Ecology

West, S. A., Diggle, S. P., Buckling, A., Gardner, A. & Griffin, A. S. The social lives of microbes. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 38, 53–77 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Diggle, S. P., Griffin, A. S., Campell, G. S. & West, S. A. Cooperation and conflict in quorum-sensing bacterial populations. Nature 450, 411–414 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ebrahimi, A., Schwartzman, J. & Cordero, O. X. Cooperation and spatial self-organization determine rate and efficiency of particulate organic matter degradation in marine bacteria. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 23309–23316 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Yan, J., Monaco, H. & Xavier, J. B. The ultimate guide to bacterial swarming: An experimental model to study the evolution of cooperative behavior. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 73, 293–312 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kramer, J., Özkaya, Ö. & Kümmerli, R. Bacterial siderophores in community and host interactions. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 18, 152–163 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Griffin, A., West, S. A. & Buckling, A. Cooperation and competition in pathogenic bacteria. Nature 430, 1024–1027 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sandoz, K. M., Mitzimberg, S. M. & Schuster, M. Social cheating in Pseudomonas aeruginosa quorum sensing. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 15876–15881 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Xavier, J. B., Kim, W. & Foster, K. R. A molecular mechanism that stabilizes cooperative secretions in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Mol. Microbiol. 79, 166–179 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Drescher, K., Nadell, C. D., Stone, H. A., Wingreen, N. S. & Bassler, B. L. Solutions to the public goods dilemma in bacterial biofilms. Curr. Biol. 24, 50–55 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Nadal Jimenez, P. et al. The multiple signaling systems regulating virulence in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 76, 46–65 (2012).PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Schuster, M., Sexton, D. J., Diggle, S. P. & Greenberg, E. P. Acyl-homoserine lactone quorum sensing: from evolution to application. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 67, 43–63 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Papenfort, K. & Bassler, B. L. Quorum sensing signal-response systems in Gram-negative bacteria. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 14, 576–588 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Darch, S. E., West, S. A., Winzer, K. & Diggle, S. P. Density-dependent fitness benefits in quorum-sensing bacterial populations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 8259–8263 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ross-Gillespie, A. & Kümmerli, R. Collective decision-making in microbes. Front. Microbiol. 5, 54 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Whiteley, M., Diggle, S. P. & Greenberg, E. P. Progress in and promise of bacterial quorum sensing research. Nature 551, 313–320 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Avery, A. Microbial cell individuality and the underlying sources of heterogeneity. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 4, 577–587 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Eldar, A. & Elowitz, M. B. Functional roles for noise in genetic circuits. Nature 467, 167–173 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ackermann, M. A functional perspective on phenotypic heterogeneity in microorganisms. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 13, 497–508 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Visca, P., Imperi, F. & Lamont, I. L. Pyoverdine siderophores: From biogenesis to biosignificance. Trends Microbiol. 15, 22–30 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Youard, Z. A., Wenner, N. & Reimmann, C. Iron acquisition with the natural siderophore enantiomers pyochelin and enantio-pyochelin in Pseudomonas species. Biometals 24, 513–522 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Schalk, I. J. & Cunrath, O. An overview of the biological metal uptake pathways in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Environ. Microbiol. 18, 3227–3246 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Schalk, I. J., Rigouin, C. & Godet, J. An overview of siderophore biosynthesis among fluorescent Pseudomonads and new insights into their complex cellular organization. Environ. Microbiol. 22, 1447–1466 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ochsner, U. A. & Vasil, M. L. Gene repression by the ferric uptake regulator in Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Cycle selection of iron-regulated genes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 93, 4409–4414 (1996).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Leoni, L., Ciervo, A., Orsi, N. & Visca, P. Iron-regulated transcription of the pvdA gene in Pseudomonas aeruginosa: effect of Fur and PvdS on promoter activity. J. Bacteriol. 178, 2299–2313 (1996).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Escolar, L., Pérez-Martín, J. & de Lorenzo, V. Opening the iron box: Transcriptional metalloregulation by the fur protein. J. Bacteriol. 181, 6223–6229 (1999).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Dumas, Z., Ross-Gillespie, A. & Kümmerli, R. Switching between apparently redundant iron-uptake mechanisms benefits bacteria in changeable environments. Proc. R. Soc. B 280, 20131055 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lamont, I. L., Beare, P., Ochsner, U., Vasil, A. I. & Vasil, M. L. Siderophore-mediated signaling regulates virulence factor production in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99, 7072–7077 (2002).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Edgar, R. J. et al. Interactions between an anti-sigma protein and two sigma factors that regulate the pyoverdine signaling pathway in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. BMC Microbiol. 14, 287 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Heinrichs, D. E. & Poole, K. Cloning and sequence analysis of a gene (pchR) encoding an AraC family activator of pyochelin and ferripyochelin receptor synthesis in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J. Bacteriol. 175, 5882–5889 (1993).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Michel, L., Gonzalez, N., Jagdeep, S., Nguyen-Ngoc, T. & Reimmann, C. PchR-box recognition by the AraC-type regulator PchR of Pseudomonas aeruginosa requires the siderophore pyochelin as an effector. Microbiology 58, 495–509 (2005).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Michel, L., Bachelard, A. & Reimmann, C. Ferripyochelin uptake genes are involved in pyochelin-mediated signalling in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Microbiology 153, 1508–1518 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Cornelis, P. & Dingemans, J. Pseudomonas aeruginosa adapts its iron uptake strategies in function of the type of infections. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 3, 75 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Brandel, J. et al. Pyochelin, a siderophore of Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Physicochemical characterization of the iron(III), copper(II) and zinc(II) complexes. Dalton Trans. 41, 2820–2834 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Perraud, Q. et al. Phenotypic adaptation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in the presence of siderophore-antibiotic conjugates during epithelial cell infection. Microorganisms 8, 1820 (2020).CAS 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Mossialos, D. et al. Quinolobactin, a new siderophore of Pseudomonas fluorescens ATCC 17400, the production of which Is repressed by the cognate pyoverdine. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 66, 487–492 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tyrrell, J. et al. Investigation of the multifaceted iron acquisition strategies of Burkholderia cenocepacia. BioMetals 28, 367–380 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wei, Q. et al. Global regulation of gene expression by OxyR in an important human opportunistic pathogen. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, 4320–4333 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Frangipani, E. et al. The Gac/Rsm and cyclic-di-GMP signalling networks coordinately regulate iron uptake in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Environ. Microbiol. 