Ecology

Field, C. B., Behrenfeld, M. J., Randerson, J. T. & Falkowski, P. Primary production of the biosphere: integrating terrestrial and oceanic components. Science 281, 237–240 (1998).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Boyce, D. G., Lewis, M. R. & Worm, B. Global phytoplankton decline over the past century. Nature 466, 591–596 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Henson, S. A., Cael, B. B., Allen, S. R. & Dutkiewicz, S. Future phytoplankton diversity in a changing climate. Nat. Commun. 12, 5372 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Vaulot, D., Eikrem, W., Viprey, M. & Moreau, H. The diversity of small eukaryotic phytoplankton (≤3 μm) in marine ecosystems. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 32, 795–820 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Agawin, N. S. R., Duarte, C. M. & Agustí, S. Nutrient and temperature control of the contribution of picoplankton to phytoplankton biomass and production. Limnol. Oceanogr. 45, 591–600 (2000).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Morán, X. A. G., López-Urrutia, Á., Calvo-Díaz, A. & Li, W. K. W. Increasing importance of small phytoplankton in a warmer ocean. Glob. Change Biol. 16, 1137–1144 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, W. K. W., McLaughlin, F. A., Lovejoy, C. & Carmack, E. C. Smallest algae thrive as the arctic ocean freshens. Science 326 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1179798 (2009).Benner, I., Irwin, A. J. & Finkel, Z. V. Capacity of the common Arctic picoeukaryote Micromonas to adapt to a warming ocean. Limnol. Oceanography Lett. 5, 221–227 (2020).Sunda, W. G. & Huntsman, S. A. Iron uptake and growth limitation in oceanic and coastal phytoplankton. Mar. Chem. 50, 189–206 (1995).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Raven, J. A. The twelfth Tansley Lecture. Small is beautiful: the picophytoplankton. Funct. Ecol. 12, 503–513 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Morel, F. M. M. & Price, N. M. The biogeochemical cycles of trace metals in the oceans. Science 300, 944–947 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gao, X., Bowler, C. & Kazamia, E. Iron metabolism strategies in diatoms. J. Exp. Bot. 72, 2165–2180 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Caputi, L. et al. Community-level responses to iron availability in open ocean plankton ecosystems. Glob. Biogeochemical Cycles 33, 391–419 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Carradec, Q. et al. A global ocean atlas of eukaryotic genes. Nat. Commun. 9, 373 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Morrissey, J. et al. A novel protein, ubiquitous in marine phytoplankton, concentrates iron at the cell surface and facilitates uptake. Curr. Biol. 25, 364–371 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Moore, C. M. et al. Processes and patterns of oceanic nutrient limitation. Nat. Geosci. 6, 701–710 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kumar, A. & Bera, S. Revisiting nitrogen utilization in algae: a review on the process of regulation and assimilation. Bioresour. Technol. Rep. 12, 100584 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Smith, S. R. et al. Evolution and regulation of nitrogen flux through compartmentalized metabolic networks in a marine diatom. Nat. Commun. 10, 4552 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Berg, G. M., Glibert, P. M., Lomas, M. W. & Burford, M. A. Organic nitrogen uptake and growth by the chrysophyte Aureococcus anophagefferens during a brown tide event. Mar. Biol. 129, 377–387 (1997).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Andersen, R. A., Saunders, G. W., Paskind, M. P. & Sexton, J. P. Ultrastructure and 18s rRNA gene sequence for Pelagomonas calceolata gen. et sp. nov. and the description of a new algal class, the pelagophyceae classis nov. J. Phycol. 29, 701–715 (1993).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Choi, C. J. et al. Seasonal and geographical transitions in eukaryotic phytoplankton community structure in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Front. Microbiol. 11, 542372 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Duerschlag, J. et al. Niche partitioning by photosynthetic plankton as a driver of CO2-fixation across the oligotrophic South Pacific Subtropical Ocean. ISME J 1–12 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-021-01072-z (2021).Worden, A. Z. et al. Global distribution of a wild alga revealed by targeted metagenomics. Curr. Biol. 22, R675–R677 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Dimier, C. é, Brunet, C., Geider, R. & Raven, J. Growth and photoregulation dynamics of the picoeukaryote Pelagomonas calceolata in fluctuating light. Limnol. Oceanogr. 54, 823–836 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Dupont, C. L. et al. Genomes and gene expression across light and productivity gradients in eastern subtropical Pacific microbial communities. ISME J. 9, 1076–1092 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kang, Y. et al. Transcriptomic responses of four pelagophytes to nutrient (N, P) and light stress. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 636699 (2021).Huff, J. T., Zilberman, D. & Roy, S. W. Mechanism for DNA transposons to generate introns on genomic scales. Nature 538, 533–536 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Waterhouse, R. M. et al. BUSCO applications from quality assessments to gene prediction and phylogenomics. Mol. Biol. Evol. 35, 543–548 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Nambiar, M. & Smith, G. R. Repression of harmful meiotic recombination in centromeric regions. Semin Cell Dev. Biol. 54, 188–197 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pessia, E. et al. Evidence for widespread GC-biased gene conversion in eukaryotes. Genome Biol. Evol. 4, 675–682 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Chi, J., Mahé, F., Loidl, J., Logsdon, J. & Dunthorn, M. Meiosis gene inventory of four ciliates reveals the prevalence of a synaptonemal complex-independent crossover pathway. Mol. Biol. Evol. 31, 660–672 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ramesh, M. A., Malik, S.-B. & Logsdon, J. M. A phylogenomic inventory of meiotic genes; evidence for sex in Giardia and an early eukaryotic origin of meiosis. Curr. Biol. 15, 185–191 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Schurko, A. M. & Logsdon, J. M. Using a meiosis detection toolkit to investigate ancient asexual ‘scandals’ and the evolution of sex. Bioessays 30, 579–589 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ibarbalz, F. M. et al. Global trends in marine plankton diversity across kingdoms of life. Cell 179, 1084–1097.e21 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Frémont, P. et al. Restructuring of plankton genomic biogeography in the surface ocean under climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 12, 393–401 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ward, D. M. & Kaplan, J. Ferroportin-mediated iron transport: expression and regulation. Biochim Biophys. Acta 1823, 1426–1433 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gobler, C. J., Lonsdale, D. J. & Boyer, G. L. A review of the causes, effects, and potential management of harmful brown tide blooms caused by Aureococcus anophagefferens (Hargraves et sieburth). Estuaries 28, 726–749 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Agusti, S., Lubián, L. M., Moreno-Ostos, E., Estrada, M. & Duarte, C. M. Projected changes in photosynthetic picoplankton in a warmer subtropical ocean. Front. Mar. Sci. 5, 506 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Anderson, S. I., Barton, A. D., Clayton, S., Dutkiewicz, S. & Rynearson, T. A. Marine phytoplankton functional types exhibit diverse responses to thermal change. Nat. Commun. 12, 6413 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Martin, J. H. et al. Testing the iron hypothesis in ecosystems of the equatorial Pacific Ocean. Nature 371, 123–129 (1994).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Shi, D., Xu, Y., Hopkinson, B. M. & Morel, F. M. M. Effect of ocean acidification on iron availability to marine phytoplankton. Science 327, 676–679 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
McQuaid, J. B. et al. Carbonate-sensitive phytotransferrin controls high-affinity iron uptake in diatoms. Nature 555, 534–537 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Turnšek, J. et al. Proximity proteomics in a marine diatom reveals a putative cell surface-to-chloroplast iron trafficking pathway. eLife 10, e52770 (2021).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Urzica, E. I. et al. Systems and trans-system level analysis identifies conserved iron deficiency responses in the plant lineage[W][OA]. Plant Cell 24, 3921–3948 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Mao, X. et al. Diversity, prevalence, and expression of cyanase genes (cynS) in planktonic marine microorganisms. ISME J. 16, 602–605 (2022).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ou, L., Cai, Y., Jin, W., Wang, Z. & Lu, S. Understanding the nitrogen uptake and assimilation of the Chinese strain of Aureococcus anophagefferens (Pelagophyceae). Algal Res. 34, 182–190 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shu, C. J., Ulrich, L. E. & Zhulin, I. B. The NIT domain: a predicted nitrate-responsive module in bacterial sensory receptors. Trends Biochem Sci. 28, 121–124 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wu, S. Q., Chai, W., Lin, J. T. & Stewart, V. General nitrogen regulation of nitrate assimilation regulatory gene nasR expression in Klebsiella oxytoca M5al. J. Bacteriol. 181, 7274–7284 (1999).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Durand, N. C. et al. Juicer provides a one-click system for analyzing loop-resolution Hi-C experiments. Cell Syst. 3, 95–98 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, R., Li, Y., Kristiansen, K. & Wang, J. SOAP: short oligonucleotide alignment program. Bioinformatics 24, 713–714 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Alberti, A. et al. Viral to metazoan marine plankton nucleotide sequences from the Tara Oceans expedition. Sci. Data 4, 170093 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kopylova, E., Noé, L. & Touzet, H. SortMeRNA: fast and accurate filtering of ribosomal RNAs in metatranscriptomic data. Bioinformatics 28, 3211–3217 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kim, D., Song, L., Breitwieser, F. P. & Salzberg, S. L. Centrifuge: rapid and sensitive classification of metagenomic sequences. Genome Res. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.210641.116 (2016).Vurture, G. W. et al. GenomeScope: fast reference-free genome profiling from short reads. Bioinformatics 33, 2202–2204 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Vaser, R. & Šikić, M. Yet another de novo genome assembler. BioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/656306 (2019).Liu, H. et al. SMARTdenovo: a de novo assembler using long noisy reads. Gigabyte 2021, 1–9 (2021).Article 

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

Google Scholar 
Ruan, J. & Li, H. Fast and accurate long-read assembly with wtdbg2. Nat. Methods 17, 155–158 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

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

Google Scholar 
