Ecology

Weiss, S. et al. Correlation detection strategies in microbial data sets vary widely in sensitivity and precision. ISME J. 10, 1669–1681 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Djokic, T., Kranendonk, M. J. V., Campbell, K. A., Walter, M. R. & Ward, C. R. Earliest signs of life on land preserved in ca. 3.5 Ga hot spring deposits. Nat. Commun. 8, 1–9 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Damer, B. & Deamer, D. The Hot Spring Hypothesis for an origin of life. Astrobiology 20, 429–452 (2020).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Van Kranendonk, M. J. et al. Elements for the origin of life on land: a deep-time perspective from the Pilbara Craton of Western Australia. Astrobiology 21, 39–59 (2021).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Colman, D. R. et al. Phylogenomic analysis of novel Diaforarchaea is consistent with sulfite but not sulfate reduction in volcanic environments on early Earth. ISME J. 14, 1316–1331 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Anbar, A. D. & Knoll, A. H. Proterozoic ocean chemistry and evolution: a bioinorganic bridge? Science 297, 1137–1142 (2002).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lloyd, K. G. et al. Phylogenetically novel uncultured microbial cells dominate Earth microbiomes. mSystems 3, 431 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Hedlund, B. P. et al. Uncultivated thermophiles: current status and spotlight on ‘Aigarchaeota’. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 25, 136–145 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Nunoura, T. et al. Genetic and functional properties of uncultivated thermophilic crenarchaeotes from a subsurface gold mine as revealed by analysis of genome fragments. Environ. Microbiol. 7, 1967–1984 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Nunoura, T. et al. Insights into the evolution of Archaea and eukaryotic protein modifier systems revealed by the genome of a novel archaeal group. Nucleic Acids Res. 39, 3204–3223 (2010).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Rinke, C. et al. A standardized archaeal taxonomy for the Genome Taxonomy Database. Nat. Microbiol. 6, 946–959 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hua, Z.-S. et al. Genomic inference of the metabolism and evolution of the archaeal phylum Aigarchaeota. Nat. Commun. 9, 1–11 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Takami, H., Arai, W., Takemoto, K., Uchiyama, I. & Taniguchi, T. Functional classification of uncultured ‘Candidatus Caldiarchaeum subterraneum’ using the Maple system. PLoS ONE 10, e0132994 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Beam, J. P. et al. Ecophysiology of an uncultivated lineage of Aigarchaeota from an oxic, hot spring filamentous ‘streamer’ community. ISME J. 10, 210–224 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Rinke, C. et al. Insights into the phylogeny and coding potential of microbial dark matter. Nature 499, 431–437 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Cole, J. K. et al. Sediment microbial communities in Great Boiling Spring are controlled by temperature and distinct from water communities. ISME J. 7, 718–729 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Peacock, J. P. et al. Pyrosequencing reveals high-temperature cellulolytic microbial consortia in Great Boiling Spring after in situ lignocellulose enrichment. PLoS ONE 8, e59927 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kletzin, A. & Adams, M. W. W. Tungsten in biological systems. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 18, 5–63 (1996).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hagedoorn, P. L. et al. Purification and characterization of the tungsten enzyme aldehyde:ferredoxin oxidoreductase from the hyperthermophilic denitrifier Pyrobaculum aerophilum. J. Biol. Inorg. Chem. 10, 259–269 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
de Vries, S. et al. Adaptation to a high-tungsten environment: Pyrobaculum aerophilum contains an active tungsten nitrate reductase. Biochemistry 49, 9911–9921 (2010).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bräsen, C., Esser, D., Rauch, B. & Siebers, B. Carbohydrate metabolism in Archaea: current insights into unusual enzymes and pathways and their regulation. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 78, 89–175 (2014).Kato, S. et al. Long-term cultivation and metagenomics reveal ecophysiology of previously uncultivated thermophiles involved in biogeochemical nitrogen cycle. Microbes Environ. 33, 107–110 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Costa, K. C. et al. Microbiology and geochemistry of great boiling and mud hot springs in the United States Great Basin. Extremophiles 13, 447–459 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Mukund, S. & Adams, M. W. The novel tungsten-iron-sulfur protein of the hyperthermophilic archaebacterium, Pyrococcus furiosus, is an aldehyde ferredoxin oxidoreductase. Evidence for its participation in a unique glycolytic pathway. J. Biol. Chem. 266, 14208–14216 (1991).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Mukund, S. & Adams, M. W. W. Glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate ferredoxin oxidoreductase, a novel tungsten-containing enzyme with a potential glycolytic role in the hyperthermophilic archaeon Pyrococcus furiosus. J. Biol. Chem. 270, 8389–8392 (1995).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Roy, R. et al. Purification and molecular characterization of the tungsten-containing formaldehyde ferredoxin oxidoreductase from the hyperthermophilic archaeon Pyrococcus furiosus: the third of a putative five-member tungstoenzyme family. J. Bacteriol. 181, 1171–1180 (1999).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Roy, R. & Adams, M. W. W. Characterization of a fourth tungsten-containing enzyme from the hyperthermophilic archaeon Pyrococcus furiosus. J. Bacteriol. 184, 6952–6956 (2002).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bevers, L. E., Bol, E., Hagedoorn, P.-L. & Hagen, W. R. WOR5, a novel tungsten-containing aldehyde oxidoreductase from Pyrococcus furiosus with a broad substrate specificity. J. Bacteriol. 187, 7056–7061 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Habib, U. & Hoffman, M. Effect of molybdenum and tungsten on the reduction of nitrate in nitrate reductase, a DFT study. Chem. Cent. J. 11, 1–12 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Liao, R.-Z. Why is the molybdenum-substituted tungsten-dependent formaldehyde ferredoxin oxidoreductase not active? A quantum chemical study. J. Biol. Inorg. Chem. 18, 175–181 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Qian, H.-X. & Liao, R.-Z. QM/MM study of tungsten-dependent benzoyl-coenzyme A reductase: rationalization of regioselectivity and predication of W vs Mo selectivity. Inorg. Chem. 57, 10667–10678 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Liu, Y.-F., Liao, R.-Z., Ding, W.-J., Yu, J.-G. & Liu, R.-Z. Theoretical investigation of the first-shell mechanism of acetylene hydration catalyzed by a biomimetic tungsten complex. JBIC 16, 745–752 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kerr, P. F. Tungsten-bearing manganese deposit at Golconda, Nevada. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 51, 1359–1390 (1940).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mukund, S. & Adams, M. W. W. Molybdenum and vanadium do not replace tungsten in the catalytically active forms of the three tungstoenzymes in the hyperthermophilic archaeon Pyrococcus furiosus. J. Bacteriol. 178, 163–167 (1996).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Debnar-Daumler, C., Seubert, A., Schmitt, G. & Heider, J. Simultaneous involvement of a tungsten-containing aldehyde:ferredoxin oxidoreductase and a phenylacetaldehyde dehydrogenase in anaerobic phenylalanine metabolism. J. Bacteriol. 196, 483–492 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Scott, I. M. et al. A new class of tungsten-containing oxidoreductase in Caldicellulosiruptor, a genus of plant biomass-degrading thermophilic bacteria. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 81, 7339–7347 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Scott, I. M. et al. The thermophilic biomass-degrading bacterium Caldicellulosiruptor bescii utilizes two enzymes to oxidize glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate during glycolysis. J. Biol. Chem. 294, 9995–10005 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Johnson, J. L., Rajagopalan, K. V., Mukund, S. & Adams, M. W. Identification of molybdopterin as the organic component of the tungsten cofactor in four enzymes from hyperthermophilic Archaea. J. Biol. Chem. 268, 4848–4852 (1993).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Chan, M. K., Mukund, S., Kletzin, A., Adams, M. W. & Rees, D. C. Structure of a hyperthermophilic tungstopterin enzyme, aldehyde ferredoxin oxidoreductase. Science 267, 1463–1469 (1995).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Glass, J. B. et al. Geochemical, metagenomic and metaproteomic insights into trace metal utilization by methane‐oxidizing microbial consortia in sulphidic marine sediments. Environ. Microbiol. 16, 1592–1611 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Li, G.-W., Burkhardt, D., Gross, C. & Weissman, J. S. Quantifying absolute protein synthesis rates reveals principles underlying allocation of cellular resources. Cell 157, 624–635 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Behrens, S. et al. Linking microbial phylogeny to metabolic activity at the single-cell level by using enhanced element labeling-catalyzed reporter deposition fluorescence in situ hybridization (EL-FISH) and NanoSIMS. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 74, 3143–3150. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00191-08 (2008).Knapik, K., Becerra, M. & González-Siso, M.-I. Microbial diversity analysis and screening for novel xylanase enzymes from the sediment of the Lobios Hot Spring in Spain. Sci. Rep. 9, 11195 (2019).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Roy, R., Dhawan, I. K., Johnson, M. K., Rees, D. C. & Adams, M. W. Aldehyde Ferredoxin Oxidoreductase. 266 (American Cancer Society, 2011).Sevcenco, A.-M. et al. The tungsten metallome of Pyrococcus furiosus. Metallomics 1, 395–402 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Sakuraba, H. & Ohshima, T. Novel energy metabolism in anaerobic hyperthermophilic archaea: a modified Embden-Meyerhof pathway. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 93, 441–448 (2002).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ma, K., Hutchins, A., Sung, S.-J. S. & Adams, M. W. W. Pyruvate ferredoxin oxidoreductase from the hyperthermophilic archaeon, Pyrococcus furiosus, functions as a CoA-dependent pyruvate decarboxylase. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 94, 9608–9613 (1997).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Mai, X. & Adams, M. W. Characterization of a fourth type of 2-keto acid-oxidizing enzyme from a hyperthermophilic archaeon: 2-ketoglutarate ferredoxin oxidoreductase from Thermococcus litoralis. J. Bacteriol. 178, 5890–5896 (1996).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Adams, M. W. W. & Kletzin, A. Oxidoreductase-type enzymes and redox proteins involved in fermentative metabolisms of hyperthermophilic archaea. Adv. Prot. Chem. 48, 101–180 (1996).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mulkidjanian, A. Y., Galperin, M. Y., Makarova, K. S., Wolf, Y. I. & Koonin, E. V. Evolutionary primacy of sodium bioenergetics. Biol. Direct 3, 1–19 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Heider, J., Ma, K. & Adams, M. W. W. Purification, characterization, and metabolic function of tungsten-containing aldehyde ferredoxin oxidoreductase from the hyperthermophilic and proteolytic archaeon Thermococcus strain ES-1. J. Bacteriol. 177, 4757–4764 (1995).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Schut, G. J. et al. The modular respiratory complexes involved in hydrogen and sulfur metabolism by heterotrophic hyperthermophilic archaea and their evolutionary implications. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 37, 182–203 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kuhns, M., Trifunović, D., Huber, H. & Müller, V. The Rnf complex is a Na+ coupled respiratory enzyme in a fermenting bacterium, Thermotoga maritima. Commun. Biol. 3, 1–10 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Sapra, R., Verhagen, M. F. J. M. & Adams, M. W. W. Purification and characterization of a membrane-bound hydrogenase from the hyperthermophilic archaeon Pyrococcus furiosus. J. Bacteriol. 182, 3423–3428 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Sapra, R., Bagramyan, K. & Adams, M. W. W. A simple energy-conserving system: Proton reduction coupled to proton translocation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 7545–7550 (2003).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Schut, G. J. et al. The role of geochemistry and energetics in the evolution of modern respiratory complexes from a proton-reducing ancestor. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Bioenerg. 1857, 958–970 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Juszczak, A., Aono, S. & Adams, M. W. The extremely thermophilic eubacterium, Thermotoga maritima, contains a novel iron-hydrogenase whose cellular activity is dependent upon tungsten. J. Biol. Chem. 266, 13834–13841 (1991).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Selig, M., Xavier, K. B., Santos, H. & Schönheit, P. Comparative analysis of Embden-Meyerhof and Entner-Doudoroff glycolytic pathways in hyperthermophilic archaea and the bacterium Thermotoga. Arch. Microbiol. 167, 217–232 (1997).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, Y. & Gladyshev, V. N. Molybdoproteomes and evolution of molybdenum utilization. J. Mol. Biol. 379, 881–899 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Anbar, A. D. et al. A whiff of oxygen before the Great Oxidation Event? Science 317, 1903–1906 (2007).Neubert, N., Nägler, T. F. & Böttcher, M. E. Sulfidity controls molybdenum isotope fractionation into euxinic sediments: evidence from the modern Black Sea. Geology 36, 775–778 (2008).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Helz, G. R. et al. Mechanism of molybdenum removal from the sea and its concentration in black shales: EXAFS evidence. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 60, 3631–3642 (1996).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Shen, Y., Buick, R. & Canfield, D. E. Isotopic evidence for microbial sulphate reduction in the early Archaean era. Nature 410, 77–81 (2001).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Dodsworth, J. A. et al. Thermoflexus hugenholtzii gen. nov., sp. nov., a thermophilic, microaerophilic, filamentous bacterium representing a novel class in the Chloroflexi, Thermoflexia classis nov., and description of Thermoflexaceae fam. nov. and Thermoflexales ord. nov. Int. J. Sys. Evol. Microbiol. 64, 2119–2127 (2014).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hanada, S., Hiraishi, A., Shimada, K. & Matsuura, K. Chloroflexus aggregans sp. nov., a filamentous phototrophic bacterium which forms dense cell aggregates by active gliding movement. Int. J. Sys. Evol. Microbiol. 45, 676–681 (1995).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Murugapiran, S. K. et al. Thermus oshimai JL-2 and T. thermophilus JL-18 genome analysis illuminates pathways for carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur cycling. Stand. Genom. Sci. 7, 449–468 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kozich, J. J., Westcott, S. L., Baker, N. T., Highlander, S. K. & Schloss, P. D. Development of a dual-index sequencing strategy and curation pipeline for analyzing amplicon sequence data on the MiSeq Illumina Sequencing Platform. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 79, 5112–5120 (2013).Friel, A. D. et al. Microbiome shifts associated with the introduction of wild atlantic horseshoe crabs (Limulus polyphemus) into a touch-tank exhibit. Front. Microbiol. 11, 1398 (2020).Hamilton, T. L., Peters, J. W., Skidmore, M. L. & Boyd, E. S. Molecular evidence for an active endogenous microbiome beneath glacial ice. ISME J. 7, 1402–1412 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Courtois, S. et al. Quantification of bacterial subgroups in soil: comparison of DNA extracted directly from soil or from cells previously released by density gradient centrifugation. Environ. Microbiol. 3, 431–439 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pernthaler, A. & Pernthaler, J. In Protocols for Nucleic Acid Analysis by Nonradioactive Probes 353, 153–164 (Humana Press, 2007).Pett-Ridge, J. & Weber, P. K. In Microbial Systems Biology 91–136 (Humana, New York, NY, 2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-1585-0_6Parks, D. H., Imelfort, M., Skennerton, C. T., Hugenholtz, P. & Tyson, G. W. CheckM: assessing the quality of microbial genomes recovered from isolates, single cells, and metagenomes. Genome Res. 25, 1043–1055 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Chaumeil, P. A., Mussig, A. J., Hugenholtz, P. & Parks, D. H. GTDB-Tk: a toolkit to classify genomes with the Genome Taxonomy Database. Bioinformatics 36, 1925–1927 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hyatt, D. et al. Prodigal: prokaryotic gene recognition and translation initiation site identification. BMC Bioinform. 11, 1–11 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Cantalapiedra, C. P., Hernández-Plaza, A., Letunic, I., Bork, P. & Huerta-Cepas, J. eggNOG-mapper v2: functional annotation, orthology assignments, and domain prediction at the metagenomic scale. Mol. Biol. Evol. 38, 5825–5829 (2021).Aziz, R. K. et al. The RAST Server: Rapid Annotations using Subsystems Technology. BMC Genomics 9, 1–15 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Darriba, D., Taboada, G. L., Doallo, R. & Posada, D. ProtTest 3: fast selection of best-fit models of protein evolution. Bioinformatics 27, 1164–1165 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kück, P. & Longo, G. C. FASconCAT-G: extensive functions for multiple sequence alignment preparations concerning phylogenetic studies. Front. Zool. 11, 1–8 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Stamatakis, A. RAxML version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics 30, 1312–1313 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Jacox, E., Chauve, C., Szöllősi, G. J., Ponty, Y. & Scornavacca, C. ecceTERA: comprehensive gene tree-species tree reconciliation using parsimony. Bioinformatics 32, 2056–2058 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Chevenet, F. et al. SylvX: a viewer for phylogenetic tree reconciliations. Bioinformatics 32, 608–610 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Csűös, M. Count: evolutionary analysis of phylogenetic profiles with parsimony and likelihood. Bioinformatics 26, 1910–1912 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Yang, J. et al. The I-TASSER Suite: protein structure and function prediction. Nat. Methods 12, 7–8 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wu, S., Skolnick, J. & Zhang, Y. Ab initio modeling of small proteins by iterative TASSER simulations. BMC Biol. 5, 17 (2007).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Holm, L. & Rosenstrïm, P. I. Dali server: conservation mapping in 3D. Nucleic Acids Res. 38, W545–W549 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Holm, L. Benchmarking fold detection by DaliLite v.5. Bioinformatics 35, 5326–5327 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
MacQueen, J. In Some Methods for Classification and Analysis of Multivariate Observations 1, 281–297 (1967).Ma, K. & Adams, M. W. W. Sulfide dehydrogenase from the hyperthermophilic archaeon Pyrococcus furiosus: a new multifunctional enzyme involved in the reduction of elemental sulfur. J. Bacteriol. 176, 6509–6517 (1994).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar  More

