Ecology

Clapham, P. J. Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals 489–492 (Elsevier, 2018).Book 

Google Scholar 
Calambokidis, J. et al. Movements and population structure of humpback whales in the North Pacific. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 17, 769–794. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2001.tb01298.x (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rosenbaum, H. C. et al. First circumglobal assessment of Southern Hemisphere humpback whale mitochondrial genetic variation and implications for management. Endangered Species Res. 32, 551–567. https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00822 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Darling, J. D. & Sousa-Lima, R. S. Songs indicate interaction between humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) populations in the western and eastern South Atlantic Ocean. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 21, 557–566 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Marcondes, M. C. C. et al. The Southern Ocean Exchange: Porous boundaries between humpback whale breeding populations in southern polar waters. Sci. Rep. 11, 23618. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-02612-5 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Witteveen, B. H., Foy, R. J., Wynne, K. M. & Tremblay, Y. Investigation of foraging habits and prey selection by humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) using acoustic tags and concurrent fish surveys. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 24, 516–534. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2008.00193.x (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Barendse, J. et al. Migration redefined? Seasonality, movements and group composition of humpback whales Megaptera novaeangliae off the west coast of South Africa. Afr. J. Mar. Sci. 32, 1–22 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Findlay, K. P. et al. Humpback whale “super-groups” – A novel low-latitude feeding behaviour of Southern Hemisphere humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in the Benguela Upwelling System. PLoS One 12, e0172002. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172002 (2017).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Barendse, J. et al. Transit station or destination? Attendance patterns, movements and abundance estimate of humpback whales off west South Africa from photographic and genotypic matching. Afr. J. Mar. Sci. 33, 353–373 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schall, E. et al. Multi-year presence of humpback whales in the Atlantic sector of the Southern Ocean but not during El Niño. Commun. Biol. 4, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-021-02332-6 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Amaral, A. R. et al. Population genetic structure among feeding aggregations of humpback whales in the Southern Ocean. Mar. Biol. 163, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-016-2904-0 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schall, E. et al. Humpback whale song recordings suggest common feeding ground occupation by multiple populations. Sci. Rep. 11, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-98295-z (2021).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
International Whaling Commission. Annex H: Report of the Sub-Committee on Other Southern Hemisphere Whale Stocks. (2016).Payne, R. & Guinee, L. N. Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) songs as an indicator of “stocks”. Commun. Behav. Whales 20, 333–358 (1983).
Google Scholar 
Riekkola, L. et al. Application of a multi-disciplinary approach to reveal population structure and Southern Ocean feeding grounds of humpback whales. Ecol. Indic. 89, 455–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.02.030 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Herman, L. M. The multiple functions of male song within the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) mating system: Review, evaluation, and synthesis. Biol. Rev. 92, 1795–1818. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12309 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Garland, E. C. et al. Humpback Whale song on the Southern Ocean feeding grounds: Implications for cultural transmission. PLoS One 8, e79422. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0079422 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
McSweeney, D., Chu, K., Dolphin, W. & Guinee, L. North Pacific humpback whale songs: A comparison of southeast Alaskan feeding ground songs with Hawaiian wintering ground songs. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 5, 139–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.1989.tb00328.x (1989).Article 

Google Scholar 
Van Opzeeland, I. C. et al. Towards collective circum-antarctic passive acoustic monitoring: The southern ocean hydrophone network (SOHN). Polarforschung 83, 47–61 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Gridley, T., Silva, M., Wilkinson, C., Seakamela, S. & Elwen, S. H. Song recorded near a super-group of humpback whales on a mid-latitude feeding ground off South Africa. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 143, 298–304 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ross-Marsh, E., Elwen, S. H., Prinsloo, A., James, B. & Gridley, T. Singing in South Africa: Monitoring the occurrence of humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) song near the Western Cape. Bioacoustics 30, 163–179 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Garland, E. C. et al. Population structure of humpback whales in the western and central South Pacific Ocean as determined by vocal exchange among populations. Conserv. Biol. 29, 1198–1207. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12492 (2015).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bombosch, A. et al. Predictive habitat modelling of humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae) and Antarctic minke (Balaenoptera bonaerensis) whales in the Southern Ocean as a planning tool for seismic surveys. Deep Sea Res. Part 1 Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 91, 101–114 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
