Ecology

Newbold, T. et al. Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520, 45–50 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

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

Google Scholar 
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). State of the World’s Forests 2022: Forest Pathways for Green Recovery and Building Inclusive, Resilient and Sustainable Economies (FAO, 2022).Williams, M. Deforesting the Earth: From Prehistory to Global Crisis (University of Chicago Press, 2003).Laurence, W. F. et al. Averting biodiversity collapse in tropical forest protected areas. Nature 489, 290–294 (2012).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
UNEP-WCMC and IUCN. Protected Planet: The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) http://www.protectedplanet.net (2020).Convention on Biological Diversity. First Draft of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework https://www.cbd.int/meetings/WG2020-03 (2021).Wilson, E. O. Half-Earth: Our Planet’s Fight for Life (Liveright Publishing Company, 2016).Joppa, L. N. & Pfaff, A. High and far: biases in the location of protected areas. PLoS One 4, e8273 (2009).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sarkar, S. et al. Biodiversity conservation planning tools: present status and challenges for the future. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 31, 123–159 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Naidoo, R. et al. Integrating economic costs into conservation planning. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 681–687 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ando, A., Camm, J., Polasky, S. & Solow, A. Species distributions, land values, and efficient conservation. Science 279, 2126–2128 (1998).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Meir, E., Andelman, S. & Possingham, H. P. Does conservation planning matter in a dynamic and uncertain world? Ecol. Lett. 7, 615–622 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Costello, C. & Polasky, S. Dynamic reserve site selection. Resour. Energy Econ. 26, 157–174 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
The Nature Conservancy. Terrestrial Ecoregions https://geospatial.tnc.org/datasets/7b7fb9d945544d41b3e7a91494c42930_0 (2008).Hansen, M. C. et al. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 342, 850–853 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kummu, M., Taka, M. & Guillaume, J. Gridded global datasets for gross domestic product and human development index over 1990–2015. Sci. Data 5, 180004 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kier, G. et al. Global patterns of plant diversity and floristic knowledge. J. Biogeogr. 32, 1107–1116 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tilman, D., Reich, P. B. & Isbell, F. Biodiversity impacts ecosystem productivity as much as resources, disturbance or herbivory. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 10394–10397 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Thompson, I., Mackey, B., McNulty, S. & Mosseler, A. Forest Resilience, Biodiversity, and Climate Change CBD Technical Series No. 43 (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2009).Butsic, V., Lewis, D. J. & Radeloff, V. C. Reserve selection with land market feedbacks. J. Environ. Manag. 114, 276–284 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wilson, K. A., McBride, M. F., Bode, M. & Possingham, H. P. Prioritizing global conservation efforts. Nature 440, 337–340 (2006).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
McBride, M. F., Wilson, K. A., Bode, M. & Possingham, H. P. Incorporating the effects of socioeconomic uncertainty into priority setting for conservation investment. Conserv. Biol. 21, 1463–1474 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bode, M., Wilson, K., McBride, M. & Possingham, H. P. Optimal dynamic allocation of conservation funding among priority regions. Bull. Math. Biol. 70, 2039–2054 (2008).MathSciNet 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pouzols, F. M. et al. Global protected area expansion is compromised by projected land-use and parochialism. Nature 516, 383–386 (2014).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pollock, L. J., Thuiller, W. & Jetz, W. Large conservation gains possible for global biodiversity facets. Nature 546, 141–144 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Dinerstein, E. et al. A ‘Global Safety Net’ to reverse biodiversity loss and stabilize Earth’s climate. Sci. Adv. 6, eabb2824 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Jung, M. et al. Areas of global importance for conserving terrestrial biodiversity, carbon and water. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 1499–1509 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Polasky, S. et al. Where to put things? Spatial land management to sustain biodiversity and economic returns. Biol. Conserv. 141, 1505–1524 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lennox, G. D., Fargione, J., Spector, S., Williams, G. & Armsworth, P. The value of flexibility in conservation financing. Conserv. Biol. 31, 666–674 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Drechsler, M. & Wätzold, F. Biodiversity conservation in a dynamic world may lead to inefficiencies due to lock-in effects and path dependence. Ecol. Econ. 173, 106652 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Boulton, C. A., Lenton, T. M. & Boers, N. Pronounced loss of Amazon rainforest resilience since the early 2000s. Nat. Clim. Chang. 12, 271–278 (2022).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lomolino, M. V. Ecology’s most general, yet protean pattern: the species‐area relationship. J. Biogeogr. 27, 17–26 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Drake, J. & Griffen, B. Early warning signals of extinction in deteriorating environments. Nature 467, 456–459 (2010).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Grantham, H. et al. Anthropogenic modification of forests means only 40% of remaining forests have high ecosystem integrity. Nat. Commun. 1, 5978 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Naidoo, R. & Iwamura, T. Global-scale mapping of economic benefits from agricultural land: Implications for conservation priorities. Biol. Conserv. 140, 40–49 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
UNEP-FAO. United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration 2021–2030 https://www.decadeonrestoration.org/ (2021).UN Climate Change Conference. Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests and Land Use https://ukcop26.org/glasgow-leaders-declaration-on-forests-and-land-use/ (2021)UN Climate Change Conference. The Global Forest Finance Pledge https://ukcop26.org/the-global-forest-finance-pledge/ (2021).Convention on Biological Diversity. Preparations for the Post-2020 Biodiversity Framework https://www.cbd.int/conferences/post2020 (2021)Deutz, A. et al. Financing Nature: Closing the Global Biodiversity Financing Gap (The Paulson Institute, The Nature Conservancy, and the Cornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability, 2020).Griscom, B. W. et al. Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 11645–11650 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Guerry, A. D. et al. Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: from promise to practice. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 7348–7355 (2015).CAS 

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

Google Scholar 
Wintle, B. A. et al. Spending to save: what will it cost to halt Australia’s extinction crisis? Conserv. Lett. 12, e12682 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ostrom, E. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Cambridge University Press, 1990)WWF et al. The State Of Indigenous Peoples’ and Local Communities’ Lands and Territories https://wwflac.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/report_the_state_of_the_indigenous_peoples_and_local_communities_lands_and_territories_1.pdf (2021) .Chaplin-Kramer, R. et al. Conservation needs to integrate knowledge across scales. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 6, 118–119 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
IUCN. Spatial Data Download: Terrestrial Mammals. IUCN Red List https://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/spatial-data-download (2021).Abay, K. A., Chamberlin, J. & Berhane, G. Are land rental markets responding to rising population pressures and land scarcity in sub-Saharan Africa? Land Use Policy 101, 105139 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Reaka-Kudla, M. L. The global biodiversity of coral reefs: a comparison with rain forests. Biodivers. II. Underst. Prot. Our Biol. Resour. 2, 551 (1997).
Google Scholar 
Connell, J. H. Population ecology of reef-building corals. in Biology and Geology of Coral Reefs (eds. Jones, O. A. & Endean, R.) 205–245 (Academic Press, 1973). doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-395526-5.50015-8.Berumen, M. L. et al. The status of coral reef ecology research in the Red Sea. Coral Reefs 32, 737–748 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hughes, T. P., Graham, N. A., Jackson, J. B., Mumby, P. J. & Steneck, R. S. Rising to the challenge of sustaining coral reef resilience. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 633–642 (2010).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Edmunds, P. J. & Riegl, B. Urgent need for coral demography in a world where corals are disappearing. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 635, 233–242 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pisapia, C. et al. Projected shifts in coral size structure in the Anthropocene. Adv Mar Biol 87, 31–60 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Meesters, E. et al. Colony size-frequency distributions of scleractinian coral populations: spatial and interspecific variation. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 209, 43–54 (2001).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Riegl, B. et al. Demographic mechanisms of reef coral species winnowing from communities under increased environmental stress. Front. Mar. Sci. 4, 344 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pisapia, C., Burn, D. & Pratchett, M. Changes in the population and community structure of corals during recent disturbances (February 2016-October 2017) on Maldivian coral reefs. Sci. Rep. 9, 1–12 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Dietzel, A., Bode, M., Connolly, S. R. & Hughes, T. P. Long-term shifts in the colony size structure of coral populations along the Great Barrier Reef. Proc. R. Soc. B 287, 20201432 (2020).PubMed Central 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lachs, L. et al. Linking population size structure, heat stress and bleaching responses in a subtropical endemic coral. Coral Reefs 40, 777–790 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
McClanahan, T., Ateweberhan, M. & Omukoto, J. Long-term changes in coral colony size distributions on Kenyan reefs under different management regimes and across the 1998 bleaching event. Mar. Biol. 153, 755–768 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Grimsditch, G. et al. Variation in size frequency distribution of coral populations under different fishing pressures in two contrasting locations in the Indian Ocean. Mar. Environ. Res. 131, 146–155 (2017).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bak, R. P. & Meesters, E. H. Coral population structure: the hidden information of colony size-frequency distributions. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 162, 301–306 (1998).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hughes, T. & Jackson, J. Do corals lie about their age? Some demographic consequences of partial mortality, fission, and fusion. Science 209, 713–715 (1980).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hughes, T. P. & Jackson, J. Population dynamics and life histories of foliaceous corals. Ecol. Monogr. 55, 141–166 (1985).Article 