Fink, D. et al. Crowdsourcing meets ecology: he misphere wide spatiotemporal species distribution models. AI Mag. 35, 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v35i2.2533 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chandler, M. et al. Contribution of citizen science towards international biodiversity monitoring. Biol. Cons. 213, 280–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.09.004 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schmeller, D. S. et al. Advantages of volunteer-based biodiversity monitoring in Europe. Conserv. Biol. 23, 307–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01125.x (2009).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Boakes, E. H. et al. Distorted views of biodiversity: Spatial and temporal bias in species occurrence data. PLoS Biol. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000385 (2010).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Follett, R. & Strezov, V. An analysis of citizen science based research: Usage and publication patterns. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143687 (2015).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Zattara, E. E. & Aizen, M. A. Worldwide occurrence records suggest a global decline in bee species richness. One Earth 4, 114–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.12.005 (2021).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Dickinson, J. L. et al. The current state of citizen science as a tool for ecological research and public engagement. Front. Ecol. Environ. 10, 291–297. https://doi.org/10.1890/110236 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kosmala, M., Wiggins, A., Swanson, A. & Simmons, B. Assessing data quality in citizen science. Front. Ecol. Environ. 14, 551–560. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1436 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bayraktarov, E. et al. Do big unstructured biodiversity data mean more knowledge?. Front. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2018.00239 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Burgess, H. K. et al. The science of citizen science: Exploring barriers to use as a primary research tool. Biol. Cons. 208, 113–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.014 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Isaac, N. J. B. & Pocock, M. J. O. Bias and information in biological records. Biol. J. Lin. Soc. 115, 522–531. https://doi.org/10.1111/bij.12532 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
August, T., Fox, R., Roy, D. B. & Pocock, M. J. O. Data-derived metrics describing the behaviour of field-based citizen scientists provide insights for project design and modelling bias. Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-67658-3 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Boakes, E. H. et al. Patterns of contribution to citizen science biodiversity projects increase understanding of volunteers’ recording behaviour. Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep33051 (2016).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Di Cecco, G. J. et al. Observing the observers: How participants contribute data to iNaturalist and implications for biodiversity science. Bioscience 71, 1179–1188. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biab093 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kamp, J., Oppel, S., Heldbjerg, H., Nyegaard, T. & Donald, P. F. Unstructured citizen science data fail to detect long-term population declines of common birds in Denmark. Divers. Distrib. 22, 1024–1035. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12463 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Altwegg, R. & Nichols, J. D. Occupancy models for citizen-science data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 10, 8–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.13090 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Courter, J. R., Johnson, R. J., Stuyck, C. M., Lang, B. A. & Kaiser, E. W. Weekend bias in citizen science data reporting: Implications for phenology studies. Int. J. Biometeorol. 57, 715–720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-012-0598-7 (2013).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Amano, T., Lamming, J. D. L. & Sutherland, W. J. Spatial gaps in global biodiversity information and the role of citizen science. Bioscience 66, 393–400. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw022 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Geldmann, J. et al. What determines spatial bias in citizen science? Exploring four recording schemes with different proficiency requirements. Divers. Distrib. 22, 1139–1149. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12477 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Girardello, M. et al. Gaps in butterfly inventory data: A global analysis. Biol. Cons. 236, 289–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.05.053 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Husby, M., Hoset, K. S. & Butler, S. Non-random sampling along rural-urban gradients may reduce reliability of multi-species farmland bird indicators and their trends. Ibis https://doi.org/10.1111/ibi.12896 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Petersen, T. K., Speed, J. D. M., Grøtan, V. & Austrheim, G. Species data for understanding biodiversity dynamics: The what, where and when of species occurrence data collection. Ecol. Solut. Evid. https://doi.org/10.1002/2688-8319.12048 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Egerer, M., Lin, B. B. & Kendal, D. Towards better species identification processes between scientists and community participants. Sci. Total Environ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.133738 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Jimenez, M. F., Pejchar, L. & Reed, S. E. Tradeoffs of using place-based community science for urban biodiversity monitoring. Conserv. Sci. Pract. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.338 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Branchini, S. et al. Using a citizen science program to monitor coral reef biodiversity through space and time. Biodivers. Conserv. 24, 319–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0810-7 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Snall, T., Kindvall, O., Nilsson, J. & Part, T. Evaluating citizen-based presence data for bird monitoring. Biol. Cons. 144, 804–810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.11.010 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gardiner, M. M. et al. Lessons from lady beetles: Accuracy of monitoring data from US and UK citizen-science programs. Front. Ecol. Environ. 10, 471–476. https://doi.org/10.1890/110185 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Troudet, J., Grandcolas, P., Blin, A., Vignes-Lebbe, R. & Legendre, F. Taxonomic bias in biodiversity data and societal preferences. Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-09084-6 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Johansson, F. et al. Can information from citizen science data be used to predict biodiversity in stormwater ponds?. Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-66306-0 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Everett, G. & Geoghegan, H. Initiating and continuing participation in citizen science for natural history. BMC Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12898-016-0062-3 (2016).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Richter, A. et al. The social fabric of citizen science drivers for long-term engagement in the German butterfly monitoring scheme. J. Insect Conserv. 22, 731–743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-018-0097-1 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
MacPhail, V. J., Gibson, S. D. & Colla, S. R. Community science participants gain environmental awareness and contribute high quality data but improvements are needed: Insights from Bumble Bee Watch. PeerJ https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9141 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Maund, P. R. et al. What motivates the masses: Understanding why people contribute to conservation citizen science projects. Biol. Conserv. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108587 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Moczek, N., Nuss, M. & Kohler, J. K. Volunteering in the citizen science project “Insects of Saxony”—The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the bank of questions. Insects https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12030262 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Branchini, S. et al. Participating in a citizen science monitoring program: Implications for environmental education. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131812 (2015).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kelemen-Finan, J., Scheuch, M. & Winter, S. Contributions from citizen science to science education: An examination of a biodiversity citizen science project with schools in Central Europe. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 40, 2078–2098. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1520405 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Deguines, N., Prince, K., Prevot, A. C. & Fontaine, B. Assessing the emergence of pro-biodiversity practices in citizen scientists of a backyard butterfly survey. Sci. Total Environ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136842 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Peter, M., Diekötter, T., Höffler, T. & Kremer, K. Biodiversity citizen science: Outcomes for the participating citizens. People Nat. 3, 294–311. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10193 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Phillips, T. B., Bailey, R. L., Martin, V., Faulkner-Grant, H. & Bonter, D. N. The role of citizen science in management of invasive avian species: What people think, know, and do. J. Environ. Manage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111709 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Parrish, J. K. et al. Hoping for optimality or designing for inclusion: Persistence, learning, and the social network of citizen science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 116, 1894–1901. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1807186115 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Mac Domhnaill, C., Lyons, S. & Nolan, A. The citizens in citizen science: Demographic, socioeconomic, and health characteristics of biodiversity recorders in Ireland. Citiz. Sci.: Theory Pract. 5, 16. https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.283 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
van der Wal, R., Sharma, N., Mellish, C., Robinson, A. & Siddharthan, A. The role of automated feedback in training and retaining biological recorders for citizen science. Conserv. Biol. 30, 550–561. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12705 (2016).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bloom, E. H. & Crowder, D. W. Promoting data collection in pollinator citizen science projects. Citiz. Sci.: Theory Pract. 5, 3. https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.217 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Johnston, A., Fink, D., Hochachka, W. M. & Kelling, S. Estimates of observer expertise improve species distributions from citizen science data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 9, 88–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.12838 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kelling, S. et al. Using semistructured surveys to improve citizen science data for monitoring biodiversity. Bioscience 69, 170–179. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz010 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Koen, B., Loosveldt, G., Vandenplas, C. & Stoop, I. Response rates in the european social survey: Increasing, decreasing, or a matter of fieldwork efforts?. Surv. Methods: Insights Field https://doi.org/10.13094/SMIF-2018-00003 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gideon, L. Handbook of Survey Methodology for the Social Sciences (Springer, 2012).Book 