Vaser, R., Sović, I., Nagarajan, N. & Šikić, M. Fast and accurate de novo genome assembly from long uncorrected reads. Genome Res 27, 737–746 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Aury, J.-M. & Istace, B. Hapo-G, haplotype-aware polishing of genome assemblies with accurate reads. NAR Genomics Bioinform. 3, lqab034 (2021).Benson, G. Tandem repeats finder: a program to analyze DNA sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 27, 573–580 (1999).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Morgulis, A., Gertz, E. M., Schäffer, A. A. & Agarwala, R. A fast and symmetric DUST implementation to mask low-complexity DNA sequences. J. Comput Biol. 13, 1028–1040 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Smit, A. F. A., Hubley, R. & Green, P. RepeatMasker. http://repeatmasker.org/ (2013).Price, A. L., Jones, N. C. & Pevzner, P. A. De novo identification of repeat families in large genomes. Bioinformatics 21, i351–i358 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Quinlan, A. R. & Hall, I. M. BEDTools: a flexible suite of utilities for comparing genomic features. Bioinformatics 26, 841–842 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pedersen, B. S. & Quinlan, A. R. Mosdepth: quick coverage calculation for genomes and exomes. Bioinformatics 34, 867–868 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Schulz, M. H., Zerbino, D. R., Vingron, M. & Birney, E. Oases: robust de novo RNA-seq assembly across the dynamic range of expression levels. Bioinformatics 28, 1086–1092 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zerbino, D. R. & Birney, E. Velvet: algorithms for de novo short read assembly using de Bruijn graphs. Genome Res. 18, 821–829 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, H. et al. The sequence Alignment/Map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics 25, 2078–2079 (2009).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Marchler-Bauer, A. et al. CDD: NCBI’s conserved domain database. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, D222–D226 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Niang, G. et al. METdb: A genomic reference database for marine species. F1000Research, https://doi.org/10.7490/f1000research.1118000.1 (2020).Kent, W. J. BLAT–the BLAST-like alignment tool. Genome Res. 12, 656–664 (2002).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Altschul, S. F., Gish, W., Miller, W., Myers, E. W. & Lipman, D. J. Basic local alignment search tool. J. Mol. Biol. 215, 403–410 (1990).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Birney, E., Clamp, M. & Durbin, R. GeneWise and genomewise. Genome Res. 14, 988–995 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Stanke, M. et al. AUGUSTUS: ab initio prediction of alternative transcripts. Nucleic Acids Res. 34, W435–W439 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Dubarry, M. et al. Gmove a tool for eukaryotic gene predictions using various evidences. F1000Research, https://doi.org/10.7490/f1000research.1111735.1 (2016).Sibbald, S. J., Lawton, M. & Archibald, J. M. Mitochondrial genome evolution in pelagophyte algae. Genome Biol. Evol. 13, evab018 (2021).Quevillon, E. et al. InterProScan: protein domains identifier. Nucleic Acids Res. 33, W116–W120 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Buchfink, B., Reuter, K. & Drost, H.-G. Sensitive protein alignments at tree-of-life scale using DIAMOND. Nat. Methods 18, 366–368 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Aramaki, T. et al. KofamKOALA: KEGG Ortholog assignment based on profile HMM and adaptive score threshold. Bioinformatics 36, 2251–2252 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Delmont, T. O. et al. Functional repertoire convergence of distantly related eukaryotic plankton lineages abundant in the sunlit ocean. Cell Genomics 2, 100123 (2022).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, H. & Durbin, R. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows–Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics 25, 1754–1760 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pesant, S. et al. Open science resources for the discovery and analysis of Tara Oceans data. Sci. Data 2, 150023 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Aumont, O., Ethé, C., Tagliabue, A., Bopp, L. & Gehlen, M. PISCES-v2: an ocean biogeochemical model for carbon and ecosystem studies. Geoscientific Model Dev. 8, 2465–2513 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Clayton, S. et al. Biogeochemical versus ecological consequences of modeled ocean physics. Biogeosciences 14, 2877–2889 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ravindra, K., Rattan, P., Mor, S. & Aggarwal, A. N. Generalized additive models: building evidence of air pollution, climate change and human health. Environ. Int. 132, 104987 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Günther, F. & Fritsch, S. neuralnet: training of neural networks. R. J. 2, 30–38 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gobler, C. J. et al. Niche of harmful alga Aureococcus anophagefferens revealed through ecogenomics. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 4352–4357 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Guo, L. et al. Genome assembly of Nannochloropsis oceanica provides evidence of host nucleus overthrow by the symbiont nucleus during speciation. Commun. Biol. 2, 1–12 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bowler, C. et al. The Phaeodactylum genome reveals the evolutionary history of diatom genomes. Nature 456, 239–244 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Armbrust, E. V. et al. The genome of the diatom thalassiosira pseudonana: ecology, evolution, and metabolism. Science 306, 79–86 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Worden, A. Z. et al. Green evolution and dynamic adaptations revealed by genomes of the marine picoeukaryotes micromonas. Science 324, 268–272 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Palenik, B. et al. The tiny eukaryote Ostreococcus provides genomic insights into the paradox of plankton speciation. PNAS 104, 7705–7710 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Moreau, H. et al. Gene functionalities and genome structure in Bathycoccus prasinos reflect cellular specializations at the base of the green lineage. Genome Biol. 13, R74 (2012).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Read, B. A. et al. Pan genome of the phytoplankton Emiliania underpins its global distribution. Nature 499, 209–213 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

Hardwicke, T. E. et al. Analytic reproducibility in articles receiving open data badges at the journal Psychological Science: an observational study. R. Soc. Open Sci. 8, 201494 (2021).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Enserink, M. Sea of doubts. Science 372, 560–565 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Buxton, R. T. et al. Avoiding wasted research resources in conservation science. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 3, 1–11 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Tai, T. C. & Robinson, J. P. W. Enhancing climate change research with open science. Front. Environ. Sci. 6, 1–5 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Popkin, G. Data sharing and how it can benefit your scientific career. Nature 569, 445–447 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wilkinson, M. D. et al. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci. Data 3, 160018 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Roche, D. G. et al. Slow improvement to the archiving quality of open datasets shared by researchers in ecology and evolution. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 289, 20212780 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tedersoo, L., Küngas, R., Oras, E., Köster, K. & Helen, E. Data sharing practices and data availability upon request differ across scientific disciplines. Sci. Data 8, 1–11 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Christian, T. M., Gooch, A., Vision, T. & Hull, E. Journal data policies: exploring how the understanding of editors and authors corresponds to the policies themselves. PLoS ONE 15, 1–15 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Sholler, D., Ram, K., Boettiger, C. & Katz, D. S. Enforcing public data archiving policies in academic publishing: a study of ecology journals. Big Data Soc. 6, 1–18 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Postma, E., Gonzalez‐Voyer, A. & Holman, L. A comment on The adaptive value of gluttony: predators mediate the life history trade‐offs of satiation threshold by Pruitt & Krauel (2010). J. Evol. Biol. 34, 1989–1993 (2021).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Stodden, V., Seiler, J. & Ma, Z. An empirical analysis of journal policy effectiveness for computational reproducibility. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 2584–2589 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rohrer, J. M. et al. Putting the self in self-correction: findings from the Loss-of-Confidence Project. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 16, 1255–1269 (2021).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Vazire, S. A toast to the error detectors. Nature 577, 9 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Culina, A., van den Berg, I., Evans, S. & Sánchez-Tójar, A. Low availability of code in ecology: a call for urgent action. PLoS Biol. 18, e3000763 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Roche, D. G. et al. Paths towards greater consensus building in experimental biology. J. Exp. Biol. 225, jeb243559 (2022).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Laurinavichyute, A., Yadav, H. & Vasishth, S. Share the code, not just the data: a case study of the reproducibility of articles published in the Journal of Memory and Language under the open data policy. J. Mem. Lang. 125, 104332 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Roche, D. G., Kruuk, L. E. B., Lanfear, R. & Binning, S. A. Public data archiving in ecology and evolution: how well are we doing? PLoS Biol. 13, e1002295 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Besançon, L., Bik, E., Heathers, J. & Meyerowitz-Katz, G. Correction of scientific literature: too little, too late! PLoS Biol. 20, e3001572 (2022).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Holmes, N. P. I critiqued my past papers on social media—here’s what I learnt. Nature 595, 333 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. & Al-Khatib, A. Ending the retraction stigma: encouraging the reporting of errors in the biomedical record. Res. Ethics 17, 251–259 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Minocher, R., Atmaca, S., Bavero, C., McElreath, R. & Beheim, B. Estimating the reproducibility of social learning research published between 1955 and 2018. R. Soc. Open Sci. 8, 210450 (2021).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Montgomerie, R. From the Editor’s desk of The American Naturalist: data transparency 2020. The American Naturalist http://comments.amnat.org/2021/01/note-since-fall-2020-robert-montgomerie.html (2021).R Project. R version 4.0.3 https://cran.r-project.org/bin/windows/base/old/4.0.3/ (2020). More