Google Scholar 
Soong, K. Colony size as a species character in massive reef corals. Coral Reefs 12, 77–83 (1993).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bak, R. P. & Meesters, E. H. Population structure as a response of coral communities to global change. Am. Zool. 39, 56–65 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Adjeroud, M., Pratchett, M. S., Kospartov, M. C., Lejeusne, C. & Penin, L. Small-scale variability in the size structure of scleractinian corals around Moorea, French Polynesia: patterns across depths and locations. Hydrobiologia 589, 117–126 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Adjeroud, M., Mauguit, Q. & Penin, L. The size-structure of corals with contrasting life-histories: A multi-scale analysis across environmental conditions. Mar. Environ. Res. 112, 131–139 (2015).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bauman, A. G. et al. Variation in the size structure of corals is related to environmental extremes in the Persian Gulf. Mar. Environ. Res. 84, 43–50 (2013).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Smith, L., Devlin, M., Haynes, D. & Gilmour, J. A demographic approach to monitoring the health of coral reefs. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 51, 399–407 (2005).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lowe, R. J. & Falter, J. L. Oceanic forcing of coral reefs. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 7, 43–66 (2015).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Thornborough, K., Davies, P. Reef flats. Encycl. Mod. Coral Reefs 869–876 (2011).Camp, E. F. et al. The future of coral reefs subject to rapid climate change: lessons from natural extreme environments. Front. Mar. Sci. 5, 4 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bellwood, D. R. et al. The role of the reef flat in coral reef trophodynamics: Past, present, and future. Ecol. Evol. 8, 4108–4119 (2018).PubMed Central 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pineda, J. et al. Two spatial scales in a bleaching event: Corals from the mildest and the most extreme thermal environments escape mortality. Limnol. Oceanogr. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2013.58.5.1531 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Riegl, B. M., Bruckner, A. W., Rowlands, G. P., Purkis, S. J. & Renaud, P. Red Sea coral reef trajectories over 2 decades suggest increasing community homogenization and decline in coral size. PLoS ONE 7, e38396 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed Central 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Riegl, B., Berumen, M. & Bruckner, A. Coral population trajectories, increased disturbance and management intervention: A sensitivity analysis. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.519 (2013).Article 
PubMed Central 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Loya, Y. The red sea coral Stylophora pistillata is an r strategist. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/259478a0 (1976).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lozano-Cortés, D. F. & Berumen, M. L. Colony size-frequency distribution of pocilloporid juvenile corals along a natural environmental gradient in the Red Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 105, 546–552 (2016).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ellis, J. et al. Cross shelf benthic biodiversity patterns in the Southern Red Sea. Sci. Rep. 7, 1–14 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Furby, K. A., Bouwmeester, J. & Berumen, M. L. Susceptibility of central Red Sea corals during a major bleaching event. Coral Reefs 32, 505–513 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Monroe, A. A. et al. In situ observations of coral bleaching in the central Saudi Arabian Red Sea during the 2015/2016 global coral bleaching event. PLoS ONE 13, e0195814 (2018).PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Davis, K. et al. Observations of the thermal environment on Red Sea platform reefs: A heat budget analysis. Coral Reefs 30, 25–36 (2011).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu, G. et al. Reef-scale thermal stress monitoring of coral ecosystems: new 5-km global products from NOAA Coral Reef Watch. Remote Sens. 6, 11579–11606 (2014).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Voolstra, C. R. et al. Standardized short-term acute heat stress assays resolve historical differences in coral thermotolerance across microhabitat reef sites. Glob. Change Biol. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15148 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Abràmoff, M. D., Magalhães, P. J. & Ram, S. J. Image processing with ImageJ. Biophotonics Int. 11, 36–42 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Morais, J., Morais, R. A., Tebbett, S. B., Pratchett, M. S. & Bellwood, D. R. Dangerous demographics in post-bleach corals reveal boom-bust versus protracted declines. Sci. Rep. 11, 1–7 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hall, V. R. & Hughes, T. P. Reproductive strategies of modular organisms: Comparative studies of reef-building corals. Ecology https://doi.org/10.2307/2265514 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rinkevich, B. & Loya, Y. Reproduction of the Red Sea coral Stylophora pistillata. 2. Synchronization in breeding and seasonality of planulae shedding. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 1, 145–152 (1979).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Komsta, L. & Novomestky, F. Moments, cumulants, skewness, kurtosis and related tests. R Package Version 14, (2015).Anderson, M., Gorley, R. & Clarke, K. PERMANOVA+ for PRIMER: guide to software and statistical methods. Primer-E Plymouth UK (2008).Meziere, Z. et al. Stylophora under stress: A review of research trends and impacts of stressors on a model coral species. Sci. Total Environ. 816, 151639 (2022).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Rinkevich, B. & Loya, Y. Reproduction of the Red Sea coral Stylophora pistillata 1. Gonads and planulae. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 1, 133–144 (1979).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Nishikawa, A., Katoh, M. & Sakai, K. Larval settlement rates and gene flow of broadcast-spawning (Acropora tenuis) and planula-brooding (Stylophora pistillata) corals. Mar. Ecol. Progress Ser. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps256087 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Monroe, A. Genetic differentiation across multiple spatial scales of the Red Sea of the corals Stylophora pistillata and Pocillopora verrucosa. M.S. thesis, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Thuwal, Saudi Arabia (2015).Gouezo, M. et al. Relative roles of biological and physical processes influencing coral recruitment during the lag phase of reef community recovery. Sci. Rep. 10, 1–12 (2020).ADS 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Boco, S. R., Cabansag, J. B. P., Jamodiong, E. A. & Ticzon, V. S. Size-frequency distributions of scleractinian coral (Porites spp.) colonies inside and outside a marine reserve in Leyte Gulf, central Philippines. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 35, 101147 (2020).
Google Scholar 
River, G. F. & Edmunds, P. J. Mechanisms of interaction between macroalgae and scleractinians on a coral reef in Jamaica. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 261, 159–172 (2001).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kuffner, I. B. et al. Inhibition of coral recruitment by macroalgae and cyanobacteria. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 323, 107–117 (2006).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hughes, T. & Jackson, J. Do corals lie about their age? Some demographic consequences of partial mortality, fission, and fusion. Science 209, 713–715 (1980).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lewis, J. B. Abundance, distribution and partial mortality of the massive coral Siderastrea siderea on degrading coral reefs at Barbados West Indies. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 34, 622–627 (1997).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Meesters, E. H., Wesseling, I. & Bak, R. P. Coral colony tissue damage in six species of reef-building corals: partial mortality in relation with depth and surface area. J. Sea Res. 37, 131–144 (1997).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Meesters, E. H., Wesseling, I. & Bak, R. P. Partial mortality in three species of reef-building corals and the relation with colony morphology. Bull. Mar. Sci. 58, 838–852 (1996).
Google Scholar 
Graham, J. & Van Woesik, R. The effects of partial mortality on the fecundity of three common Caribbean corals. Mar. Biol. 160, 2561–2565 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rinkevich, B. & Loya, Y. Intraspecific competitive networks in the Red Sea coral Stylophora pistillata. Coral Reefs https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00571193 (1983).Article 