Google Scholar 
Wolf, C., Joye, D., Smith, T. W. & Fu, Y. C. The SAGE Handbook of Survey Methodology (SAGE Publications Ltd, 2016).Book 

Google Scholar 
Richter, A. et al. Motivation and support services in citizen science insect monitoring: A cross-country study. Biol. Conserv. 263, 109325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109325 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Johnston, A., Moran, N., Musgrove, A., Fink, D. & Baillie, S. R. Estimating species distributions from spatially biased citizen science data. Ecol. Model. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2019.108927 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Isaac, N. J. B., van Strien, A. J., August, T. A., de Zeeuw, M. P. & Roy, D. B. Statistics for citizen science: Extracting signals of change from noisy ecological data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 5, 1052–1060. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.12254 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Liao, H.-I., Yeh, S.-L. & Shimojo, S. Novelty vs. familiarity principles in preference decisions: Task context of past experience matters. Front. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00043 (2011).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Park, J., Shimojo, E. & Shimojo, S. Roles of familiarity and novelty in visual preference judgments are segregated across object categories. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107, 14552–14555. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1004374107 (2010).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Tiago, P., Gouveia, M. J., Capinha, C., Santos-Reis, M. & Pereira, H. M. The influence of motivational factors on the frequency of participation in citizen science activities. Nat. Conserv.-Bulg. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.18.13429 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Davis, A., Taylor, C. E. & Martin, J. M. Are pro-ecological values enough? Determining the drivers and extent of participation in citizen science programs. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 24, 501–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2019.1641857 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bell, S. et al. What counts? Volunteers and their organisations in the recording and monitoring of biodiversity. Biodivers. Conserv. 17, 3443–3454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9357-9 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Toomey, A. H. & Domroese, M. C. Can citizen science lead to positive conservation attitudes and behaviors?. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 20, 50–62 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dennis, E. B., Morgan, B. J. T., Brereton, T. M., Roy, D. B. & Fox, R. Using citizen science butterfly counts to predict species population trends. Conserv. Biol. 31, 1350–1361. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12956 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Callaghan, C. T., Poore, A. G. B., Major, R. E., Rowley, J. J. L. & Cornwell, W. K. Optimizing future biodiversity sampling by citizen scientists. Proc. R. Soc. B-Biol. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.1487 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Outhwaite, C. L., Gregory, R. D., Chandler, R. E., Collen, B. & Isaac, N. J. B. Complex long-term biodiversity change among invertebrates, bryophytes and lichens. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 384. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-1111-z (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bowler, D. E. et al. Winners and losers over 35 years of dragonfly and damselfly distributional change in Germany. Divers. Distrib. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.13274 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar  More

A strawberry poison-dart frog (Oophaga pumilio) in Guatemala. Biodiversity is at risk as talks on a deal to protect it founder.Credit: Yuri Cortez/AFP via Getty

Some conservation scientists are warning that a global deal to protect the environment is under threat after negotiations stalled during international talks in Nairobi last week. They are calling on global leaders to rescue the talks — and biodiversity — from the brink. Others are more hopeful that, although progress has been slow, a deal will be struck by the end of the year.Negotiators from around 200 countries that have signed up to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) met in Nairobi from 21 to 26 June to thrash out key details of the deal, known as the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. But the talks made such little progress that many scientists are worried that nations will be unable to finalize the deal at the UN biodiversity summit in Montreal, Canada, in December. A key sticking point is how much funding rich nations will provide to low-income nations. Failure to agree on the framework at this summit — the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP15) — will be devastating for the natural world, they say.“This is a huge missed opportunity and puts the framework in jeopardy,” says Brian O’Donnell, director of the Campaign for Nature in Washington DC, a partnership of private charities and conservation organizations advocating a deal to safeguard biodiversity.The framework consists of 4 broad goals, including reining in species extinction, and 21 targets — most of them quantitative — such as protecting at least 30% of the world’s land and seas. Without a deal, estimates say, one million plant and animal species could go extinct in the next few decades because of climate change, disease and human actions, among other triggers.Researchers were relieved when the CBD announced earlier this month that COP15 would take place in Montreal instead of Kunming, China, where lockdowns to quash SARS-CoV-2 infections could have prevented the meeting. The COVID-19 pandemic has already delayed in-person CBD meetings for two years, and threatened to derail the summit.Stalling tacticsSome conservation groups said that a few nations bore most of the responsibility for impeding progress. Marco Lambertini, head of conservation organization WWF International, based in Gland, Switzerland, referred in a statement to “a small number of countries, Brazil first and foremost, that are actively working to undermine the talks”.Others who were at the conference spoke on the condition of anonymity because parts of the negotiations are confidential. They say that Brazil asked for changes to the text simply to slow down the process, and argued against essential elements.Nature contacted representatives of Brazil for a response but did not receive a reply by the time of publication.Francis Ogwal, co-chair of the framework negotiations working group, acknowledged that the talks had not advanced as much as had been hoped. But he is buoyed by some headway gained on targets to improve access to nature in urban areas and to increase scientific and technological capacity in lower-income nations. Ogwal is hopeful that countries will iron out further differences at an extra meeting scheduled for just days before COP15.“There are still some big disagreements. We are not yet at the level we expected. But come December, we shall have a framework in good shape,” Ogwal told reporters at a press briefing on 26 June.Lack of leadershipBut scientists and conservation groups say political leadership is urgently needed to save the deal. In an open letter to UN secretary-general António Guterres and heads of state of CBD member nations, a group of eight organizations that support conservation and Indigenous people’s rights said that a lack of management is stalling the negotiations.“There is a notable absence of the high level political engagement, will and leadership to drive through compromise and to guide and inspire the commitments that are required,” the letter says.Some countries have restated that they back the biodiversity talks. On 26 June, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson assured Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of his support for the December summit in Montreal. The two were speaking before the meeting of the G7 group of industrialized nations in Krün, Germany.In addition, some “hero” countries including Costa Rica and Columbia worked particularly hard in Nairobi to drive agreement, says O’Donnell.Speaking on condition of anonymity so as not to offend the CBD, others criticized the structure and organization of the Nairobi meeting, which they say didn’t help negations to move forwards. “The session facilitators were not able to shepherd negotiations towards consensus,” they say. Nature contacted the CBD for a response but did not hear back in time for publication.But despite the setbacks, some scientists are still hopeful that countries can strike a deal. “The negotiations are typically well-spirited. There is even a sense of collaboration arising,” says Juha Siikamäki, chief economist at the International Union for Conservation of Nature in Gland, who attended the Nairobi meeting.Elizabeth Mrema, executive secretary of the CBD, says countries will have to compromise. “Biodiversity is too important to fail,” she says. More