El-Gabbas, A., Van Opzeeland, I., Burkhardt, E. & Boebel, O. Static species distribution models in the marine realm: The case of baleen whales in the Southern Ocean. Divers. Distrib. 27, 1536–1552. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.13300 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schall, E. et al. Large-scale spatial variabilities in the humpback whale acoustic presence in the Atlantic sector of the Southern Ocean. R. Soc. Open Sci. 7, 201347. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.201347 (2020).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
International Whaling Commission. Report of the scientific committee. Annex G. Report of the sub-committee on comprehensive assessment of southern hemisphere humpback whales. Appenix4. Initial alternative hypotheses for the distribution of humpack breeding stocks on the feeding grounds. Report of the International Whlaing Commission 48, 181 (1998).International Whaling Commission. Report on the workshop on the comprehensive assessment of Southern Hemisphere humpback whales. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. Spec. Issue 3, 1–50 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Winn, H. E. & Winn, L. K. Song of Humpback Whale Megaptera-Novaeangliae in West-Indies. Mar. Biol. 47, 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/Bf00395631 (1978).Article 

Google Scholar 
Payne, K. & Payne, R. Large-scale changes over 19 years in songs of Humpback Whales in Bermuda. Z. Tierpsychol. 68, 89–114 (1985).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thomisch, K. et al. Temporal patterns in the acoustic presence of baleen whale species in a presumed breeding area off Namibia. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 620, 201–214 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Buchan, S. J., Stafford, K. M. & Hucke-Gaete, R. Seasonal occurrence of southeast Pacific blue whale songs in southern Chile and the eastern tropical Pacific. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 31, 440–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/mms.12173 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ross-Marsh, E., Elwen, S., Prinsloo, A., James, B. & Gridley, T. Singing in South Africa: Monitoring the occurrence of humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) song near the Western Cape. Bioacoustics https://doi.org/10.1080/09524622.2019.1710254 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cholewiak, D. M., Sousa-Lima, R. S. & Cerchio, S. Humpback whale song hierarchical structure: Historical context and discussion of current classification issues. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 29, E312–E332. https://doi.org/10.1111/mms.12005 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
M_Map: A Mapping Package for MATLAB v. 1.4m. (2020).Raven Pro: Interactive sound analysis software. Version 1.6 ([Ithaca (NY)]: The Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Accessed 1 Mar 2018 (2022).Schall, E., Roca, I. & Van Opzeeland, I. Acoustic metrics to assess humpback whale song unit structure from the Atlantic sector of the Southern ocean. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 149, 4649–4658. https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0005315 (2021).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Dice, L. R. Measures of the amount of ecologic association between species. Ecology 26, 297–302. https://doi.org/10.2307/1932409 (1945).Article 

Google Scholar 
R: A language and environment for statistical computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2018).Suzuki, R., Terada, Y. & Shimodaira, H. pvclust: Hierarchical clustering with P-values via multiscale bootstrap resampling. R package version 2.2-0 (2019).Kohonen, T. Median strings. Pattern Recogn. Lett. 3, 309–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8655(85)90061-3 (1985).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Garland, E. C. et al. Improved versions of the Levenshtein distance method for comparing sequence information in animals’ vocalisations: Tests using humpback whale song. Behaviour 149, 1413–1441. https://doi.org/10.1163/1568539x-00003032 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Van der Loo, M. P. The stringdist package for approximate string matching. R J. 6, 111–122 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zerbini, A. et al. Migration and summer destinations of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in the western South Atlantic Ocean. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. Spec. Issue 3, 113–118. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps313295 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rosenbaum, H. C., Maxwell, S. M., Kershaw, F. & Mate, B. Long-range movement of Humpback Whales and their overlap with anthropogenic activity in the South Atlantic Ocean. Conserv. Biol. 28, 604–615. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12225 (2014).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Reisinger, R. R. et al. Combining regional habitat selection models for large-scale prediction: Circumpolar habitat selection of Southern Ocean humpback whales. Remote Sens. 13, 2074. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13112074 (2021).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Garland, E. C. & McGregor, P. K. Cultural transmission, evolution, and revolution in vocal displays: Insights from bird and whale song. Front. Psychol. 11, 2387. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.544929 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Findlay, K. P. et al. Humpback whale “super-groups”—a novel low-latitude feeding behaviour of Southern Hemisphere humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in the Benguela Upwelling System. PLoS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172002 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Owen, K. et al. Effect of prey type on the fine-scale feeding behaviour of migrating east Australian humpback whales. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 541, 231–244. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps11551 (2015).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Riekkola, L., Andrews-Goff, V., Friedlaender, A., Zerbini, A. N. & Constantine, R. Longer migration not necessarily the costliest strategy for migrating humpback whales. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshwat. Ecosyst. 30, 937–948. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3295 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Torres, L. G. A sense of scale: Foraging cetaceans’ use of scale-dependent multimodal sensory systems. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 33, 1170–1193. https://doi.org/10.1111/mms.12426 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Horton, T. W. et al. Straight as an arrow: Humpback whales swim constant course tracks during long-distance migration. Biol. Lett. 7, 674–679. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2011.0279 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Au, W. W. L. et al. Acoustic properties of humpback whale songs. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 120, 1103–1110. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2211547 (2006).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Dunlop, R. A., Cato, D. H., Noad, M. J. & Stokes, D. M. Source levels of social sounds in migrating humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 134, 706–714. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4807828 (2013).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Cheeseman, T. et al. Advanced image recognition: A fully automated, high-accuracy photo-identification matching system for humpback whales. Mamm. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42991-021-00180-9 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Felix, F. et al. A new case of interoceanic movement of a humpback whale in the Southern Hemisphere: The El Nino Link. Aquat. Mamm. 46, 578–584. https://doi.org/10.1578/AM.46.6.2020.578 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pomilla, C. & Rosenbaum, H. C. Against the current: An inter-oceanic whale migration event. Biol. Lett. 1, 476–479 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stevick, P. T. et al. A quarter of a world away: Female humpback whale moves 10,000 km between breeding areas. Biol. Lett. 7, 299–302. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2010.0717 (2010).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Nicol, S. Krill, currents, and sea ice: Euphausia superba and its changing environment. Bioscience 56, 111–120. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2006)056[0111:Kcasie]2.0.Co;2 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Atkinson, A., Siegel, V., Pakhomov, E. & Rothery, P. Long-term decline in krill stock and increase in salps within the Southern Ocean. Nature 432, 100–103. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02996 (2004).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Atkinson, A. et al. Krill (Euphausia superba) distribution contracts southward during rapid regional warming. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 142–147. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0370-z (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Loeb, V. J. & Santora, J. A. Climate variability and spatiotemporal dynamics of five Southern Ocean krill species. Prog. Oceanogr. 134, 93–122 (2015).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Marrari, M., Daly, K. L. & Hu, C. Spatial and temporal variability of SeaWiFS chlorophyll a distributions west of the Antarctic Peninsula: Implications for krill production. Deep Sea Res. Part II 55, 377–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2007.11.011 (2008).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sremba, A. L., Hancock-Hanser, B., Branch, T. A., LeDuc, R. L. & Baker, C. S. Circumpolar diversity and geographic differentiation of mtDNA in the critically endangered Antarctic Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus intermedia). PLoS One 7, e32579. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032579 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bortolotto, G. A., Danilewicz, D., Andriolo, A., Secchi, E. R. & Zerbini, A. N. Whale, whale, everywhere: Increasing abundance of Western South Atlantic Humpback Whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in their wintering grounds. PLoS One 11, e0164596. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0164596 (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Félix, F., Castro, C. & Laake, J. L. Abundance and survival estimates of the southeastern Pacific humpback whale stock from 1991–2006 photo-identification surveys in Ecuador. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. https://doi.org/10.47536/jcrm.vi.303 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ward, E., Zerbini, A. N., Kinas, P. G., Engel, M. H. & Andriolo, A. Estimates of population growth rates of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in the wintering grounds off the coast of Brazil (Breeding Stock A). J. Cetacean Res. Manage. https://doi.org/10.47536/jcrm.vi3.323 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Seyboth, E. et al. Influence of krill (Euphausia superba) availability on humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) reproductive rate. Mar. Mammal Sci. https://doi.org/10.1111/mms.12805 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cai, W. et al. Increasing frequency of extreme El Niño events due to greenhouse warming. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 111–116 (2014).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Santora, J. A., Reiss, C. S., Loeb, V. J. & Veit, R. R. Spatial association between hotspots of baleen whales and demographic patterns of Antarctic krill Eupahusia superba suggests size-dependent predation. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 405, 255–269 (2010).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Friedlaender, A. S., Lawson, G. L. & Halpin, P. N. Evidence of resource partitioning between humpback and minke whales around the western Antarctic Peninsula. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 25, 402–415 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Reid, K., Brierley, A. S. & Nevitt, G. A. An initial examination of relationships between the distribution of whales and antarctic krill Euphausia superba at South Georgia. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 2, 143–149 (2000).
