidis (DeLong) using MaxEnt. Pest. Manag. Sci. 75, 2706–2715 (2019).Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Li, et al. Predicting the current and future distributions of Brontispa longissima (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) under climate change in China. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 25, e01444 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Li, T. et al. Direct and indirect effects of environmental factors, spatial constraints, and functional traits on shaping the plant diversity of montane forests. Ecol. Evol. 10, 557–568 (2020).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Namgung, H., Kim, M. J., Baek, S., Lee, J. H. & Kim, H. Predicting potential current distribution of Lycorma delicatula (Hemiptera: Fulgoridae) using MaxEnt model in South Korea. J. Asia Pac. Entomol. 23, 291–297 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ji, W., Gao, G. & Wei, J. Potential global distribution of Daktulosphaira vitifoliae under climate change based on MaxEnt. Insects. 12, 347 (2021).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Ji, W., Han, K., Lu, Y. & Wei, J. Predicting the potential distribution of the vine mealybug, Planococcus ficus under climate change by MaxEnt. J. Crop. Prot. 137, 105268 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sharma, HC & Prabhakar, CS. Impact of climate change on pest management and food security. In Integrated Pest Management 23–36 (Academic Press, Cambridge, 2014).Skendžić, S., Zovko, M., Živković, I. P., Lešic, V. & Lemić, D. The impact of climate change on agricultural insect pests. Insects. 12, 440 (2021).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Ward, N. L. & Masters, G. J. Linking climate change and species invasion: An illustration using insect herbivores. Glob. Change Biol. 13, 1605–1615 (2007).Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    De Queiroz, D. L., Burckhardt, D. & Majer, J. Integrated pest management of eucalypt psyllids (Insecta, Hemiptera, Psylloidea). In Integrated pest management and pest control-current and future tactics. INTECH 2012, 385–412 (2012).
    Google Scholar 
    Hochberg, M. E. & Waage, J. K. A model for the biological control of Oryctes rhinoceros (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) by means of pathogens. J. Appl. Ecol. 28, 514–531 (1991).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Liu, Y. et al. MaxEnt modelling for predicting the potential distribution of a near threatened rosewood species (Dalbergia cultrata Graham ex Benth). Ecol. Eng. 141, 105612 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Wang, R. et al. Predictions of potential geographical distribution of Diaphorina citri (Kuwayama) in China under climate change scenarios. Sci. Rep. 10, 1–9 (2020).CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Wood, B. J. Studies on the effect of ground vegetation on infestations of Oryctes rhinoceros (L.) (Col., Dynastidae) in young oil palm replantings in Malaysia. Bull Entomol. Res. 59, 85–96 (1969).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Mittal, I. C. Survey of scarabaeid (Coleoptera) fauna of Himachal Pradesh (India). J. Entomol. Res. 24, 259–269 (2000).
    Google Scholar 
    Zheng, C., Jiang, D., Ding, F., Fu, J. & Hao, M. Spatiotemporal patterns and risk factors for scrub typhus from 2007 to 2017 in southern China. Clin. Infect. Dis. 69, 1205–1211 (2019).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Chen, S., Ding, F., Hao, M. & Jiang, D. Mapping the potential global distribution of red imported fire ant (Solenopsis invicta Buren) based on a machine learning method. Sustainability. 12, 10182 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ding, F. et al. Infection and risk factors of human and avian influenza in pigs in south China. Prev. Vet. Med. 190, 105317 (2021).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Jiang, D. et al. Spatiotemporal patterns and spatial risk factors for Visceral leishmaniasis from 2007 to 2017 in Western and Central China: A modelling analysis. Sci. Total Environ Sci. 764, 144275 (2021).Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Méndez-Rojas, D. M., Cultid-Medina, C. & Escobar, F. Influence of land use change on rove beetle diversity: A systematic review and global meta-analysis of a mega-diverse insect group. Ecol. Indic. 122, 107239 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Oke, T. R. City size and the urban heat island. Atmos. Environ. 7, 769–779 (1973).Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    Briere, J. F., Pracros, P., Le Roux, A. Y. & Pierre, J. S. A novel rate model of temperature-dependent development for arthropods. Environ. Entomol. 28, 22–29 (1999).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Zeng, Y., Low, B. W. & Yeo, D. C. Novel methods to select environmental variables in MaxEnt: A case study using invasive crayfish. Eco. Model. 341, 5–13 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Fand, B. B. et al. Invasion risk of the South American tomato pinworm Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) in India: Predictions based on MaxEnt ecological niche modelling. Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci. 40, 1–11 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Li, W. J. et al. Potential distribution prediction of natural Pseudotsuga sinensis forest in Guizhou based on Maxent model. J. For. Res. 48, 47–52 (2019).