16, 676–688 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Schulz, S. et al. Elucidation of sigma factor-associated networks in Pseudomonas aeruginosa reveals a modular architecture with limited and function-specific crosstalk. PLoS Pathog. 11, e1004744 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cunrath, O. et al. The pathogen Pseudomonas aeruginosa optimizes the production of the siderophore pyochelin upon environmental challenges. Metallomics 12, 2108–2120 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, T. et al. An atlas of the binding specificities of transcription factors in Pseudomonas aeruginosa directs prediction of novel regulators in virulence. eLife 10, e61885 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tiburzi, F., Imperi, F. & Visca, P. Intracellular levels and activity of PvdS, the major iron starvation sigma factor of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Mol. Microbiol. 67, 213–227 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kümmerli, R., Jiricny, N., Clarke, L. S., West, S. A. & Griffin, A. S. Phenotypic plasticity of a cooperative behaviour in bacteria. J. Evol. Biol. 22, 589–598 (2009).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Harrison, F. Dynamic social behaviour in a bacterium: Pseudomonas aeruginosa partially compensates for siderophore loss to cheats. J. Evol. Biol. 26, 1370–1378 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Schiessl, K. T. et al. Individual- versus group-optimality in the production of secreted bacterial compounds. Evolution 73, 675–688 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Cunrath, O. et al. A cell biological view of the siderophore pyochelin iron uptake pathway in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Environ. Microbiol. 17, 171–185 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Leinweber, A., Weigert, M. & Kümmerli, R. The bacterium Pseudomonas aeruginosa senses and gradually responds to interspecific competition for iron. Evolution 72, 1515–1528 (2018).CAS 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Julou, T. et al. Cell-cell contacts confine public goods diffusion inside Pseudomonas aeruginosa clonal microcolonies. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 12577–12582 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Weigert, M. & Kümmerli, R. The physical boundaries of public goods cooperation between surface-attached bacterial cells. Proc. R. Soc. B 284, 20170631 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Jayaraman, P., Sakharkar, M. K., Lim, C. S., Hock Tang, T. & Sakharkar, K. R. Activity and interactions of antibiotic and phytochemical combinations against Pseudomonas aeruginosa in vitro. Int. J. Biol. Sci. 6, 556–568 (2010).Kapoor, G., Saigal, S. & Elongavan, A. Action and resistance mechanisms of antibiotics: A guide for clinicians. J. Anaesthesiol. Clin. Pharmacol. 33, 300–305 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wrobel, A., Arciszewska, K., Maliszewski, D. & Drozdowska, D. Trimethoprim and other nonclassical antifolates an excellent template for searching modifications of dihydrofolate reductase enzyme inhibitors. J. Antibiot. 73, 5–27 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
van der Veen, D. R. et al. Flexible clock systems: Adjusting the temporal programme. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 372, 20160254 (2017).Helm, B. et al. Two sides of a coin: ecological and chronobiological perspectives of timing in the wild. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 372, 0246 (2017).Rivera, M. Bacterioferritin: structure, dynamics, and protein–protein interactions at play in iron storage and mobilization. Acc. Chem. Res. 50, 331–340 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Soldano, A., Yao, H., Chandler, J. R. & Rivera, M. Inhibiting iron mobilization from bacterioferritin in Pseudomonas aeruginosa impairs biofilm formation irrespective of environmental iron availability. ACS Infectious Dis. 6, 447–458 (2020).Andrews, S. C., Robinson, A. K. & Rodriguez-Quinones, F. Bacterial iron homeostasis. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 27, 215–237 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Alqarni, B., Colley, B., Klebensberger, J., McDougald, D. & Rice, S. A. Expression stability of 13 housekeeping genes during carbon starvation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J. Microbiol. Methods 127, 182–187 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Veening, J.-W., Smits, W. K. & Kuipers, O. P. Bistability, epigenetics, and bet-hedging in bacteria. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 62, 193–210 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ratcliff, W. C. & Denison, R. F. Individual-level bet hedging in the bacterium Sinorhizobium meliloti. Curr. Biol. 20, 1740–1744 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Schreiber, F. et al. Phenotypic heterogeneity driven by nutrient limitation promotes growth in fluctuating environments. Nat. Microbiol. 1, 16055 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Conradt, L. & Roper, T. J. Consensus decision making in animals. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20, 449–456 (2005).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sumpter, D. J. T. The principles of collective animal behaviour. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 361, 5–22 (2006).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Couzin, I. D. Collective cognition in animal groups. Trends Cogn. Sci. 13, 36–43 (2009).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bose, T., Reina, A. & Marshall, J. A. R. Collective decision-making. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 16, 30–34 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dussutour, A., Ma, Q. & Sumpter, D. Phenotypic variability predicts decision accuracy in unicellular organisms. Proc. R. Soc. B 286, 20182825 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ross-Gillespie, A., Dumas, Z. & Kümmerli, R. Evolutionary dynamics of interlinked public goods traits: an experimental study of siderophore production in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J. Evol. Biol. 28, 29–39 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Choi, K.-H. & Schweizer, H. P. mini-Tn7 insertion in bacteria with single attTn7 sites: Example Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Nat. Protoc. 1, 153–161 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rezzoagli, C., Granato, E. T. & Kümmerli, R. In-vivo microscopy reveals the impact of Pseudomonas aeruginosa social interactions on host colonization. ISME J. 13, 2403–2414 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Minoia, M. et al. Stochasticity and bistability in horizontal transfer control of a genomic island in Pseudomonas. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 20792–20797 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Mellini, M. et al. Generation of genetic tools for gauging multiple-gene expression at the single-cell level. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 87, e02956–02920 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, S., Crooks, P. A., Wei, X. & de Leon, J. Toxicity of dipyridyl compounds and related compounds. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 34, 447–460 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu, Y., Yang, L. & Molin, S. Synergistic activities of an efflux pump inhibitor and iron chelators against Pseudomonas aeruginosa growth and biofilm formation. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 54, 3960–3963 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Henriquez, T., Stein, N. V. & Jung, H. Resistance to bipyridyls mediated by the TtgABC efflux system in Pseudomonas putida KT2440. Front. Microbiol. 11, 1974 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Meyer, J.-M., Neely, A., Stintzi, A., Georges, C. & Holder, I. A. Pyoverdin is essential for viruence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Infect. Immun. 64, 518–523 (1996).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
de Jong, I. G., Beilharz, K., Kuipers, O. P. & Veening, J. W. Live cell imaging of Bacillus subtilis and Streptococcus pneumoniae using automated time-lapse microscopy. J. Vis. Exp. 53, e3145 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Berg, S. et al. ilastik: Interactive machine learning for (bio)image analysis. Nat. Methods 16, 1226–1232 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Schindelin, J. et al. Fiji: An open-source platform for biological-image analysis. Nat. Methods 9, 676–682 (2012).Mridha, S. and Kuemmerli, R. Mridha_Kummerli_2022_CommsBiol_raw_data_figshare.xlsx. figshare. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.19681962.v1 (2022) More