Google Scholar 
Takabayashi, M. & Hoegh-Guldberg, O. Ecological and physiological differences between two colour morphs of the coral Pocillopora damicornis. Mar. Biol. 123, 705–714 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
Innis, T., Cunning, R., Ritson-Williams, R., Wall, C. & Gates, R. Coral color and depth drive symbiosis ecology of Montipora capitata in Kāne ‘ohe Bay, O ‘ahu, Hawai ‘i. Coral Reefs 37, 423–430 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gochfeld, D., Ansley, M., Ankisetty, S. & Aeby, G. Antibacterial chemical resistance to disease in the Hawaiian coral Montipora capitata. Planta Med. 80, CL31 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shore-Maggio, A., Callahan, S. M. & Aeby, G. S. Trade-offs in disease and bleaching susceptibility among two color morphs of the Hawaiian reef coral Montipora capitata. Coral Reefs 37, 507–517 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Dove, S. G., Takabayashi, M. & Hoegh-Guldberg, O. Isolation and partial characterization of the pink and blue pigments of pocilloporid and acroporid corals. Biol. Bull. 189, 288–297 (1995).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hume, B. C. C., Mejia-Restrepo, A., Voolstra, C. R. & Berumen, M. L. Fine-scale delineation of Symbiodiniaceae genotypes on a previously bleached central Red Sea reef system demonstrates a prevalence of coral host-specific associations. Coral Reefs https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-020-01917-7 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Strandburg-Peshkin, A., Papageorgiou, D., Crofoot, M. C. & Farine, D. R. Inferring influence and leadership in moving animal groups. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 373(1746), 20170006 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Garland, J., Berdahl, A. M., Sun, J. & Bollt, E. M. Anatomy of leadership in collective behaviour. Chaos 28(7), 075308 (2018).ADS 
MathSciNet 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
King, A. J., Douglas, C. M. S., Huchard, E., Isaac, N. J. B. & Cowlishaw, G. Dominance and affiliation mediate despotism in a social primate. Curr. Biol. 18(23), 1833–1838 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lewis, J. S., Wartzok, D. & Heithaus, M. R. Highly dynamic fission–fusion species can exhibit leadership when traveling. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 65(5), 1061–1069 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Van Belle, S., Estrada, A. & Garber, P. A. Collective group movement and leadership in wild black howler monkeys (Alouatta pigra). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 67(1), 31–41 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Smith, J. E. et al. Collective movements, leadership and consensus costs at reunions in spotted hyaenas. Anim. Behav. 105, 187–200 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Kerth, G., Ebert, C. & Schmidtke, C. Group decision making in fission–fusion societies: Evidence from two-field experiments in Bechstein’s bats. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 273(1602), 2785–2790 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Nagy, M., Ákos, Z., Biro, D. & Vicsek, T. Hierarchical group dynamics in pigeon flocks. Nature 464(7290), 890–893 (2010).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Giuggioli, L., McKetterick, T. J. & Holderied, M. Delayed response and biosonar perception explain movement coordination in trawling bats. PLoS Comput. Biol. 11(3), e1004089 (2015).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Pettit, B., Ákos, Z., Vicsek, T. & Biro, D. Speed determines leadership and leadership determines learning during pigeon flocking. Curr. Biol. 25(23), 3132–3137 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Strandburg-Peshkin, A., Farine, D. R., Couzin, I. D. & Crofoot, M. C. Group decisions. Shared decision-making drives collective movement in wild baboons. Science 348(6241), 1358–1361 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Tokuyama, N. & Furuichi, T. Leadership of old females in collective departures in wild bonobos (Pan paniscus) at Wamba. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 71(3), 55 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Montanari, D., O’Hearn, W. J., Hambuckers, J., Fischer, J. & Zinner, D. Coordination during group departures and progressions in the tolerant multi-level society of wild Guinea baboons (Papio papio). Sci. Rep. 11(1), 21938 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Papageorgiou, D. & Farine, D. R. Shared decision-making allows subordinates to lead when dominants monopolize resources. Sci. Adv. 6(48), 5881 (2020).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Bousquet, C. A. H., Sumpter, D. J. T. & Manser, M. B. Moving calls: A vocal mechanism underlying quorum decisions in cohesive groups. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 278(1711), 1482–1488 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Stahl, J., Tolsma, P. H., Loonen, M. J. J. E. & Drent, R. H. Subordinates explore but dominants profit: Resource competition in high Arctic barnacle goose flocks. Anim. Behav. 61(1), 257–264 (2001).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Boinski, S. Social manipulation within and between troops mediate primate group movement. In On the Move: How and Why Animals Travel in Groups (ed. Boinski, S.) (University of Chicago Press, 2000).
Google Scholar 
Conradt, L. & Roper, T. J. Consensus decision making in animals. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20(8), 449–456 (2005).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Conradt, L. & Roper, T. J. Conflicts of interest and the evolution of decision sharing. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 364(1518), 807–819 (2009).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Byrne, R. W. How monkeys find their way: Leadership, coordination, and cognitive maps of African baboons. In On the Move: How and Why Animals Travel in Groups (eds Boinski, S. & Garber, P. A.) (University of Chicago Press, 2000).
Google Scholar 
Conradt, L. & Roper, T. J. Deciding group movements: Where and when to go. Behav. Proc. 84, 675–677 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Herbert-Read, J. E. et al. Inferring the rules of interaction of shoaling fish. PNAS 108(46), 18726–18731 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Katz, Y., Tunstrøm, K., Ioannou, C. C., Huepe, C. & Couzin, I. D. Inferring the structure and dynamics of interactions in schooling fish. PNAS 108(46), 18720–18725 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Jolles, J. W., Boogert, N. J., Sridhar, V. H., Couzin, I. D. & Manica, A. Consistent individual differences drive collective behavior and group functioning of schooling fish. Curr. Biol. 27(18), 2862–2868 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Doolan, S. P. & Macdonald, D. W. Breeding and juvenile survival among slender-tailed meerkats (Suricatu suricatta) in the south-western Kalahari: Ecological and social influences. J. Zool. 242(2), 309–327 (1997).
Google Scholar 
Clutton-Brock, T. H. & Manser, M. B. Meerkats: Cooperative breeding in the Kalahari. In Cooperative Breeding in Vertebrates (eds Koenig, W. D. & Dickinson, J. L.) (Cambridge University Press, 2016).
Google Scholar 
Doolan, S. & Macdonald, D. Diet and foraging behaviour of group living meerkats, Suricata suricatta, in the southern Kalahari. J. Zool. 239, 697–716 (1996).
Google Scholar 
Engesser, S. Function of ‘Close’ Calls in a Group Foraging Carnivore, Suricata suricatta (2011).Kranstauber, B., Gall, G. E. C., Vink, T., Clutton-Brock, T. & Manser, M. B. Long-term movements and home-range changes: Rapid territory shifts in meerkats. J. Anim. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.13129 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Manser, M. B. et al. Vocal Complexity in Meerkats and Other Mongoose Species Vol. 46, 281 (Elsevier, 2014).
Google Scholar 
Gall, G. E. C. & Manser, M. B. Group cohesion in foraging meerkats: Follow the moving ‘vocal hot spot’. R. Soc. Open Sci. 4, 170004 (2017).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Engesser, S. & Manser, M. B. Collective close calling mediates group cohesion in foraging meerkats via spatially determined differences in call rates. Anim. Behav. 185, 73–82 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Gall, G. E. C., Strandburg-Peshkin, A., Clutton-brock, T. & Manser, M. B. As dusk falls: Collective decisions about the return to sleeping sites in meerkats. Anim. Behav. 132, 91–99 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Townsend, S. W., Rasmussen, M., Clutton-Brock, T. & Manser, M. B. Flexible alarm calling in meerkats: The role of the social environment and predation urgency. Behav. Ecol. 23(6), 1360–1364 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Clutton-Brock, T. H. et al. Contributions to cooperative rearing in meerkats. Anim. Behav. 61(4), 705–710 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Griffin, A. S. et al. A genetic analysis of breeding success in the cooperative meerkat (Suricata suricatta). Behav. Ecol. 14(4), 472–480 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Thavarajah, N. K., Fenkes, M. & Clutton-Brock, T. H. The determinants of dominance relationships among subordinate females in the cooperatively breeding meerkat. Behaviour 151(1), 89–102 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Young, A. J. et al. Stress and the suppression of subordinate reproduction in cooperatively breeding meerkats. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 103(32), 12005–12010 (2006).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hodge, S. J., Manica, A., Flower, T. P. & Clutton-Brock, T. H. Determinants of reproductive success in dominant female meerkats. J. Anim. Ecol. 77(1), 92–102 (2008).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bell, M. B. V. et al. Suppressing subordinate reproduction provides benefits to dominants in cooperative societies of meerkats. Nat. Commun. 22(5), 4499 (2014).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Bousquet, C. A. H. & Manser, M. B. Resolution of experimentally induced symmetrical conflicts of interest in meerkats. Anim. Behav. 81(6), 1101–1107 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Strandburg-Peshkin, A., Clutton-Brock, T. & Manser, M. B. Burrow usage patterns and decision-making in meerkat groups. Behav. Ecol. 31(2), 292–302 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Turbé, A. Foraging Decisions and Space Use in a Social Mammal, The Meerkat—Chapter 6: Leadership pby Lactating Female in Meerkats (University of Cambridge, 2006).
Google Scholar 
Barelli, C., Reichard, U., Boesch, C. & Heistermann, M. Female white-handed gibbons (Hylobates lar) lead group movements and have priority of access to food resources. Behaviour 145(7), 965–981 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Clutton-Brock, T. H. et al. Reproduction and survival of suricates (Suricata suricatta) in the southern Kalahari. Afr. J. Ecol. 37(1), 69–80 (1999).
Google Scholar 
Kutsukake, N. & Clutton-Brock, T. H. Do meerkats engage in conflict management following aggression? Reconciliation, submission and avoidance. Anim. Behav. 75(4), 1441–1453 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Spong, G. F., Hodge, S. J., Young, A. J. & Clutton-Brock, T. H. Factors affecting the reproductive success of dominant male meerkats: Reproductive success in male meerkats. Mol. Ecol. 17(9), 2287–2299 (2008).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Russell, A. F., Carlson, A. A., McIlrath, G. M., Jordan, N. R. & Clutton-Brock, T. Adaptive size modification in dominant female meerkats. Evolution 58(7), 1600–1607 (2004).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
R. Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.r-project.org/ (2008).Pinheiro, J. & Bates, D. M. Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-PLUS (Springer-Verlag, 2000).MATH 

Google Scholar 
Hothorn, T., Bretz, F. & Westfall, P. Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biometr. J. 50(3), 346–363 (2008).MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Makowski, D., Ben-Shachar, M. S., Patil, I. & Lüdecke, D. Methods and algorithms for correlation analysis in R. J. Open Source Softw. 5(51), 2306 (2020).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Farine, D. R., Strandburg-Peshkin, A., Couzin, I. D., Berger-Wolf, T. Y. & Crofoot, M. C. Individual variation in local interaction rules can explain emergent patterns of spatial organization in wild baboons. Proc. R. Soc. B 284(1853), 20162243 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Holekamp, K. E., Boydston, E. E. & Smale, L. Group tarvel in social carnivores. In On the Move (eds Boinski, S. & Garber, P. A.) (University of Chicago Press, 2000).
Google Scholar 
Fischhoff, I. R. et al. Social relationships and reproductive state influence leadership roles in movements of plains zebra, Equus burchellii. Anim. Behav. 73(5), 825–831 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Furrer, R. D., Kunc, H. P. & Manser, M. B. Variable initiators of group departure in a cooperative breeder: The influence of sex, age, state and foraging success. Anim. Behav. 84(1), 205–212 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Clutton-Brock, T. H. et al. Costs of cooperative behaviour in suricates (Suricata suricatta). Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 265(1392), 185–190 (1998).CAS 

Google Scholar 
MacLeod, K. J. & Clutton-Brock, T. H. Low costs of allonursing in meerkats: Mitigation by behavioral change? Behav. Ecol. 26(3), 697–705 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Boinski, S. The coordination of spatial position: A field study of the vocal behaviour of adult female squirrel monkeys. Anim. Behav. 41(1), 89–102 (1991).
Google Scholar 
Bode, N. W. F., Franks, D. W. & Wood, A. J. Leading from the front? Social networks in navigating groups. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 66(6), 835–843 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Reber, S. A., Townsend, S. W. & Manser, M. B. Social monitoring via close calls in meerkats. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 280(1765), 20131013 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Bracken, A. M., Christensen, C., O’Riain, M. J., Fürtbauer, I. & King, A. J. Flexible group cohesion and coordination, but robust leader–follower roles, in a wild social primate using urban space. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 289(1967), 20212141 (2022).
Google Scholar  More

Climate models need to capture a full spectrum of data from forests such as the Brazilian Amazon.Credit: Florence Goisnard/AFP/Getty