Mangrove forests thrive along tropical and subtropical shorelines and their distribution extends to warm temperate regions1. They are globally recognized for the valuable ecosystem services they provide2 but are expected to be substantially influenced by climate change-related physical processes in the future3,4. Under warming winter temperatures, poleward expansion is predicted for mangroves5,6, with potential implications for ecosystem structure and functioning, as well as human livelihoods and well-being7,8. The global distribution, abundance and species richness of mangroves is governed by a broad range of biotic and environmental factors, including temperature and precipitation9 and diverse geomorphological and hydrological gradients10. Climate and aspects related to coastal geography (for example, floodplain area) determine the availability of suitable habitat for establishment11,12. However, the potential for mangroves to track changing environmental conditions and expand their distributions ultimately depends on dispersal11,13. The importance of dispersal in controlling mangrove distributions has been demonstrated by mangrove distributional responses to historical climate variability14, past mangrove (re)colonization of oceanic islands15 and from the long-term survival of mangrove seedlings planted beyond natural range limits16. As such, quantifying changes in the factors that influence dispersal is important for understanding climate-driven distributional responses of mangroves under future climate conditions.In mangroves, dispersal is accomplished by buoyant seeds and fruits (hereafter referred to as ‘propagules’). In combination with prevailing currents, the spatial scale of this process, ranging from local retention to transoceanic dispersal over thousands of kilometres13, is determined by propagule buoyancy17, that is, the density difference between that of propagules and the surrounding water. Hence, the course of dispersal trajectories for propagules from these species depends on the interaction between spatiotemporal changes in both propagule density and that of the surrounding water, rendering this process sensitive to climate-driven changes in coastal and open-ocean water properties. The biogeographic implications of such density differences were recognized more than a century ago by Henry Brougham Guppy, who discussed18 ‘the far-reaching influence on plant-distribution and on plant-development that the relation between the specific weight of seeds and fruits and the density of sea-water must possess’.Since the time of Guppy’s early observations, climate change from human activities has driven pronounced changes in ocean temperature and salinity, with further changes predicted throughout the twenty-first century19. Ocean density is a nonlinear function of temperature, salinity and pressure20; therefore, these changes may influence dispersal patterns of mangrove propagules by altering their buoyancy and floating orientation. As Guppy noted18, ‘[for] plants whose seeds or fruits are not much lighter than seawater […] the effect of increased density of the water is to extend the flotation period’ or ‘to increase the number that floated for a given period’. Guppy also reported that the seedlings of the widespread mangrove genera Rhizophora and Bruguiera present exceptional examples of propagules with densities somewhere between seawater and freshwater18. Previous studies of the impacts of climate change on mangroves have focused on factors such as sea level rise, altered precipitation regimes and increasing temperature and storm frequency4,21,22,23 but the potential impact of climate-driven changes in seawater properties on mangroves has not yet been examined. This is somewhat surprising, as the ocean is the primary dispersal medium of this ‘sea-faring’ coastal vegetation and dispersal is a key process that governs a species’ response to climate change by changing its geographical range. This knowledge gap contrasts with recent efforts to expose links between climate change and dispersal in other ecologically important marine taxa such as zooplankton and fish species24,25,26,27.In this study, we investigate predicted changes in sea surface temperature (SST), sea surface salinity (SSS) and sea surface density (SSD) for coastal waters bordering mangrove forests (hereafter referred to as ‘coastal mangrove waters’), over the next century. Using a biogeographic classification system for coastal and shelf areas28, we examine spatiotemporal changes in these surface ocean properties, with a particular focus on the world’s two major mangrove diversity hotspots: (1) the Atlantic East Pacific (AEP) region, including all of the Americas, West and Central Africa and (2) the Indo West Pacific (IWP) region, extending from East Africa eastwards to the islands of the central Pacific1. Finally, we synthesize available data on the density of mangrove propagules for different mangrove species and explore the potential impact of climate-driven changes in SSD on propagule dispersal.To assess changes in SST and SSS throughout the global range of mangrove forests, we used present (2000–2014) and future (2090–2100) surface ocean properties from the Bio-ORACLE database29,30. SSD estimates were derived from these variables using the UNESCO EOS-80 equation of state polynomial for seawater31. Changes in SST, SSS and SSD (Fig. 1) were calculated for four representative concentration pathways (RCPs) and derived for coastal waters closest to the 583,578 polygon centroids from the 2015 Global Mangrove Watch (GMW) database32. After removing duplicates, our dataset contained 10,108 unique mangrove occurrence locations, with corresponding present conditions and predicted future changes in mean SST, SSS and SSD. Under the low-warming scenario RCP 2.6, mean SST of coastal mangrove waters is predicted to change by +0.64 (±0.11) °C and mean SSS by −0.06 (±0.25) practical salinity units (PSU). Combined, this results in an average change in mean SSD of −0.25 (±0.20) kg m−3 in coastal mangrove waters by the late twenty-first century (Supplementary Table 1). These values roughly double under RCP 4.5 (Supplementary Table 2), while under RCP 6.0, a change of +1.69 (±0.14) °C in mean SST, −0.21 (±0.42) PSU in mean SSS and −0.71 (±0.32) kg m−3 in mean SSD is predicted (Supplementary Table 3). Under RCP 8.5, our study predicts a change in SST of +2.84 (±0.21) °C (range 2.11–4.01 °C), a change in SSS of −0.30 (±0.74) PSU (−2.01–1.26 PSU) and a corresponding change in SSD of −1.17 (±0.56) kg m−3 (−2.53–0.03 kg m−3) (Supplementary Table 4).Fig. 1: Global map showing the change in sea surface variables across mangrove bioregions under RCP 8.5.a–c, Change in SST (a), SSS (b) and SSD (c). Changes in SST and SSS are based on present-day (2000–2014) and future (2090–2100) marine fields from the Bio-ORACLE database29,30, from which SSD data were derived. The vertical line (19° E) separates the two major mangrove bioregions: the AEP and IWP.Full size imageSpatial variability in predicted surface ocean property changes was examined by considering the two major mangrove bioregions (AEP and IWP) (Fig. 2) and using the Marine Ecoregions of the World (MEOW) biogeographic classification28 (Fig. 3). Both the range and changes in mean SST were comparable for the AEP and IWP mangrove bioregions, for all respective RCP scenarios (Fig. 2a and Supplementary Tables 1–4). Under RCP 8.5, mean SST in both mangrove bioregions is predicted to warm ~2.8 °C by 2100, which is roughly 4.5 times the predicted increase in mean SST under RCP 2.6 (Supplementary Tables 1 and 4). Predictions for the RCP 8.5 scenario are generally consistent with reported global ocean temperature trends33 and show that the greatest warming occurs in coastal waters near the Galapagos Islands (change in mean SST of 3.92 ± 0.06 °C). Pronounced SST increases are also predicted for Hawaii (change in mean SST of 3.36 ± 0.05 °C), the Southeast Australian Shelf (3.30 ± 0.25 °C), Northern and Southern New Zealand (3.25 ± 0.07 °C and 3.34 ± 0.02 °C, respectively), Warm Temperate Northwest Pacific (3.27 ± 0.16 °C), the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden (3.24 ± 0.08 °C), Somali/Arabian Coast (3.23 ± 0.15 °C), South China Sea (3.07 ± 0.10 °C), the Tropical East Pacific (3.09 ± 0.15 °C) and the Warm Temperate Northwest Atlantic (3.14 ± 0.13 °C) (Fig. 3b and Supplementary Tables 4).Fig. 2: Change in surface ocean properties for coastal waters bordering mangrove forests and in the two major mangrove bioregions, the AEP and IWP, for different RCPs.a–c, Variation in SST (a), SSS (b) and SSD (c) under various RCP scenarios. Grey indicates global distribution (n = 10,108), orange denotes AEP (n = 3,190) and green represents IWP (n = 6,918). Data for SST and SSS consist of present-day (2000–2014) and future (2090–2100) marine fields from the Bio-ORACLE database29,30, from which SSD data were derived. The cat-eye plots50 show the distribution of the data. Median and mean values are indicated with black and white circles, respectively, and the vertical lines represent the interquartile range.Full size imageFig. 3: Global spatial variability in SST, SSS and SSD for coastal waters bordering mangrove forests under RCP 8.5.a, Global map showing the provinces (colour code and numbers) from the MEOW database28 used to investigate spatial patterns in mangrove coastal ocean water changes by 2100. b–d, Longitudinal gradient of the change in SST (b), SSS (c) and SSD (d) under RCP 8.5 in the AEP and the IWP mangrove bioregions; circles are coloured according to the MEOW province in which respective mangrove sites are located.Full size imagePredicted SSS changes exhibit an opposite trend in the AEP and IWP bioregions, with increased salinity in the AEP and reduced salinity in the IWP under global warming (RCP 2.6–RCP 8.5; Fig. 2b); this is reflected in contrasting SSD changes in both mangrove bioregions (Fig. 2c) and associated with predicted global changes in precipitation, with extensions of the rainy season over most of the monsoon domains, except for the American monsoon34. Under RCP 8.5, the spatially averaged change in mean SSS is +0.51 (±0.57) PSU in the AEP and −0.68 (±0.44) PSU in the IWP region. The maximum decrease in mean SSS (−2.01 PSU) is predicted for the Gulf of Guinea in the AEP bioregion (Fig. 3c and Supplementary Table 4). Within the IWP, the Western Indian Ocean region shows little or no changes in SSS, which contrasts with the pronounced freshening trends predicted in the eastern part of this ocean basin and the Tropical West Pacific (Figs. 1b and 3c). Increased freshening is predicted in the Bay of Bengal (SSS change: −1.17 ± 0.43 PSU), the Sunda Shelf (SSS change: −1.21 ± 0.29 PSU) and the Western Coral Triangle province (mean SSS change: −0.80 ± 0.17 PSU) (Fig. 3c and Supplementary Table 4). Within the AEP, salinity increases exceed +0.96 PSU in the Tropical Northwestern Atlantic, +0.80 in the Warm Temperate Northwest Atlantic and +0.68 in the West African Transition (Fig. 3c and Supplementary Table 4). The spatial heterogeneity in SSS across the global range of mangrove forests corresponds with observed changes in SSS35. Trends in SSD (Fig. 3d) strongly track changes in SSS (Fig. 3c) rather than SST. All RCP scenarios predict an overall decrease in SSD for both mangrove bioregions; however, the predicted decrease in SSD in the IWP region was a factor of 2 (RCP 6.0) and 2.5 (RCP 2.6, RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5) stronger than in the AEP (Figs. 2 and 3d and Supplementary Tables 1–4).Propagule density values from our literature survey range from 1,080 kg m−3 for different mangrove species (Fig. 4 and Supplementary Table 5). The low densities reported for Heritiera littoralis propagules provide a strong contrast with the near-seawater propagule densities reported for Avicennia and members of the Rhizophoraceae (Bruguiera, Rhizophora and Ceriops). Floating characteristics of the latter may be particularly sensitive to changes in SSD. To illustrate the potential influence of changing ocean conditions on mangrove propagule dispersal, we considered threshold water density values (1,020 and 1,022 kg m−3) that are within the range where elongated propagules of important mangrove genera tend to change floating orientation (Fig. 4a). More specifically, we determined the ocean surface area with an SSD below or equal to these thresholds under different climate change scenarios (Fig. 5). Under RCP 8.5, the ocean surface covered by mangrove coastal waters (coastal waters bordering present mangrove forests) with a density ≤1,020 kg m−3 increases ~27% by 2100, notably more so in the IWP (~37%) than in the AEP (~6%) (Supplementary Table 6). A threshold of 1,022 kg m−3 results in increases of roughly +11% (global), +12% (IWP) and +8% (AEP) (Supplementary Table 7). Similar spatial patterns are observed for open-ocean waters within the global latitudinal range of mangroves (Fig. 5 and Supplementary Figs. 1 and 2).Fig. 4: Potential effect of future declines in SSD on mangrove propagule dispersal.a, Range of reported propagule density values for wide-ranging mangrove species and present and future range of SSD for coastal waters along the range of those mangrove species. Mangrove propagule data are extracted from the literature (Supplementary Table 5). H. lit, Heritiera littoralis; X. gra, Xylocarpus granatum; A. ger, Avicennia germinans; A. mar, Avicennia marina; B. gym, Bruguiera gymnorrhiza; C. tag, Ceriops tagal; R. man, Rhizophora mangle; R. muc, Rhizophora mucronata. Bottom part adapted from ref. 51. b, Conceptual figure of the potential effects of ocean warming and freshening on mangrove propagule dispersal. Ocean warming and freshening drive changes in SSD and may reduce the timeframe for opportunistic colonization. For a propagule with a specific density and floating profile under present surface ocean conditions, reduced SSD of coastal and open-ocean waters may reduce floatation time (shaded area) and hence, reduce the proportion of long-distance dispersers. For simplicity, the density of propagules is assumed to increase linearly over time, although the actual increase may be nonlinear.Full size imageFig. 5: Future changes in SSD.a–d, Spatial extent of coastal and open-ocean surface waters with a density ≤1,020 kg m−3 (a,b) and 1,022 kg m−3 (c,d), for present (2000–2014) (a,c) and future (2090–2100; RCP 8.5) (b,d) scenarios. Data are shown for surface ocean waters within the global latitudinal range of mangrove forests (between 32° N and 38° S). The two density thresholds considered are within the range of densities at which mangrove propagule buoyancy and floating orientation of several mangrove genera change, as reported in available literature. Black dots along the coast represent the global mangrove extent from the 2015 GMW dataset32. Magenta-coloured circles represent SSD values More