Insect rearingThe B. dorsalis strain collected from a carambola (Averrhoa carambola) orchard in Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, was reared under laboratory conditions (27 ± 1 °C, 12:12 h light:dark cycle, 70–80% RH). A maize-based artificial diet containing 150 g of corn flour, 150 g of banana, 0.6 g of sodium benzoate, 30 g of yeast, 30 g of sucrose, 30 g of paper towel, 1.2 mL of hydrochloric acid and 300 mL of water was used to feed the larvae. Adults were fed a solid diet (consisting of 50 g yeast and 50 g sugar) and 50 mL sterile water in a 35 cm × 35 cm × 35 cm wooden cage. For B. dorsalis, the female will start laying eggs once mated and the female will start mating 7 days after emergence. To make sure all females used in our study were gravid females, females were selected 10 day after emergence.Visualization of CF-BD with FISH and PCRFISH was carried out on dissected gut and ovary samples from B. dorsalis. The hybridization protocol for the gut and ovary was performed according to a previously described method32. Briefly, the gut and ovary were collected and immediately soaked in Carnoy’s fixative for 12 h. After sample fixation, proteinase K (2 mg/mL) treatment for 20 min at 37 °C and HCl (0.2 mol/L) treatment for 15 min at room temperature were performed successively. Then, followed by dehydration in ethanol, the samples were incubated in buffer (20 mM Tris-HCl (pH 8.0), 0.9 M NaCl, 0.01% sodium dodecyl sulfate, 30% formamide) containing 50 nM CF-BD specific probe (5′-AATGGCGTACACAAAGAG-3′) labeled with cy3 at the 5′ end for 90 min. After incubation, the samples were washed with buffer (0.1 M NaCl, 20 mM Tris/HCl (pH 8.0), 5 mM ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (pH 8.0), 0.01% SDS) and observed under an epifluorescence microscope (Axiophot, Carl Zeiss, Shinjuku-ku, Japan).To further confirm CF-BD in rectum and ovary of mature females, rectums and ovaries of mature females were dissected and fixed in formalin fixation for 24 h. After soaking in graded alcohols and xylene, all samples were embedded in paraffin for section preparation. Samples were sliced into 4 µm each before pasting on the glass slide and then sent for FISH with the same probe (labeled with cy3 at the 5′ end) used above. Moreover, nested PCR was applied to detect CF-BD in 19 ovaries of mature females according to the method of Guo et al., 201733. Briefly, a 1149 bp region of gyrB gene of CF-BD was amplified by the specific outer primer gyrBP1-F (5′-CAGCCCACTCTGAACTGTAT-3′) and gyrBP1-R (5′-TCAGGGCGTTTTCTTCGATA-3′) under a temperature profile of 95 °C for 1 min, which was followed by 25 cycles of 95 °C for 30 s, 52 °C for 30 s, 72 °C for 90 s, and 72 °C for 5 min. Then, a 371 bp region of the gyrB gene of CF-BD was amplified by the specific inner primer gyrBP4-F (5′-ACGCTGGCTGAAGACTGCC-3′) and gyrBP4-R (5′-TGGATAGCGAGACCACGACG-3′) under a temperature profile of 95 °C for 2 min, which was followed by 35 cycles of 95 °C for 30 s, 57 °C for 30 s, 72 °C for 30 s, and 72 °C for 5 min.Influence of CF-BD on B. dorsalis ovary developmentTo evaluate the effect of CF-BD on ovary development, newly emerged B. dorsalis females were injected with streptomycin and CF-BD suspension (both dilute in sterile water). Specifically, 10 µL 25% glycerol solution containing CF-BD was added into 100 mL Luria-Bertani (LB) liquid medium and culturing for 1 day by shaking (180 rpm) in 30 °C incubator. After culturing, CF-BD was collected by centrifuging (3000 rpm, 15 min) the medium in a 50 mL centrifuge tube. Then collected CF-BD was re-suspended with 5 mL sterile water. CF-BD concentration was measured on a hemocytometer and CF-BD concentrations used in the following assays were prepared by diluting the original concentration with sterile water. A 0.5 mm inside diameter capillary needle with 1 μL streptomycin or CF-BD suspension was used for injection. The injection operation was carried out on a microinjector (Eppendorf FemtoJet), and every female was injected in the abdomen near the ovipositor. The concentrations of streptomycin used were 20 mg/mL, 10 mg/mL and 5 mg/mL, respectively. And CF-BD suspension concentrations were 3 × 107 cfu/mL, 1.5 × 107 cfu/mL and 7.5 × 106 cfu/mL, respectively. For control, the female fly was injected with 1 μL sterile water in the abdomen near the ovipositor. Then the development level of the ovary was assessed by comparing the width and length of ovary between streptomycin (or CF-BD suspension) injection flies and control. For CF-BD injected flies, developmental facilitation was observed for ovaries 2 days before the flies reached sexual maturity (flies will reach sexual maturity after 7 days). For antibiotic injected flies, ovaries were dissected after 7 days.Oviposition assaysThe method reported in previous studies was followed for the oviposition experiments17. Briefly, a 2-choice apparatus was assembled in a cage made up of wood and wire gauze (length: width: height = 60 cm: 60 cm: 60 cm) with two petri dishes (diameter: 3 cm) at the bottom of the cage (Fig. 2a). All devices were sterilized before each experiment. Fresh fruits of guava (Psidium guajava Linn.) and mango (Mangifera indica L.) were sourced from the local market in Guangzhou, China. These fruits were sterilized on the surface with ethanol and ground into puree with a sterilized grinder, and puree (2 g) was added to the sterilized Petri dishes of the cages (one dish with puree containing 100 μL CF-BD (0.8*108 cfu/mL) in sterile water, and one dish with puree containing 100 μL sterile water). Then the prepared cages were divided into two groups for different assays. Group 1: At 0 h, 50 gravid females of B. dorsalis were placed in the cages and egg numbers in the petri dishes were recorded after 2 h. Group 2: At 4 h, 50 gravid females of B. dorsalis were placed in the cages and egg numbers in the petri dishes were recorded after 2 h.To test the oviposition attraction of 3-HA, a 4-choice apparatus was assembled in a cage made up of wood and wire gauze (length: width: height = 60 cm: 60 cm: 60 cm) with four petri dishes (diameter: 3 cm) at the bottom of the cage. In the Petri dishes, 2 g puree, 2 g puree + 0.2 mg 3-HA, 2 g puree + 2 mg 3-HA and 2 g puree + 20 mg 3-HA were added. Then, the egg-laying behavior was observed31.To test the oviposition attraction of 3-HA to flies with genes knocked down, 20 females injected with dsRNA were placed into the above cage with two Petri dishes. In the Petri dishes, 2 g guava puree and 2 g guava puree + 20 mg 3-HA were added. Then, the egg-laying behavior was observed using the above method. Oviposition of normally reared females was performed as a control. The oviposition index was calculated using the following formula:Oviposition index = (O − C)/(O + C), where O is the number of eggs in the treatment and C is the number of eggs in the control.Volatile analysisThe volatile compounds in guava and mango purees were analyzed by GC–MS according to the method described in a previous study17. Briefly, 2 g puree mixed with sterile water or CF-BD was added into a 20 ml bottle, and then a 100-μm polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) SPME fiber (Supelco) was used to extract the headspace volatiles for 30 min. GC–MS was performed with an Agilent 7890B Series GC system coupled to a quadruple-type-mass-selective detector (Agilent 5977B; transfer line 250 °C, source 230 °C, ionization potential 70 eV). The 3-HA concentrations in puree mixed with sterile water and CF-BD were measured with the standard curve drawn by the authentic standards of 3-HA. And 3-HA concentration in puree mixed with sterile water and CF-BD was compared with a paired sample Student’s t-test.Olfactometer bioassaysAn olfactometer consisting of a Y-shaped glass tube with a main arm (20 cm length*5 cm diameter) and two lateral arms (20 cm length, 5 cm diameter) was used. The lateral arms were connected to glass chambers (20 cm diameter, 45 cm height) in which the odor sources were placed. To ensure a supply of odor-free air, both arms of the olfactometer received charcoal-purified and humidified air at a rate of 1.3 L/min.To test the attraction effect of puree supplemented with CF-BD or 3-HA for females, puree mixed with CF-BD was prepared and placed in one odor glass chamber. In the control odor glass chamber, puree mixed with sterile water was placed. After 4 h, gravid females were individually released at the base of the olfactometer and allowed 5 min to show a selective response. The response was recorded when a female moved >3 cm into one arm and stayed for >1 min. Females that did not leave the base of the olfactometer were recorded as nonresponders. Only females that responded were included in the data analysis. Odor sources were randomly placed in one arm or the other at the beginning of the bioassay, and the experiment was repeated ten times. The system was washed with ethanol after every experiment. More than 100 females were selected for testing, and each female was used only once for each odor. A chi-square test was performed to compare the attraction difference between puree mixed with sterile water and CF-BD.Olfactory trap assaysThe attraction of purees supplemented with CF-BD to mature females was also tested. The test chamber was assembled with a plastic cylinder (120 × 30 cm) covered by a ventilated lid. The test chamber contained an odor-baited trap (2 g puree + 100 μL CF-BD (0.8*108 cfu/mL)) and a control trap (2 g puree + 100 μL sterile water). The traps were made of transparent plastic vials (20 × 6 cm) and were sealed with a yellow lid on which small entrances were present to let the flies in (Fig. 3a). After 0 h or 4 h of fermentation, 100 gravid females were released in the cage. The fly number in each trap bottle was recorded after 2 h. The number of flies was compared with a paired sample Student’s t-test.The attraction effect of puree supplemented with 3-HA on mature females was tested by placing four traps (2 g puree, 2 g puree + 0.2 mg 3-HA, 2 g puree + 2 mg 3-HA and 2 g puree + 20 mg 3-HA) in the test chamber. Then, the attraction effect was observed31.Video observation of egg-laying behaviorEgg-laying behavior was observed in a Petri dish. Briefly, guava puree was added to a centrifuge tube on which a hole was made. Then, one gravid female was placed into the petri dish, and the lid was closed. Above the petri dish, a camera was placed to record the behavior of the female before laying eggs.EAG analysisEAG analysis was performed to determine whether 3-HA could elicit electrogram responses in the ovipositors of gravid females and Obps knocked down gravid females. For EAG preparations, the ovipositor of a gravid female was cut off and mounted between two glass electrodes (one electrode connected with the ovipositor tip). The ovipositor tip was cut slightly to facilitate electrical contact. Dilution of 3-HA in ethanol (0.1, 1 and 10 mg/mL) was used as a stimulant. Ethanol was used as control. For each ovipositor, ethanol and 3-HA diluted in ethanol were used as stimulants. The signals from the ovipositors were analyzed with GC-EAD 2014 software (version 4.6, Syntech).Transcriptome sequencing and gene identificationTo identify the olfactory genes that contribute to B. dorsalis oviposition preference, the transcriptome sequencing results of the female ovipositors at different developmental times (0 day, 3 days, 6 days, 9 days and 12 days) were compared. For each time, 5 ovipositors were dissected for RNA extraction. In addition, five replicates were included for each time. In the next step, paired-end RNA-seq libraries were prepared by following Illumina’s library construction protocol. The libraries were sequenced on an Illumina HiSeq2000 platform (Illumina, USA). FASTQ files of raw reads were produced and sorted by barcodes for further analysis. Prior to assembly, paired-end raw reads (uploaded to National Genomics Data Center, Accession number: PRJCA004790) from each cDNA library were processed to remove adapters, low-quality sequences (Q  More

Coffaro, G. & Bocci, M. Resources competition between Ulva rigida and Zostera marina: A quantitative approach applied to the Lagoon of Venice. Ecol. Model. 102(1), 81–95 (1997).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Araújo, C. V. et al. Feeding niche preference of the mudsnail Peringia ulvae. Mar. Freshw. Res. 66(7), 573–581 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Whitfield, A. K. The role of seagrass meadows, mangrove forests, salt marshes and reed beds as nursery areas and food sources for fishes in estuaries. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 27(1), 75–110 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Su, L. et al. The occurrence of microplastic in specific organs in commercially caught fishes from coast and estuary area of east China. J. Hazard. Mater. 365, 716–724 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Benassai, G. Introduction to Coastal Dynamics and Shoreline Protection (Wit Press, 2006).