Google Scholar 
Nicol, S. et al. Southern Ocean iron fertilization by baleen whales and Antarctic krill. Fish Fish. 11, 203–209. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2010.00356.x (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Teschke, K., Pehlke, H., Deininger, M., Jerosch, K. & Brey, T. Scientific background document in support of the development of a CCAMLR MPA in the Weddell Sea (Antarctica)-Version 2016. (2016).Teschke, K. et al. Planning marine protected areas under the CCAMLR regime—the case of the Weddell Sea (Antarctica). Mar. Policy 124, 104370 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Tracing the symptomology of predation through macroscopic plaquesA culture bioassay (Expanded Microcoleus Mortality Assay, or EMMA) (Fig. 1 and see Materials and Methods) based on the capacity of a soil to induce complete mortality in the foundational biocrust cyanobacterium Microcoleus vaginatus helped us trace the pathogen detected in biocrust production facilities to the development of cm-sized plaques, or zones of cyanobacterial clearing, in natural biocrusts. These plaques were revealed to the naked eye (Fig. 2) when the soil was wet (i.e., after a rain event), as impacted areas would fail to green up by the migration of cyanobacteria to the surface21, enabling us to detect and quantify them with relative ease. Soil samples obtained from such plaques (n = 30) from different sites (n = 6; Table S1) in the US Southwest were invariably EMMA + , and the pathogens always filterable with pore sizes 0.45–1 µm but not larger, and always insensitive to the eukaryotic inhibitor cycloheximide, indicating the agent’s prokaryotic nature and small size, while paired samples from asymptomatic areas just outside the plaques were always EMMA- (Table S2). These end-point EMMA solutions never gave rise to cyanobacterial re-growth upon further incubation and maintained its infectivity of fresh cyanobacterial cultures for up to 6 months. A one-time, small-scale sampling across a plaque at intervals of 2 mm using microcoring22 showed that the boundary of the visible plaque demarcated exactly the end of infectivity, samples 0–2 mm outside the plaque proving non-infective. Further, inoculation of healthy, natural biocrusts with EMMA + suspensions resulted in the local development of biocrust plaques, and soil from these plaques was itself EMMA + , in partial fulfillment of Koch’s postulates. Yet, standard microbiological plating failed to yield any isolates that were EMMA + (we tested 30 unique isolates), even though standard plating with similar isolation efforts can successfully cultivate a large portion of heterotrophs from biocrusts23.Fig. 1: EMMA bioassay (Expanded Microcoleus Mortality Assay), used to study biocrust pathogens.a Typical visual progression of a positive EMMA inoculated with soil or culture to be tested, as used to test for pathogenicity to Microcoleus vaginatus PPC 9802 in the field and in enrichments. b Typical degradation of cyanobacterial biomass during an EMMA displayed through electron microscopy: healthy Microcoleus vaginatus PPC 9802 filaments (top) display abundant photosynthetic membranes (white arrows), peptidoglycan cross-walls (yellow arrows) and carboxysomes (green arrow). As infection proceeds (downwards), patent degradation of intracellular structures follows, leaving only cellular ghosts in the form of peptidoglycan wall remnants (yellow arrows), including the characteristically enlarged peptidoglycan “bumper” of terminal cells (red arrow). Intracellular bacilloid bacteria can sometimes be observed (blue arrow). Cyanobacterial cultures lose all viability. Scale bars = 1 µm. n = 250 images from 4 independent experiments. c Assay modification used in flow cytometry/cell sorting, showing enrichments positive for predation in the top two rows and those negative for predation below. d Test and controls in EMMA to ensure prokaryotic nature of the disease agent.Full size imageFig. 