McClain ME, Boyer EW, Dent CL, Gergel SE, Grimm NB, Groffman PM, et al. Biogeochemical hot spots and hot moments at the interface of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Ecosystems. 2003;6:301–12.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Borch T, Kretzschmar R, Kappler A, Van Cappellen P, Ginder-Vogel M, Voegelin A, et al. Biogeochemical redox processes and their impact on contaminant dynamics. Environ Sci Technol. 2010;44:15–23.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Stegen JC, Lin XJ, Konopka AE, Fredrickson JK. Stochastic and deterministic assembly processes in subsurface microbial communities. ISME J. 2012;6:1653–64.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Dini-Andreote F, Stegen JC, van Elsas JD, Salles JF. Disentangling mechanisms that mediate the balance between stochastic and deterministic processes in microbial succession. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2015;112:E1326–32.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Behrendt L, Larkum AWD, Trampe E, Norman A, Sorensen SJ, Kuhl M. Microbial diversity of biofilm communities in microniches associated with the didemnid ascidian Lissoclinum patella. ISME J. 2012;6:1222–37.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Becker KW, Elling FJ, Schroder JM, Lipp JS, Goldhammer T, Zabel M, et al. Isoprenoid quinones resolve the stratification of redox processes in a biogeochemical continuum from the photic zone to deep anoxic sediments of the Black Sea. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2018;84:e02736–17.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Locey KJ, Muscarella ME, Larsen ML, Bray SR, Jones SE, Lennon JT. Dormancy dampens the microbial distance-decay relationship. Phil Trans R Soc B. 2020;375:20190243.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Blagodatskaya E, Kuzyakov Y. Active microorganisms in soil: critical review of estimation criteria and approaches. Soil Biol Biochem. 2013;67:192–211.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Meyer KM, Memiaghe H, Korte L, Kenfack D, Alonso A, Bohannan BJM. Why do microbes exhibit weak biogeographic patterns? ISME J. 2018;12:1404–13.Article 

Google Scholar 
Xue R, Zhao KK, Yu XL, Stirling E, Liu S, Ye SD, et al. Deciphering sample size effect on microbial biogeographic patterns and community assembly processes at centimeter scale. Soil Biol Biochem. 2021;156:108218.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Morriss A, Meyer K, Bohannan B. Linking microbial communities to ecosystem functions: what we can learn from genotype-phenotype mapping in organisms. Phil Trans R Soc B. 2020;375:20190244.Article 

Google Scholar 
Armitage DW, Jones SE. How sample heterogeneity can obscure the signal of microbial interactions. ISME J. 2019;13:2639–46.Article 

Google Scholar 
Dini-Andreote F, Kowalchuk GA, Prosser JI, Raaijmakers JM. Towards meaningful scales in ecosystem microbiome research. Environ Microbiol. 2021;23:1–4.Article 

Google Scholar 
Meyerhof MS, Wilson JM, Dawson MN, Beman JM. Microbial community diversity, structure and assembly across oxygen gradients in meromictic marine lakes, Palau. Environ Microbiol. 2016;18:4907–19.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhou ZC, Meng H, Liu Y, Gu JD, Li M. Stratified bacterial and archaeal community in mangrove and intertidal wetland mudflats revealed by high throughput 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:02148.Article 

Google Scholar 
Gutierrez-Preciado A, Saghai A, Moreira D, Zivanovic Y, Deschamps P, Lopez-Garcia P. Functional shifts in microbial mats recapitulate early Earth metabolic transitions. Nat Ecol Evol. 2018;2:1700–8.Article 

Google Scholar 
Louca S, Parfrey LW, Doebeli M. Decoupling function and taxonomy in the global ocean microbiome. Science. 2016;353:1272–7.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Murase J, Frenzel P. A methane-driven microbial food web in a wetland rice soil. Environ Microbiol. 2007;9:3025–34.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Reim A, Lüke C, Krause S, Pratscher J, Frenzel P. One millimetre makes the difference: high-resolution analysis of methane-oxidizing bacteria and their specific activity at the oxic-anoxic interface in a flooded paddy soil. ISME J. 2012;6:2128–39.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Peiffer S, Kappler A, Haderlein SB, Schmidt C, Byrne JM, Kleindienst S, et al. A biogeochemical–hydrological framework for the role of redox-active compounds in aquatic systems. Nat Geosci. 2021;14:264–72.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