Humanity’s understanding of how forests are responding to climate change is disconcertingly fragile. Take carbon fertilization, for example — the phenomenon by which plants absorb more carbon dioxide as its concentration in the atmosphere increases. This is one of the principal mechanisms by which nature has so far saved us from the worst of climate change, but there’s little understanding of its future trajectory. In fact, researchers don’t fully understand how climate change interacts with a multitude of forest processes. Complex, unsolved questions include how climate warming affects forest health; how it affects the performance of forests as a carbon sink; and whether it alters the ecosystem services that forests provide. Forests are our life-support system, and we should be more serious about taking their pulse.Six papers in this week’s Nature provide important insights into those questions. They also underline some of the challenges that must be overcome if we are to fully understand forests’ potential in the fight against climate change. These challenges are not only in the science itself, but also relate to how forest scientists collaborate, how they are funded (especially where data collection is concerned) and how they are trained.Forest science is an amalgam of disciplines. Ecologists and plant scientists measure tree growth, soil nutrients and other parameters in thousands of forest plots around the world. Physical scientists monitor factors such as forest height and above-ground forest biomass using remote-sensing data from drones or satellites. Experimental scientists investigate how forests might behave in a warming world by artificially altering factors such as temperature or carbon dioxide levels in experimental plots. Some of the data they generate are absorbed by yet another community: the modellers, who have created dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs). These simulate how carbon and water cycles change with climate and, in turn, inform broader earth-system and climate models of the type that feed into policymaking.Different DGVMs make different predictions about how long forests will continue to absorb anthropogenic CO2. One reason for these differences is that models are sensitive to assumptions made about the processes in forests. There are many influences — including temperature, moisture, fire and nutrients — that are generally studied in isolation. Yet they interact with each other.Not all DGVMs account for the dampening effect that a lack of soil phosphorus can have on carbon fertilization, for example. Much of central and eastern Amazonia is poor in phosphorus, and research has shown that introducing phosphorus limitation into DGVMs can cut the carbon-fertilization effect1. This week, Hellen Fernanda Viana Cunha at the National Institute for Amazonian Research in Manaus, Brazil, and her colleagues report2 a powerful experimental demonstration of how the soil’s poor phosphorus content limits carbon absorption in an old-growth Amazonian forest.Models simulating the northward spread of boreal forest as temperatures rise are also missing key drivers3, according to Roman Dial at Alaska Pacific University in Anchorage and his colleagues. They report today that a white-spruce population has migrated surprisingly far north into the Arctic tundra. To explain this, it is necessary to take into account winter winds (which facilitate long-distance dispersal) along with the availability of deep snow and soil nutrients (which promote plant growth).Models are often based on a small number of ‘functional tree types’ — for example, ‘evergreen broadleaf’ or ‘evergreen needle leaf’. These are chosen as a proxy for the behaviour of the planet’s more than 60,000 known tree species. Yet ecologists are discovering that the biology of individual species matters when it comes to a tree’s response to climate change.David Bauman at the Environmental Change Institute at the University of Oxford, UK, and his co-workers reported in May that tree mortality on 24 moist tropical plots in northern Australia has doubled in the past 35 years (and life expectancy has halved), apparently owing to the increasing dryness of the air4. But that was an average of the 81 dominant tree species: mortality rates varied substantially between species, a variation that seemed to be related to the density of their wood.Peter Reich at the Institute for Global Change Biology at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor and his colleagues now report that modest alterations in temperature and rainfall led to varying rates of growth and survival5 for different species in southern boreal-forest trees. The species that prospered were rare.Failure to examine multiple factors simultaneously means that scientists are making findings that challenge the assumptions in models. Spring is coming earlier for temperate forests and most models assume that, by prolonging the growing season, this increases woody-stem biomass. However, observational work carried out in temperate deciduous forests by Kristina Anderson-Teixeira at the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute in Front Royal, Virginia, and her colleagues found no sign of this happening6.Modellers are all too aware of the need to incorporate more complexity into their models, and of the potential that increasing amounts of computing power have to assist them in this endeavour. But they need more data.Continuity problemTo obtain comprehensive, valuable data for the models, continuous, long-term observations need to be made, and that depends on the availability of long-term funding. Achieving such continuity is a problem for both remote-sensing and ground-based operations. The former can cost hundreds of millions of dollars, but the value of its long-term data sets is immense, as demonstrated by a team led by Giovanni Forzieri at the University of Florence in Italy. The authors used 20 years of satellite data to show that nearly one-quarter of the world’s intact forests have already reached their critical threshold for abrupt decline7. But even field-based data collection, which costs a pittance by comparison, struggles to achieve financial security.Important ground-based operations include the Forest Global Earth Observatory (ForestGEO), part of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, which is headquartered in Washington DC. This monitors 7.5 million individual trees in plots around the world. The amount of work that goes into this monitoring is formidable. For example, at present, ForestGEO is conducting the eighth five-yearly census of a plot in Peninsular Malaysia. This involves determining the species for each of the 350,000 trees (there are some 800 species growing there) and measuring the circumference of each trunk. It will take 16 skilled people a year to measure all the trees. Delays in the provision of funding to ForestGEO have held up similar censuses at plots in countries including Papua New Guinea, Vietnam, Brunei and Ecuador.

A ForestGEO researcher making tree measurements at a forest plot in Barro Colorado Island, Panama.Credit: Jorge Aleman, STRI

The future of the plots in North Queensland, which supplied Bauman with a rare 49 years’ worth of continuous data, is uncertain. They have been monitored since the mid-1970s by the Australian public research-funding agency CSIRO — initially every two years, then, more recently, every five years. In 2019, monitoring of the plots was switched to every 50 years because of funding shortages at CSIRO, leaving scientists searching for new sources of funding.Without continuity of funding, organizations such as ForestGEO can’t equip researchers with the requisite skills or collect data over periods longer than an individual’s time in a specific post or a funder’s cycle. “We have trained people and then lost them due to job insecurity,” says Stuart Davies, who leads ForestGEO.Different groups of forest researchers are trying to address these problems. ForestGEO is coordinating the Alliance for Tropical Forest Science in an effort to make it easier to share data, and to bolster the morale and careers of the skilled technicians and scientists — many of whom live in low- and middle-income countries — who do the bulk of the data collection.But we also need more-imaginative funding mechanisms that lift long-term observational plots out of three- to five-year funding cycles. Space agencies that fund remote-sensing satellites could collaborate with other funding agencies, for example, so that earth-observation missions include a fully funded component for ground-based data collection — which is, after all, crucial for calibrating their results. Journals, too, could do more to value and incentivise the production of long-term data sets.And there is a need for more interdisciplinarity. The US Department of Energy is funding a project called NGEE–Tropics (Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments–Tropics) in which modellers will work with empirical researchers, both observational and experimental, who study tropical forests to create a full, process-rich model of such forests. This is encouraging, and the idea could be pushed further. What is needed is an initiative that pulls the disciplines together towards a goal of building a better understanding of forest processes. Among other things, such an initiative would encourage researchers in different disciplines to take each other’s data needs into account when planning their projects.For this to work, we need to remember that the edifice of forest science relies on the long-term data that scientists wring from forests over decades. Our chances of overcoming climate change are small, but they will diminish further if we forget the basics of monitoring our home planet. More