Google Scholar 
Decho, A. W. Microbial biofilms in intertidal systems: An overview. Cont. Shelf Res. 20(10–11), 1257–1273 (2000).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Thompson, C. E., Amos, C. L. & Umgiesser, G. A comparison between fluid shear stress reduction by halophytic plants in Venice Lagoon, Italy and Rustico Bay, Canada—Analyses of in situ measurements. J. Mar. Syst. 51(1–4), 293–308 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Neumeier, U. & Amos, C. L. Turbulence reduction by the canopy of coastal Spartina salt-marshes. J. Coast. Res. 53, 433–439 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Black, K. S., Tolhurst, T. J., Paterson, D. M. & Hagerthey, S. E. Working with natural cohesive sediments. J. Hydraul. Eng. 128(1), 2–8 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Paterson, D. M. Short-term changes in the erodibility of intertidal cohesive sediments related to the migratory behavior of epipelic diatoms. Limnol. Oceanogr. 34(1), 223–234 (1989).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tolhurst, T.J., Jesus, B., Brotas, V. & Paterson, D.M. Diatom migration and sediment armouring—An example from the Tagus Estuary, Portugal. in Migrations and Dispersal of Marine Organisms. 183–193. (Springer, 2003).Tinoco, R. O. & Coco, G. Observations of the effect of emergent vegetation on sediment resuspension under unidirectional currents and waves. Earth Surf. Dyn. 2(1), 83 (2014).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Chen, Y. et al. Differential sediment trapping abilities of mangrove and saltmarsh vegetation in a subtropical estuary. Geomorphology 318, 270–282 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Cozzolino, L., Nicastro, K. R., Zardi, G. I. & Carmen, B. Species-specific plastic accumulation in the sediment and canopy of coastal vegetated habitats. Sci. Total Environ. 723, 138018 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Widdows, J., Pope, N. D. & Brinsley, M. D. Effect of Spartina anglica stems on near-bed hydrodynamics, sediment erodability and morphological changes on an intertidal mudflat. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 362, 45–57 (2008).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Marion, C., Anthony, E. J. & Trentesaux, A. Short-term (≤ 2 yrs) estuarine mudflat and saltmarsh sedimentation: High-resolution data from ultrasonic altimetery, rod surface-elevation table, and filter traps. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 83(4), 475–484 (2009).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Coulombier, T., Neumeier, U. & Bernatchez, P. Sediment transport in a cold climate salt marsh (St. Lawrence Estuary, Canada), the importance of vegetation and waves. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 101, 64–75 (2012).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Neumeier, U. & Ciavola, P. Flow resistance and associated sedimentary processes in a Spartina maritima salt-marsh. J. Coast. Res. 20(2), 435–447 (2002).
Google Scholar 
Yao, W. et al. Micro-and macroplastic accumulation in a newly formed Spartina alterniflora colonized estuarine saltmarsh in southeast China. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 149, 110636 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Fok, L. & Cheung, P. K. Hong Kong at the Pearl River Estuary: A hotspot of microplastic pollution. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 99(1–2), 112–118 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Weinstein, J. E., Crocker, B. K. & Gray, A. D. From macroplastic to microplastic: Degradation of high-density polyethylene, polypropylene, and polystyrene in a salt marsh habitat. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 35(7), 1632–1640 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Willis, K. A., Eriksen, R., Wilcox, C. & Hardesty, B. D. Microplastic distribution at different sediment depths in an urban estuary. Front. Mar. Sci. 4, 419 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stead, J. L. et al. Identification of tidal trapping of microplastics in a temperate salt marsh system using sea surface microlayer sampling. Sci. Rep. 10(1), 1–10 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Friend, P. L., Ciavola, P., Cappucci, S. & Santos, R. Bio-dependent bed parameters as a proxy tool for sediment stability in mixed habitat intertidal areas. Cont. Shelf Res. 23(17–19), 1899–1917 (2003).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hurley, R., Woodward, J. & Rothwell, J. J. Microplastic contamination of river beds significantly reduced by catchment-wide flooding. Nat. Geosci. 11(4), 251–257 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ockelford, A., Cundy, A. & Ebdon, J. E. Storm response of fluvial sedimentary microplastics. Sci. Rep. 10(1), 1–10 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wang, J. Q. et al. Bioturbation of burrowing crabs promotes sediment turnover and carbon and nitrogen movements in an estuarine salt marsh. Ecosystems 13(4), 586–599 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Soulsby, R.L.. The bottom boundary layer of shelf seas. in Elsevier Oceanography Series. Vol. 35. 189–266. (Elsevier, 1983).Thompson, C. E., Amos, C. L., Lecouturier, M. & Jones, T. E. R. Flow deceleration as a method of determining drag coefficient over roughened flat beds. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 109, C3 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Chirol, C. et al. The influence of bed roughness on turbulence: Cabras Lagoon, Sardinia, Italy. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 3(3), 935–956 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kassem, H., Sutherland, T. F. & Amos, C. L. Hydrodynamic controls on the particle size of resuspended sediment from sandy and muddy substrates in British Columbia, Canada. J. Coast. Res. 37, 691 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Nepf, H. M. Flow and transport in regions with aquatic vegetation. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 44, 123–142 (2012).ADS 
MathSciNet 
MATH 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bouma, T. J. et al. Density-dependent linkage of scale-dependent feedbacks: A flume study on the intertidal macrophyte Spartina anglica. Oikos 118(2), 260–268 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Amos, C. L. et al. The stability of tidal flats in Venice Lagoon—The results of in-situ measurements using two benthic, annular flumes. J. Mar. Syst. 51(1–4), 211–241 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Amos, C. L., Feeney, T., Sutherland, T. F. & Luternauer, J. L. The stability of fine-grained sediments from the Fraser River Delta. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 45(4), 507–524 (1997).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tolhurst, T.J., Gust, G., & Paterson, D.M. The influence of an extracellular polymeric substance (EPS) on cohesive sediment stability. in Proceedings in Marine Science. Vol. 5. 409–425. (Elsevier, 2002).Brückner, M. Z. et al. Benthic species as mud patrol-modelled effects of bioturbators and biofilms on large-scale estuarine mud and morphology. Earth Surf. Proc. Land. 46(6), 1128–1144 (2021).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ferdowsi, B., Ortiz, C. P., Houssais, M. & Jerolmack, D. J. River-bed armouring as a granular segregation phenomenon. Nat. Commun. 8(1), 1–10 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Andersen, T. J., Jensen, K. T., Lund-Hansen, L., Mouritsen, K. N. & Pejrup, M. Enhanced erodibility of fine-grained marine sediments by Hydrobia ulvae. J. Sea Res. 48(1), 51–58 (2002).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Orvain, F., Sauriau, P. G., Sygut, A., Joassard, L. & Le Hir, P. Interacting effects of Hydrobia ulvae bioturbation and microphytobenthos on the erodibility of mudflat sediments. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 278, 205–223 (2004).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Orvain, F., Sauriau, P. G., Bacher, C. & Prineau, M. The influence of sediment cohesiveness on bioturbation effects due to Hydrobia ulvae on the initial erosion of intertidal sediments: A study combining flume and model approaches. J. Sea Res. 55(1), 54–73 (2006).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Widdows, J. et al. Inter-comparison between five devices for determining erodability of intertidal sediments. Cont. Shelf Res. 27(8), 1174–1189 (2007).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Amos, C. L. et al. The stability of a mudflat in the Humber estuary, South Yorkshire, UK. Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ. 139(1), 25–43 (1998).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tolhurst, T. J., Black, K. S. & Paterson, D. M. Muddy sediment erosion: Insights from field studies. J. Hydraul. Eng. 135(2), 73–87 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Quaresma, V. D. S., Bastos, A. C. & Amos, C. L. Sedimentary processes over an intertidal flat: A field investigation at Hythe flats, Southampton Water (UK). Mar. Geol. 241(1–4), 117–136 (2007).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Helcoski, R., Yonkos, L. T., Sanchez, A. & Baldwin, A. H. Wetland soil microplastics are negatively related to vegetation cover and stem density. Environ. Pollut. 256, 113391 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rochman, C. M. et al. Classify plastic waste as hazardous. Nature 494(7436), 169–171 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Barboza, L. G. A., Vethaak, A. D., Lavorante, B. R., Lundebye, A. K. & Guilhermino, L. Marine microplastic debris: An emerging issue for food security, food safety and human health. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 133, 336–348 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
de Barros, M. S. F., dos Santos Calado, T. C., Silva, A. S. & dos Santos, E. V. Ingestion of plastic debris affects feeding intensity in the rocky shore crab Pachygrapsus transversus Gibbes 1850 (Brachyura: Grapsidae). Int. J. Biodivers. Conserv. 12(1), 113–117 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Villagran, D. M., Truchet, D. M., Buzzi, N. S., Lopez, A. D. F. & Severini, M. D. F. A baseline study of microplastics in the burrowing crab (Neohelice granulata) from a temperate southwestern Atlantic estuary. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 150, 110686 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Townend, I. A Conceptual Model of Southampton Water. Vol 1. (Tech. Rep.). ABPmer report.. http://www.estuary-guide.net/pdfs/southampton_water_case_study.pdf. Accessed 21 May 2008 (ABP Marine Environmental Research Ltd., 2008).Amos, C. L., Grant, J., Daborn, G. R. & Black, K. Sea carousel—A benthic, annular flume. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 34(6), 557–577 (1992).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Thompson, C. E., Amos, C. L., Jones, T. E. R. & Chaplin, J. The manifestation of fluid-transmitted bed shear stress in a smooth annular flume-a comparison of methods. J. Coast. Res. 1, 1094–1103 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Buls, T., Anderskouv, K., Friend, P. L., Thompson, C. E. & Stemmerik, L. Physical behaviour of Cretaceous calcareous nannofossil ooze: Insight from flume studies of disaggregated chalk. Sedimentology 64(2), 478–507 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tuprakay, S., Usahanunth, N. & Tuprakay, S. R. A study bakelite plastics waste from industrial process in concrete products as aggregate. Int. J. Struct. Civ. Eng. Res. 6(4), 7 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Thompson, C. E. L., Couceiro, F., Fones, G. R. & Amos, C. L. Shipboard measurements of sediment stability using a small annular flume—Core mini flume (CMF). Limnol. Oceanogr. Methods 11(11), 604–615 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kassem, H., Thompson, C. E., Amos, C. L. & Townend, I. H. Wave-induced coherent turbulence structures and sediment resuspension in the nearshore of a prototype-scale sandy barrier beach. Cont. Shelf Res. 109, 78–94 (2015).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kassem, H. et al. Observations of nearbed turbulence over mobile bedforms in combined, collinear wave-current flows. Water 12(12), 3515 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Elgar, S., Raubenheimer, B. & Guza, R. T. Quality control of acoustic Doppler velocimeter data in the surfzone. Meas. Sci. Technol. 16(10), 1889 (2005).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Goring, D. G. & Nikora, V. I. Despiking acoustic Doppler velocimeter data. J. Hydraul. Eng. 128(1), 117–126 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mori, N., Suzuki, T. & Kakuno, S. Noise of acoustic Doppler velocimeter data in bubbly flows. J. Eng. Mech. 133(1), 122–125 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Stapleton, K. R. & Huntley, D. A. Seabed stress determinations using the inertial dissipation method and the turbulent kinetic energy method. Earth Surf. Proc. Land. 20(9), 807–815 (1995).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Dyer, K. Estuaries, A Physical Introduction. 2nd edn. https://doi.org/10.2307/1797104 (Wiley, 1997). More