    Google Scholar 
    McIntyre, S., Rangel, E. F., Ready, P. D. & Carvalho, B. M. Species-specific ecological niche modelling predicts different range contractions for Lutzomyia intermedia and a related vector of Leishmania braziliensis following climate change in South America. Parasit. Vectors 10, 1–15 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hao, M. et al. Global potential distribution of Oryctes rhinoceros, as predicted by boosted regression tree model. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 37, e02175 (2022).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Aidoo, O. F. et al. The impact of climate change on potential invasion risk of Oryctes monoceros worldwide. Front. Ecol. Evol. 10, 633 (2022).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Aidoo, O. F. et al. Lethal yellowing disease: Insights from predicting potential distribution under different climate change scenarios. J. Plant Dis. Prot. 2021, 1–13 (2021).
    Google Scholar 
    Ruheili, A. M. A., Boluwade, A. & Subhi, A. M. A. Assessing the Impact of Climate Change on the Distribution of Lime (16srii-B) and Alfalfa (16srii-D) Phytoplasma Disease Using MaxEnt. Plants. 10, 460 (2021).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Wang, R. et al. Predicting the potential distribution of the Asian citrus psyllid, Diaphorina citri (Kuwayama), in China using the MaxEnt model. PeerJ 7, e7323 (2019).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    He, S. T. & Jing, P. F. Prediction of potential distribution areas of Salvia bowleyana Dunn. in China based on MaxEnt and suitability analysis. J Anhui Agri. Sci. 8, 2311–2314 (2014).
    Google Scholar 
    Chahouki, M. A. Z. & Sahragard, H. P. Maxent modelling for distribution of plant species habitats of rangelands (Iran). Pol. J. Ecol. 64, 453–467 (2016).
    Google Scholar 
    Shabani, F., Kumar, L. & Ahmadi, M. Assessing accuracy methods of species distribution models: AUC, specificity, sensitivity and the true skill statistic. Glob. Int. J. Hum. Soc. Sci. 18, 6–18 (2018).
    Google Scholar 
    Baloch, M. N., Fan, J., Haseeb, M. & Zhang, R. Mapping potential distribution of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in central Asia. Insects. 11, 172 (2020).Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Wang, N., Li, Z., Wu, J., Rajotte, E. G., Wan, F & Wang, Z. The potential geographical distribution of Bactrocera dorsalis (Diptera: Tephrididae) in China based on emergence rate model and ArcGIS. In International Conference on Computer and Computing Technologies in Agriculture 399–411. (Springer, Boston, 2008).Manrique, V., Cuda, J. P., Overholt, W. A. & Diaz, R. Temperature-dependent development and potential distribution of Episimus utilis (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), a candidate biological control agent of Brazilian peppertree (Sapindales: Anacardiaceae) in Florida. Environ. Entomol. 37, 862–870 (2008).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Das, D. K., Singh, J. & Vennila, S. Emerging crop pest scenario under the impact of climate change–a brief review. AgroPhysics. 11, 13–20 (2011).CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Porter, J. H., Parry, M. L. & Carter, T. R. The potential effects of climatic change on agricultural insect pests. Agric. For. Meteorol. 57, 221–240 (1991).Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    Trenberth, K. E. Climate change caused by human activities is happening and it already has major consequences. J. Energy Nat. Resour. Law. 36, 463–481 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Xu, D., Zhuo, Z., Li, X. & Wang, R. Distribution and invasion risk assessment of Oryctes rhinoceros (L.) in China under changing climate. J. Appl. Entomol. 146, 385–395 (2022).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sushil, K. & Mukhtar, A. Effect of temperature and humidity on biology of rhinoceros beetle, Oryctes rhinoceros Linn. on oil palm. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 18, 108–112 (2007).