Shotgun sequencing and generation of metagenome-assembled genomesIn our previous study, 78 Holstein Friesian dairy cows were sampled for rumen content, metagenomic shotgun sequencing was carried out, and raw Illumina sequencing reads were assembled into contigs using megahit assembler using default settings [7]. We used a pooled assembly of the original 78 samples to increase the quality of the metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) with the syntax: megahit [14] -t 60 -m 0.5 −1 [Illumina R1 files] −2 [Illumina R2 files]. Next, the assembled contigs were indexed using BBMap [15]: bbmap.sh threads = 60 ref = [contigs filename]. Thereafter, reads from each sample were mapped to the assembled contigs using BBTools’ bbwrap.sh script. In order to determine the depth (coverage) of each contig within each sample, the gi_summarize_bam_contig_depths tool was applied with the parameters: gi_summarize_bam_contig_depths –outputDepth depth.txt –pairedContigs paired.txt *.bam –outputDepth depth.txt –pairedContigs paired.txt.Using the depth information, metabat2 [16] was executed to bind genes together into reconstructed genomes, with parameters: metabat2 -t40 -a depth.txt.To evaluate genomic bin quality, we used the CheckM [17] tool, with parameters: checkm lineage_wf [in directory] [out directory] -x faa –genes -t10.Preparing proteomic search libraryWe generated 93 unique high-quality MAGs, and further increased our MAG database by including phyla that were not represented in our set of MAGs. In order to do so, we used the published compendium of 4,941 rumen metagenome-assembled genomes [18] and dereplicated those MAGs using dRep [19]. We then selected MAGs from phylum Spirochaetes, Actinomycetota, Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, Elusimicrobia, Bacillota, Fibrobacteres and Fusobacteria, which had the highest mean coverage in our samples as calculated using BBMap and gi_summarize_bam_contig_depths as described above [15]. This strategy minimized the false discovery rate (FDR), that would have been obtained if larger and unspecific databases would have been employed [20] and allowed the addition of 14 MAGs to our database.In order to create the proteomic search library, genes were identified along the 107 MAGs using the Prodigal tool [21], with parameters: prodigal meta and translated in silico into proteins, using the same tool. Replicates sequences were removed. Protein sequences from the hosting animal (Bos taurus) and common contaminant protein sequences (64,701 in total) were added to the proteomic search library in order to avoid erroneous target protein identification originating from the host or common contaminants. Finally, in order to subsequently assess the percentage of false-positive identifications within the proteomic search [22], the proteomic search library sequences were reversed in order and served as a decoy database.Proteomic analysisThe bacterial fraction from rumen fluid of the 12 selected animals selected from extreme feed efficiency phenotypes, were obtained at the same time as the samples analyzed for metagenomics and stored at −20 °C until extraction. To extract total proteins, a modified protocol from Deusch and Seifert was used [23]. Briefly, cell pellets were resuspended in 100 µl in 50 mM Tris-HCl (pH 7.5; 0.1 mg/ml chloramphenicol; 1 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride (PMSF)) and incubated for 10 min at 60 °C and 1200 rpm in a thermo-mixer after addition of 150 µl 20 mM Tris-HCl (pH 7.5; 2% sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS)). After the addition of 500 µl DNAse buffer (20 mM Tris-HCl pH 7.5; 0.1 mg/ml MgCl2, 1 mM PMSF, 1 μg/ml DNAse I), the cells were lysed by ultra-sonication (amplitude 51–60%; cycle 0.5; 4 × 2 min) on ice, incubated in the thermo-mixer (10 min at 37 °C and 1,200 rpm) and centrifuged at 10,000 × g for 10 min at 4 °C. The supernatant was collected and centrifuged again. The proteins in the supernatant were precipitated by adding 20% pre-cooled trichloroacetic acid (TCA; 20% v/v). After centrifugation (12,000 × g; 30 min; 4 °C), the protein pellets were washed twice in pre-cooled (−20 °C) acetone (2 × 10 min; 12,000 × g; 4 °C) and dried by vacuum centrifugation. The protein pellet was resuspended in 2× SDS sample buffer (4% SDS (w/v); 20% glycerin (w/v); 100 mM Tris-HCl pH 6.8; a pinch of bromophenol blue, 3.6% 2‑mercaptoethanol (v/v)) by 5 min sonication bath and vortexing. Samples were incubated for 5 min at 95 °C and separated by 1D SDS-PAGE (Criterion TG 4-20% Precast Midi Gel, BIO-RAD Laboratories, Inc., USA).As previously described, after fixation and staining, each gel line was cut into 10 pieces, destained, desiccated, and rehydrated in trypsin [24]. The in-gel digest was performed by incubation overnight at 37 °C. Peptides were eluted with Aq. dest. by sonication for 15 min The sample volume was reduced in a vacuum centrifuge.Before MS analysis, the tryptic peptide mixture was loaded on an Easy-nLC II or Easy-nLC 1000 (Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA) system equipped with an in-house built 20 cm column (inner diameter 100 µm; outer diameter 360 µm) filled with ReproSil-Pur 120 C18-AQ reversed-phase material (3 µm particles, Dr. Maisch GmbH, Germany). Peptides were eluted with a nonlinear 156 min gradient from 1 to 99% solvent B (95% acetonitrile (v/v); 0.1% acetic acid (v/v)) in solvent A (0.1% acetic acid (v/v)) with a flow rate of 300 ml/min and injected online into an LTQ Orbitrap Velos or Orbitrap Velos Pro (Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA). Overview scan at a resolution of 30,000 in the Orbitrap in a range of 300-2,000 m/z was followed by 20 MS/MS fragment scans of the 20 most abundant precursor ions. Ions without detected charge state as well as singly charged ions were excluded from MS/MS analysis. Original raw spectra files were converted into the common mzXML format, in order to further process it in downstream analysis. The spectra file from each proteomic run of a given sample was searched against the protein search library, using the Comet [25] search engine with default settings.The TPP pipeline (Trans Proteomic Pipeline) [26] was used to further process the Comet [25, 27] search results and produce a protein abundance table for each sample. In detail, PeptideProphet [28] was applied to validate peptide assignments, with filtering criteria set to probability of 0.001, accurate mass binning, non-parametric errors model (decoy model) and decoy hits reporting. In addition, iProphet [28, 29] was applied to refine peptide identifications coming from PeptideProphet. Finally, ProteinProphet [28,29,30] was applied to statistically validate peptide identifications at the protein level. This was carried out using the command: xinteract -N[my_sample_nick].pep.xml -THREADS = 40 -p0.001 -l6 -PPM -OAPd -dREVERSE_ -ip [file1].pep.xml [file2].pep.xml.. [fileN].pep.xml  > xinteract.out 2  > xinteract.err. Then, TPP GUI was used in order to produce a protein table from the resulting ProtXML files (extension ipro.prot.xml).Subsequently, proteins that had an identification probability < 0.9 were also removed as well as proteins supported with less than 2 unique peptides (see Supplementary Table 1).Quantifying metagenomic presence of MAGsA reference database containing all 107 MAGs’ contigs was created (bbmap.sh command, default settings). Then, the paired-end short reads from each sample (FASTQ files) were mapped into the reference database (bbwrap.sh, default settings), producing alignment (SAM) files, which were converted into BAM format. Subsequently, a contig depth (coverage) table was produced using the command jgi_summarize_bam_contig_depths --outputDepth depth.txt --pairedContigs paired.txt *.bam. As each of the MAGs span on more than one contig, MAG depth in each sample was calculated as contig length weighted by the average depth. Finally, to account for unequal sequencing depth, each MAG depth was normalized to the number of short sequencing reads within the given sample.Correlating metagenomic and proteomic structuresIn order to compare metagenomic and proteomic structures, we first calculated the mean coding gene abundance and mean production levels of each of the 1629 detected core proteins over all 12 cows. Both mean gene abundance and mean production level were translated into ranks using the R rank function. The produced proteins were ranked in descending order and the coding genes in the gene abundance vector were reordered accordingly. The two reordered ranked vectors then plotted using the R pheatmap function, and colored using the same color scale.Selection of proteins for downstream analysisAs our goal was to analyze plasticity in microbial protein production in varying environments, e.g., as a function of host state, only MAGs that were identified in all of the 12 proteomic samples were kept for further analysis. Consequently, only proteins that were identified in at least half of the proteomic samples (e.g., in at least six samples) were selected. This last step aimed to reduce spurious correlation results. These filtering steps retained 79 MAGs coding for a total of 1,629 measurable proteins.Feed efficiency state prediction and ordinationIn order to calculate the accuracy in predicting host feed efficiency state based on the different data layers available (16S rRNA (Supplementary Table 2), metagenomics, metaproteomics), the principal component analysis (PCA) axes for all the samples based on the microbial protein production profiles were calculated. Then, twelve cycles of model building and prediction were made. Each time, the two first PCs of each of five cows along with their phenotype (efficiency state) were used to build a Support Vector Machine (SVM) [R caret package] prediction model and one sample was left out. The model was then used to perform subsequent prediction of the left-out animal phenotype (feed efficiency) by feeding the model with that animal’s first two PCs. This leave-one-out methodology was then repeated over all the samples. Finally, the prediction accuracy was determined as the percent of the cases where the correct label was assigned to the left-out sample. For the proteomics data, this procedure was applied on both the raw protein counts, and the protein production normalized based on MAG abundance, which enabled us to compare the prediction accuracies of the microbial protein production to that of the raw protein counts.Identification proteins associated with a specific host stateIn order to split the proteomics dataset into microbial proteins that tend to be produced differently as a function of the host feed efficiency states, each microbial protein profile was correlated to the sample’s host feed efficiency measure (as calculated by RFI) using the Spearman correlation (R function cor), disregarding the p value. Proteins that had a positive correlation to RFI were grouped as inefficiency associated proteins. In contrast, proteins that presented a negative correlation to RFI were grouped as efficiency associated proteins. To test for equal sizes of these two protein groups, a binomial test was performed (R function binom.test) to examine the probability to get a low number of feed efficient proteins from the overall proteins under examination, when the expected probability was set to 0.5.Functional assignment of proteinsProtein functions were assigned based on the KEGG (Kegg Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes) [31] database. The entire KEGG genes database was compiled into a Diamond [32] search library. Then, the selected microbial proteins were searched against the database using the Diamond search tool. Significant hits (evalue < 5e-5) were further analyzed to identify the corresponding KO (KEGG Ortholog number). Annotations of glycoside hydrolases were performed using dbcan2 [33].Protein level checkerboard distribution across the feed efficiency groupsThe checkerboard distribution in protein production profiles was estimated separately within the feed efficient and inefficient animal groups. To enable the comparison between the two groups’ checkerboardness level, we chose a standardized C-score estimate (Standardized Effect Size C-score - S.E.S C-Score), based on the comparison of the observed C-score to a null-model distribution derived from simulations. The S.E.S C-score was estimated using the oecosimu function from R vegan package with 100,000 simulated null-model communities.Calculating functional redundancyThe functional redundancy within a given group of proteins was measured as the mean number of times a given KO occurred within a given group, while neglecting proteins that have not been assigned a KO level functional annotation.In order to test whether a given group of proteins exhibits more or less functional redundancy than would have been expected, a null distribution for functional redundancy was created, based on the number of proteins in the given group. A random group of proteins was drawn from the entire set, keeping the same sample size as in the tested group, and the process was repeated 100 times. Then, the functional redundancy for each random protein group was calculated. Thereafter, the null distribution was used to obtain a p value to measure the likelihood of obtaining such a value under the null.Examining functional divergenceExamining the functional divergence between the two groups of proteins, e.g. the feed efficiency and inefficiency associated proteins, was done by first counting the amount of shared functional annotations, in terms of KOs between the two groups. Thereafter, a null distribution for the expected count of KOs was built by randomly splitting in an iterative manner the proteins into groups of the same sizes and calculating the number of shared KOs. A p value for the actual count of shared proteins was obtained by ranking the actual count over the null distribution.Calculating average nearest neighbor ratio (ANN ratio)ANN Ratio analysis was carried out independently for each protein function (KO), containing more than 14 proteins with at least 5 proteins within each feed efficiency group. Initially, all proteins assigned to a given KO were split into two sets, in accordance to their feed efficiency affiliation group. Thereafter, proteins within each set were independently projected into two-dimensional space by PCA applied directly to Sequence Matrix [34]. Average nearest neighbor ratio within each set was then calculated within the minimum enclosing rectangle defined by principal component axes PC1 and PC2, as defined by Clark and Evans [35].MAG feed efficiency score calculationMicroorganism feed efficiency score was calculated for each MAG individually by first ranking each protein being produced by the given microbe along the 12 animals, based on the normalized protein production levels. Thereafter, a representative production value for the microbe in each animal was calculated as the average of the ranked (normalized) protein production levels in that animal (using R rank function). This ranking allowed us to alleviate the potential skewing effect of highly expressed proteins. The microorganism’s Feed Efficiency Score was calculated as the difference between its mean representative production value within feed efficient animals to that within feed inefficient animals. Values close to zero will reflect similar distribution between the two animal groups, positive values will indicate higher expression among efficient animals, and negative values will indicate higher expression among inefficient animals. To calculate significance, the actual feed efficiency score was compared to values in a distribution derived from a permutation based null model. Each of the permuted Feed Efficiency Scores (10,000 for each microbe) was obtained by independently shuffling each of the proteins produced by the MAG between the animals, prior to calculating the actual microorganism feed efficiency score. By positioning the absolute score value over its distribution under permuted assumptions (absolute values), we obtained a significance p value.MAG phylogenetic tree construction and phylogenetic signal estimationIn order to assess the link between phylogenetic similarity between the MAGs and their association with feed efficiency, phylogenetic tree estimating evolutionary relationships between the MAGs was constructed using the PhyloPhlAn pipeline [36]. The phylogenetic signal for Microorganism Feed Efficiency Score was estimated by providing the phylogSignal function from R phylosignal [37] package with MAGs phylogenetic tree and respective values. Pagel’s Lambda statistics was chosen for the analysis, owing to its robustness [38].Plot generationAll bar plots, scatter plots and other point plots were generated with R package ggplot2. Heatmaps were produced by either ggplot2 [39] or pheatmap [https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/pheatmap/index.html] R packages. KEGG map was produced using the online KEGG Mapper tool [40]. Phylocorrelogram was produced with phyloCorrelogram function from R package phylosignal [37].MAG differential production analysisMAGs that contain a minimal number of proteins (50 functions) were selected for differential protein production analysis, in order to have sufficient data to perform statistical tests. For each MAG, the relative production was used in order to calculate the Jaccard pairwise dissimilarity for core protein production between feed efficient and inefficient cows using the R vegan package. Analysis of similarity between efficiency and inefficiency associated proteins for each MAG (ANOSIM) values and p values were then calculated using the same package.Predicting animal feed efficiency state according to GH family countsUsing all GH annotated proteins, a feature table that sums the count of each GH family within each sample was produced. Thereafter a leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) [R caret package] was performed, each time building a Random Forest (RF) prediction model from the GH family counts and efficiency state of 11 samples, leaving one sample outside. Each one of the RF models, in its turn, was applied on the left-out animal to predict its efficiency state. Model accuracy and AUC curve were calculated based on the LOOCV performance. More

Healthy foods are green foodsAn analysis of 57,000 foods reveals which have the best and worst environmental impacts. A team of researchers used an algorithm to estimate how much of each ingredient was in thousands of products sold in major UK supermarket chains. The scientists then gave food items an environmental-impact score out of 100 — with 100 being the worst — by combining the impacts of the ingredients in 100 grams of each product. They considered several factors, including greenhouse-gas emissions and land use.Healthier foods tended to have low environmental impacts, the team found. Products containing lamb and beef — such as ready-made meat pies — had the most serious environmental impact. The lowest-impact foods tended to be made with plants and included bread products, fruits, vegetables, grains and sugar-rich drinks. There were some notable exceptions: both nuts and seafood had a good nutrition score but relatively high environmental impacts.