2: Symptomology in nature: biocrust plaques.Main: Macroscopic view of a soil surface colonized by cyanobacterial biocrusts and impacted by multiple plaques as taken after a rain in a quadrat used for field surveys. Insert: Close-up of a single plaque, showing well-demarcated boundaries and a typical central area of new cyanobacterial colonization.Full size imageCultivation, identification, and salient genomic traits of the cyanobacterial pathogenTo study these organisms, we turned to enrichment of pathogen/prey co-cultures based on repeated passages through EMMA and differential size filtration combined with dilution-to-extinction approaches, followed by purification with flow cytometry/cell sorting. The process was monitored by 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing, and eventually yielded a highly enriched co-culture of the cyanobacterium with a genetically homogenous (one single Amplicon Sequence Variant) population that made up more than 80% of reads (Fig. 3 a, b). We name the organism represented by this ASV Candidatus Cyanoraptor togatus. That it corresponds indeed to the predator is supported by the fact that of the 17 ASV’s detected in the final enrichment, only 10 were consistently detected at all infectious stages in the process and, among these, only our candidate ASV steadily increased in relative abundance through the enrichment process (Fig. 3 a, b). This final enrichment of C. togatus, LGM-1, constitutes the basis for downstream biological and molecular analyses. Its ASV was most similar to little-known members of the family Chitinophagaceae in the phylum Bacteroidetes. LGM-1’s genome was sequenced and assembled into a single 3.3 Mb contig with 1,781 putative and 1,328 hypothetical genes (Table S3), though most proteins had low identity (Fig. 4: Compiled paired ratios of functional parameters and compositional (relative) abundance in biocrusts across plaque boundaries (circles), red bars denoting the medians for each group of ratios, and bar background color denoting the p-values that the median is significantly different from unity (Wilcoxon paired ratio two-sided tests), where gray is non-significant (p  >  0.1), light orange is 0.05   > p   p  More

Darwin, C. On the Origin of Species. Facsimile of the First Edition (Harvard University Press, 1859).
Google Scholar 
Grafen, A. The phylogenetic regression. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 326, 119–157 (1989).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Sillero, N., Reis, M., Vieira, C. P., Vieira, J. & Morales-Hojas, R. Niche evolution and thermal adaptation in the temperate species Drosophila americana. J. Evol. Biol. 27, 1549–1561 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ramos, R. et al. Global spatial ecology of three closely-related gadfly petrels. Sci. Rep. 6, 23447 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kumar, B., Cheng, J., Ge, D., Xia, L. & Yang, Q. Phylogeography and ecological niche modeling unravel the evolutionary history of the Yarkand hare, Lepus yarkandensis (Mammalia: Leporidae), through the Quaternary. BMC Evol. Biol. 19, 113 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wiens, J. J. & Graham, C. H. Niche conservatism: Integrating evolution, ecology, and conservation biology. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. 36, 519–539 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Losos, J. B. Phylogenetic niche conservatism, phylogenetic signal and the relationship between phylogenetic relatedness and ecological similarity among species. Ecol. Lett. 11, 995–1003 (2008).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Crisp, M. D. & Cook, L. G. Phylogenetic niche conservatism: What are the underlying evolutionary and ecological causes?. New Phytol. 196, 681–694 (2012).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Qian, H. & Ricklefs, R. E. Geographical distribution and ecological conservatism of disjunct genera of vascular plants in eastern Asia and eastern North America. J. Ecol. 92, 253–265 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Vitt, L. J., Zani, P. A. & Espósito, M. C. Historical ecology of Amazonian lizards: Implications for community ecology. Oikos 87, 286–294 (1999).