    Google Scholar 
    Sabidin, N. N. E. The effect of climate change to the population of rhinoceros beetle (Oryctes rhinoceros) at selected oil palm plantation. In Bachelor of Science Thesis Dissertation. Universiti Teknologi MARA. https://ir.uitm.edu.my/id/eprint/22754. (2018).Yadav, R. & Chang, N. T. Effects of temperature on the development and population growth of the melon thrips, Thrips palmi, on eggplant, Solanum melongena. J. Insect Sci. 14, 78 (2014).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Ju, R. T., Wang, F. & Li, B. Effects of temperature on the development and population growth of the sycamore lace bug, Corythucha ciliata. J. Insect Sci. 11, 1–12 (2011).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Zheng, F. S., Du, Y. Z., Wang, Z. J. & Xu, J. J. Effect of temperature on the demography of Galerucella birmanica (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Insect Sci. 15, 375–380 (2008).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Azrag, A. G. et al. Modelling the effect of temperature on the biology and demographic parameters of the African coffee white stem borer, Monochamus leuconotus (Pascoe) (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). J. Therm. Biol. 89, 102534 (2020).Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Aidoo, O. F. et al. The African citrus triozid Trioza erytreae Del Guercio (Hemiptera: Triozidae): Temporal dynamics and susceptibility to entomopathogenic fungi in East Africa. Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci. 41, 563–573 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Leonard, A. et al. Predicting the current and future distribution of the edible long-horned grasshopper Ruspolia differens (Serville) using temperature-dependent phenology models. J. Therm. Biol. 95, 102786 (2021).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Roy, B. A. et al. Increasing forest loss worldwide from invasive pests requires new trade regulations. Front. Ecol. Environ. 12, 457–465 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Shabani, F., Kumar, L. & Ahmadi, M. A comparison of absolute performance of different correlative and mechanistic species distribution models in an independent area. Ecol. Evol. 6, 5973–5986 (2016).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Cianci, D., Hartemink, N. & Ibáñez-Justicia, A. Modelling the potential spatial distribution of mosquito species using three different techniques. Int. J. Health Geogr. 14, 10 (2015).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Zelazny, B. & Alfiler, A. Oryctes rhinoceros (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) larva abundance and mortality factors in the Philippines. Environ. Entomol. 15, 84–87 (1986).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Wood, B.J. Studies on the effect of ground vegetation on infestations of Oryctes rhinoceros (L.)(Col., Dynastidae) in young oil palm replantings in Malaysia. Bull. Entomol. Res. 59, 85–96 (1969). More

  • in

    More losses than gains during one century of plant biodiversity change in Germany

    Dornelas, M. et al. Assemblage time series reveal biodiversity change but not systematic loss. Science 344, 296–299 (2014).Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Blowes, S. A. et al. The geography of biodiversity change in marine and terrestrial assemblages. Science 366, 339–345 (2019).Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Vellend, M. et al. Global meta-analysis reveals no net change in local-scale plant biodiversity over time. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 19456–19459 (2013).Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Elahi, R. et al. Recent trends in local-scale marine biodiversity reflect community structure and human impacts. Curr. Biol. 25, 1938–1943 (2015).Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Crossley, M. S. et al. No net insect abundance and diversity declines across US long term ecological research sites. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1368–1376 (2020).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Dirzo, R. & Raven, P. H. Global state of biodiversity and loss. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 28, 137–167 (2003).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ceballos, G. et al. Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: entering the sixth mass extinction. Sci. Adv. 1, e1400253 (2015).Article 