Source: M. Clark et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2120584119 (2022).

COVID-19 reboundAfter the COVID-19 antiviral Paxlovid began to be used in late 2021, researchers noticed that some people experience a rebound in the virus and symptoms after taking the drug. Two recent studies suggest that it is surprisingly common for SARS-CoV-2 to return in untreated cases of COVID-19 too. To determine the frequency of rebound, Jonathan Li, a physician-scientist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, and his team analysed data from hundreds of people who were randomized to receive a placebo in a large-scale trial of COVID-19 antibody drugs. More than one-quarter of participants who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 reported a rebound in their symptoms, according to the study, which has not yet been peer reviewed. “The main take-home message is that recovery from COVID-19 is not going to be a linear process,” Li says.

Source: Deo, R. et al. Preprint at medRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.08.01.22278278 (2022).

How trees grow in a warmer worldThis chart shows how the early arrival of spring, due to climate change, affects the growth of trees and the amount of carbon they sequester. In a paper in Nature, researchers investigated the consequences of an early start to the growing season in deciduous forests. Leaf emergence is followed by carbon uptake through the process of photosynthesis. Over time, carbon can be captured for long-term sequestration if it contributes to the radial growth of stems or to wood formation. The areas under the curves represent annual growth in terms of: the amount of carbon captured by leaves (top curves, brown); annual radial growth (lower left curve, blue); and increase in woody biomass (lower right curve, red).The authors report that the early arrival of spring, which shifts the margins of the growing season (lighter curves), had little impact on the final annual tree-ring width or the amount of woody biomass produced, whereas high temperatures in summer had a negative effect on radial growth (dotted curve). Other studies (plotted here as dotted curves) indicate that high temperatures and related drought can suppress carbon capture and woody-biomass production.The study provides evidence that warmer springs have advanced the leaf emergence of temperate deciduous forests but have not substantially increased their wood production. This suggests that the extra uptake of carbon dioxide does not contribute to sustainable carbon sequestration in the trunks of long-lived trees, as our News & Views article explains. More