von Wintersdorff, C. J. et al. Dissemination of antimicrobial resistance in microbial ecosystems through horizontal gene transfer. Front. Microbiol. 7, 173 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Suay-García, B. & Pérez-Gracia, M. T. Present and future of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) infections. Antibiotics 8, 122 (2019).PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Blair, J. M., Webber, M. A., Baylay, A. J., Ogbolu, D. O. & Piddock, L. J. Molecular mechanisms of antibiotic resistance. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 13, 42–51 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Codjoe, F. S. & Donkor, E. S. Carbapenem resistance: a review. Med Sci. 6, 1 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Schechner, V. et al. Asymptomatic rectal carriage of blaKPC producing carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae: who is prone to become clinically infected? Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 19, 451–456 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Penders, J., Stobberingh, E. E., Savelkoul, P. H. & Wolffs, P. F. The human microbiome as a reservoir of antimicrobial resistance. Front Microbiol. 4, 87 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Nordmann, P., Naas, T. & Poirel, L. Global spread of Carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 17, 1791–1798 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tooke, C. L. et al. β-Lactamases and β-lactamase inhibitors in the 21st century. J. Mol. Biol. 431, 3472–3500 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sun, X. et al. Microbiota-derived metabolic factors reduce campylobacteriosis in mice. Gastroenterology 154, 1751–1763.e2 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ichinohe, T. et al. Microbiota regulates immune defense against respiratory tract influenza A virus infection. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 5354–5359 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Buffie, C. G. et al. Precision microbiome reconstitution restores bile acid mediated resistance to Clostridium difficile. Nature 517, 205–208 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lieberman, T. D. et al. Parallel bacterial evolution within multiple patients identifies candidate pathogenicity genes. Nat. Genet. 43, 1275–1280 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Garud, N. R., Good, B. H., Hallatschek, O. & Pollard, K. S. Evolutionary dynamics of bacteria in the gut microbiome within and across hosts. PLoS Biol. 17, e3000102 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Chu, N. D., Smith, M. B., Perrotta, A. R., Kassam, Z. & Alm, E. J. Profiling living bacteria informs preparation of fecal microbiota transplantations. PLoS ONE 12, e0170922 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ferreiro, A., Crook, N., Gasparrini, A. J. & Dantas, G. Multiscale evolutionary dynamics of host-associated microbiomes. Cell 172, 1216–1227 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Mo, Y. et al. Duration of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae carriage in hospital patients. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 26, 2182–2185 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Haverkate, M. R. et al. Duration of colonization with Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase-producing bacteria at long-term acute care hospitals in Chicago, Illinois. Open Forum Infect. Dis. 3, ofw178 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Korach-Rechtman, H. et al. Intestinal dysbiosis in carriers of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. mSphere 5, e00173–20 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Yoshida, N. et al. Bacteroides vulgatus and Bacteroides dorei reduce gut microbial lipopolysaccharide production and inhibit atherosclerosis. Circulation 138, 2486–2498 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lenoir, M. et al. Butyrate mediates anti-inflammatory effects of. Gut Microbes 12, 1–16 (2020).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Riedel, C. U. et al. Anti-inflammatory effects of bifidobacteria by inhibition of LPS-induced NF-κB activation. World J. Gastroenterol. 12, 3729–3735 (2006).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zeng, M. Y., Inohara, N. & Nuñez, G. Mechanisms of inflammation-driven bacterial dysbiosis in the gut. Mucosal Immunol. 10, 18–26 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Winter, S. E. & Bäumler, A. J. A breathtaking feat: to compete with the gut microbiota, Salmonella drives its host to provide a respiratory electron acceptor. Gut Microbes 2, 58–60 (2011).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rivera-Chávez, F., Lopez, C. A. & Bäumler, A. J. Oxygen as a driver of gut dysbiosis. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 105, 93–101 (2017).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chng, K. R. et al. Metagenome-wide association analysis identifies microbial determinants of post-antibiotic ecological recovery in the gut. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1256–1267 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tenaillon, O., Skurnik, D., Picard, B. & Denamur, E. The population genetics of commensal Escherichia coli. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 8, 207–217 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Stacy, A. et al. Infection trains the host for microbiota-enhanced resistance to pathogens. Cell 184, 615–627.e17 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Barreto, H. C., Sousa, A. & Gordo, I. The landscape of adaptive evolution of a gut commensal bacteria in aging mice. Curr. Biol. 30, 1102–1109.e5 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ernst, C. M. et al. Adaptive evolution of virulence and persistence in carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae. Nat. Med. 26, 705–711 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhao, S. et al. Adaptive evolution within gut microbiomes of healthy people. Cell Host Microbe 25, 656–667.e8 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Warsi, O. M., Andersson, D. I. & Dykhuizen, D. E. Different adaptive strategies in E. coli populations evolving under macronutrient limitation and metal ion limitation. BMC Evol. Biol. 18, 72 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hickman, R. A., Munck, C. & Sommer, M. O. A. Time-resolved tracking of mutations reveals diverse allele dynamics during Escherichia coli antimicrobial adaptive evolution to single drugs and drug pairs. Front. Microbiol. 8, 893 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Auriol, C., Bestel-Corre, G., Claude, J. B., Soucaille, P. & Meynial-Salles, I. Stress-induced evolution of Escherichia coli points to original concepts in respiratory cofactor selectivity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 1278–1283 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Juers, D. H., Matthews, B. W. & Huber, R. E. LacZ β-galactosidase: structure and function of an enzyme of historical and molecular biological importance. Protein Sci. 21, 1792–1807 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rogers, A. W. L., Tsolis, R. M. & Bäumler, A. J. Salmonella versus the microbiome. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 85, e00027–19 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hughes, E. R. et al. Microbial respiration and formate oxidation as metabolic signatures of inflammation-associated dysbiosis. Cell Host Microbe 21, 208–219 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gupta, S., Allen-Vercoe, E. & Petrof, E. O. Fecal microbiota transplantation: in perspective. Ther. Adv. Gastroenterol. 9, 229–239 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wortelboer, K., Nieuwdorp, M. & Herrema, H. Fecal microbiota transplantation beyond Clostridioides difficile infections. EBioMedicine 44, 716–729 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lee, S. M. et al. Bacterial colonization factors control specificity and stability of the gut microbiota. Nature 501, 426–429 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Martinson, J. N. V. et al. Rethinking gut microbiome residency and the Enterobacteriaceae in healthy human adults. ISME J. 13, 2306–2318 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Woyke, T., Doud, D. F. R. & Schulz, F. The trajectory of microbial single-cell sequencing. Nat. Methods 14, 1045–1054 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Domingo, E. & Perales, C. Viral quasispecies. PLoS Genet. 15, e1008271 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Yamada, C. et al. Molecular insight into evolution of symbiosis between breast-fed infants and a member of the human gut microbiome Bifidobacterium longum. Cell Chem. Biol. 24, 515–524.e5 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zerbino, D. R. & Birney, E. Velvet: algorithms for de novo short read assembly using de Bruijn graphs. Genome Res. 18, 821–829 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gao, S., Bertrand, D., Chia, B. K. & Nagarajan, N. OPERA-LG: efficient and exact scaffolding of large, repeat-rich eukaryotic genomes with performance guarantees. Genome Biol. 17, 102 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gao, S., Bertrand, D. & Nagarajan, N. FinIS: improved in silico finishing using an exact quadratic programming formulation. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 7534, 314–325 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Li H. Aligning sequence reads, clone sequences and assembly contigs with BWA-MEM. arXiv 1303.3997v2 (2013).Segata, N. et al. Metagenomic microbial community profiling using unique clade-specific marker genes. Nat. Methods 9, 811–814 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Franzosa, E. A. et al. Species-level functional profiling of metagenomes and metatranscriptomes. Nat. Methods 15, 962–968 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Salter, S. J. et al. Reagent and laboratory contamination can critically impact sequence-based microbiome analyses. BMC Biol. 12, 87 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Segata, N. et al. Metagenomic biomarker discovery and explanation. Genome Biol. 12, R60 (2011).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hawinkel, S., Mattiello, F., Bijnens, L. & Thas, O. A broken promise: microbiome differential abundance methods do not control the false discovery rate. Brief. Bioinformatics 20, 210–221 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Morton, J. T. et al. Establishing microbial composition measurement standards with reference frames. Nat. Commun. 10, 2719 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Inouye, M. et al. SRST2: rapid genomic surveillance for public health and hospital microbiology labs. Genome Med. 6, 90 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Alcock, B. P. et al. CARD 2020: antibiotic resistome surveillance with the comprehensive antibiotic resistance database. Nucleic Acids Res. 48, D517–D525 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kurtz, S. et al. Versatile and open software for comparing large genomes. Genome Biol. 5, R12 (2004).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wilm, A. et al. LoFreq: a sequence-quality aware, ultra-sensitive variant caller for uncovering cell-population heterogeneity from high-throughput sequencing datasets. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, 11189–11201 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hinrichs, A. S. et al. The UCSC Genome Browser Database: update 2006. Nucleic Acids Res. 34, D590–D598 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pracana, R., Priyam, A., Levantis, I., Nichols, R. A. & Wurm, Y. The fire ant social chromosome supergene variant Sb shows low diversity but high divergence from SB. Mol. Ecol. 26, 2864–2879 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Quinlan, A. R. BEDTools: the Swiss-Army tool for genome feature analysis. Curr. Protoc. Bioinformatics 47, 11.12.1–34 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Spedicato, G. Discrete time Markov chains with R. R J. 9.2, 84 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cingolani, P. et al. A program for annotating and predicting the effects of single nucleotide polymorphisms, SnpEff: SNPs in the genome of Drosophila melanogaster strain w1118; iso-2; iso-3. Fly 6, 80–92 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hahsler, M., Piekenbrock, M. & Doran, D. dbscan: fast density-based clustering with R. J. Stat. Softw. 