    ADS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Díaz, S. et al. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science 366, eaax3100 (2019).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Barnosky, A. D. et al. Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature 471, 51–57 (2011).Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Pimm, S. L. et al. The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science 344, 1246752–1246752 (2014).Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Primack, R. B. et al. Biodiversity gains? The debate on changes in local- vs global-scale species richness. Biol. Conserv. 219, A1–A3 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Vellend, M. The biodiversity conservation paradox. Am. Sci. 105, 94 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Cardinale, B. J., Gonzalez, A., Allington, G. R. H. & Loreau, M. Is local biodiversity declining or not? A summary of the debate over analysis of species richness time trends. Biol. Conserv. 219, 175–183 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Chase, J. M. et al. Species richness change across spatial scales. Oikos 128, 1079–1091 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ellis, E. C., Antill, E. C. & Kreft, H. All is not loss: plant biodiversity in the anthropocene. PLoS ONE 7, e30535 (2012).Hillebrand, H. et al. Biodiversity change is uncoupled from species richness trends: consequences for conservation and monitoring. J. Appl. Ecol. 55, 169–184 (2018).Staude, I. R. et al. Replacements of small- by large-ranged species scale up to diversity loss in Europe’s temperate forest biome. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 802–808 (2020).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Zellweger, F. et al. Forest microclimate dynamics drive plant responses to warming. Science 368, 772–775 (2020).Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Finderup Nielsen, T., Sand‐Jensen, K., Dornelas, M. & Bruun, H. H. More is less: net gain in species richness, but biotic homogenization over 140 years. Ecol. Lett. 22, 1650–1657 (2019).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Eichenberg, D. et al. Widespread decline in Central European plant diversity across six decades. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 1097–1110 (2021).Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Beck, J. J., Larget, B. & Waller, D. M. Phantom species: adjusting estimates of colonization and extinction for pseudo-turnover. Oikos 127, 1605–1618 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bruelheide, H. et al. sPlot—a new tool for global vegetation analyses. J. Veg. Sci. 30, 161–186 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Avolio, M. L. et al. A comprehensive approach to analyzing community dynamics using rank abundance curves. Ecosphere 10, e02881 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Diekmann, M. et al. Patterns of long‐term vegetation change vary between different types of semi‐natural grasslands in Western and Central Europe. J. Veg. Sci. 30, 187–202 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Newbold, T. et al. Widespread winners and narrow-ranged losers: land use homogenizes biodiversity in local assemblages worldwide. PLoS Biol. 16, e2006841 (2018).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Gini, C. Il diverso accrescimento delle classi sociali e la concentrazione della ricchezza. Giornale degli Economisti38, 27–83 (1909).Rumpf, S. B. et al. Range dynamics of mountain plants decrease with elevation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 1848–1853 (2018).Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Gonzalez, A. et al. Estimating local biodiversity change: a critique of papers claiming no net loss of local diversity. Ecology 97, 1949–1960 (2016).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Hundt, R. Ökologisch‐geobotanische Untersuchungen an den mitteldeutschen Wiesengesellschaften unter besonderer Berücksichtigung ihres Wasserhaushaltes und ihrer Veränderung durch die Intensivbewirtschaftung (Wehry-Druck OHG, 2001).Newbold, T. et al. Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520, 45–50 (2015).Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Jansen, F., Bonn, A., Bowler, D. E., Bruelheide, H. & Eichenberg, D. Moderately common plants show highest relative losses. Conserv. Lett. 13, e12674 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bruelheide, H. et al. Using incomplete floristic monitoring data from habitat mapping programmes to detect species trends. Divers. Distrib. 26, 782–794 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sperle, T. & Bruelheide, H. Climate change aggravates bog species extinctions in the Black Forest (Germany). Divers. Distrib. 27, 282–295 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    McKinney, M. L. & Lockwood, J. L. Biotic homogenization: a few winners replacing many losers in the next mass extinction. Trends Ecol. Evol. 14, 450–453 (1999).Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Timmermann, A., Damgaard, C., Strandberg, M. T. & Svenning, J.