Considering the actual and predicted values, the model generated through the different inputted parameters should be diagnosed satisfactorily. It is pretty understanding that agreement between the actual and predicted values given the effectiveness and accuracy of the generated model, as shown in Fig. 2. The following polynomial regression model equations were obtained:$$begin{aligned} COD;removal , % , & = 76.63 – 0.019*A , + , 0.064*B , – 0.511*C , – 0.405*AB , – 0.153*AC , \ &quad – 0.099*BC , + , 0.263*A^{2} + , 0.479*B^{2} – 0.303*C^{2} \ end{aligned}$$
(1)
$$begin{aligned} Nitrate;Removal , % , & = 72.04 , – 1.881*A – 0.142* , B , + , 2.384*C , + , 2.623*AB , + , 8.579*AC , \ &quad – 2.626*BC , – 10.783*A^{2} + , 0.223*B^{2} + , 0.963*C^{2 } hfill \ end{aligned}$$
(2)
$$begin{aligned} & Phosphate , Removal , % , = \ & 67.179 – 1.215*A , + , 3.539*B , – 1.068*C , + , 1.610*AB , – 2.559*AC , + , 0.392*BC , + , 0.788*A^{2} – 2.943*B^{2} + , 0.564*C^{2} \ end{aligned}$$
(3)
where A is initial pH, B is current time (min), C is MLSS concentration (mg L−1) at which the study was carried out.Figure 2Normal probability versus studentized residuals and predicted versus actual plots for (i) COD removal, (ii) nitrate removal, and (iii) phosphate removal.Full size imageIt has been observed that statistics for the model having low values represent well for the system and its predictions.Statistical analysis of COD, nitrate and phosphate removalIt was seen that 3D surface plots could provide a better understanding of the interactive effects of the parameters. The 3D surface plots are illustrated in Figs. 3, 4, and 5, respectively. It was observed that the maximum removal efficiency for COD, nitrate, and phosphate is in the range of 59% to 74%.Figure 3Model generated surface plot of % COD removal (i) pH versus current time (ii) pH vs. MLSS (iii) MLSS vs. current time.Full size imageFigure 4Model generated surface plot of %nitrate removal (i) pH versus current time (ii) pH vs. MLSS (iii) MLSS vs. current time.Full size imageFigure 5Model generated surface plot of %phosphate removal (i) pH versus current time (ii) pH versus MLSS (iii) MLSS versus current time.Full size imageTable 4 (i) shows the statistics for COD removal. Adeq Precision is desirable, which measures the signal-to-noise ratio and a ratio greater than 4. For the COD removal, Adeq Precision was 19.255, indicating an adequate signal. It was also observed that the adjusted R2 is 0.9118 (difference less than 0.2), and the predicted R2 of 0.8601 was significant, implying that the predictions are in good agreement with experimental values.Table 4 Fit statistics for (i) COD removal, (ii) Nitrate removal, (iii) Phosphate removal.Full size tableFigure 3 illustrates the effect of current flow time and pH concerning the percentage removal of COD. The model predicted values observed were seen to lie in the range of 73.1% at MLSS values of 2500 mg L−1, keeping initial COD values as 200 mg L−1. As the COD load increases, it seems to be predicted that the overloading of bacteria occurs, thereby slowing down the consumption of organics. In Fig. 4, the expected removal efficacy shows upward trends with an increase in the values of MLSS, which also coincided with previous studies. As the value of MLSS increases, the contact time of biomass in the system increases, hence producing more effective results than others.Table 4 (ii) shows the statistics for nitrate removal. The predicted R2 of 0.9164 was in reasonable agreement with the adjusted R2 of 0.9730. For the nitrate removal, Adeq Precision was 29.608, indicating an adequate signal. This model can be used to navigate the design space.Table 4 (iii) shows the statistics for phosphate removal. The predicted R2 of 0.9165 was in reasonable agreement with the adjusted R2 of 0.9720. For the phosphate removal, Adeq Precision was 34.945, indicating an adequate signal. This model can be used to navigate the design space.Figure 5 illustrates that as we reduce the cycle time from 24 to 18 h, the system efficacy, i.e., COD removal effectiveness shows a downward trend due to less contact time with biomass. Meanwhile, if we increase the cycle time, we observe higher efficacy in the system. The model generated surface plot in Fig. 5 illustrated that increasing MLSS values by 3000 mg L−1 will enhance the COD removal by 73.1%, keeping the initial pH constant. This may be due to many microbes that can break down organic matter. In aerobic reactors, pH is an essential factor in the growth of the microbial population. To create granules, the pH of the reactor has a direct impact. Studies have shown that granule formation occurs when bacteria grow at the ideal pH level, whereas mass proliferation of fungus occurs in an acidic environment.COD removal in EBR and tubesettlerThe Influence, effluent, and removal of COD in EBR & tubesettler are illustrated in Fig. 6a,b. Results demonstrate that the COD concentration is consistent and better COD removal efficacy rate. The average removal rate values observed in the EBR were between 74 and 79%, with the initial COD concentration kept around 360–396 mg L−1. It was also observed that tubesettler resulted in approximately 25–36% efficacy when the initial concentration was between 75 and 97 mg L−1. The results of EBR are promising and can be attributed to the fact that electrocoagulation takes place along with the oxidation and biodegradation process. It was also observed that the percentage removal of COD shows downward trends due to electrochemical oxidation and adsorption, thereby resulting in physical entrapment and electrostatic attraction30. It has also been reported in many other studies that COD removal of around 85–90% was observed using composite cathode membrane using MRB/MFC system19 for the specialized treatment of landfill leachate. It was seen with the electrooxidation process having COD removal of around 80–84% and 84–96% with submerged membrane bioreactors, using Iron electrode6. For the Coal industry, it was found to be around 85% using membrane electro bioreactors31.Figure 6(a) Influent, effluent and removal of COD in EBR (IEBR = Influent Electrobioreactor, EEBR = Effluent Electrobioreactor, STD = Standard, REBR = Removal Electrobioreactor), (b) Influent, effluent, and removal of COD in tubesettler (IT = Influent tubesettler, ET = Effluent tubesettler, STD = Standard, RT = Removal tubesettler).Full size imageIn the current study, results seemed to be lower than the values reported in the previous studies. The main reason might be the employment of a modified EBR system and the production of biomass species. When the overall COD removal with tubesettler is considered, up to 83.58% removal efficiency is observed. The overall COD removal efficiency is significant and is at par with other studies3,4,5. This signifies that EBR performed better than tubesettler in COD removal. The tubesettler’s lower removal efficiency can be attributed to lower influent concentration from already reduced wastewater from EBR.Nitrate removal in EBR and tubesettlerIt was observed in many studies that nitrifying is the leading cause of nitrification, i.e., conversion of NH3-N to nitrate NO3-N10. The indirect method of system nitrification process claudication was to be ascertained using measurements concerning ammonia values32,33. In the current study, the nitrification process was considered using the nitrate concentration measurement from the influent and effluent in both systems, i.e., EBR and tubesettler34,35,36. The nitrate concentration of influent and effluent was observed and illustrated in Fig. 7a,b. The system stabilized and produced enhanced results up to 70% of nitrate removal, and it was seen to be in the range of 40–45% for the tubesettler. It has been observed that EBR produced better results than the tubesettler. The results variation in both the systems were reasonably attributed mainly to two primary reasons (1) low influent concentration in the influent compared to the EBR system and (2) inhibition effect due to the applied DC field, which was absent in tubesettlers.Figure 7(a) Influent, effluent, and removal of nitrate in EBR (IEBR = Influent Electrobioreactor, EEBR = Effluent Electrobioreactor, STD = Standard, REBR = Removal Electrobioreactor), (b) Influent, effluent, and removal of nitrate in tubesettler (IT = Influent tubesettler, ET = Effluent tubesettler, STD = Standard, RT = Removal tubesettler).Full size imageThe removal efficiency of around 70% was achieved, lower than the values in submerged membrane bioreactors, i.e., 82%6. However, including a membrane would have enhanced the removal efficiency and considered a hybrid EBR system. The results of the current study are close enough to many other studies with a similar system and different operating parameters. Hence, a combined approach can be used for better efficacy. During the weekly analysis, the nitrate concentration during the 1st to 3rd week is lower than in the following weeks. As the concentration of nitrifying bacteria decreased, they had less to work with. Thus, the substrate concentration grew, and so did the removal rate. Nitrate concentrations rose by more than twice the previous week during Week 7. They slowed the bacterial activity, resulting in an efficiency decline to 47% from 70% during the last week’s study period and weeks 6 and 8. A similar pattern emerged for the seventh week in a row in tubesettler. On the other hand, microorganisms overcame differences in engagement because the nitrate content was low in other weeks.Phosphate removal in EBR and tubesettlerMany researchers have looked at nitrate content, but none have looked at phosphate concentration. Eutrophication in receiving water bodies, on the other hand, is predominantly caused by phosphate and nitrate. Additionally, there is a lack of information available on hospital wastewater. The influent and effluent phosphate concentrations in the Electro bioreactor and the tubesettler is shown in Fig. 8a,b. A 75% reduction in the effluent phosphate content in EBR was achieved tubesettler had a 67% effectiveness in phosphate removal but a lower efficiency in nitrate reduction. A previous similar study that used a Submerged Membrane Electro bioreactor claimed a clearance rate of 76% to 95%, which is lower than this study’s results6. Phosphate removal was reported at 50–70% using the electrocoagulation process for different Ph and current6.Figure 8(a) Influent, effluent, and removal of phosphate in EBR (IEBR = Influent Electrobioreactor, EEBR = Effluent Electrobioreactor, STD = Standard, REBR = Removal Electrobioreactor), (b) Influent, effluent, and removal of phosphate in tubesettler (IT = Influent tubesettler, ET = Effluent tubesettler, STD = Standard, RT = Removal tubesettler).Full size imageIn week 6 and week 8, the EBR’s phosphate removal efficiency fluctuated dependent on the weekly average concentration in EBR. This volatility can be linked to a shift in the composition of hospital wastewater. tubesettler had a modest variation ranging from 5 to 6%. Although phosphate concentrations rose in week two, tubesettler removal efficiency improved. As demonstrated in Fig. 8a,b, the arriving wastewater ingredient exhibited a strong affinity in terms of phosphate reduction.Excess effluent concentration and standard deviation from EBR and tubesettler are shown in Table 5. EBR performed better than tubesettler in COD reduction when nitrate and phosphate were compared. Because tubesettler solely employs a physical process to remove contaminants, this is to be anticipated. Effluent from the secondary treatment facility is sent to a tubesettler, which acts as a polishing unit. EBR eliminated COD by 91%, nitrate by 85%, and Phosphate reduction by 81% compared to tubesettler’ s total efficiency. At the same time, tubesettler reduced COD by 37%, nitrate by 51%, and phosphate by 53%. Hence, EBR primarily removed pollutants from wastewater while tubesettler acted as a polishing unit. Table 5 illustrates the effluent wastewater characteristics of EBR and tubesettler.Table 5 Effluent wastewater characteristics of EBR and tubesettler.Full size tableKinetic models post optimizationFirst-order modelA first-order linear model was analyzed on the experimental data by plotting (So − Se)/Se against hydraulic retention time (HRT), providing K1 and R2. For COD, R2 values were 0.761 with a constant value of 1.213, as shown in Table 6. Henceforth based on the results, the obtained model did not seem to fit well for either of the cases.Table 6 Analyzed kinetic models.Full size tableGrau second-order modelA Grau second-order model was analyzed on the experimental data by plotting HRT/((So − Se)/So) versus HRT. The COD constant obtained was Ks = 10–5, as shown in Table 6. The R2 value of 0.99 suggests a good correlation coefficient. Therefore, the obtained results fit well for AOX and COD.Modified Stover–Kincannon modelSubstrate utilization rate expressed as organic loading in this model is widely used in biological reactor kinetic modelling of wastewater. The developed model can evaluate the performance of the biological system and estimate its efficiency based on the input parameters. The kinetic constant KB and Umax for COD were 0.35 and 1.73 g L−1 d−1, respectively. The R2 was 0.98 for the substrate removal, as presented in Table 6.Monod modelCOD utilization rate was obtained by plotting VX/Q (So − Se) against 1/Se. The value of 1/K (0.421) was obtained from the intercept, while the Ks/K value (1.235) was the slope of the line. COD removal half-saturation values were 0.045 and 0.056 g L−1. These values infer a high affinity of bacteria for the substrate. The R2 value of 0.95 depicted an excellent correlation coefficient in the case of COD. The Monod model fits well for COD, resulting in R2 = 0.98, as shown in Table 6. More