Zou, K. et al. eDNA metabarcoding as a promising conservation tool for monitoring fish diversity in a coastal wetland of the Pearl River Estuary compared to bottom trawling. Sci. Total Environ. 702, 134704 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Almond, R., Grooten, M. & Peterson, T. Living Planet Report 2020-Bending the Curve of Biodiversity Loss (World Wildlife Fund, 2020).
Google Scholar 
Beverton, R. Fish resources; threats and protection. Neth. J. Zool. 42, 139–175 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jackson, S. & Head, L. Australia’s mass fish kills as a crisis of modern water: Understanding hydrosocial change in the Murray-Darling Basin. Geoforum 109, 44–56 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rees, H. C. et al. REVIEW: The detection of aquatic animal species using environmental DNA—a review of eDNA as a survey tool in ecology. J. Appl. Ecol. 51, 1450–1459 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rees, H. C. et al. The application of eDNA for monitoring of the Great Crested Newt in the UK. Ecol. Evol. 4, 4023–4032 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, C. et al. Research on the biodiversity of Qinhuai River based on environmental DNA metabacroding. Acta Ecol. Sin. 42, 611–624 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Deiner, K., Walser, J.-C., Mächler, E. & Altermatt, F. Choice of capture and extraction methods affect detection of freshwater biodiversity from environmental DNA. Biol. Cons. 183, 53–63 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thomsen, P. F. et al. Monitoring endangered freshwater biodiversity using environmental DNA. Mol. Ecol. 21, 2565–2573 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Miralles, L., Parrondo, M., Hernandez de Rojas, A., Garcia-Vazquez, E. & Borrell, Y. J. Development and validation of eDNA markers for the detection of Crepidula fornicata in environmental samples. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 146, 827–830 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Takahara, T., Minamoto, T., Yamanaka, H., Doi, H. & Kawabata, Z. Estimation of fish biomass using environmental DNA. PLoS ONE 7, e35868 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Aglieri, G. et al. Environmental DNA effectively captures functional diversity of coastal fish communities. Mol. Ecol. 30, 3127–3139 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Yang, H. et al. Effectiveness assessment of using riverine water eDNA to simultaneously monitor the riverine and riparian biodiversity information. Sci. Rep. 11, 24241 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Altermatt, F. et al. Uncovering the complete biodiversity structure in spatial networks: the example of riverine systems. Oikos 129, 607–618 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stat, M. et al. Combined use of eDNA metabarcoding and video surveillance for the assessment of fish biodiversity. Conserv. Biol. 33, 196–205 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hallam, J., Clare, E. L., Jones, J. I. & Day, J. J. Biodiversity assessment across a dynamic riverine system: A comparison of eDNA metabarcoding versus traditional fish surveying methods. Environ. DNA 3, 1247–1266 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gao, W. Beijing Vertebrate Key (Beijing Publishing House, 1994).
Google Scholar 
Wang, H. Beijing Fish and Amphibians and Reptiles (Beijing Publishing House, 1994).
Google Scholar 
Chen, W., Hu, D. & Fu, B. Research on Biodiversity of Beijing Wetland (Science Press, 2007).
Google Scholar 
Zhang, C. et al. Fish species diversity and conservation in Beijing and adjacent areas. Biodivers. Sci. 19, 597–604 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yamamoto, S. et al. Environmental DNA metabarcoding reveals local fish communities in a species-rich coastal sea. Sci. Rep. 7, 40368 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Shaw, J. L. A. et al. Comparison of environmental DNA metabarcoding and conventional fish survey methods in a river system. Biol. Cons. 197, 131–138 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fu, M., Xiao, N., Zhao, Z., Gao, X. & Li, J. Effects of Urbanization on Ecosystem Services in Beijing. Res. Soil Water Conserv. 23, 235–239 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Hao, L. & Sun, G. Impacts of urbanization on watershed ecohydrological processes: progresses and perspectives. Acta Ecol. Sin. 41, 13–26 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Su, G. et al. Human impacts on global freshwater fish biodiversity. Science 371, 835–838 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Yan, B. et al. Effects of urban development on soil microbial functional diversity in Beijing. Res. Environ. Sci. 29, 1325–1335 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Xiao, N., Gao, X., Li, J. & Bai, J. Evaluation and Conservation Measures of Beijing Biodiversity (China Forestry Publishing House, 2018).
Google Scholar 
Xu, S., Wang, Z., Liang, J. & Zhang, S. Use of different sampling tools for comparison of fish-aggregating effects along horizontal transect at two artificial reef sites in Shengsi. J. Fish. China 40, 820–831 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Miya, M. et al. MiFish, a set of universal PCR primers for metabarcoding environmental DNA from fishes: detection of more than 230 subtropical marine species. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2, 150088 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, J., Kobert, K., Flouri, T. & Stamatakis, A. PEAR: a fast and accurate Illumina Paired-End reAd mergeR. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) 30, 614–620 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Chen, S., Zhou, Y., Chen, Y. & Gu, J. fastp: an ultra-fast all-in-one FASTQ preprocessor. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) 34, 884–890 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Edgar, R. C. Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) 26, 2460–2461 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Callahan, B. J., McMurdie, P. J. & Holmes, S. P. Exact sequence variants should replace operational taxonomic units in marker-gene data analysis. ISME J. 11, 2639–2643 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Iwasaki, W. et al. MitoFish and MitoAnnotator: A mitochondrial genome database of fish with an accurate and automatic annotation pipeline. Mol. Biol. Evol. 30, 2531–2540 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, H. Beijing Fish Records (Beijing Publishing House, 1984).
Google Scholar 
Du, L. et al. Fish community characteristics and spatial pattern in major rivers of Beijing City. Res. Environ. Sci. 32, 447–457 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Shen, W. & Ren, H. TaxonKit: A practical and efficient NCBI taxonomy toolkit. J. Genet. Genomics 48, 844–850 (2021).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Karr, J. R. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 6, 21–27 (1981).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, C. & Zhao, Y. Fishes in Beijing and Adjacent Areas (China. Science Press, 2013).
Google Scholar 
Wu, H. & Zhong, J. Fauna Sinica, Osteichthyes, Perciformess(Five),Gobioidei (Science Press, 2008).
Google Scholar 
Di, Y. et al. Distribution of fish communities and its influencing factors in the Nansha and Beijing sub-center reaches of the Beiyun River. Acta Sci. Circumst. 41, 156–163 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Walters, D. M., Freeman, M. C., Leigh, D. S., Freeman, B. J. & Pringle, C. M. in Effects of Urbanization on Stream Ecosystems Vol. 47 American Fisheries Society Symposium 69–85 (2005).Hu, X., Zuo, D., Liu, B., Huang, Z. & Xu, Z. Quantitative analysis of the correlation between macrobenthos community and water environmental factors and aquatic ecosystem health assessment in the North Canal River Basin of Beijing. Environ. Sci. 43, 247–255 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Kadye, W. T., Magadza, C. H. D., Moyo, N. A. G. & Kativu, S. Stream fish assemblages in relation to environmental factors on a montane plateau (Nyika Plateau, Malawi). Environ. Biol. Fishes 83, 417–428 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Smith, T. A. & Kraft, C. E. Stream fish assemblages in relation to landscape position and local habitat variables. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 134, 430–440 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Blabolil, P. et al. Environmental DNA metabarcoding uncovers environmental correlates of fish communities in spatially heterogeneous freshwater habitats. Ecol. Ind. 126, 107698 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Xie, R. et al. eDNA metabarcoding revealed differential structures of aquatic communities in a dynamic freshwater ecosystem shaped by habitat heterogeneity. Environ. Res. 201, 111602 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Qu, C. et al. Comparing fish prey diversity for a critically endangered aquatic mammal in a reserve and the wild using eDNA metabarcoding. Sci. Rep. 10, 16715 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pont, D. et al. Environmental DNA reveals quantitative patterns of fish biodiversity in large rivers despite its downstream transportation. Sci. Rep. 8, 10361 (2018).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Doble, C. J. et al. Testing the performance of environmental DNA metabarcoding for surveying highly diverse tropical fish communities: A case study from Lake Tanganyika. Environ. DNA 2, 24–41 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Xu, N. et al. Monitoring seasonal distribution of an endangered anadromous sturgeon in a large river using environmental DNA. Sci. Nat. 105, 62 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Laramie, M. B., Pilliod, D. S. & Goldberg, C. S. Characterizing the distribution of an endangered salmonid using environmental DNA analysis. Biol. Cons. 183, 29–37 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Harper, L. R. et al. Development and application of environmental DNA surveillance for the threatened crucian carp (Carassius carassius). Freshw. Biol. 64, 93–107 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ushio, M. et al. Quantitative monitoring of multispecies fish environmental DNA using high-throughput sequencing. Metabarcoding Metagenomics 2, e2329 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Evans, N. T. et al. Quantification of mesocosm fish and amphibian species diversity via environmental DNA metabarcoding. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 16, 29–41 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gloor, G. B., Macklaim, J. M., Pawlowsky-Glahn, V. & Egozcue, J. J. Microbiome datasets are compositional: and this is not optional. Front. Microbiol. 8, 2224 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Harrison, J. B., Sunday, J. M. & Rogers, S. M. Predicting the fate of eDNA in the environment and implications for studying biodiversity. Proc. Biol. Sci. 286, 20191409 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kelly, R. P., Shelton, A. O. & Gallego, R. Understanding PCR processes to draw meaningful conclusions from environmental DNA studies. Sci. Rep. 9, 12133 (2019).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Civade, R. et al. Spatial representativeness of environmental DNA metabarcoding signal for fish biodiversity assessment in a natural freshwater system. PLoS ONE 11, e0157366 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Barnes, M. A. et al. Environmental conditions influence eDNA persistence in aquatic systems. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 1819–1827 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Shogren, A. J. et al. Water flow and biofilm cover influence environmental DNA detection in recirculating streams. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52, 8530–8537 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhao, B., van Bodegom, P. M. & Trimbos, K. The particle size distribution of environmental DNA varies with species and degradation. Sci. Total Environ. 797, 149175 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