91, 1–30 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Galata, V., Fehlmann, T., Backes, C. & Keller, A. PLSDB: a resource of complete bacterial plasmids. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, D195–D202 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ondov, B. D. et al. Mash: fast genome and metagenome distance estimation using MinHash. Genome Biol. 17, 132 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Quan, S. et al. Adaptive evolution of the lactose utilization network in experimentally evolved populations of Escherichia coli. PLoS Genet. 8, e1002444 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tsuchido, T., VanBogelen, R. A. & Neidhardt, F. C. Heat shock response in Escherichia coli influences cell division. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 83, 6959–6963 (1986).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Trubetskoy, D., Proux, F., Allemand, F., Dreyfus, M. & Iost, I. SrmB, a DEAD-box helicase involved in Escherichia coli ribosome assembly, is specifically targeted to 23S rRNA in vivo. Nucleic Acids Res. 37, 6540–6549 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Garoff, L., Huseby, D. L., Praski Alzrigat, L. & Hughes, D. Effect of aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase mutations on susceptibility to ciprofloxacin in Escherichia coli. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 73, 3285–3292 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Aponte, R. A., Zimmermann, S. & Reinstein, J. Directed evolution of the DnaK chaperone: mutations in the lid domain result in enhanced chaperone activity. J. Mol. Biol. 399, 154–167 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Mundhada, H. et al. Increased production of l-serine in Escherichia coli through adaptive laboratory evolution. Metab. Eng. 39, 141–150 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Conrad, T. M. et al. RNA polymerase mutants found through adaptive evolution reprogram Escherichia coli for optimal growth in minimal media. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 20500–20505 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, Y. et al. LPS remodeling is an evolved survival strategy for bacteria. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 8716–8721 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

Iron and carbon dependent mutualism between Chlorella sorokiniana and Ralstonia pickettii forms a synthetic phototrophic communityThe synthetic microalgal-bacterial community based on the active exchange of iron and carbon was developed by screening multiple siderophore producer bacteria and dye decolorizer algae (Fig. 1; refer to Supplementary Data S1 for detailed results). Out of seven bacterial isolates obtained from untreated textile wastewater, five showed relatively high siderophore production in CAS agar plates and broth (Fig. S1). In broth, Serratia plymuthica PW1, Serratia liquefaciens PW71, and Ralstonia pickettii PW2 produced siderophores in decreasing order of concentration, i.e., 15.26 ± 1.3  > 13.28 ± 0.9  > 10.85 ± 0.7 µMmL−1 (Table 1). Arnow’s assay confirmed that S. plymuthica PW1 (81.10 ± 9.8 µMmL−1), R. pickettii PW2 (97.43 ± 16.8 µMmL−1), and S. liquefaciens PW71 (103.1 ± 8.3 µMmL−1) produced catecholate-type siderophores. On the other hand, Csaky’s assay confirmed that Stenotrophomonas maltophilia PW5 (37.86 ± 0.4 µMmL−1) and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia PW6 (17.73 ± 0.2 µMmL−1) produced hydroxamate-type of siderophores. Out of the five algal species, only freshwater microalgae Chlorella sorokiniana and Scenedesmus sp. showed the highest dye degradation potential; therefore, they were selected for further experiments (Data S1).Fig. 1: The study design explains different stages of experiments to develop a phototrophic community of previously non-associated algae and bacteria.The stages include (A) isolation of bacterial strains from textile wastewater collected from Panipat Industrial area, Haryana (India); B cultivation of freshwater and marine algal strains; C assessment of siderophore production in bacterial strains using Schwyn and Neilands’s universal Chrome Azurol S (CAS) assay; D assessment of dye degradation potential of algae strains using Acid Black 1 (AB1) dye; E interaction study between siderophore producing bacteria and dye degrader microalgae to identify bacterial strains that could sustain on algae-derived DOM secreted in algal exudates; F algal-bacterial co-culturability assessment to study different types of microbial interactions viz. antagonism, mutualism, or no interaction between the two organisms, and G identification of algal-bacterial model phototrophic community based on the active exchange of iron and DOM (refer to Data S1 for detailed results).Full size imageTable 1 Characterization of siderophore production in bacterial strains isolated from textile wastewater.Full size tableAfter that, the sterile exudates from C. sorokiniana and Scenedesmus sp. were used as the sole source of dissolved organic matter for bacterial growth and selection of appropriate microalgal-bacterial partners comprising the phototrophic community (Fig. 1E; Data S2). All five bacterial isolates grew well on the exudate of C. sorokiniana as a sole source of carbon. On the contrary, on exudates of Scenedesmus sp., S. plymuthica PW1 showed moderate growth in 20 h, while the growth of R. pickettii PW2 and S. liquefaciens PW71 remained insignificant. S. maltophilia PW5 and PW6 failed to grow in the exudate of Scenedesmus sp. (Fig. S2B).Finally, the compatibility between the phototrophic community of selected microalgae (C. sorokiniana/ Scenedesmus sp.) and siderophore-producer bacteria (S. plymuthica PW1/ R. pickettii PW2/ S. liquefaciens PW71) was tested by co-culturing them in iron limiting BBM media (BBM-Fe; without EDTA) (Fig. 1F). In the absence of EDTA, Fe precipitates rapidly as iron oxyhydroxides and becomes unavailable to microbes. Microalgal growth curves in co-culture assays were used to measure and compare population characteristics such as carrying capacity ‘k’, growth rate ‘r’, etc., in axenic and consortium setups. Algal growth parameters in co-culture with a bacterial partner were used to categorize their interaction as putative mutualistic, antagonistic, and neutral (Data S1, Tables S1 and S2) [42]. Under iron-limiting conditions, axenic C. sorokiniana experienced iron stress as the cell growth was 4.2 ± 0.4 × 106 cells mL−1 after 200 h incubation. On the other hand, axenic Scenedesmus sp. showed a significantly higher growth (11.3 ± 1.2 × 106 cells mL−1) than C. sorokiniana suggesting an effective iron uptake mechanism under iron-limiting conditions (k; t-test, p = 0.001) (Table S1). In contrast to the axenic microalgal culture, C. sorokiniana in co-culture with R. pickettii PW2 showed a significant increase in cell count at 200 h (6.2 ± 0.85 × 106 cells mL−1) (auc; p = 0.000). However, S. plymuthica PW1 exerted a negative effect on C. sorokiniana (Fig. 2A), as indicated by its significant increase in doubling time (p = 0.009) and reduction in auc (p = 0.001) (Fig. 3A). While S. liquefaciens PW71 remained neutral to C. sorokiniana (auc; p = 0.430) (Fig. 2A, Table 2). On the other hand, the interaction of Scenedesmus sp. with both R. pickettii PW2 and S. liquefaciens PW71 was neutral, while S. plymuthica PW1 showed a negative effect (Figs. 2A and 3A).Fig. 2: Assessment of algal and bacterial growth in co-culture experiments.A The growth curves represent the difference in the growth of C. sorokiniana when grown axenically or in co-culture with S. plymuthica PW1, R. pickettii PW2, and S. liquefaciens PW71 under iron limiting conditions. Whereas, the effect of bacteria on the growth of Scenedesmus sp. was less prominent. The difference in the CFUs of bacterial strains in axenic culture and co-culture suggests the growth-promoting effect of C. sorokiniana on S. plymuthica PW1 and R. pickettii PW2. B Anion-exchange chromatography suggests a difference in the glycosyl composition in the EPS of C. sorokiniana and Scenedesmus sp. C The area under curve (auc) of S. plymuthica PW1 and R. pickettii PW2 obtained after growth curves in different sugars. Here, ‘a’, ‘b’, etc., represent grouping after Tukey’s post hoc test.Full size imageFig. 3: Assessment of algal growth parameters in the algal-bacterial phototrophic community under iron-limiting conditions.A The confidence interval plots represent the significant difference in the growth parameters i.e., growth rate ‘r’, carrying capacity ‘k’, doubling time ‘Dt’, and area under curve ‘auc’, of C. sorokiniana (left panel) and Scenedesmus sp. (right panel) in algal-bacterial co-cultures w.r.t. to axenic culture (horizontal blue dashed line). The symbols ‘*’ and ‘**’ represent p values with statistical significance of ‘p  More

Our model results indicate that in species with a strict social dominance hierarchy where social rank is determined by nepotism, a beneficial mutation occurring in a low-ranking female is not very likely to get established. This outcome emerged despite the immense advantage of the modeled mutation, which doubled its carrier’s survival probability. Moreover, the reproductive skew in our model (see Supplementary Fig. 1) was less radical than the skew reported for the spotted hyena females21, which means that in the model, low-ranking females had a relatively higher reproductive success potential than in reality. In other words, our model may be underestimating the severity of the negative selection a low rank induces.It is reasonable to assume that a low-ranking mutant female in a female dominant society would produce very few surviving offspring due to her low rank and ensuing lack of access to resources. Thus, this female would have only a slight chance to transmit the mutation to the next generation. If this female does reproduce successfully and produces a female which also inherits the mutation, chances of this daughter to pass on the mutation are also slim, as her rank would be even lower than that of her mother. However, if the young produced is a male and has inherited the mutation, chances of transmitting the mutation may increase depending on the male’s reproduction odds. As demonstrated by the four scenarios, the reduction in mutation establishment with decreasing mutant female’s rank became more and more prominent with increasing restrictions on male reproduction. In all four scenarios, the mutation establishment rate median was zero for the lowest ranking mutants, and in all cases but Scenario I, it was 41. Although female dominance hierarchy exists in a few of these species (e.g., Peruvian squirrel monkey41, ring-tailed lemur (Lemur catta)39,42, Verreaux’s sifaka (Propithecus verreauxi))13,25, we did not find any studies indicating female reproductive skew in any of them. Holekamp and Engh25, who reviewed the more classical female dominant species, also reported no evidence for female reproductive skew.This seemingly lack of female reproductive skew among most female dominant species is quite surprising in light of the rather common correlation between social rank and female reproductive success in male dominant species. To mention a few, considerable female reproductive skew is found in baboons (Papio spp), macaques (macaca spp.), feral horses (Equus caballus) and plains zebras (Equus burchelli)8,15,19.Holekamp and Smale28 state that “reproductive skew among female spotted hyenas appears to be greater than that documented among females of male-dominated species characterized by plural breeding”. They suggest that the key determinant of reproductive success among females in this species is rank-related priority of access to food resources. This high priority is reinforced by female dominance over males and is particularly important as this species resides in an environment in which prey availability is seasonal and scarce at times21. Our study suggests that this extreme difference in reproductive success, which, unlike in male-dominated species, is determined by nepotism rather than by physical characters, may induce a handicap on the entire population preventing the establishment of beneficial mutations. This may also hinder adaptation to a changing environment. However, our study results indicate that male equal access to females may, at least partially, counter the inhibition effect on a beneficial mutation establishment. More research is necessary in order to investigate