Laity JJ. Deserts and desert environments. John Wiley & Sons; UK, 2009.Huang J, Yu H, Guan X, Wang G, Guo R. Accelerated dryland expansion under climate change. Nat Clim Chang. 2015;6:166–71.Article 

Google Scholar 
Berdugo M, Delgado-Baquerizo M, Soliveres S, Hernández-Clemente R, Zhao Y, Gaitán JJ, et al. Global ecosystem thresholds driven by aridity. Science. 2020;367:787–90.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Danin A. Plant adaptations to environmental stresses in desert dunes. In: Cloudsley-Thompson J, Punzo F, editors. Adaptations of desert organisms. Plant of desert dunes. Springer; Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 1996.Makhalanyane TP, Valverde A, Gunnigle E, Frossard A, Ramond J-B, Cowan DA. Microbial ecology of hot desert edaphic systems. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2015;39:203–21.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Fierer N, Leff JWJ, Adams BJ, Nielsen UN, Bates ST, Lauber CL, et al. Cross-biome metagenomic analyses of soil microbial communities and their functional attributes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012;109:21390–5.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ronca S, Ramond J-BB, Jones BE, Seely M, Cowan DA. Namib Desert dune/interdune transects exhibit habitat-specific edaphic bacterial communities. Front Microbiol. 2015;6:1–12.Article 

Google Scholar 
Pointing SB, Belnap J. Microbial colonization and controls in dryland systems. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2012;10:551–62.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Noy-Meir I. Desert ecosystems: higher trophic levels. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 1974;5:195–214.Article 

Google Scholar 
Danin A. Plants of desert dunes. In: Cloudsley-Thompson J, editor. Adaptations of desert organisms. Springer; Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2000.Roth-Nebelsick A, Ebner M, Miranda T, Gottschalk V, Voigt D, Gorb S, et al. Leaf surface structures enable the endemic Namib Desert grass Stipagrostis sabulicola to irrigate itself with fog water. J R Soc Interface. 2012;9:1965–74.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ebner M, Miranda T, Roth-Nebelsick A. Efficient fog harvesting by Stipagrostis sabulicola (Namib dune bushman grass). J Arid Environ. 2011;75:524–31.Article 

Google Scholar 
Cartwright J. Ecological islands: conserving biodiversity hotspots in a changing climate. Front Ecol Environ. 2019;17:fee.2058.Article 

Google Scholar 
André HM, Noti MI, Jacobson KM. The soil microarthropods of the Namib Desert: a patchy mosaic. J African Zool. 1997;111:499–517.
Google Scholar 
Marasco R, Mosqueira MJ, Fusi M, Ramond J, Merlino G, Booth JM, et al. Rhizosheath microbial community assembly of sympatric desert speargrasses is independent of the plant host. Microbiome. 2018;6:215.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Brown LK, George TS, Neugebauer K, White PJ. The rhizosheath—a potential trait for future agricultural sustainability occurs in orders throughout the angiosperms. Plant Soil. 2017;418:115–28.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pang J, Ryan MH, Siddique KHMM, Simpson RJ. Unwrapping the rhizosheath. Plant Soil. 2017;418:129–39.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Marasco R, Fusi M, Mosqueira M, Booth JM, Rossi F, Cardinale M, et al. Rhizosheath–root system changes exopolysaccharide content but stabilizes bacterial community across contrasting seasons in a desert environment. Environ Microbiome. 2022;17:14.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Moreno-Espíndola IP, Rivera-Becerril F, de Jesús Ferrara-Guerrero M, De León-González F. Role of root-hairs and hyphae in adhesion of sand particles. Soil Biol Biochem. 2007;39:2520–6.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wullstein LHH, Pratt SAA. Scanning electron microscopy of rhizosheaths of Oryzopsis hymenoides. Am J Bot. 1981;68:408–19.Article 

Google Scholar 
Young IM. Variation in moisture contents between bulk soil and the rhizosheath of wheat (Triticum aestivum L. cv. Wembley). New Phytol. 1995;130:135–9.Article 

Google Scholar 
Ashraf M, Hasnain S, Berge O, Campus Q. Effect of exo-polysaccharides producing bacterial inoculation on growth of roots of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) plants grown in a salt-affected soil. Int J Environ Sci Technol. 2006;3:45–53.Article 

Google Scholar 
George TS, Brown LK, Ramsay L, White PJ, Newton AC, Bengough AG, et al. Understanding the genetic control and physiological traits associated with rhizosheath production by barley (Hordeum vulgare). New Phytol. 2014;203:195–205.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ndour PMS, Heulin T, Achouak W, Laplaze L, Cournac L. The rhizosheath: from desert plants adaptation to crop breeding. Plant Soil. 2020;456:1–13.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Othman AA, Amer WM, Fayez M, Monib M, Hegazi NA. Biodiversity of diazotrophs associated to the plant cover of north sinai deserts. Arch Agron Soil Sci. 2003;49:683–705.Article 

Google Scholar 
Bergmann D, Zehfus M, Zierer L, Smith B, Gabel M. Grass rhizosheaths: associated bacterial communities and potential for nitrogen fixation. West North Am Nat. 2009;69:105–14.Article 

Google Scholar 
Marasco R, Rolli E, Ettoumi B, Vigani G, Mapelli F, Borin S, et al. A drought resistance-promoting microbiome is selected by root system under desert farming. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e48479.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Marasco R, Mapelli F, Rolli E, Mosqueira MJ, Fusi M, Bariselli P, et al. Salicornia strobilacea (synonym of Halocnemum strobilaceum) grown under different tidal regimes selects rhizosphere bacteria capable of promoting plant growth. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:1–11.Article 

Google Scholar 
Rolli E, Marasco R, Vigani G, Ettoumi B, Mapelli F, Deangelis ML, et al. Improved plant resistance to drought is promoted by the root-associated microbiome as a water stress-dependent trait. Environ Microbiol. 2015;17:316–31.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Alsharif W, Saad MM, Hirt H. Desert microbes for boosting sustainable agriculture in extreme environments. Front Microbiol. 2020;11:1666.Zhang Y, Du H, Xu F, Ding Y, Gui Y, Zhang J, et al. Root-bacteria associations boost rhizosheath formation in moderately dry soil through ethylene responses. Plant Physiol. 2020;183:780–92.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Soussi A, Ferjani R, Marasco R, Guesmi A, Cherif H, Rolli E, et al. Plant-associated microbiomes in arid lands: diversity, ecology and biotechnological potential. Plant Soil. 2016;405:357–70.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Livingston G, Matias M, Calcagno V, Barbera C, Combe M, Leibold MA, et al. Competition-colonization dynamics in experimental bacterial metacommunities. Nat Commun. 2012;3:1–8.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Smith GR, Steidinger BS, Bruns TD, Peay KG. Competition–colonization tradeoffs structure fungal diversity. ISME J. 2018;12:1758–67.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Seely MK. The Namib dune desert: an unusual ecosystem. J Arid Environ. 1978;1:117–28.Article 

Google Scholar 
Klaassen E, Craven P. Checklist of grasses in Namibia. SABONET; Pretoria & Windhoek, 2014. (Produced by National Botanical Research Institute Private Bag 13184).Neilson JW, Califf K, Cardona C, Copeland A, van Treuren W, Josephson KL, et al. Significant impacts of increasing aridity on the arid soil microbiome. mSystems. 2017;2:1–15.Article 

Google Scholar 
Darwin C. On the origin of species. London: Routledge; 1859.Gunnigle E, Frossard A, Ramond J-B, Guerrero L, Seely M, Cowan DA. Diel-scale temporal dynamics recorded for bacterial groups in Namib Desert soil. Sci Rep. 2017;7:40189.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wickham H. ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. Media. Springer; New York, NY 2016.RC-Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 3.5. 2, R foundation for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria, 2018). R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2019.Anderson MMJJ, Gorley RNRN, Clarke KRR. PERMANOVA + for PRIMER: guide to software and statistical methods; PRIMER-E. Plymouth, UK: PRIMER-E Ltd.; 2008.Cherif H, Marasco R, Rolli E, Ferjani R, Fusi M, Soussi A, et al. Oasis desert farming selects environment-specific date palm root endophytic communities and cultivable bacteria that promote resistance to drought. Environ Microbiol Rep. 2015;7:668–78.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lee KC, Caruso T, Archer SDJ, Gillman LN, Lau MCY, Craig Cary S, et al. Stochastic and deterministic effects of a moisture gradient on soil microbial communities in the McMurdo dry valleys of Antarctica. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:1–12.Article 

Google Scholar 
Quast C, Pruesse E, Yilmaz P, Gerken J, Schweer T, Yarza P, et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;41:D590–6.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Koljalg U, Nilsson RH, Abarenkov K, Tedersoo L, Taylor AFS, Bahram M. Towards a unified paradigm for sequence-based identification of fungi. Mol Ecol. 2014;22:5271–7.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ramette A. Multivariate analyses in microbial ecology. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2007;62:142–60.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Clarke KR, Gorley RN. PRIMER v7: user manual/tutorial. Plymouth, UK: PRIMER-E; 2015.Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin PR, O’Hara B, et al. The vegan R package: community ecology. 2013:0–291Wang Y, Naumann U, Wright ST, Warton DI. mvabund—an R package for model-based analysis of multivariate abundance data. Methods Ecol Evol. 2012;3:471–4.Article 