Wiens, J. J. Climate-related local extinctions are already widespread among plant and animal species. PLoS Biol. 14, e2001104 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Scheffers, B. R. et al. The broad footprint of climate change from genes to biomes to people. Science 354, aaf7671 (2016).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Parmesan, C. & Yohe, G. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421, 37–42 (2003).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Urban, M. C. Accelerating extinction risk from climate change. Science 348, 571–573 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wingfield, J. C. et al. Organism-environment interactions in a changing world: a mechanistic approach. J. Ornithol. 152, 279–288 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mendoza-Gonzalez, G., Martinez, M. L., Rojas-Soto, O. R., Vazquez, G. & Gallego-Fernandez, J. B. Ecological niche modeling of coastal dune plants and future potential distribution in response to climate change and sea level rise. Glob. Change Biol. 19, 2524–2535 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Saunders, S. P. et al. Community science validates climate suitability projections from ecological niche modeling. Ecol. Appl. 30, 17 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Peterson, A. T., Cobos, M. E. & Jimenez-Garcia, D. Major challenges for correlational ecological niche model projections to future climate conditions. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1429, 66–77 (2018).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Mays, H. L. et al. Genomic analysis of demographic history and Ecological niche modeling in the endangered Sumatran Rhinoceros Dicerorhinus sumatrensis. Curr. Biol. 28, 70–76 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Malcolm, R. J., Liu, C., Neilson, P. R., Hansen, L. & Hannah, L. A. Global warming and extinctions of endemic species from biodiversity hotspots. Conserv. Biol. 20, 538–548 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fitzpatrick, M. C. & Keller, S. R. Ecological genomics meets community-level modelling of biodiversity: mapping the genomic landscape of current and future environmental adaptation. Ecol. Lett. 18, 1–16 (2015).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gotelli, J. N. & Stanton-Geddes, J. Climate change, genetic markers and species distribution modelling. J. Biogeogr. 42, 1577–1585 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ruegg, K. et al. Ecological genomics predicts climate vulnerability in an endangered southwestern songbird. Ecol. Lett. 21, 1085–1096 (2018).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Razgour, O. et al. Considering adaptive genetic variation in climate change vulnerability assessment reduces species range loss projections. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 10418–10423 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Valladares, F. et al. The effects of phenotypic plasticity and local adaptation on forecasts of species range shifts under climate change. Ecol. Lett. 17, 1351–1364 (2014).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bay, R. A. et al. Genomic signals of selection predict climate-driven population declines in a migratory bird. Science 359, 83–86 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rhone, B. et al. Pearl millet genomic vulnerability to climate change in West Africa highlights the need for regional collaboration. Nat. Commun. 11, 5274 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rahbek, C. et al. Building mountain biodiversity: geological and evolutionary processes. Science 365, 1114–1119 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Fjeldså, J., Bowie, R. C. K. & Rahbek, C. The role of mountain ranges in the diversification of birds. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 43, 249–265 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Freeman, B. G., Scholer, M. N., Ruiz-Gutierrez, V. & Fitzpatrick, J. W. Climate change causes upslope shifts and mountaintop extirpations in a tropical bird community. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 11982–11987 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
He, J. K., Lin, S. L., Li, J. T., Yu, J. H. & Jiang, H. S. Evolutionary history of zoogeographical regions surrounding the Tibetan Plateau. Commun. Biol. 3, 9 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wu, Y. J. et al. Explaining the species richness of birds along a subtropical elevational gradient in the Hengduan Mountains. J. Biogeogr. 40, 2310–2323 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A., Sargatal, J. & Christie, D. A. Handbook of the Birds of the World (Lynx Edicions, 2013).Qu, Y. et al. Lineage diversification and historical demography of a montane bird Garrulax elliotii – implications for the Pleistocene evolutionary history of the eastern Himalayas. BMC Evolut. Biol. 11, 174 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Qu, Y. et al. Long-term isolation and stability explain high genetic diversity in the Eastern Himalaya. Mol. Ecol. 23, 705–720 (2014).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, W. J. et al. Glacial expansion and diversification of an East Asian montane bird, the green-backed tit (Parus monticolus). J. Biogeogr. 40, 1156–1169 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Simão, F. A., Waterhouse, R. M., Ioannidis, P., Kriventseva, E. V. & Zdobnov, E. M. BUSCO: assessing genome assembly and annotation completeness with single-copy orthologs. Bioinformatics 31, 3210–3212 (2015).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Laine, V. N. et al. Evolutionary signals of selection on cognition from the great tit genome and methylome. Nat. Commun. 7, 9 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ellis, N., Smith, S. J. & Pitcher, C. R. Gradient forests: calculating importance gradients on physical predictors. Ecology 93, 156–168 (2012).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Giorgetta, M. A. Climate and carbon cycle changes from 1850 to 2100 in MPI-ESM simulations for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 5, 572–597 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gent, P. R. et al. The community climate system model version 4. J. Clim. 24, 4973–4991 (2011).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Watanabe, M. et al. Improved climate simulation by MIROC5: mean states, variability, and climate sensitivity. J. Clim. 23, 6312–6335 (2010).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Voldoire, A. et al. The CNRM-CM5.1 global climate model: description and basic evaluation. Clim. Dyn. 40, 2091–2121 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Frichot, E., Schoville, S. D., Bouchard, G. & Francois, O. Testing for associations between loci and environmental gradients using latent factor mixed models. Mol. Biol. Evol. 30, 1687–1699 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Forester, B. R., Jones, M. R., Joost, S., Landguth, E. L. & Lasky, J. R. Detecting spatial genetic signatures of local adaptation in heterogeneous landscapes. Mol. Ecololgy 25, 104–120 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Forester, B. R., Lasky, J. R., Wagner, H. H. & Urban, D. L. Comparing methods for detecting multilocus adaptation with multivariate genotype-environment associations. Mol. Ecol. 27, 2215–2233 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, C. et al. Two Antarctic penguin genomes reveal insights into their evolutionary history and molecular changes related to the Antarctic environment. Gigascience 3, 27 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pirri, F. et al. Selection-driven adaptation to the extreme Antarctic environment in Emperor penguin. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.12.14.471946 (2021).Wang, L. C. et al. Involvement of the Arabidopsis HIT1/AtVPS53 tethering protein homologuein the acclimation of the plasma membrane to heat stess.J. Exp. Bot. 62, 3609–3620 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Piñol, R. A. et al. Preoptic BRS3 neurons increase body temperature and heart rate via multiple pathways. Cell Metab. 33, 1389–1403 (2021).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Guilherme, A. et al. Neuronal modulation of brown adipose activity through perturbation of white adipocyte lipogenesis. Mol. Metab. 16, 116–125 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, Y., Guo, W., zhang, Y., Zhang, H. & Wu, C. Insights into hypoxic adaptation in Tibetan chicken embryos from comparative proteomics. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. Part D. 31, 100602 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pizzagalli, M. D., Bensimon, A. & Superti-Furga, G. A guide to plasma membrane solute carrier proteins. FEBS J. 288, 2784–2835 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Qu, Y. et al. Rapid phenotypic evolution with shallow genomic differentiation during early stages of high elevation adaptation in Eurasian Tree Sparrows. Natl Sci. Rev. 7, 113–127 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Alexander, D. H., Novembre, J. & Lange, K. Fast model-based estimation of ancestry in unrelated individuals. Genome Res. 19, 1655–1664 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ferrier, S., Manion, G., Elith, J. & Richardson, K. Using generalized dissimilarity modelling to analyse and predict patterns of beta diversity in regional biodiversity assessment. Diversity Distrib. 13, 252–264 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thuiller, W., Lafourcade, B., Engler, R. & Araújo, M. B. BIOMOD – a platform for ensemble forecasting of species distributions. Ecography 32, 369–373 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chen, Y. et al. Large-scale genome-wide reveals climate adaptive variability in a cosmopolitan pest. Nat. Commun. 12, 7206 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Clarke, R. T., Rothery, P. & Raybould, A. F. Confidence limits for regression relationships between distance matrices: Estimating gene flow with distance. J. Agric. Biol. Environ. Stat. 7, 361–372 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Excoffier, L., Dupanloup, I., Huerta-Sanchez, E., Sousa, V. C. & Foll, M. Robust demographic inference from genomic and SNP data. PLoS Genet. 9, e1003905 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Foden, W. B. et al. Climate change vulnerability assessment of species. WIREs Clim. Change 10, e551 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Smith, T. B. et al. Genomic vulnerablity and soci-economic threats under climate change in an African rainforest bird. Evolut. Appl. 14, 1239–1247 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu, B., Liang, E. Y., Liu, K. & Camarero, J. J. Species- and elevation-dependent growth responses to climate warming of mountain forests in the Qinling Mountains, central China. Forests 9, 11 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Dang, H. S., Zhang, Y. J., Zhang, K. R., Jiang, M. X. & Zhang, Q. F. Climate-growth relationships of subalpine fir (Abies fargesii) across the altitudinal range in the Shennongjia Mountains, central China. Clim. Change 117, 903–917 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lingua, E., Cherubini, P., Motta, R. & Nola, P. Spatial structure along an altitudinal gradient in the Italian central Alps suggests competition and facilitation among coniferous species. J. Veg. Sci. 19, 425–436 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, D. C., Zhang, Y. H., Boufford, D. E. & Sun, H. Elevational patterns of species richness and endemism for some important taxa in the Hengduan Mountains, southwestern China. Biodivers. Conserv. 18, 699–716 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, R. Z., Zheng, D., Yang, Q. Y. & Liu, Y. H. Physical Geography of Hengduan Mountains (Science Press, 1997).Liu, Y. et al. Sino-Himalayan mountains act as cradles of diversity and immigration centres in the diversification of parrotbills (Paradoxornithidae). J. Biogeogr. 43, 1488–1501 (2016).Bush, A. et al. Incorporating evolutionary adaptation in species distribution modeling reduces projected vulnerability to climate change. Ecol. Lett. 17, 1468–148 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sparks, M. M., Westley, A. A. H., Falke, J. A. & Quinn, T. P. Thermal adaptation and phenotypic plasticity in a warming world: insights from common garden experiments on Alaskan sockeye salmon. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 5203–5217 (2017).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Merow, C., Wilson, A. M. & Jetz, W. Integrating occurrence data and expert maps for improved species range predictions. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 26, 243–258 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Weisenfeld, N. I., Kumar, V., Shah, P., Church, D. M. & Jaffe, D. B. Direct determination of diploid genome sequences. Genome Res. 27, 757–767 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Luo, R. et al. SOAPdenovo2: an empirically improved memory-efficient short-read de novo assembler. Gigascience 1, 18 (2012).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Altschul, S. F. et al. Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Res. 25, 3389–3402 (1997).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
She, R., Chu, J. S. C., Wang, K., Pei, J. & Chen, N. GenBlastA: enabling BLAST to identify homologous gene sequences. Genome Res. 19, 143–149 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
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 
Edgar, R. C. MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res. 32, 1792–1797 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
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 
McKenna, A. et al. The genome analysis toolkit: a mapreduce framework for analyzing next-generation DNA sequencing data. Genome Res. 20, 1297–1303 (2010).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 
Danecek, P. et al. The variant call format and VCFtools. Bioinformatics 27, 2156–2158 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hijmans, R. J., Cameron, S. E., Parra, J. L., Jones, P. G. & Jarvis, A. Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 25, 1965–1978 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Robinson, J. D., Bunnefeld, L., Hearn, J., Stone, G. N. & Hickerson, M. J. ABC inference of multi-population divergence with admixture from unphased population genomic data. Mol. Ecol. 23, 4458–4471 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Nazareno, A. G., Bemmels, J. B., Dick, C. W. & Lohmann, L. G. Minimum sample sizes for population genomics: an empirical study from an Amazonian plant species. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 17, 1136–1147 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Willing, E. M., Dreyer, C. & van Oosterhout, C. Estimates of genetic differentiation measured by FST do not necessary require large sample size when using many SNP markers. PLoS One 7, e2649 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Keenan, K., Mcginnity, P., Cross, T. F., Crozier, W. W. & Prodöhl, P. A. diveRsity: an Rpackage for the estimation and exploration of population genetics parameters and their associated errors. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4, 782–788 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rellstab, C., Gugerli, F., Eckert, I. A., Hancock, M. A. & Holderegger, R. A practical guide to environmental assocaition analysis in landscape genomics. Mol. Ecol. 24, 4348–4370 (2015).PubMed 
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 
Xie, C. et al. KOBAS 2.0: a web server for annotation and identification of enriched pathways and diseases. Nucleic Acids Res. 39, W316–W322 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Araújo, M. B. & New, M. Ensemble forecasting of species distributions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 42–47 (2007).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Araújo, M. B. et al. Standards for distribution models in biodiversity assessments. Sci. Adv. 5, eaat4858 (2019).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Boria, R. A., Olson, L. E., Goodman, S. M. & Anderson, R. P. Spatial filtering to reduce sampling bias can improve the performance of ecological niche models. Ecol. Model. 275, 73–77 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Anderson, R. P. & Raza, A. The effect of the extent of the study region on GISmodels of species geographic distributions and estimates of niche evolution: preliminary tests with montane rodents (genus Nephelomys) in Venezuela. J. Biogeogr. 37, 1378–1393 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pearson, R. G., Raxworthy, C., Nakamura, M. & Peterson, A. T. Predicting species distributions from small numbers of occurrence records: a test case using crypticgeckos in Madagascar. J. Biogeogr. 34, 102–117 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Heming, N. M., Dambros, C. & Gutiérrez, E. E. ENMwizard: advanced techniques for Ecological Niche Modeling made easy. https://github.com/HemingNM/ENMwizard (2018).Naimi, B., Hamm, N. A. S., Groen, T. A., Skidmore, A. K. & Toxopeus, A. G. Where is positional uncertainty a problem for species distribution modelling. Ecography 37, 191–203 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Muscarella, R. et al. ENMeval: An R package for conducting spatially independent evaluations and estimating optimal model complexity for MAXENT ecological niche models. Methods Ecol. Evol. 5, 1198–1205 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Owens, H. L. et al. Constraints on interpretation of ecological niche models by limited environmental ranges on calibration areas. Ecol. Model. 263, 10–18 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Akaike, H. New look at statistical-model identification. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control AC19, 716–723 (1974).ADS 
MathSciNet 
MATH 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Phillips, S. J. et al. Sample selection bias and presence-only distribution models: implications for background and pseudo-absence data. Ecol. Appl. 19, 181–197 (2009).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Barbet-Massin, M., Jiguet, F., Albert, C. H. & Thuiller, W. Selecting pseudo-absences for species distribution models: how, where and how many? Methods Ecol. Evol. 3, 327–338 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bellard, C. et al. Will climate change promote future invasions? Glob. Change Biol. 19, 3740–3748 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Elith, J., Kearney, M. & Phillips, S. The art of modelling range-shifting species. Methods Ecol. Evol. 1, 330–342 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Anantharaman, R., Hall, K., Shah, V. B. & Edelman, A. Circuitscape in Julia: high performance connectivity modelling to support conservation decisions. Proc. JuliaCon Conf. 1, 58 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Anderson, D. R. & Burnham, K. P. Avoiding pitfalls when using information-theoretic methods. J. Wildl. Manag. 66, 912–918 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Van Strien, M. J., Keller, D. & Holderegger, R. A new analytical approach to landscape genetic modelling: least-cost transect analysis and linear mixed models. Mol. Ecol. 21, 4010–4023 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bartoń, K. MuMIn: multi-model inference, R package version 1.9.13 (2013).Zhang, G. et al. Comparative genomics reveal insights into avian genome evolution and adaptation. Science 346, 1311–1320 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Roesti, M., Kueng, B., Moser, D. & Berner, D. The genomics of ecological vicariance in threespine stickleback fish. Nat. Commun. 6, 8767 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