Sonenshine, D. E. Insects of Virginia No. 13. Ticks of Virginia (Acari: Metastigmata). Res. Div. Bull. 139, 1–44 (1979).
Google Scholar 
Lindquist, E. E. et al. A Handbook to the Ticks of Canada (Ixodida: Ixodidae, Argasidae) (Biological Survey of Canada, 2016).
Google Scholar 
Campbell, A. & MacKay, P. R. Distribution of the American dog tick, Dermacentor variabilis (Say), and its small-mammal hosts in relation to vegetation types in a study area in Nova Scotia. Can. J. Zool. 57, 1950–1959 (1979).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Barker, I. K. et al. Distribution of the Lyme disease vector, Ixodes dammini (Acari: Ixodidae) and isolation of Borrelia burgdorferi in Ontario, Canada. J. Med. Entomol. 29, 1011–1022 (1992).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Morshed, M. G., Scott, J. D., Fernando, K., Mann, R. B. & Durden, L. A. Lyme disease spirochete, Borrelia burgdorferi endemic at epicenter in Rondeau Provincial Park, Ontario. J. Med. Entomol. 40, 91–94 (2003).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Nelder, M. P. et al. Population-based passive tick surveillance and detection of expanding foci of blacklegged ticks Ixodes scapularis and the Lyme disease agent Borrelia burgdorferi in Ontario, Canada. PLoS ONE 9, e105358 (2014).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Clow, K. M. et al. Distribution of ticks and the risk of Lyme disease and other tick-borne pathogens of public health significance in Ontario, Canada. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 16, 215–222 (2016).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Smith, K. A. et al. Tick infestations of wildlife and companion animals in Ontario, Canada, with detection of human pathogens in Ixodes scapularis ticks. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 10, 72–76 (2019).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Scott, J. D. et al. Extensive distribution of the Lyme disease bacterium, Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato, in multiple tick species parasitizing avian and mammalian hosts across Canada. Healthcare 6, 131 (2018).PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
James, A. M., Burdett, C., McCool, M. J., Fox, A. & Riggs, P. The geographic distribution and ecological preferences of the American dog tick, Dermacentor variabilis (Say), in the USA. Med. Vet. Entomol. 29, 178–188 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Blouin, E. F., Kocan, A. A., Glenn, B. L., Kocan, K. M. & Hair, J. A. Transmission of Cytauxzoon felis Kier, 1979 from bobcats, Felis rufus (Schreber), to domestic cats by Dermacentor variabilis (Say). J. Wildl. Dis. 20, 241–242 (1984).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Yunik, M. E., Galloway, T. D. & Lindsay, L. R. Active surveillance of Anaplasma marginale in populations of arthropod vectors (Acari: Ixodidae; Diptera: Tabanidae) during and after an outbreak of bovine anaplasmosis in southern Manitoba, Canada. Can. J. Vet. Res. 80, 171–174 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Trumpp, K. M., Parsley, A. L., Lewis, M. J., Camp, J. W. Jr. & Taylor, S. D. Presumptive tick paralysis in 2 American miniature horses in the United States. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 33, 1784–1788 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Léger, E., Vourc’h, G., Vial, L., Chevillon, C. & McCoy, K. D. Changing distributions of ticks: Causes and consequences. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 59, 219–244 (2013).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ogden, N. H., Mechai, S. & Margos, G. Changing geographic ranges of ticks and tick-borne pathogens: Drivers, mechanisms and consequences for pathogen diversity. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 3, 46 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bouchard, C. et al. Increased risk of tick-borne diseases with climate and environmental changes. Can. Commun. Dis. Rep. 45, 83–89 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Artsob, H. et al. Isolation of Francisella tularensis and Powassan virus from ticks (Acari: Ixodidae) in Ontario, Canada. J. Med. Entomol. 21, 165–168 (1984).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gregson, J. D. The Ixodoidea of Canada. Canadian Department of Agriculture Publication 930 (Canadian Department of Agriculture, 1956).
Google Scholar 
Scholten, T. Human tick infestations in Ontario: Findings at the Toronto Public Health Laboratory, 1967–1977. Can. J. Public Health 68, 494–496 (1977).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Jarvis, D. The Acarina, with a host index to the species found in Ontario. 48th Ann. Rept. Ent. Soc. Ontario 1909 36, 82–109 (1910).Dergousoff, S. J., Galloway, T. D., Lindsay, L. R., Curry, P. S. & Chilton, N. B. Range expansion of Dermacentor variabilis and Dermacentor andersoni (Acari: Ixodidae) near their northern distributional limits. J. Med. Entomol. 50, 510–520 (2013).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. Forest resources of Ontario 2016 (Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, 2018).Crins, W. J., Gray, P. A., Uhlig, P. W. C. & Wester, M. C. The ecosystems of Ontario, Part 1: Ecozones and ecoregions. (Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, 2009).Nelder, M. P. et al. Human pathogens associated with the blacklegged tick Ixodes scapularis: A systematic review. Parasit. Vectors 9, 265 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
University of Toronto. FSA land area file. https://mdl.library.utoronto.ca/collections/numeric-data/census-canada/2016/geo (2018).Lehane, A. et al. Reported county-level distribution of the American dog tick (Acari: Ixodidae) in the contiguous United States. J. Med. Entomol. 57, 131–155 (2020).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Dennis, D. T., Nekomoto, T. S., Victor, J. C., Paul, W. S. & Piesman, J. Reported distribution of Ixodes scapularis and Ixodes pacificus (Acari: Ixodidae) in the United States. J. Med. Entomol. 35, 629–638 (1998).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Springer, Y. P., Eisen, L., Beati, L., James, A. M. & Eisen, R. J. Spatial distribution of counties in the continental United States with records of occurrence of Amblyomma americanum (Ixodida: Ixodidae). J. Med. Entomol. 51, 342–351 (2014).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Eisen, R. J., Eisen, L. & Beard, C. B. County-scale distribution of Ixodes scapularis and Ixodes pacificus (Acari: Ixodidae) in the continental United States. J. Med. Entomol. 53, 349–386 (2016).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Clow, K. M. et al. Northward range expansion of Ixodes scapularis evident over a short timescale in Ontario, Canada. PLoS ONE 12, e0189393 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Rand, P. W. et al. Passive surveillance in Maine, an area emergent for tick-borne diseases. J. Med. Entomol. 44, 1118–1129 (2007).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Baldwin, D., Desloges, J. & Band, L. Physical geography of Ontario in Ecology of a managed terrestrial landscape: patterns and processes of forest landscapes in Ontario (eds. Perera, A. H., Euler, D. L. & Thompson, I. D.) 12–29 (UBC Press, 2000).Minigan, J. N., Hager, H. A., Peregrine, A. S. & Newman, J. A. Current and potential future distribution of the American dog tick (Dermacentor variabilis, Say) in North America. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 9, 354–362 (2018).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wilkinson, P. R. The distribution of Dermacentor ticks in Canada in relation to bioclimatic zones. Can. J. Zool. 45, 517–537 (1967).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bishopp, F. C. & Trembley, T. H. Distribution and hosts of certain North American ticks. J. Parasitol. 31, 1–54 (1945).
Google Scholar 
Walker, E. D. et al. Geographic distribution of ticks (Acari: Ixodidae) in Michigan, with emphasis on Ixodes scapularis and Borrelia burgdorferi. J. Med. Entomol. 35, 872–882 (1998).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Harlan, H. J. Observations of host seeking behaviour in American dog ticks, Dermacentor variabilis (Say) (Acari: Ixodidae) in Ohio. Med. Entomol. 4, 23–33 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Dodds, D. G., Martell, A. M. & Yescott, R. E. Ecology of the American dog tick, Dermacentor variabilis (Say) Nova Scotia. Can. J. Zool. 47, 171–181 (1969).
Google Scholar 
Judd, W. W. Recent records of ticks, Ixodes cookei Packard and Dermacentor variabilis (Say) (Acarina: Ixodoidea) in southwestern Ontario. Entomol. News 86, 157–159 (1975).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Snetsinger, R., Jacobs, S. B., Kim, K. C. & Tavris, D. Extension of the range of Dermacentor variabilis (Acari: Ixodidae) in Pennsylvania. J. Med. Entomol. 30, 795–798 (1993).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Saura, S., Bodin, Ö. & Fortin, M.-J. Stepping stones are crucial for species’ long-distance dispersal and range expansion through habitat networks. J. Appl. Ecol. 51, 171–182 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Sagurova, I. et al. Predicted northward expansion of the geographic range of the tick vector Amblyomma americanum in North America under future climate conditions. Environ. Health Perspect. 127, 107014 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Mierzejewska, E. J., Estrada-Peña, A., Alsarraf, M., Kowalec, M. & Bajer, A. Mapping of Dermacentor reticulatus expansion in Poland in 2012–2014. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 7, 94–106 (2016).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gray, J. S., Dautel, H., Estrada-Peña, A., Kahl, O. & Lindgren, E. Effects of climate change on ticks and tick-borne diseases in Europe. Interdiscip. Perspect. Infect. Dis. 2009, 593232 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Gasmi, S. et al. Evidence for increasing densities and geographic ranges of tick species of public health significance other than Ixodes scapularis in Quebec, Canada. PLoS ONE 13, e0201924 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Pak, D., Jacobs, S. B. & Sakamoto, J. M. A 117-year retrospective analysis of Pennsylvania tick community dynamics. Parasit. Vectors 12, 189 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Garvie, M. B., McKiel, J. A., Sonenshine, D. E. & Campbell, A. Seasonal dynamics of American dog tick, Dermacentor variabilis (Say), populations in southwestern Nova Scotia. Can. J. Zool. 56, 28–39 (1978).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Burg, J. G. Seasonal activity and spatial distribution of host-seeking adults of the tick Dermacentor variabilis. Med. Vet. Entomol. 15, 413–421 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Newhouse, V. F. Variations in population density, movement, and rickettsial infection rates in a local population of Dermacentor variabilis (Acarina: Ixodidae) ticks in the Piedmont of Georgia. Environ. Entomol. 12, 1737–1746 (1983).
Google Scholar 
Mackenzie, A. M. R., Rossier, E., Polley, J. R. & Corber, S. J. Rocky Mountain spotted fever—Ontario. Can. Dis. Wkly. Rep. 5, 130–132 (1979).
Google Scholar 
Gary, A. T., Webb, J. A., Hegarty, B. C. & Breitschwerdt, E. B. The low seroprevalence of tick-transmitted agents of disease in dogs from southern Ontario and Quebec. Can. Vet. J. 47, 1194–1200 (2006).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Walker, W. J. & Moore, C. A. Tularemia: Experience in the Hamilton area. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 105, 390–396 (1971).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion (Public Health Ontario). 2019 tularemia data at a glance. https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/diseases-and-conditions/infectious-diseases/vector-borne-zoonotic-diseases/tularemia (2020).Wood, H. & Artsob, H. Spotted fever group rickettsiae: a brief review and a Canadian perspective. Zoonoses Public Health 59(Suppl 2), 65–79 (2012).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wood, H., Dillon, L., Patel, S. N. & Ralevski, F. Prevalence of Rickettsia species in Dermacentor variabilis ticks from Ontario, Canada. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 7, 1044–1046 (2016).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kaufman, E. L. et al. Range-wide genetic analysis of Dermacentor variabilis and its Francisella-like endosymbionts demonstrates phylogeographic concordance between both taxa. Parasit. Vectors 11, 306 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Statistics Canada. Census profile. 2016 Census. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E (2017).Statistics Canada. Land use, census of agriculture historical data. Table: 32–10–0153–01. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E (2022). More