Google Scholar 
Legendre P. Interpreting the replacement and richness difference components of beta diversity. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2014;23:1324–34.Article 

Google Scholar 
Dray S, Blanchet G, Borcard D, Guenard G, Jombart T, Larocque G, et al. Package ‘adespatial’. R package version. 2018.Hammer Ø, Harper DAT, Ryan PD. PAST: paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol Electron. 2001;4:1–9.
Google Scholar 
Weiss S, Van Treuren W, Lozupone C, Faust K, Friedman J, Deng Y, et al. Correlation detection strategies in microbial data sets vary widely in sensitivity and precision. ISME J. 2016;10:1669–81.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Faust K, Raes J. Microbial interactions: from networks to models. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2012;10:538–50.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bastian M, Heymann S, Jacomy M. Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. Third International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. 2009;8:361–2.Barberán A, Bates ST, Casamayor EO, Fierer N. Using network analysis to explore co-occurrence patterns in soil microbial communities. ISME J. 2012;6:343–51.PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Blondel VD, Guillaume J-L, Lambiotte R, Lefebvre E. Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. J Stat Mech Theory Exp. 2008;2008:P10008.Article 

Google Scholar 
de Vries FT, Griffiths RI, Bailey M, Craig H, Girlanda M, Gweon HS, et al. Soil bacterial networks are less stable under drought than fungal networks. Nat Commun. 2018;9:3033.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics. 2014;30:2114–20.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Andrews S. FastQC: a quality control tool for high throughput sequence data. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Babraham Bioinformatics, Babraham Institute; 2010.Schmieder R, Edwards R. Quality control and preprocessing of metagenomic datasets. Bioinformatics. 2011;27:863–4.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rodriguez-R LM, Gunturu S, Tiedje JM, Cole JR, Konstantinidis KT. Nonpareil 3: fast estimation of metagenomic coverage and sequence diversity. mSystems. 2018;3:1–9.Article 

Google Scholar 
Wood DE, Lu J, Langmead B. Improved metagenomic analysis with Kraken 2. Genome Biol. 2019;20:257.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Nurk S, Meleshko D, Korobeynikov A, Pevzner PA. metaSPAdes: a new versatile metagenomic assembler. Genome Res. 2017;27:824–34.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Mikheenko A, Saveliev V, Gurevich A. MetaQUAST: evaluation of metagenome assemblies. Bioinformatics. 2016;32:1088–90.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hyatt D, Chen G-L, LoCascio PF, Land ML, Larimer FW, Hauser LJ. Prodigal: prokaryotic gene recognition and translation initiation site identification. BMC Bioinformatics. 2010;11:119.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Seemann T. Prokka: rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinformatics. 2014;30:2068–9.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Blin K, Shaw S, Steinke K, Villebro R, Ziemert N, Lee SY, et al. antiSMASH 5.0: updates to the secondary metabolite genome mining pipeline. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47:W81–7.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang H, Yohe T, Huang L, Entwistle S, Wu P, Yang Z, et al. dbCAN2: a meta server for automated carbohydrate-active enzyme annotation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018;46:W95–101.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Buchfink B, Xie C, Huson DH. Fast and sensitive protein alignment using DIAMOND. Nat Methods. 2014;12:59–60.PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Vigani G, Rolli E, Marasco R, Dell’Orto M, Michoud G, Soussi A, et al. Root bacterial endophytes confer drought resistance and enhance expression and activity of a vacuolar H+-pumping pyrophosphatase in pepper plants. Environ Microbiol. 2019;21:3212–28.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Al-Hosni K, Shahzad R, Khan AL, Muhammad Imran Q, Al Harrasi A, Al Rawahi A, et al. Preussia sp. BSL-10 producing nitric oxide, gibberellins, and indole acetic acid and improving rice plant growth. J Plant Interact. 2018;13:112–8.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sen D, Paul K, Saha C, Mukherjee G, Nag M, Ghosh S, et al. A unique life-strategy of an endophytic yeast Rhodotorula mucilaginosa JGTA-S1—a comparative genomics viewpoint. DNA Res. 2019;26:131–46.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Johnson JM, Ludwig A, Furch ACU, Mithöfer A, Scholz S, Reichelt M, et al. The beneficial root-colonizing fungus Mortierella hyalina promotes the aerial growth of Arabidopsis and activates calcium-dependent responses that restrict Alternaria brassicae–induced disease development in roots. Mol Plant-Microbe Interact. 2019;32:351–63.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
van Dam NM, Bouwmeester HJ. Metabolomics in the rhizosphere: tapping into belowground chemical communication. Trends Plant Sci. 2016;21:256–65.PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zeng Y, Charkowski AO. The role of ATP-binding cassette transporters in bacterial phytopathogenesis. Phytopathology®. 2021;111:600–10.Article 

Google Scholar 
Louca S, Polz MF, Mazel F, Albright MBN, Huber JA, O’Connor MI, et al. Function and functional redundancy in microbial systems. Nat Ecol Evol. 2018;2:936–43.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Balskus EP, Walsh CT. The genetic and molecular basis for sunscreen biosynthesis in cyanobacteria. Science. 2010;329:1653–6.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Makarova KS, Wolf YI, Iranzo J, Shmakov SA, Alkhnbashi OS, Brouns SJJ, et al. Evolutionary classification of CRISPR–Cas systems: a burst of class 2 and derived variants. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2020;18:67–83.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Smith VH. Effects of resource supplies on the structure and function of microbial communities. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. 2002;81:99–106.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Albalasmeh AA, Ghezzehei TA. Interplay between soil drying and root exudation in rhizosheath development. Plant Soil. 2014;374:739–51.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Devitt DA, Smith SD. Root channel macropores enhance downward movement of water in a Mojave Desert ecosystem. J Arid Environ. 2002;50:99–108.Article 

Google Scholar 
Othman AA, Amer WM, Fayez M, Hegazi NA. Rhizosheath of sinai desert plants is a potential repository for associative diazotrophs. Microbiol Res. 2004;159:285–93.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Naseem H, Ahsan M, Shahid MA, Khan N. Exopolysaccharides producing rhizobacteria and their role in plant growth and drought tolerance. J Basic Microbiol. 2018;58:1009–22.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Toju H, Peay KG, Yamamichi M, Narisawa K, Hiruma K, Naito K, et al. Core microbiomes for sustainable agroecosystems. Nat Plants. 2018;4:247–57.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Banerjee S, Schlaeppi K, van der Heijden MGAA. Keystone taxa as drivers of microbiome structure and functioning. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2018;16:567–76.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Agler MT, Ruhe J, Kroll S, Morhenn C, Kim S-TT, Weigel D, et al. Microbial hub taxa link host and abiotic factors to plant microbiome variation. PLoS Biol. 2016;14:1–31.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Delgado-Baquerizo M, Reich PB, Trivedi C, Eldridge DJ, Abades S, Alfaro FD, et al. Multiple elements of soil biodiversity drive ecosystem functions across biomes. Nat Ecol Evol. 2020;4:210–20.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hassani MA, Durán P, Hacquard S. Microbial interactions within the plant holobiont. Microbiome. 2018;6:58.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lopez BR, Bacilio M. Weathering and soil formation in hot, dry environments mediated by plant–microbe interactions. Biol Fertil Soils. 2020;56:447–59.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hernandez DJ, David AS, Menges ES, Searcy CA, Afkhami ME. Environmental stress destabilizes microbial networks. ISME J. 2021;15:1722–34.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Yuan MM, Guo X, Wu L, Zhang Y, Xiao N, Ning D, et al. Climate warming enhances microbial network complexity and stability. Nat Clim Chang. 2021;11:343–8.Article 

Google Scholar 
Safronova VI, Kuznetsova IG, Sazanova AL, Belimov AA, Andronov EE, Chirak ER, et al. Microvirga ossetica sp. nov., a species of rhizobia isolated from root nodules of the legume species Vicia alpestris Steven. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2017;67:94–100.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Jiménez-Gómez A, Saati-Santamaría Z, Igual J, Rivas R, Mateos P, García-Fraile P. Genome insights into the novel species Microvirga brassicacearum, a rapeseed endophyte with biotechnological potential. Microorganisms. 2019;7:354.PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Liu T, Ye N, Wang X, Das D, Tan Y, You X, et al. Drought stress and plant ecotype drive microbiome recruitment in switchgrass rhizosheath. J Integr Plant Biol. 2021;63:1753–74.Blouin M. Chemical communication: an evidence for co-evolution between plants and soil organisms. Appl Soil Ecol. 2018;123:409–15.Article 