female reproductive skew in species with a social structure similar to that of the spotted hyena, which is characterized by female dominance over males, plural breeding, and a strict female linear social hierarchy determined by nepotism.One intriguing possibility for testing this model’s validity would be an empirical study, provided that the value of some adaptive trait can be measured. In the case of the spotted hyena such a trait may refer to hunting success or physical capabilities. It is well established that adult female spotted hyenas are larger and more aggressive than adult males21, but little attention has been allocated to the study of individual physical differences among females of different ranks. Smith et al.43 studied within clan aggression in the context of the fission-fusion behavior characterizing the spotted hyena clans. Their results indicate more frequent aggression and resulting fissions occurring during times of food shortage. Rank was found to be the major correlate of an aggressive incident result. If it is possible to identify low-ranking females with some beneficial trait (independent of rank), it would be interesting to follow such females’ inclusive reproductive success along time, and even more so, the reproductive success of their sons.Another possible path around the conflict this model suggests would be through the selection of male admission into new clans. Male admission into clans is often constrained by severe aggression of resident immigrant males which may prevent or delay male admission21,26. Such behavior may in fact promote mutant male chances, at least in the case of a mutation that improves physical capabilities.One last, though not very likely possible detour around this difficulty is the occurrence of dominance rank exchanges. Such rank improvements are not very common among female dominated societies, except for in the case of aging females who may clear the way for their daughters44. However, Straus and Holekamp44 found that individuals who repeatedly form coalitions with their top allies are likely to improve their position, and, according to Strauss and Holekamp44, “facilitate revolutionary social change”. It should be kept in mind that not only are such incidents rather rare, but they are unlikely to turn a very low-ranking female into a high-ranking one, especially not when group size is large.More empirical and theoretical research should shed more light on this intriguing question of possible maladaptive evolution. Our model, in line with a few other models such as that of Holman31, suggests that evolution may not always lead to the best solution. As in every process, a local optimum may get evolution trapped and prevent further advance to better optima. More

Human evolutionary research has historically conceptualised social support as a purely dyadic phenomenon (e.g., see Refs. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16). That is, given some trait pertaining to two persons i and j — e.g., their genetic relatedness, history of helping each other, physical proximity, or difference in wealth — does i help j? Both elegant and tractable, this dyad-centric view of social support evokes classic theoretical models of cooperation as a “Prisoner’s Dilemma” within a void consisting only of ego (i) and alter (j)17. Yet it also belies the fact that aid relationships (i.e., who helps who) constitute complex networks of supportive social bonds that emanate throughout entire human communities.Members of such networks may, in principle, unilaterally help whomever they wish. And their decisions to help — or to not help — specific others comprise a dynamic, supra-dyadic relational context that shapes one’s plausible set of aid targets at the micro level18,19,20,21,22. Put simply, in social support networks, aid is targeted and interdependent across dyads such that the patterning of cooperation among multiple alters jointly affects whom any one network member helps. This sociocentric (i.e., whole network) view of social support is distinct from the perspective taken by evolutionary graph theorists who study the emergence of cooperation on network structure and other spatial substrates (e.g., square grids) that may be fixed or dynamic (e.g., see Refs. 23,24,25). And it is distinct from the perspective taken by analysts of egocentric (i.e., personal) networks who study how the arrangement of intimate relationships exclusively between one’s closest contacts (e.g., the extent to which one’s friends are also friends) eases access to help (e.g., see Martí, Bolíbar, and Lozares26).Differences between the dyad-centric and the sociocentric perspectives on social support are not merely cosmetic. Indeed, the dyad-centric stance of human evolutionary research has led to a situation wherein the relational context of helping behaviour is underexplored. And this has, in turn, impaired understanding of the relative importance of fundamental evolutionary mechanisms to the structuring of cooperative relationships in human communities.Specifically, human evolutionary research on helping behaviour generally takes the theories of kin selection and reciprocal altruism as lodestars. In so doing, sociometric data from subsistence societies across the globe have been used to investigate whether consanguinity (i.e., genetic kinship) and reciprocity govern aid unconditionally and in relation to multiple social and demographic factors. These include affinity (i.e., marriage-based kinship), physical proximity, relative need, homophily (e.g., based on age and gender), social closeness, friendship, religiosity, reputation, conflict, status, and anthropometric measurements such as size, height, and strength. And, on balance, evidence1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,13,14,16,27,28,29,30,31,32,33 suggests that helping family and responding in kind when helped are the primary mechanisms by which humans informally distribute resources vital to day-to-day survival (e.g., advice, information, food, money, durables, and physical assistance).However, despite laudable exceptions2,7,15,28,29,30,31,32,33,34 and perhaps due to the influence of methodological trends in the wider behavioural ecology literature on relationships between animals (see Refs. 35,36,37), human evolutionary studies of real helping behaviour have typically relied on non-network methods — namely, monadic regression, dyadic regression, and permutation tests (e.g., see Refs. 1,2,3,5,6,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,16,27). Respectively, these techniques treat the supra-dyadic structure of social support networks as ignorable, reducible to dyads, or a nuisance to be corrected for38. Yet, sociocentric research by sociologists39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49 firmly establishes that humans create and maintain relationships in accordance with factors intrinsic to the supra-dyadic arrangement of network structure itself (e.g., processes of degree-reinforcement and group formation involving at least three persons). And this sociological research makes clear that network-structure-related dynamics can operate simultaneously and independently of non-network factors (e.g., age and kinship).Ultimately, reliance on methods that disregard complex interdependences between aid obscures the extent to which helping family and responding in kind when helped outrank the dynamics of the cooperative system within which decisions to assist specific individuals take place. This uncertainty represents a substantial gap in our scientific understanding of altruism. Accordingly, here I tackle a major point of interest in evolutionary anthropology and human behavioural ecology50 specifically through the lens of the sociology of social networks18,21,51, asking:RQ: How important is helping family and responding in kind when helped relative to supra-dyadic, network-structure-related constraints on the provision of aid?The Current StudyTo answer my research question, I use Koster’s27 recently-released cross-sectional data on genetic relatedness and the habitual provision of tangible aid (e.g., firewood, food, valuable items, and/or physical assistance). Re-analysed here due to their exceptional detail and measurement quality in addition to their broad relevance to the scientific community (see Methods), these data were collected in 2013 and concern a complete population. Specifically, they cover all 108 adult (18+) residents (11,556 ordered dyads) of the 32 households of Arang Dak — a remote village of 279 indigenous Mayangna and Miskito swidden (i.e., “slash-and-burn”) horticulturalists. Arang Dak sits on the Lakus River in Nicaragua’s Bosawás Biosphere Reserve, a neotropical forest in the Department of Jinotega.In total, the tangible aid network that I analyse — i.e., x(t2013)— consists of 1,485 asymmetric aid relationships between the adult residents of Arang Dak. Of the 1,485 aid relationships, 1,422 are verified by the source and the recipient of help. That is, xij(t2013) = 1 if villager i reported in 2013 that they give tangible aid to villager j at least once per month and villager j reported in 2013 that they receive tangible aid from villager i at least once per month. Still, note that Koster’s27 data document self-reported resource flows as opposed to observed transfers. Named sources and targets of aid are based on the village roster — not freely recalled from memory. See Methods for a summary of the data and details on the measurement of the network and kinship.Modelling StrategyTo analyse tangible aid in relation to supra-dyadic network structure (Fig. 1), I use generative network models following Redhead and von Rueden32 and von Rueden et al.33, amongst other human evolutionary scientists2,7,15,28,29,30,31,32,33,34. Specially, I rely on Stochastic Actor-Oriented Models (SAOMs) which are used for observational (i.e., non-causal) analyses of the temporal evolution of networks.Put simply, SAOMs are akin to multinomial logistic regression. More formally, SAOMs are simulations of individual network members’ choices between outgoing relationships with different rewards and costs. These simulations are calibrated or “tuned” to the observed network data. That is, conditional on x (i.e., the observed states of a dynamic network), SAOMs simulate network evolution between successive observations or “snapshots” of the network at (M) discrete time points — i.e., (xleft({t}_{m}right)to xleft({t}_{m+1}right)) — as a continuous-time, Markovian process of repeated, asynchronous, and sequential tie changes. The Markovian process is defined on the space of all possible directed graphs for a set of N = {1, …, n} network members40,42,44,52,53,54,55.SAOMs decompose change between successive network observations into its smallest possible unit. Specifically, “change” means creating one outgoing tie if it does not exist, dropping one outgoing tie if it does, or doing nothing (i.e., maintaining the status quo network). More formally, during a SAOM simulation, focal actors i (ego) myopically modify just one of their outgoing relationships with some alter j in the set of network members N (i.e., j ∈ N, j ≠ i). The change made by i is the change that maximises a utility or “evaluation” function. In this respect, the evaluation function captures the “attractiveness”44 of tie changes — where “attraction” means “…something like ‘sending a tie to [an actor j] with a higher probability if all other circumstances are equal.’” (Snijders and Lomi56, p. 5).The evaluation function itself is a weighted sum of parameter estimates (widehat{beta }) and their associated covariates k (i.e., SAOM “effects”44) plus a Gumbel-distributed variable used to capture random influences55. The simulated tie changes or “ministeps”44 made by i shift the network between adjacent (unobserved) states. These states differ, at most, by the presence/absence of a single tie40,42. And the probabilities of the ministeps — a large number of which are required to bring one observation of the network to the next (i.e., (xleft({t}_{m}right)to xleft({t}_{m+1}right))) — are given by a multinomial logit which uses the evaluation function as the linear predictor.Each covariate k used to specify the evaluation function summarises some structural (i.e., purely network-related) feature or non-structural feature of i’s immediate (i.e., local) network — e.g., the sum of the in-degrees of i’s alters, the number of reciprocated dyads that i is embedded in, or i’s number of outgoing ties weighted by genetic relatedness. These features correspond to theoretical mechanisms of interest (e.g., preferential attachment, reciprocal altruism, or kin selection) and generally take the form of unstandardised sums.SAOM parameter estimates (widehat{beta }) (log odds ratios) summarise