Google Scholar 
Rice, N. H., Martínez-Meyer, E. & Peterson, A. T. Ecological niche differentiation in the Aphelocoma jays: A phylogenetic perspective. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 80, 369–383 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Jost, L. Explosive local radiation of the genus Teagueia (Orchidaceae) in the Upper Pastaza Watershed of Ecuador. Lyonia 7, 42–47 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Antonelli, A., Verola, C. F., Parisod, C. & Gustafsson, A. L. S. Climate cooling promoted the expansion and radiation of a threatened group of South American orchids (Epidendroideae: Laeliinae). Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 100, 597–607 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Johnson, S. D., Linder, H. P. & Steiner, K. E. Phylogeny and radiation of pollination systems in Disa (Orchidaceae). Am. J. Bot. 85, 402–411 (1998).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kolanowska, M., Grochocka, E. & Konowalik, K. Phylogenetic climatic niche conservatism and evolution of climatic suitability in Neotropical Angraecinae (Vandeae, Orchidaceae) and their closest African relatives. PeerJ 5, e3328 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Dressler, R. L., Blanco, M. A., Pupulin, F. & Neubig, K. M. Proposal to conserve the name Sobralia (Orchidaceae) with a conserved type. Taxon 60, 907–908 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Baranow, P., Dudek, M. & Szlachetko, D. L. Brasolia, a new genus highlighted from Sobralia (Orchidaceae). Plant Syst. Evol. 303, 853–871 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dressler, R. L. The major sections or groups within Sobralia, with four new species from Panama and Costa Rica, S. crispissima, S. gloriana, S. mariannae and S. nutans. Lankesteriana 5, 9–15 (2002).
Google Scholar 
Pridgeon, A. M., Cribb, P. J., Chase, M. W. & Rasmussen, F. N. Genera Orchidacearum Vol. 4: Epidendroideae Part 1 (Oxford University Press, 2005).
Google Scholar 
Van der Cingel, N. A. An Atlas of Orchid Pollination: America, Africa, Asia and Australia (Balkema, 2001).
Google Scholar 
Dodson, C. H. Why are there so many orchid species. Lankesteriana 7, 99–103 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Van Der Pijl, L. & Dodson, C. H. Orchid Flowers: Their Pollination and Evolution (University of Miami Press, 1966).
Google Scholar 
Neubig, K. M. Systematics of Tribe Sobralieae (Orchidaceae): Phylogenetics, Pollination, Anatomy, and Biogeography of a Group of Neotropical Orchids (University of Florida, 2012).
Google Scholar 
Neubig, K. M. et al. Preliminary molecular phylogenetics of Sobralia and relatives (Orchidaceae; Sobralieae). Lankesteriana 11, 307–317 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Ramírez, S. R., Roubik, D. W., Skov, C. & Pierce, N. E. Phylogeny, diversification patterns and historical biogeography of euglossine orchid bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 100, 552–572 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Gregory-Wodzicki, K. M. Uplift history of the Central and Northern Andes: A review. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 112, 1091–1105 (2000).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Sundell, K. E., Saylor, J. E., Lapen, T. J. & Horton, B. K. Implications of variable late Cenozoic surface uplift across the Peruvian central Andes. Sci. Rep. 9, 4877 (2019).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Mescua, J. F. et al. Middle to late miocene contractional deformation in Costa Rica triggered by plate geodynamics. Tectonics 36, 2936–2949 (2017).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Kolanowska, M., Mystkowska, K., Kras, M., Dudek, M. & Konowalik, K. Evolution of the climatic tolerance and postglacial ranges of the most primitive orchids (Apostasioideae) within Sunduland, Wallacea and Sahul. PeerJ 4, e2384 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Arnal, P. et al. The evolution of climate tolerance in conifer-feeding aphids in relation to their host’s climatic niche. Ecol. Evol. 9, 11657–11671 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Zangiabadi, S., Zaremaivan, H., Brotons, L., Mostafavi, H. & Ranjbar, H. Using climatic variables alone overestimate climate change impacts on predicting distribution of an endemic species. PLoS ONE 16, e0256918. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256918 (2021).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Soberón, J. & Peterson, A. Interpretation of models of fundamental ecological niches and species’ distributional areas. Biodivers. Inform. https://doi.org/10.17161/bi.v2i0.4 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jiménez-Valverde, A., Lobo, J. & Hortal, J. Not as good as they seem: The importance of concepts in species distribution modelling. Divers. Distrib. 14, 885–890. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2008.00496.x (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bonetti, M. F. & Wiens, J. J. Evolution of climatic niche specialization: a phylogenetic analysis in amphibians. Proc. Biol. Sci. 281, 20133229. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.3229 (2014).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
George, P. M., Walter, E. W. & Yeuh-Lih, Y. Realized versus fundamental niche functions in a model of chaparral response to climatic change. Ecol. Modell. 7, 261–277 (1992).