Google Scholar 
Sarrocco S, Diquattro S, Baroncelli R, Cimmino A, Evidente A, Vannacci G, et al. A polyphasic contribution to the knowledge of Auxarthron (Onygenaceae). Mycol Prog. 2015;14:112.Macías-Rubalcava ML, Sánchez-Fernández RE. Secondary metabolites of endophytic Xylaria species with potential applications in medicine and agriculture. World J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2017;33:15.Zhang K, Bonito G, Hsu C, Hameed K, Vilgalys R, Liao H-L. Mortierella elongata increases plant biomass among non-leguminous crop species. Agronomy. 2020;10:754.Article 

Google Scholar 
Kobayashi DY, Crouch JA. Bacterial/fungal interactions: from pathogens to mutualistic endosymbionts. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2009;47:63–82.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Asmelash F, Bekele T, Birhane E. The potential role of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in the restoration of degraded lands. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:1–15.Article 

Google Scholar 
Kohlmeier S, Smits THM, Ford RM, Keel C, Harms H, Wick LY. Taking the fungal highway: mobilization of pollutant-degrading bacteria by fungi. Environ Sci Technol. 2005;39:4640–6.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Warmink JA, Nazir R, Corten B, van Elsas JD. Hitchhikers on the fungal highway: the helper effect for bacterial migration via fungal hyphae. Soil Biol Biochem. 2011;43:760–5.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Booth JM, Fusi M, Marasco R, Michoud G, Fodelianakis S, Merlino G, et al. The role of fungi in heterogeneous sediment microbial networks. Sci Rep. 2019;9:7537.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Deveau A, Bonito G, Uehling J, Paoletti M, Becker M, Bindschedler S, et al. Bacterial-fungal interactions: ecology, mechanisms and challenges. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2018;42:335–52.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Simon A, Hervé V, Al-Dourobi A, Verrecchia E, Junier P. An in situ inventory of fungi and their associated migrating bacteria in forest soils using fungal highway columns. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2017;93:fiw217.PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Faust K, Raes J. CoNet app: inference of biological association networks using Cytoscape. F1000Research. 2016;5:1519.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Fierer N, Lauber CL, Ramirez KS, Zaneveld J, Bradford MA, Knight R. Comparative metagenomic, phylogenetic and physiological analyses of soil microbial communities across nitrogen gradients. ISME J. 2012;6:1007–17.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zablocki O, Adriaenssens EM, Cowan D. Diversity and ecology of viruses in hyperarid desert soils. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2016;82:770–7.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Van Goethem MW, Swenson TL, Trubl G, Roux S, Northen TR. Characteristics of wetting-induced bacteriophage blooms in biological soil crust. MBio. 2019;10:e02287–19.Lambers H, Mougel C, Jaillard B, Hinsinger P. Plant-microbe-soil interactions in the rhizosphere: an evolutionary perspective. Plant Soil. 2009;321:83–115.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ghoul M, Mitri S. The ecology and evolution of microbial competition. Trends Microbiol. 2016;24:833–45.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Schlatter DC, Kinkel LL. Antibiotics: conflict and communication in microbial communities. Microbe Mag. 2014;9:282–8.Article 

Google Scholar  More

Santana, S. E., Alfaro, J. L. & Alfaro, M. E. Adaptive evolution of facial colour patterns in Neotropical primates. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 279, 2204–2211 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Santana, S. E., Alfaro, J. L., Noonan, A. & Alfaro, M. E. Adaptive response to sociality and ecology drives the diversification of facial colour patterns in catarrhines. Nat. Commun. 4, 25 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Kobayashi, H. & Kohshima, S. Unique morphology of the human eye and its adaptive meaning: Comparative studies on external morphology of the primate eye. J. Hum. Evol. 40, 419–435 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Tomasello, M., Hare, B., Lehmann, H. & Call, J. Reliance on head versus eyes in the gaze following of great apes and human infants: The cooperative eye hypothesis. J. Hum. Evol. 52, 314–320 (2007).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Farroni, T. et al. Newborns’ preference for face-relevant stimuli: Effects of contrast polarity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102, 17245–17250 (2005).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Farroni, T., Massaccesi, S., Pividori, D. & Johnson, M. H. Gaze following in newborns. Infancy 5, 39–60 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Itakura, S. & Tanaka, M. Use of experimenter-given cues during object-choice tasks by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), an orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus), and human infants (Homo sapiens). J. Comp. Psychol. 112, 119–126 (1998).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Yorzinski, J. L., Thorstenson, C. A. & Nguyen, T. P. Sclera and iris color interact to influence gaze perception. Front. Psychol. 12, 1–11 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Yorzinski, J. L., Harbourne, A. & Thompson, W. Sclera color in humans facilitates gaze perception during daytime and nighttime. PLoS One 16, 1–15 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Yorzinski, J. L. & Miller, J. Sclera color enhances gaze perception in humans. PLoS One 15, 1–14 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Tomasello, M., Call, J. & Hare, B. Five primate species follow the visual gaze of conspecifics. Anim. Behav. 55, 1063–1069 (1998).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kano, F. & Call, J. Cross-species variation in gaze following and conspecific preference among great apes, human infants and adults. Anim. Behav. 91, 137–150 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Kano, F., Kawaguchi, Y. & Yeow, H. Experimental evidence for the gaze-signaling hypothesis: White sclera enhances the visibility of eye gaze direction in humans and chimpanzees. bioRxiv 2021.09.21.461201 (2021).Perea-García, J. O., Kret, M. E., Monteiro, A. & Hobaiter, C. Scleral pigmentation leads to conspicuous, not cryptic, eye morphology in chimpanzees. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 116, 19248–19250 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Mearing, A. S. & Koops, K. Quantifying gaze conspicuousness: Are humans distinct from chimpanzees and bonobos ?. J. Hum. Evol. 157, 103043 (2021).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Mearing, A. S., Burkart, J. M., Dunn, J., Street, S. E. & Koops, K. The evolutionary origins of primate scleral coloration. bioRxiv 40, 2021.07.25.453695 (2021).Mayhew, J. A. & Gómez, J. C. Gorillas with white sclera: A naturally occurring variation in a morphological trait linked to social cognitive functions. Am. J. Primatol. 77, 869–877 (2015).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Caspar, K. R., Biggemann, M., Geissmann, T. & Begall, S. Ocular pigmentation in humans, great apes, and gibbons is not suggestive of communicative functions. Sci. Rep. 11, 1–14 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Kano, F. et al. What is unique about the human eye? Comparative image analysis on the external eye morphology of human and nonhuman great apes. Evol. Hum. Behav. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2021.12.004 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Caves, E. M. & Johnsen, S. AcuityView: An r package for portraying the effects of visual acuity on scenes observed by an animal. Methods Ecol. Evol. 9, 793–797 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Osorio, D. & Vorobyev, M. Photoreceptor spectral sensitivities in terrestrial animals: Adaptations for luminance and colour vision. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 272, 1745–1752 (2005).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Troscianko, J. & Stevens, M. Image calibration and analysis toolbox—a free software suite for objectively measuring reflectance, colour and pattern. Methods Ecol. Evol. 6, 1320–1331 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Stevens, M., Párraga, C. A., Cuthill, I. C., Partridge, J. C. & Troscianko, T. S. Using digital photography to study animal coloration. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 90, 211–237 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Whitham, W., Schapiro, S. J., Troscianko, J. & Yorzinski, J. L. The gaze of a social monkey is perceptible to conspecifics and predators but not prey. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 20, 10 (2002).
Google Scholar 
Bethell, E. J., Vick, S. & Bard, K. A. Measurement of eye-gaze in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Am. J. Primatol. 69, 562–575 (2007).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Sreekar, R. & Quader, S. Influence of gaze and directness of approach on the escape responses of the Indian rock lizard, Psammophilus dorsalis (Gray, 1831). J. Biosci. 38, 829–833 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lee, S. et al. Direct look from a predator shortens the risk-assessment time by prey. PLoS One 8, 1–7 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Carter, J., Lyons, N. J., Cole, H. L. & Goldsmith, A. R. Subtle cues of predation risk: Starlings respond to a predator’s direction of eye-gaze. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 275, 1709–1715 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Newton-Fisher, N. E. Chimpanzee hunting. Behav. Handb. Paleoanthropol. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-33761-4_42. (2007).
Google Scholar 
Caro, T. et al. The evolution of primate coloration revisited. Behav. Ecol. 32, 555–567 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Kilkenny, C., Browne, W., Cuthill, I. C., Emerson, M. & Altman, D. G. Animal research: Reporting in vivo experiments: The ARRIVE guidelines. Br. J. Pharmacol. 160, 1577–1579 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bergman, T. J. & Beehner, J. C. A simple method for measuring colour in wild animals: Validation and use on chest patch colour in geladas (Theropithecus gelada). Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 94, 231–240 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Stevens, M., Stoddard, M. C. & Higham, J. P. Studying primate color: Towards visual system-dependent methods. Int. J. Primatol. 30, 893–917 (2009).
Google Scholar 
van den Berg, C. P., Troscianko, J., Endler, J. A., Marshall, N. J. & Cheney, K. L. Quantitative Colour Pattern Analysis (QCPA): A comprehensive framework for the analysis of colour patterns in nature. Methods Ecol. Evol. 11, 316–332 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Deeb, S. S., Jorgensen, A. L., Battisti, L., Iwasaki, L. & Motulsky, A. G. Sequence divergence of the red and green visual pigments in great apes and humans. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 91, 7262–7266 (1994).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Matsuzawa, T. Form perception and visual acuity. Folia Primatol. Int. J. Primatol. 55, 24–32 (1990).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jacobs, G. H., Deegan, J. F. & Moran, J. L. ERG measurements of the spectral sensitivity of common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Vis. Res. 36, 2587–2594 (1996).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Jacobs, G. H. & Deegan, J. F. Uniformity of colour vision in Old World monkeys. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 266, 2023–2028 (1999).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kemp, A. D. & Christopher Kirk, E. Eye size and visual acuity influence vestibular anatomy in mammals. Anat. Rec. 297, 781–790 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Osorio, D., Smith, A. C., Vorobyev, M. & Buchanan-Smith, H. M. Detection of fruit and the selection of primate visual pigments for color vision. Am. Nat. 164, 696–708 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Vorobyev, M. & Osorio, D. Receptor noise as a determinant of colour threshoIds. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 265, 351–358 (1998).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Siddiqi, A., Cronin, T. W., Loew, E. R., Vorobyev, M. & Summers, K. Interspecific and intraspecific views of color signals in the strawberry poison frog Dendrobates pumilio. J. Exp. Biol. 207, 2471–2485 (2004).PubMed 