-C. Pervasive early 21st-century vegetation changes across Danish semi-natural ecosystems: more losers than winners and a shift towards competitive, tall-growing species. J. Appl. Ecol. 52, 21–30 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Milligan, G., Rose, R. J. & Marrs, R. H. Winners and losers in a long-term study of vegetation change at Moor House NNR: effects of sheep-grazing and its removal on British upland vegetation. Ecol. Indic. 68, 89–101 (2016).Baskin, Y. Winners and losers in a changing world. BioScience 48, 788–792 (1998).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Pereira, H. M., Navarro, L. M. & Martins, I. S. Global biodiversity change: the bad, the good, and the unknown. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 37, 25–50 (2012).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Naaf, T. & Wulf, M. Habitat specialists and generalists drive homogenization and differentiation of temperate forest plant communities at the regional scale. Biol. Conserv. 143, 848–855 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Heinrichs, S. & Schmidt, W. Biotic homogenization of herb layer composition between two contrasting beech forest communities on limestone over 50 years. Appl. Veg. Sci. 20, 271–281 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Reinecke, J., Klemm, G. & Heinken, T. Vegetation change and homogenization of species composition in temperate nutrient deficient Scots pine forests after 45 yr. J. Veg. Sci. 25, 113–121 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Metzing, D. et al. Rote Liste und Gesamtartenliste der Farn- und Blütenpflanzen (Trachaeophyta) Deutschlands (Landwirtschaftsverlag, 2018).Poschlod, P. Geschichte der Kulturlandschaft (Ulmer, 2017).Sukopp, H. ‘Rote Liste’ der in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland gefährdeten Arten von Farn- und Blütenpflanzen. (1. Fassung). Nat. Landsch. 49, 315–322 (1974).
    Google Scholar 
    Kuussaari, M. et al. Extinction debt: a challenge for biodiversity conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24, 564–571 (2009).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Dornelas, M. et al. BioTIME: a database of biodiversity time series for the Anthropocene. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 27, 760–786 (2018).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Jandt, U., von Wehrden, H. & Bruelheide, H. Exploring large vegetation databases to detect temporal trends in species occurrences. J. Veg. Sci. 22, 957–972 (2011).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Jones, F. A. M. & Magurran, A. E. Dominance structure of assemblages is regulated over a period of rapid environmental change. Biol. Lett. 14, 20180187 (2018).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Chytrý, M., Tichý, L., Hennekens, S. M. & Schaminée, J. H. J. Assessing vegetation change using vegetation-plot databases: a risky business. Appl. Veg. Sci. 17, 32–41 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Jandt, U. et al. ReSurveyGermany: Vegetation-plot time-series over the past hundred years in Germany. Sci. Data, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01688-6 (2022)Bohn, U. & Schniotalle, S. Hochmoor-, Grünland- und Waldrenaturierung im Naturschutzgebiet ‘Rotes Moor’/Hohe Rhön 1981–2001 (Landwirtschaftsverlag, 2008).Rosenthal, G. Erhaltung und Regeneration von Feuchtwiesen. Vegetationsökologische Untersuchungen auf Dauerflächen. Diss. Bot. 182, 1–283 (1992).
    Google Scholar 
    Schwabe, A. & Kratochwil, A. Pflanzensoziologische Dauerflächen-Untersuchungen im Bannwald ‘Flüh’ (Südschwarzwald) unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Weidfeld-Sukzession. Standort Wald 49, 5–49 (2015).
    Google Scholar 
    Poschlod, P., Schreiber, K.-F., Mitlacher, K., Römermann, C. & Bernhardt-Römermann, M. in Landschaftspflege und Naturschutz im Extensivgrünland. 30 Jahre Offenhaltungsversuche Baden-Württemberg Vol. 97 (eds. Schreiber, K.-F. et al.) 243–288 (2009).Hennekens, S. M. & Schaminée, J. H. J. TURBOVEG, a comprehensive data base management system for vegetation data. J. Veg. Sci. 12, 589–591 (2001).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Chytrý, M. et al. EUNIS Habitat Classification: expert system, characteristic species combinations and distribution maps of European habitats. Appl. Veg. Sci. 23, 648–675 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bruelheide, H., Tichý, L., Chytrý, M. & Jansen, F. Implementing the formal language of the vegetation classification expert systems (ESy) in the statistical computing environment R. Appl. Veg. Sci. 12, e12562 (2021).Jansen, F. & Dengler, J. GermanSL—eine universelle taxonomische Referenzliste für Vegetationsdatenbanken. Tuexenia 28, 239–253 (2008).