Azam, F. & Malfatti, F. Microbial structuring of marine ecosystems. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 5, 782–791 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Martiny, J. B. H. et al. Microbial biogeography: Putting microorganisms on the map. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 4, 102–112 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hanson, C. A., Fuhrman, J. A., Horner-Devine, M. C. & Martiny, J. B. H. Beyond biogeographic patterns: Processes shaping the microbial landscape. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 10, 497–506 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Grossart, H. P. Ecological consequences of bacterioplankton lifestyles: Changes in concepts are needed. Environ. Microbiol. Rep. 2, 706–714 (2010).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Simon, M., Grossart, H. P., Schweitzer, B. & Ploug, H. Microbial ecology of organic aggregates in aquatic ecosystems. Aquat. Microb. Ecol. 28, 175–211 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Smith, D. C., Simon, M., Alldredge, A. L. & Azam, F. Intense hydrolytic enzyme activity on marine aggregates and implication for rapid particle dissolution. Nature 359, 139–141 (1992).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Grossart, H. P., Tang, K. W., Kiørboe, T. & Ploug, H. Comparison of cell-specific activity between free-living and attached bacteria using isolates and natural assemblages. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 206, 194–200 (2007).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rieck, A., Herlemann, D. P. R., Jürgens, K. & Grossart, H. Particle-associated differ from free-living bacteria in surface waters of the Baltic Sea. Front. Microbiol. 6, 1297 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Karner, M. & Herndl, G. J. Extracellular enzymatic activity and secondary production in free-living and marine-snow-associated bacteria. Mar. Biol. 113, 341–347 (1992).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lyons, M. M. & Dobbs, F. C. Differential utilization of carbon substrates by aggregate-associated and water-associated heterotrophic bacterial communities. Hydrobiologia 686, 181–193 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Simon, H. M., Smith, M. W. & Herfort, L. Metagenomic insights into particles and their associated microbiota in a coastal margin ecosystem. Front. Microbiol. 5, 466 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Smith, M. W., Allen, L. Z., Allen, A. E., Herfort, L. & Simon, H. M. Contrasting genomic properties of free-living and particle-attached microbial assemblages within a coastal ecosystem. Front. Microbiol. 4, 120 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Mestre, M. et al. Spatial variability of marine bacterial and archaeal communities along the particulate matter continuum. Mol. Ecol. 26, 6827–6840 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bižic-Ionescu, M. et al. Comparison of bacterial communities on limnic versus coastal marine particles reveals profound differences in colonization. Environ. Microbiol. 17, 3500–3514 (2015).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hollibaugh, J. T., Wong, P. S. & Murrell, M. C. Similarity of particle-associated and free-living bacterial communities in northern San Francisco Bay, California. Aquat. Microb. Ecol. 21, 103–114 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ortega-Retuerta, E., Joux, F., Jeffrey, W. H. & Ghiglione, J. F. Spatial variability of particle-attached and free-living bacterial diversity in surface waters from the Mackenzie River to the Beaufort Sea (Canadian Arctic). Biogeosciences 10, 2747–2759 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Noble, P. A., Bidle, K. D. & Fletcher, M. Natural microbial community compositions compared by a back-propagating neural network and cluster analysis of 5S rRNA. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 63, 1762–1770 (1997).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhou, J. & Ning, D. Stochastic community assembly: Does it matter in microbial ecology?. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 81, e00002-17 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Jain, A., Balmonte, J. P., Singh, R., Bhaskar, P. V. & Krishnan, K. P. Spatially resolved assembly, connectivity and structure of particle-associated and free-living bacterial communities in a high Arctic fjord. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 97, 1–12 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yao, Z. et al. Bacterial community assembly in a typical estuarine marsh. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 85, e02602-18 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, J. et al. Assembly processes and source tracking of planktonic and benthic bacterial communities in the Yellow River estuary. Environ. Microbiol. 23, 2578–2591 (2021).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Balmonte, J. P. et al. Sharp contrasts between freshwater and marine microbial enzymatic capabilities, community composition, and DOM pools in a NE Greenland fjord. Limnol. Oceanogr. 65, 77–95 (2019).ADS 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Fortunato, C. S., Herfort, L., Zuber, P., Baptista, A. M. & Crump, B. C. Spatial variability overwhelms seasonal patterns in bacterioplankton communities across a river to ocean gradient. ISME J. 6, 554–563 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Yawata, Y., Carrara, F., Menolascina, F. & Stocker, R. Constrained optimal foraging by marine bacterioplankton on particulate organic matter. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 117, 25571–25579 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hu, Y. et al. The relationships between the free-living and particle-attached bacterial communities in response to elevated eutrophication. Front. Microbiol. 11, 423 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lima-Mendez, G. et al. Determinants of community structure in the grobal plankton interactome. Science (80-) 348, 1262073-1–10 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Milici, M. et al. Co-occurrence analysis of microbial taxa in the Atlantic ocean reveals high connectivity in the free-living bacterioplankton. Front. Microbiol. 7, 649 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Herren, C. M. & McMahon, K. D. Cohesion: A method for quantifying the connectivity of microbial communities. ISME J. 11, 2426–2438 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Friedman, J. & Alm, E. J. Inferring correlation networks from genomic survey data. PLoS Comput. Biol. 8, e1002687 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Deng, Y. et al. Molecular ecological network analyses. BMC Bioinform. 13, 113 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Labry, C. et al. High alkaline phosphatase activity in phosphate replete waters: The case of two macrotidal estuaries. Limnol. Oceanogr. 61, 1513–1529 (2016).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Crump, B. C. et al. Quantity and quality of particulate organic matter controls bacterial production in the Columbia River estuary. Limnol. Oceanogr. 62, 2713–2731 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Canuel, E. A. & Hardison, A. K. Sources, ages, and alteration of organic matter in Estuaries. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 8, 409–434 (2016).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
He, W., Chen, M., Schlautman, M. A. & Hur, J. Dynamic exchanges between DOM and POM pools in coastal and inland aquatic ecosystems: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 551–552, 415–428 (2016).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bianchi, T. S. The role of terrestrially derived organic carbon in the coastal ocean: A changing paradigm and the priming effect. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108, 19473–19481 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Auffret, G. A. Dynamique sédimentaire de la marge continentale celtique-Evolution Cénozoïque-Spécificité du Pleistocène supérieur et de l’Holocène (Université de Bordeaux I, 1983).
Google Scholar 
Delmas, R. & Tréguer, P. Évolution saisonnière des nutriments dans un écosystème eutrophe d’Europe occidentale (la rade de Brest). Interactions marines et terrestres. Oceanol. Acta 6, 345–356 (1983).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bassoullet, P. Etude de la dynamique des sédiments en suspension dans l’estuaire de l’Aulne (rade de Brest) (Université de Bretagne Occidentale, 1979).
Google Scholar 
Klindworth, A. et al. Evaluation of general 16S ribosomal RNA gene PCR primers for classical and next-generation sequencing-based diversity studies. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, e1 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

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

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

Google Scholar 
Olesen, S. W., Duvallet, C. & Alm, E. J. dbOTU3: A new implementation of distribution-based OTU calling. PLoS ONE 12, 1–13 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Quast, C. et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: Improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, 590–596 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (2013).Whickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (Springer, 2016).Book 

Google Scholar 
Lê, S., Josse, J. & Husson, F. FactoMineR: An R package for multivariate analysis. J. Stat. Softw. 25, 1–18 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wei, T. & Simko, V. R package ‘corrplot’: Visualization of a Correlation Matrix (2011).McMurdie, P. J. & Holmes, S. Phyloseq: An R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PLoS ONE 8, e61217 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Oksanen, J. et al. Vegan: Community Ecology Package (2022).Liu, C., Cui, Y., Li, X. & Yao, M. Microeco: An R package for data mining in microbial community ecology. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 97, fiaa255 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kandlikar, G. ranacapa: Utility Functions and ‘shiny’ App for Simple Environmental DNA Visualizations and Analyses (2021).Cao, Y. microbiomeMarker: microbiome biomarker analysis toolkit (2021).Tsirogiannis, C. & Brody, S. PhyloMeasures: Fast and Exact Algorithms for Computing Phylogenetic Biodiversity Measures (2017).McKnight, D. T. et al. Methods for normalizing microbiome data: An ecological perspective. Methods Ecol. Evol. 10, 389–400 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Paradis, E. & Schliep, K. Ape 50: An environment for modern phylogenetics and evolutionary analyses in R. Bioinformatics https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bty633 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Legendre, P. & Legendre, L. Numerical Ecology (Third English Edition) (Elsevier, 2012).MATH 

Google Scholar 
Stegen, J. C., Lin, X., Fredrickson, J. K. & Konopka, A. E. Estimating and mapping ecological processes influencing microbial community assembly. Front. Microbiol. 6, 370 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Stegen, J. C., Lin, X., Konopka, A. E. & Fredrickson, J. K. Stochastic and deterministic assembly processes in subsurface microbial communities. ISME J. 6, 1653–1664 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Naimi, B. usdm: Uncertainty Analysis for Species Distribution Models (2017).Wu, W., Xu, Z., Dai, M., Gan, J. & Liu, H. Homogeneous selection shapes free-living and particle-associated bacterial communities in subtropical coastal waters. Divers. Distrib. 00, 1–14 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Wang, Y. et al. Patterns and processes of free-living and particle-associated bacterioplankton and archaeaplankton communities in a subtropical river-bay system in South China. Limnol. Oceanogr. 65, 161–179 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Zhou, L. et al. Environmental filtering dominates bacterioplankton community assembly in a highly urbanized estuarine ecosystem. Environ. Res. 196, 110934 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Graham, E. B. & Stegen, J. C. Dispersal-based microbial community assembly decreases biogeochemical function. Processes 5, 65 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Campbell, B. J. & Kirchman, D. L. Bacterial diversity, community structure and potential growth rates along an estuarine salinity gradient. ISME J. 7, 210–220 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Herlemann, D. P. R. et al. Transitions in bacterial communities along the 2000 km salinity gradient of the Baltic Sea. ISME J. 5, 1571–1579 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Fuhrman, J. A., Cram, J. A. & Needham, D. M. Marine microbial community dynamics and their ecological interpretation. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 13, 133–146 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sunagawa, S. et al. Structure and function of the global ocean microbiome. Science (80-) 348, 1261359 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Buchan, A., LeCleir, G. R., Gulvik, C. A. & González, J. M. Master recyclers: features and functions of bacteria associated with phytoplankton blooms. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 12, 686–698 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Martinez-Garcia, M. et al. Capturing single cell genomes of active polysaccharide degraders: An unexpected contribution of verrucomicrobia. PLoS ONE 7, e35314 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Reintjes, G., Arnosti, C., Fuchs, B. M. & Amann, R. An alternative polysaccharide uptake mechanism of marine bacteria. ISME J. 11, 1640–1650 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gralka, M., Szabo, R., Stocker, R. & Cordero, O. X. Trophic interactions and the drivers of microbial community assembly. Curr. Biol. 30, R1176–R1188 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu, J., Meng, Z., Liu, X. & Zhang, X. H. Microbial assembly, interaction, functioning, activity and diversification: a review derived from community compositional data. Mar. Life Sci. Technol. 1, 112–128 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hernandez, D. J., David, A. S., Menges, E. S., Searcy, C. A. & Afkhami, M. E. Environmental stress destabilizes microbial networks. ISME J. 15, 1722–1734 (2021).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

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

Google Scholar 
Liénart, C. et al. Dynamics of particulate organic matter composition in coastal systems: A spatio-temporal study at multi-systems scale. Prog. Oceanogr. 156, 221–239 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fraisse, S., Bormans, M. & Lagadeuc, Y. Morphofunctional traits reflect differences in phytoplankton community between rivers of contrasting flow regime. Aquat. Ecol. 47, 315–327 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Treguer, P. & Queguiner, B. Seasonal variations in conservative and nonconservative mixing of nitrogen compounds in a West European macrotidal estuary. Oceanol. Acta 12, 371–380 (1989).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Grossart, H. P. & Tang, K. W. Communicative & integrative biology. Commun. Integr. Biol. 3, 491–494 (2010).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar  More