Google Scholar  More

Munday, L. P., White, W. J. & Warner, R. R. A social basis for the development of primary males in a sex-changing fish. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 273(1603), 2845–2851. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.3666 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kuwamura, T., Sunobe, T., Sakai, Y., Kadota, T. & Sawada, S. Hermaphroditism in fishes: An annotated list of species, phylogeny, and mating system. Ichthyol. Res. 67, 341–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10228-020-00754-6 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sadovy, Y. & Shapiro, D. Y. Criteria for the diagnosis of hermaphroditism in fishes. Copeia 1987, 136–156 (1987).Article 

Google Scholar 
Andersson, M. Sexual Selection (Princeton University Press, 1994).Book 

Google Scholar 
Wootton, R. J. & Smith, C. Reproductive Biology of Teleost Fishes (Wiley, 2014).Book 

Google Scholar 
Pla, S., Benvenuto, C., Capellini, I. & Piferrer, F. A phylogenetic comparative analysis on the evolution of sequential hermaphroditism in seabreams (Teleostei: Sparidae). Sci. Rep. UK 10, 3606 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Nikolsky, G. V. The Ecology of Fishes (Academic Press Inc., 1963).
Google Scholar 
Moe, M. A. Biology of the Red Grouper Epinephelus morio (Valenciennes) from the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. (Florida Det. Natur. Resources Lab. Professional Papers no. 10, 1969).Avise, C. J. & Mank, E. J. Evolutionary perspectives on hermaphroditism in fishes. Sex. Dev. 3, 152–163 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Smith, C. L. Contribution to a theory of hermaphroditism. J. Theor. Biol. 17(1), 76–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(67)90021-5 (1967).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Leonard, L. J. Sexual selection: Lessons from hermaphrodite mating systems. Integr. Comp. Biol. 46(4), 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icj041 (2006).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Goikoetxea, A., Todd, V. E. & Gemmell, J. N. Stress and sex: Does cortisol mediate sex change in fish?. Reproduction 154(6), REP-17-0408 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Goikoetxea, A. et al. A new experimental model for the investigation of sequential hermaphroditism. Sci. Rep. UK 11(1), 22881 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lodi, E. Sex inversion in domesticated strains of the swordtail, Xiphophorus helleri Heckel (Pisces, Osteichthyes). B. Zool. 47, 1–8 (1980).Article 

Google Scholar 
Huber, J. H. Procatopus websteri: A new species of Lampeye Killifish from Akaka camp, western Gabon (Teleostei: Poeciliidae: Aplocheilichthyinae), exhibiting Similarities of Pattern and Morphology with another sympatric Lampeye species, Aplocheilichthys spilauchen. Trop. Fish Hobbyist 55(1), 110–114 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Cauvet, C. Pseudepiplatys annulatus. Killi Revue 45(2), 2–20 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Domínguez-Castanedo, O., Mosqueda-Cabrera, M. A. & Valdesalici, S. First observations of annualism in Millerichthys robustus (Cyprinodontiformes: Rivulidae). Ichthyol. Explor. Freshw. 24, 15–20 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Furness, A. I., Lee, K. & Reznick, D. N. Adaptation in a variable environment: Phenotypic plasticity and bet-hedging during egg diapause and hatching in an annual killifish. Evolution 69(6), 1461–1475 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Furness, A. I. The evolution of an annual life cycle in killifish: Adaptation to ephemeral aquatic environments through embryonic diapause. Biol. Rev. 91(3), 796–812. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12194 (2015).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wourms, J. P. Developmental biology of annual fishes. I. Stages in the normal development of Austrofundulus myersi. Dahl. J. Exp. Zool. 182, 143–168 (1972).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Murphy, W. J. & Collier, E. G. A molecular phylogeny for aplocheiloid fishes (Atherinomorpha: Cyprinodontiformes): The role of vicariance and the origins of annualism. Mol. Biol. Evol. 14(8), 790–799 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
Berois, N., Arezo, J. M., Papa, G. N. & Clivo, A. G. Annual fish: Developmental adaptations for an extreme environment. Wires. Dev. Biol. 1(4), 595–602. https://doi.org/10.1002/wdev.39 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Podrabsky, E. J. & Wilson, E. N. Hypoxia and anoxia tolerance in the annual killifish Austrofundulus limnaeus. Integr. Comp. Biol. 56(4), 500–509. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icw092 (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Reichard, M., Polačik, M. & Sedláček, O. Distribution, colour polymorphism and habitat use of the African killifish, Nothobranchius furzeri, the vertebrate with the shortest lifespan. J. Fish. Biol. 74, 198–212 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lanés, K. E. J., Wolfgang, K. F. & Maltchik, L. Abundance variations and life history traits of two sympatric species of Neotropical annual fish (Cyprinodontiformes: Rivulidae) in temporary ponds of southern Brazil. J. Nat. Hist. 48, 31–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222933.2013.862577 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hass, R. Sexual selection in Nothobranchius guentheri (Pisces: Cyprinodontidae). Evolution 30, 614–622 (1976).Article 

Google Scholar 
Reichard, M. Male-male strategies. In Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science (eds. Shackelford, T. K. & Weekes-Shackelford, V. A.) (Springer, 2016).Reichard, M. et al. Lifespan and telomere length variation across populations of wild-derived African killifish. Mol. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/MEC.16287 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vrtílek, M., Žák, J., Polačik, M., Blažek, R. & Reichard, M. Longitudinal demographic study of wild populations of African annual killifish. Sci. Rep. UK 8, 4774 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Passos, C., Tassino, B., Loureiro, M. & Rosenthal, G. G. Intra-and intersexual selection on male body size in the annual killifish Austrolebias charrua. Behav. Process. 96, 20–26 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Parenti, L. R. The phylogeny of atherinomorphs: Evolution of a novel fish reproductive system. In 1. Viviparous Fishes: International Symposia on Livebearing Fishes (eds. Uribe, M. C. & Grier, J. H.) (New Life Publications, 2005).Loureiro, M. et al. Review of the family Rivulidae (Cyprinodontiformes, Aplocheiloidei) and a molecular and morphological phylogeny of the annual fish genus Austrolebias Costa 1998. Neotrop. Ichthyol. 16(3), e180007 (2018).MathSciNet 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Miller, R. R. & Hubbs, L. C. Rivulus robustus, a new cyprinodontid fish from southeastern México. Copeia 1974(4), 865–868. https://doi.org/10.2307/1442584 (1974).Article 