    Google Scholar 
    Wisskirchen, R. & Haeupler, H. Standardliste der Farn-und Blütenpflanzen Deutschlands (Ulmer, 1998).Jansen, F. & Dengler, J. Plant names in vegetation databases–a neglected source of bias. J. Veg. Sci. 21, 1179–1186 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Wegener, U. Vegetationswandel des Berggrünlands nach Untersuchungen von 1954 bis 2016—Wege zur Erhaltung der Bergwiesen (Mountain grasslands vegetation change after research from 1954 to 2016—ways to preserve mountain meadows). Abh. Berichte Aus Dem Mus. Heine. 11, 35–101 (2018).
    Google Scholar 
    Makowski, D., Ben-Shachar, M. & Lüdecke, D. bayestestR: describing effects and their uncertainty, existence and significance within the Bayesian framework. J. Open Source Softw. 4, 1541 (2019).Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    Weiner, J. & Solbrig, O. T. The meaning and measurement of size hierarchies in plant populations. Oecologia 61, 334–336 (1984).Article 
    ADS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Signorell, A. et al. DescTools: tools for descriptive statistics. R version 0.99.32 https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=DescTools (2020).BiolFlor—a new plant-trait database as a tool for plant invasion ecology. Divers. Distrib. 10, 363–365 (2004).INSPIRE. D2.8.III.18 Data Specification on Habitats and Biotopes—Technical Guidelines https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/documents/Data_Specifications/INSPIRE_DataSpecification_HB_v3.0rc2.pdf (2013).Jandt, U. & Bruelheide, H. German Vegetation Reference Database (GVRD). Biodivers. Ecol. 4, 355–355 (2012).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sokal, R. R. & Rohlf, F. J. Biometry (Freeman, 1995).Chytrý, M., Tichý, L., Holt, J. & Botta‐Dukát, Z. Determination of diagnostic species with statistical fidelity measures. J. Veg. Sci. 13, 79–90 (2002).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Gotelli, N. J. Null model analysis of species co‐occurrence patterns. Ecology 81, 2606–2621 (2000).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Pillar, V. D., Sabatini, F. M., Jandt, U., Camiz, S. & Bruelheide, H. Revealing the functional traits linked to hidden environmental factors in community assembly. J. Veg. Sci. 32, e12976 (2021).Sabatini, F. M., Jiménez‐Alfaro, B., Burrascano, S., Lora, A. & Chytrý, M. Beta‐diversity of central European forests decreases along an elevational gradient due to the variation in local community assembly processes. Ecography 41, 1038–1048 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    MacArthur, R. On the relative abundance of species. Am. Nat. 94, 25–36 (1960).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Prado, P. I., Miranda, M. D. & Chalom, A. sads: maximum likelihood models for species abundance distributions. R version 0.4.2. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=sads (2018).Kuhn, G., Heinz, S. & Mayer, F. Grünlandmonitoring Bayern. Ersterhebung der Vegetation 2002–2008. Schriftenreihe LfL Bayer. Landesanst. Für Landwirtsch. 3, 1–161 (2011).