Key delimitation trapping survey performance factorsTrap attractivenessThe performance of the current Medfly design was unexpectedly inferior to that of the leek moth even with a more vagile target insect, 2.8 times greater trap density in the core, and a grid size over three times larger. Despite all those factors, p(capture) for the leek moth grid with 1/λ = 20 m was 15 percentage points greater than that for Medfly at 30 days duration. Thus, trap attractiveness was the key determinant for delimiting survey performance, as it was for detection13.One straightforward way to improve p(capture) and the accuracy of boundary setting, while also cutting costs, would be to develop more attractive traps. Poorly attractive traps include food-based attractants48 and traps based solely on visual stimuli36. But developing better traps is difficult. Pheromone-based attractants generally perform best49, but these are unavailable for many insects. For instance, scientists have searched for decades for effective pheromones for Anastrepha suspensa (Loew) and A. ludens (Loew) without success50. Common issues include the complexity of components, costs of synthesis, and chemical stability.Trap densitiesAll else being equal, increasing the trap density will generally improve p(capture) for any survey grid, and intuitively this can help compensate for using less attractive traps. However, the impact of increasing density is limited when attractiveness is low13,47, and large surveys or grids with many traps can become prohibitively expensive51. The Medfly grid designers likely understood that the available trap and lure was not highly attractive, and used higher densities in inner bands to try to reach some desired (non-quantitative) survey performance level. By contrast, the designers of the leek moth grid used a (constant) density three times smaller, likely because the trap and lure were known to be relatively strong. Here, for both species, marginal ROI decreased as densities increased (Tables 2, 3). Hence, increasing densities has limited benefit, but may be useful when better lures are unavailable13.In that context, the use of variable densities in the Medfly grid is understandable. At its standard size, the survey grid would require 8,100 traps if the core trap density were constant (Table 1). The designers likely intuited that lower densities could be used in outer bands because captures there were less likely. However, doing so reduces the likelihood of detection in outer bands and could increase the possibility of undetected egress, especially with longer survey durations. As far as we know, natural egress has not been raised as a concern following the numerous Medfly quarantines that have used this survey grid over the years, in Southern California in particular52.Generally, however, we think the variable Medfly grid densities run counter to delimitation goals. Greater core and Band 2 densities have proportionally more impact on p(capture), but only a few detections in the core are necessary to confirm the presence of the population (Goal 1), and inner area detections probably contribute little to boundary setting (see below). Therefore, lower or intermediate densities (at most) may be optimal for the core when considering ROI. For the outer bands, increasing densities might improve boundary setting (Goal 2) and help mitigate potential egress, but the sizes of those bands already limit cost efficiency (Table 2), making greater densities less advisable. Our simulation results can help elucidate how to balance these interests to achieve delimitation goals while minimizing costs47.Grid size considerationsThe simulation results indicated that the standard survey sizes for these two pests were excessive. We have verified that empirically for Medfly using trapping detections data53. A 14.5-km grid has been widely used for many other insects in the CDFA (2013) guidelines10, such as Mexfly and OFF, and the same analysis indicated that those are also oversized for use in short-term delimitation surveys53. From the same analysis, the predicted survey radius for leek moth, with D = 500 m2 per day, would be 2,382 m, or a diameter of nearly 4.8 km, which matches the results here. Similarly, Dominiak and Fanson45 analyzed trapping data for Qfly and found that the recommended quarantine area distance of 15 km could be reduced to 3 to 4 km.Grids with radii larger than 4.8-km only seem necessary for highly vagile insects, those with D ≥ 50,000 m2 per day47. This should not be surprising. Small insect populations are unlikely to move very far31,54, especially if hosts are available20,39,55. The (proposed) short duration of a delimitation survey would also limit dispersal potential (see below). Many delimiting survey plans may be oversized, because they were developed before much dispersal research had been done37, thus uncertainty was high. Our dispersal distance analysis included species with a wide range of dispersal abilities, so it can be used generally to choose smaller survey grid radii53.Reducing grid sizes down to about 4.8-km diameters may have little impact on p(capture), since detections in bands outside that distance contributed little to overall performance. The cores of both the leek moth and Medfly grids accounted for 86 percent or more of overall p(capture). While core area detections will confirm the presence of the population, they are less useful for defining spatial extent. The furthest detections from the presumed source are usually used to delimit the incursion46,56 (although in our experience formal boundary setting exercises seem rare). Delimiting surveys may often yield few captures anyway, because adventive populations can be very small and subject to high mortality31. Because size reductions eliminate traps in proportionally larger outer areas, the impact on survey costs is substantial. Removing just the outermost bands of each grid would directly reduce costs by $11,200 for leek moth (400 traps) and by $7,488 for Medfly (288 traps; Table 1).Another reason for the large size of the standard Medfly grid may be that it was designed for monitoring and management in addition to delimitation57. Medfly quarantines end after at least three generations without a detection, so the surveys may last for months. The grid size was reportedly originally determined by multiplying the estimated dispersal distance by three (PPQ, personal communication), to account for uncertainty. This implies that the estimated distance was about 2,400 m per 30 days. Thus, the design may not have been built for the 30-d duration used here, but our recommended design is valid if a shorter delimitation activity without further monitoring is appropriate.Although it seemed too large for leek moth, an 8-km grid for delimitation could be appropriate for some other moths. For example, the delimiting survey plans for Spodoptera littoralis (Boisduval) and S. exempta Walker use this size9. S. littoralis is described as dispersing “many miles”, and S. exempta can travel hundreds of miles9, which clearly exceeds the described dispersal ability of leek moth. On the other hand, the survey plan for summer fruit tortrix moth (Adoxophyes orana Fischer von Röeslerstamm) also specifies an 8-km grid for delimitation but contains little information on dispersal, suggesting only that most movement is local8. Like leek moth, a 4.8-km grid for that species seems likely to be more appropriate.Limiting egress potential is probably the main consideration when setting survey size, but uncertainty about the source population location may also be a factor. Survey grids placed over the earliest insect detection may sometimes be off center from the location of the source population54. However, so far as we know for our agency, most adventive populations have been localized, based on post-discovery detections (PPQ, personal communication). Likewise, we have found53 and other researchers have found that dispersal distances for different species in outbreaks and mark-recapture studies are often less than 1 km58,59,60. That may often be the case for detection networks of traps (e.g., for high risk fruit flies), which increase the likelihood of capture before the population has had much time to grow and disperse. Here, we focused explicitly on localized populations, but allowed for uncertainty in the simulations by varying outbreak locations over one mile in the central part of the grid. If the outbreak population is very large and has extensively spread out (e.g., spotted lanternfly, Lycorma delicatula (White) in 201461), delimitation will not be localized, but “area-wide”2. The results here do not apply to area-wide outbreaks, and we are currently studying how to effectively delimit them.Optimizing delimitation surveysMany trapping survey designs in use were based not on “hard” science but on local experience62. Scientists have recognized the need for more cost-effective surveillance strategies63,64. Quantitatively assessing p(capture) in different designs for the same target pest allows us to determine grid sizes and densities that lower costs while maintaining performance. Results here demonstrated that the sizes and densities of these two survey grids could be optimized to save up to $20,244 per survey for the leek moth and $38,168 per survey for the Medfly. In practical terms, that means more than five leek moth surveys could be run for the cost of one standard design survey. Additionally, over seven Medfly delimitation surveys could be funded by the budget of one standard plan. The magnitudes of reduction seen here may be typical, since about 90 percent of the costs in trapping surveys are for transportation and maintenance related to traps65.Quantifying survey performance was not possible until very recently, so it has been little discussed in the literature5,66, and no standard thresholds exist. We think 0.5 may be a reasonable minimum threshold for the choice of p(capture), to try to ensure that population detection is “more likely than not”. Designs that aim to maximize p(capture) could be realistic with high attractiveness traps, but those designs seem very likely to have lower ROIs (e.g., Table 2). Even for the most serious insect pests, we think targeting near-perfect population detection during delimitation is likely not justified. Designs achieving p(capture) from 0.6 to 0.75 could be highly effective in terms of both costs and performance.Another potential area of improvement is grid shape. Circular grids perform as well as square grids but use fewer traps and less service area to achieve equivalent p(capture)47. Moreover, detections in the corners of a square grid are evidence that insects could have traveled beyond the square along the axes, resulting in uncertain boundary setting. Most published survey grids are square10,46, but many field managers tend to use approximately circular trapping grids in the field (PPQ, personal communication). The conversion to a circular grid with a radius of half the square side length reduces the area and number of traps by around 21 percent47. Our findings were consistent with that value.This new quantification ability also indicates that some delimiting survey designs in the U.S.A. may not be performing as well as expected47. For instance, the delimiting survey design for Mexfly uses approximately 31 traps per km2 in the core of a 14.5 km square grid11, but the traps are only weakly attractive (1/λ ≈ 5 m). In this scenario, p(capture) was only around 0.23 with a 30-d survey duration47. A much greater density ( > 80 traps per km2) could be used in the core to achieve p(capture) ≥ 0.5, but this may not be feasible depending on the survey budget.Technical and modeling considerationsExamining diffusion-based movement for these two insects in TrapGrid can give insight into why simulations indicated that smaller grids may be adequate47. The value of σ for Medfly after 30 days is only about 1,550 m. In a normal distribution, σ = 1,550 m gives a 95th percentile distance of 2,550 m, which is similar to the estimated distance above of 2,400 m. Over 90 days, σ = 2,700 m for Medfly, which gives a 95th percentile distance of 4,441 m, still much shorter than the grid radius of 7,250 m. A 95th percentile of 7,250 m requires σ ≈ 4,408 m, which equals t = 253 days. In addition, the maximum total distance (up to 39 days after detection) we observed in trapping detections data for Medfly in Florida was about 4,800 m53.The same calculations for leek moth give σ ≈ 490 m for 30 days, with a 95th percentile distance of only 806 m. That is half the length of the recommended shortened radius above of 2.4 km, and nearly five times shorter than the radius of the standard 8-km grid. A 95th percentile of 4,000 m requires σ = 2,432 m, which implies t = 740 days, which is about two years. Therefore, the leek moth grid is arguably even more oversized than the Medfly grid.The default capture probability calculation in the current version (Ver. 2019-12-11) of TrapGrid is not sensitive to population size32 and does not consider the effects of ambient factors (e.g., wind speed and direction, rainfall, temperature). Many other factors can also impact trapping survey outcomes, such as topography of the environment, availability of host plants, seasonality of pest, and population dynamics. These factors are not considered in the current version of TrapGrid. More