Google Scholar 
Hijmans, R. J., Schreuder, M., Cruz, J. & Guarino, L. Using GIS to check co-ordinates of genebank accessions. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 46, 291–296 (1999).
Google Scholar 
Phillips, S. J., Dudík, M. & Schapire, R. E. A maximum entropy approach to species distribution modeling. In ICML ’04. Proceedings of the Twenty-First International Conference on MACHINE LEARNing, 655–662 (ACM, New York, 2004).Phillips, S. J., Anderson, R. & Schapire, R. E. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol. Modell. 190, 231–259 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Elith, J. et al. A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists. Divers. Distrib. 17, 43–57 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Barve, N. et al. The crucial role of the accessible area in ecological niche modeling and species distribution modeling. Ecol. Modell. 222, 1810–1819 (2011).
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).
Google Scholar 
Fick, S. E. & Hijmans, R. J. WorldClim 2: new 1km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 37, 4302–4315 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Brown, J. L. SDMtoolbox: A python-based GIS toolkit for landscape genetic, biogeographic and species distribution model analyses. Methods Ecol. Evol. 5, 694–700 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Feng, X., Park, D. S., Liang, Y., Pandey, R. & Papeş, M. Collinearity in ecological niche modeling: Confusions and challenges. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5555 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hosmer, D. W. & Lemeshow, S. Applied Logistic Regression (Wiley, 2000).MATH 

Google Scholar 
Mason, S. J. & Graham, N. E. Areas beneath the relative operating characteristics (ROC) and relative operating levels (ROL) curves statistical significance and interpretation. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 128, 2145–2166 (2002).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Evangelista, P. H. et al. Modelling invasion for a habitat generalist and a specialist plant species. Divers. Distrib. 14, 808–817 (2008).
Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/ (2022).Warren, D. L. et al. ENMTools 1.0: An R package for comparative ecological biogeography. Ecography 44, 504–511 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Schoener, T. W. The Anolis lizards of Bimini: Resource partitioning in a complex fauna. Ecology 49, 704–726 (1968).
Google Scholar 
Warren, D. L., Glor, R. E. & Turelli, M. Environmental niche equivalency versus conservatism: Quantitative approaches to niche evolution. Evolution 62, 2868–2883 (2008).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Broennimann, O. et al. Measuring ecological niche overlap from occurrence and spatial environmental data. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 21, 481–497 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Heibl, C. & Calenge, C. Phyloclim: integrating phylogenetics and climatic niche modeling. R package version 0.9-4. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=phyloclim (2013).Evans, M. E., Smith, S. A., Flynn, R. S. & Donoghue, M. J. Climate, niche evolution, and diversification of the ‘“bird-cage”’ evening primroses (Oenothera, sections Anogra and Kleinia). Am. Nat. 173, 225–240 (2009).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Paradis, E., Claude, J. & Strimmer, K. APE: Analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Bioinformatics 20, 289–290 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Galtier, N., Gouy, M. & Gautier, C. SeaView and Phylo_win, two graphic tools for sequence alignment and molecular phylogeny. Comput. Appl. Biosci. 12, 543–548 (1996).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Edgar, R. MUSCLE: Mulitiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res. 32, 1792–1797 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Nylander, J. A. A. MrModeltest v2 (Uppsala University, 2004).
Google Scholar 
Ronquist, F. & Huelsenbeck, J. P. MRBAYES: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics 19, 1572–1574 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Drummond, A. J., Suchard, M. A., Xie, D. & Rambaut, A. Bayesian phylogenetics with BEAUti and the BEAST 1.7. Mol. Biol. Evol. 29, 1969–1973 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Givnish, T. et al. Orchid phylogenomics and multiple drivers of their extraordinary diversification. Proc. Biol. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.1553 (2015).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

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