    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Introducing African cheetahs to India is an ill-advised conservation attempt

    Jhala, Y. V. et al. Action Plan for Introduction of Cheetah in India (Wildlife Insititute of India, National Tiger Conservation Authority and Madhya Pradesh Forest Department, 2021).Durant, S. M. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 528–533 (2017).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Broekhuis, F. et al. Ecography 44, 358–369 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Lindsey, P. et al. (eds) Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) Population Habitat Viability Assessment Workshop Report. Conservation Breeding Specialist Group (SSC / IUCN) / CBSG Southern Africa (Endangered Wildlife Trust, 2009)Mills, M. G. L. & Mills, M. E. J. Kalahari Cheetahs: Adaptation to an Arid Region (Oxford Univ. Press, 2017).Weise, F. J. et al. PeerJ 5, e4096 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Clavel, J., Robert, A., Devictor, V. & Juilliard, R. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 72, 1203–1210 (2008).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Cheetah Conservation Fund. Project Cheetah: Mission Fact Sheet (Cheetah Conservation Fund, 2022).Boast, L. K. et al. in Cheetahs: Biology and Conservation (eds Marker, L. et al.) 275–289 (Elsevier Science, 2018).PTI. Have to be realistic about losses; not easy to bring back animal from extinction: cheetah expert. thehindu.com, https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/have-to-be-realistic-about-losses-not-easy-to-bring-back-animal-from-extinction-cheetah-expert/article65909157.ece (September 2022).Dasgupta, P. The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review (HM Treasury, 2021).Melzheimer, J. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 33325–33333 (2020).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Khalatbari, L. et al. Science 362, 1255 (2018).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Gopalaswamy, A. M. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2203244119 (2022).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Madhusudan, M. D. & Vanak, A. T. J. Biogeography https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.14471 (2022).Article 

    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Distribution, source apportionment, and risk analysis of heavy metals in river sediments of the Urmia Lake basin

    Basic characteristics of river sedimentsA considerable variation was found in the distribution of clay (81 to 48.4 g kg−1), silt (145 to 656 g kg−1), and sand (38 to 821 g kg−1) particles among sediment materials. The associated coefficient of variations (CV) was 57, 59.5, and 41%, respectively. Statistical data related to the physicochemical properties of sediments and their main elements are reported in Table 2. The variations in particle size distribution located sediment material in seven textural classes ranging from loamy sand to silty clay. The high variability in particle size distribution suggests that different sets of geogenic and anthropogenic processes are enacted in the development and distribution of sediments in the rivers. The pH and CCE ranged from 7.4 to 8.2 and 31 to 251 g kg−1, respectively, indicating the dominancy of alkaline-calcareous condition. None of the sediment samples exhibited salinity conditions (EC  > 4 dS m−1) with EC in the range of 0.3 to 1.4 dS m−1. A relatively low range of OM was found in all samples ranging from 7 to 61 g kg−1 with a mean value of 19 g kg−1. This range of OM coincides with the corresponding values in regional soils47. Except for pH, other sediments properties demonstrated above 35% of CV illustrating a wide range of variability in sediments’ physicochemical properties across the study rivers.Table 2 Summary statistics of sediment properties.Full size tableThe highest concentration among major elements was observed in SiO2, varying between 37.5 and 55.2%, with a mean percentage of 44.9%. This element followed in magnitude by Al2O3 (8.9–15.9%), CaO (5–14.3%), Fe2O3 (4.8–10%), MgO (2.4–17.2%), K2O (1.2–3.1%), Na2O (0.68–2.7%), SO3 (0.01–4.8% g kg−1) (Table 2). Considering the semi-arid climatic condition of the study region, higher levels of SiO2 and lower levels of Al2O3 may indicate that the silicate minerals forming the sediments of the area have not been subjected to severe weathering processes. Likewise, the Na2/K2O ratio was greater than 1 in the majority of sediment samples, implying an enrichment of potassium feldspar and the relatively intense weathering of Na-bearing minerals in the region48,49. The CIA value was in the range of 64.9 to 85.7% with a mean percentage of 72.9%, representing a moderate chemical weathering intensity of lithological materials (65%  Pb  > Cu  > Cd which varied largely among the sampling points. The level of Zn, Cu, Cd, Pb, and Ni varied in the ranges of 32.6–87.5, 14.2–33.3, 0.42–4.8, 14.5–69.5, and 20.1–183.5 mg kg-1, respectively, for winter, and 35.3–92.5, 15.6–35.1, 0.47–5.1, 15.5–73.1, 23.2–188.3 mg kg−1 for summer. The obtained ranges are comparable with data found in previous studies in Asia4,54,55,54.Figure 2The comparison of the mean concentration of Zn, Cu, Cd, Pb, and Ni elements in the study rivers’ sediments during summer and winter. Different letters show significant differences in metal content among rivers pooled over seasons at P  More