the association between the covariates and the simulated tie changes or “ministeps”. Specifically, should a focal actor i have the opportunity to make a ministep in departure from some current (i.e., status-quo) network state x in transit to a new network state x±ij — i.e., the adjacent network defined by i’s addition/subtraction of the tie xij to/from x — ({widehat{beta }}_{k}) is the log odds of choosing between two different versions of x±ij in relation to some covariate k. For example, ({widehat{beta }}_{{rm{Reciprocity}}}=1.7) would indicate that the log odds of i creating and maintaining the supportive relation xij is, conditional on the other covariates k, larger by 1.7 when xij reciprocates a tie (i.e., xji) compared to when xij does not reciprocate a tie (i.e., reciprocated ties are more “attractive”). In contrast, ({widehat{beta }}_{{rm{Reciprocity}}}=-1.7) would indicate that the log odds of xij is, conditional on the other effects, smaller by −1.7 when xij reciprocates a tie compared to when xij does not reciprocate a tie (i.e., reciprocated ties are less “attractive”).Given the longitudinal nature of the model, the gain in the evaluation function for a ministep is determined by the difference Δ in the value of the statistic s for a covariate k — i.e., Δk,ij(x, x±ij) = sk,i(x±ij) − sk,i(x) — incurred through the addition/subtraction of xij to/from x (see Block et al.42 and Ripley et al.44 on “change statistics”). Accordingly, ({widehat{beta }}_{{rm{Reciprocity}}}=1.7), for example, is the value that xij positively contributes to the evaluation function when xij increases the network statistic sk,i(x) underlying the Reciprocity effect by the value of one (i.e., ΔReciprocity,ij (x, x±ij) = sReciprocity,i(x±ij) − sReciprocity,i (x) = 1 − 0 = 1).The probabilities of network members being selected for a ministep is governed by a separate “rate” function. And the baseline rate parameter λ is a kind of intercept for the amount of network change between successive observations of the analysed network. Larger baseline rates indicate that, on average, more simulated tie changes were made to bring one observation of the network to the next (i.e., (xleft({t}_{m}right)to xleft({t}_{m+1}right))).However, as the data from Nicaragua are from a single point in time (i.e., 2013), I use the cross-sectional or stationary Stochastic Actor-Oriented Model (cf. von Rueden et al.33). Accordingly, Arang Dak’s tangible aid network is assumed to be in “short-term dynamic equilibrium.” As Snijders and Steglich40 (p. 265) discuss in detail, “this ‘short-term equilibrium’ specification of the SAOM is achieved by requiring that the observed network is both the centre and the starting value of a longitudinal network evolution process in which the number of change opportunities per actor [i.e., λ] is fixed to some high (but not too high) value.”Practically speaking, this means that the cross-sectionally observed network is used as the beginning and the target state for a SAOM simulation — i.e., (xleft({t}_{2013}right)to xleft({t}_{2013}right)) — during which actors are allowed to make, on average, very many changes (i.e., λ) to their portfolio of outgoing ties. These simulated tie changes produce a distribution of synthetic networks with properties that are, on average, similar to those of the cross-sectionally observed network in a converged SAOM — where the target properties correspond to the researcher-chosen SAOM effects k. Put simply, “[cross-sectional] SAOMs assume that the network structure, although changing, is in a stochastically stable state.” (Krause, Huisman, and Snijders57, p. 36–37). Thus, the estimated parameters (widehat{beta }) continue to summarise the rules by which ministeps unfold. However, the asynchronous, sequential, simulated tie changes, in a sense, “cancel out” and thus hold the network in “short-term dynamic equilibrium”40,42. Formally, the cross-sectional SAOM is defined as a stationary distribution of a Markov Chain with transition probabilities given by the multinomial logit used to model change between adjacent network states40,42.The rate parameter λ is fixed at 36 for my analysis. The value of 36 is the maximum observed out-degree in the source-recipient-verified tangible aid network x(t2013). Accordingly, under λ = 36, all members of the tangible aid network have, on average, at least one opportunity to modify their entire portfolio of outgoing ties during the simulations. Nevertheless, to ensure the robustness of my results, I also fit a second set of models for which λ was fixed to 108 (i.e., thrice the maximum out-degree).Model SpecificationTo assess the importance of kinship and reciprocity to hypothetical decisions to help others (i.e., ministeps), I use four archetypal specifications of the SAOM’s evaluation function. These model specifications feature nested sets of covariates (i.e., the SAOM “effects”44). And, using language found in prior evolutionary studies3,5, I refer to these archetypal specifications as the “Conventional Model” (Model 1) of aid, the “Extended Model” (Model 2) of aid, the “Networked Aid Model (Limited)” (Model 3), and the “Networked Aid Model (Comprehensive)” (Model 4).The first specification (i.e., Model 1) comes from Hackman et al.3 and Kasper and Borgerhoff Mulder5 who respectively label it the “Human Behavioural Ecology” and “Conventional” model. This specification is comprised of just four dyadic covariates — one each for consanguinity (i.e., Wright’s coefficient of genetic relatedness), affinity (i.e., Wright’s coefficient of genetic relatedness between i’s spouse s and his/her blood relative j), the receipt of aid, and geographic distance. The first three covariates are used to test long-standing predictions of helping in order to reap indirect and direct fitness benefits in line with the theories of kin selection and reciprocal altruism (see Refs. 1,5,27,58,59 for primers). And the fourth covariate is used to adjust for tolerated scrounging — i.e., what Jaeggi and Gurven4 (p. 2) define as aid resulting from one’s inability to monopolise resources due to costs imposed by the resource-poor — where a covariate for distance operationalises pressure to help imposed by those who are spatially close4.The second specification (i.e., Model 2) reflects Kasper and Borgerhoff Mulder’s5 and Thomas et al.’s9 extensions to the conventional model (see also Page et al.16). Specifically, and following important work by Allen-Arave, Gurven, and Hill1, Hooper et al.14, and Nolin7, it is distinguished by nuanced tests of kin selection and reciprocal altruism via interactions between: (i) consanguinity and the receipt of aid; (ii) consanguinity and relative need; and (iii) consanguinity and geographic distance. Furthermore, Kasper and Borgerhoff Mulder’s5 and Thomas et al.’s9 extended model includes covariates for the non-network-related attributes of individuals (e.g., gender, wealth, and physical size), thus adjusting for homophily, trait-based popularity, trait-based activity, and local context (e.g., results from a gift-giving game9 or, in the present case, infidelity and discrimination based on skin-tone27).The third specification (i.e., Model 4) is my revision of the second. It is geared to make the relational context of aid explicit. This is done using nine covariates that account for the breadth of sociologists’ contemporary understanding of supra-dyadic interdependence between positive-valence (i.e., not based on disliking or aggression), asymmetric social relationships39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49. In keeping with the nature of the SAOM, each of these covariates summarises some structural feature of a villager’s immediate (i.e., local) network (e.g., the number of transitive triads that she is embedded in). Accordingly, each structural covariate is used to capture a form of self-organisation — i.e., network formation driven by an individual’s selection of alters in response to network structure itself (Lusher et al.49, p. 10–11 and 23–27).Specifically, the covariates added in the third specification reflect predictions derived from three fundamental sociological theories of the emergence of non-romantic relationships. The first is structural balance theory which posits that individuals create and maintain ties that move groups of three people from an intransitive to a transitive state (i.e., transitive closure), the latter of which is understood to be more psychologically harmonious or “balanced” (see Refs. 39,43,47,48,60,61,62 for primers). The second is Simmelian tie theory which posits that, once formed, individuals will maintain relationships embedded in maximally-cohesive groups of three people such that 3-cliques (i.e., fully-reciprocated triads) are resistant to dissolution (see Refs. 43,48,63 for primers). The third is social exchange theory (as it relates to structured reciprocity) which posits that individuals will unilaterally give benefits to others in response to benefits received such that indirect reciprocity (i.e., returns to generosity) and generalised reciprocity (i.e. paying-it-forward) in groups of three people encourage cyclic closure — i.e., the simplest form of chain-generalised exchange (see Refs. 19,20,43 for primers). Furthermore, the third specification reflects the broad prediction that individuals vary in their propensity to send and receive relationships based on their structural position alone (e.g., popularity-biased attachment) leading to dispersion in the distribution of in-degrees and out-degrees (see Refs. 39,44,49 for primers) — especially for ties with an inherent cost to their maintenance39,42.Last, I consider a fourth specification (i.e., Model 3) that uses a subset of the nine network-structure-related covariates included in Model 4. This limited set of structural effects typifies the specifications used in prior human evolutionary studies of empirical help that present generative models of entire networks2,7,15,28,29,30,31,32,33,34. Specifically, the fourth specification features just three network-structure-related covariates to account for structural balance theory, self-reinforcing in-degree (i.e., popularity-bias), and the interplay between in-degree and out-degree.Descriptive statistics for the relevant attributes of the 108 residents of Arang Dak appear in Table 1. Formulae used to calculate the network statistics sk,i(x) underlying each effect k used to specify my SAOMs, alongside verbal descriptions to aid reader interpretation, appear in Online-Only Table 1. See Methods for additional rationale behind the third specification.Table 1 Descriptive statistics for the monadic and dyadic attributes of the residents of Arang Dak.Full size tableModel ComparisonCompared to prior human evolutionary research on social support networks, I take two novel approaches to gauging the importance of kinship and reciprocity to help. First, I use a technique41 specifically designed to measure the relative importance of individual effects in SAOMs (see Methods). And second, I evaluate each specification’s ability to produce synthetic graphs with topologies representative of the structure of the analysed tangible aid network64.Judging model specifications using topological properties reflects one of the core purposes of methods such as the SAOM and the Exponential Random Graph Model (ERGM) — i.e., to explain the emergence of global network structure (see Refs. 40,42,46,47,49 also Refs. 18,48), not simply the state of individual dyads (i.e., is aid given or not?). Admittedly, explaining global network structure is not a stated primary aim of dyadic-centric or sociocentric studies of help by human evolutionary scientists, including those wherein authors rely on SAOMs or ERGMs2,7,15,28,29,30,31,32,33,34. Still, topological reproduction is an important, strong test of the relative quality of the four archetypal specifications as each encodes the set of rules presumed to govern network members’ decisions about whom to help.To clarify, recall that here it is assumed, a priori, that network members can, in principle, cooperate with whomever they wish, that their cooperative decisions are intertwined across multiple scales, and that their micro-level decisions ultimately give rise to macro-level patterns of supportive social bonds (see Refs. 18,19,20,21,22). The macro-level patterns generated by SAOMs and ERGMs can differ dramatically based on specification40,46,47,49,64,65. Thus, the empirical relevance of a candidate model rests with its ability to produce synthetic graphs similar to the observed structure40,42,46,47,48,49,64. Ultimately, divergence between the real and simulated graphs suggests that a candidate specification is suspect as it does not describe how some network of interest could have formed. More