Google Scholar 
Miller, R. R. Peces dulceacuícolas de México. (CONABIO, Sociedad Ictiológica Mexicana, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, Consejo de Peces del Desierto, 2009).Domínguez-Castanedo, O., Uribe, M. C. & Rosales-Torres, A. M. Life history strategies of annual killifish Millerichthys robustus (Cyprinodontiformes: Cynolebiidae) in a seasonal ephemeral water body in Veracruz, México. Environ. Biol. Fishes. 100(8), 995–1006. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10641-017-0617-y (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Domínguez-Castanedo, O., Muñoz-Campos, T. M., Valdesalici, S., Valdez-Carbajal, S. & Passos, C. First description of color variations in the annual killifish Millerichthys robustus, and preliminary observations about its geographical distribution. Environ. Biol. Fishes. 104(3), 293–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10641-021-01076-w (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Muñoz-Campos, M. T., Valdez-Carbajal, S. & Domínguez-Castanedo, O. Feeding ecology and coexistence dynamics in a community of fishes in a temperate temporary water body. Ecol. Freshw. Fish. 31(1), 1–16 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Jobling, S., Nolan, M., Tyler, C. R., Brighty, G. & Sumpter, J. P. Widespread sexual disruption in wild fish. Environ. Sci. Technol. 32(17), 2498–2506 (1998).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wong, B. B. M. & Candolin, U. How is female mate choice affected by male competition?. Biol. Rev. Cam. Philos. 80, 559–571. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1464793105006809 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Domínguez-Castanedo, O. Agonistic interactions with asymmetric body size in two adult-age groups of the annual killifish Millerichthys robustus (Miller & Hubbs, 1974). J. Fish. Biol. 99, 1631. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.14757 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Polačik, M. & Reichard, M. Asymmetric reproductive isolation between two sympatric annual killifish with extremely short lifespans. PLoS One 6, e22684 (2011).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Passos, C., Tassino, B., Reyes, F. & Rosenthal, G. G. Seasonal variation in female mate choice and operational sex ratio in wild populations of an annual fish, Austrolebias reicherti. PLoS ONE 9(7), e101649 (2014).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Warner, R. R. The adaptive significance of sequential hermaphroditism in animals. Am. Nat. 109, 61–82 (1975).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ghiselin, M. T. The evolution of hermaphroditism among animals. Quat. Rev. Biol. 44, 189–208 (1969).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Forsgren, E., Amundsen, T., Borg, Å. A. & Bjelvenmark, J. Unusually dynamic sex roles in a fish. Nature 429(6991), 551–554 (2004).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Reichard, M., Polačik, M., Blažek, R. & Vrtílek, M. Female bias in the adult sex ratio of African annual fishes: Interspecific differences, seasonal trends and environmental predictors. Evol. Ecol. 28, 1105–1120 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lindström, K. Effects of resource distribution on sexual selection and the cost of reproduction in sand gobies. Am. Nat. 158(1), 64–74 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bartáková, V. et al. Strong population genetic structuring in an annual fish, Nothobranchius furzeri, suggests multiple savannah refugia in southern Mozambique. BMC Evol. Biol. 13, 196 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Domínguez-Castanedo, O. Perceived mate competition risk influences the female mate choice and increases the reproductive effort in the annual killifish Millerichthys robustus. Ethol. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1080/03949370.2021.1893827 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Harrington, R. W. Oviparous hermaphroditic fish with internal self-fertilization. Science 134(3492), 1749–1750 (1961).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tatarenkov, A. et al. Genetic subdivision and variation in selfing rates among Central American populations of the mangrove Rivulus, Kryptolebias marmoratus. J. Hered. 106(3), 276–284 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Black, P. M., Balthazart, J., Baillen, M. & Grober, S. M. Socially induced and rapid increases in aggression are inversely related to brain aromatase activity in a sex-changing fish, Lythrypnus dalli. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 275(1579), 2435–2440. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2005.3210 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Escobar, M. L. et al. Involvement of pro-apoptotic and pro-autophagic proteins in granulosa cell death. J. Cell. Biol. 1, 9–17 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Matsuda-Minehata, F., Inoue, N., Goto, Y. & Manabe, N. The regulation of ovarian granulosa cell death by pro and anti-apoptotic molecules. J. Reprod. Dev. 52(6), 695–705 (2006).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Evans, A. G. et al. Identification of genes involved in apoptosis and dominant follicle development during follicular waves in cattle. Biol. Reprod. 70, 1475–1484 (2004).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Cardwell, R. J. & Liley, R. N. Hormonal control of sex and color change in the stoplight parrotfish, Sparisoma viride. Gen. Comp. Endocr. 81, 7–20 (1991).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Domínguez-Castanedo, O., Uribe, M. C. & Muñóz-Campos, T. M. Morphological patterns of cell death in ovarian follicles of primary and secondary growth and post-ovulatory follicle complex of the annual killifish Millerichthys robustus (Cyprinodontiformes: Cynolebiidae). J. Morp. 280(11), 1668–1681. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmor.21056 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
De Mitcheson, S. Y. & Liu, M. Functional hermaphroditism in teleosts. Fish Fish. 9, 1–43 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Valdesalici, S., Domínguez-Castanedo, O. & Mosqueda-Cabrera, M. A. Patterns of reproductive behaviour in Millerichthys robustus (Cyprinodontiformes: Cynolebiidae). Int. J. Ichthyol. 22(4), 177–180 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Aguilar-Morales, M., Coutiño, B. B. & Rosales, S. P. Manual general de técnicas histológicas y citoquímicas. México, D. F. (Facultad de Ciencias, UNAM, 1996).Grier, H. J., Uribe, MC. & Patiño, R. The ovary, folliculogenesis, and oogenesis in teleosts. In 2. Reproductive Biology and Physiology of Fishes (Agnathans and Bony Fishes) (ed. Jamieson, B. G. M.). (Science Publishers, 2009).Domínguez-Castanedo, O. & Uribe, M. C. Ovarian structure, folliculogenesis and oogenesis of the annual killifish Millerichthys robustus (Cyprinodontiformes: Cynolebiidae). J. Morp. 280(3), 316–328. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmor.20945 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Domínguez-Castanedo, O. & Uribe, M. C. Reproductive biology in males of the annual killifish Millerichthys robustus (Cyprinodontiformes: Cynolebiidae). Environ. Biol. Fish. 102(11), 1365–1375 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2019). http://www.R-project.org.Brooks, E. M. et al. glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling. R J. 9(2), 378–400 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hartig, F. DHARMa: Residual diagnostics for hierarchical (multi-level/mixed) regression models. In Theoretical Ecology, Germany. (University of Regensburg, 2021). More

Species DataWe analyse long-term high-quality monitoring data on 1,478 species of birds, mammals, small rodents, butterflies, moths, forest understory vascular plants and freshwater phytoplankton sampled across 6,504 individual sites along an ~1,200 km latitudinal gradient in Finland. Because of differences in sampling methods and in spatial and temporal coverage, each dataset was analysed separately. We note that most species have a distributional range larger than Finland and that for the current purposes, niche space was estimated based on empirical data compiled within Finland alone.BirdsBird data have been collected using line transect censuses in Finland since the 1970s21. The data are collected yearly based on a one‐visit census in which birds are counted along transects with lengths typically 3–6 km. Transects are previously established (that is, with known locations) and not all transects are sampled every year. The census period is June, with observations typically carried between 3:00 and 9:00 am, when the singing activity of birds is highest in dry weather conditions. The observer walks alone at a speed of approximately 1 km h−1 depending on the density of birds along the transect using a map, compass or global positioning system. The census is carried out earlier in southern Finland (June 1–20) compared with northern Finland (June 10–30) due to later breeding phenology in northern latitudes. The line transect is divided into a main belt and a supplementary belt. The main belt is 50 m wide (25 m on each side of the transect line), and the supplementary belt represents the area beyond the main belt as far as birds can be detected. Every observation is assigned to either the main or the supplementary belt. Birds crossing the main belt belong to the supplementary belt even if first observed above the main belt. Species‐specific annual proportions of displaying birds and birds in the main belt remained stable between 1987–2010, indicating that there have been no major changes in species detectability36. The data are curated by the Finnish Museum of Natural History. We used records between 1978 and 2017, including a total of 189 species sampled in 1,105 transects after applying our selection criteria (‘Study design and data preparation’ below).MammalsA systematic monitoring programme of counts of mammal snow tracks was established in 1989 by the Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke; Game triangle data37,38). The wildlife triangle scheme is based on a network of 4 + 4 + 4 km triangle-shaped transects (totalling 12 km per triangle) with fixed locations, covering the entire country. The triangles are located in forested areas covering the main forest types and are usually situated in hunting areas with the observations carried out by volunteers (mainly hunters). Around 2,000 triangles have been established and about half of these are counted annually. In the winter count, the transect is walked or skied during one day and all snow tracks of 24 mammal species crossing the count line are recorded, usually from mid-January to mid-March (when snow cover conditions are good). The number of crossings are typically related to the transect length and number of days since last snowfall, when snow tracks have been accumulating. Snowfall can be replaced with a pre-count, where the existing tracks are marked or erased, to be disregarded during the actual count. We used records between 1989 and 2017, including a total of 18 species sampled in 1,958 sites after applying our selection criteria (‘Study design and data preparation’ below).Small rodentsSince the 1960s, the Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke) carries out an inventory of vole species to support forest management planning (small rodents data39). Data were collected biannually in spring (mid‐March to mid‐June) and autumn (mid‐August to mid‐October) in forested and field habitats in 34 locations throughout Finland. Individual trapping sites within locations were often not constant over the study period, primarily due to changes in land use. New sites were selected to be as close and as similar as possible to earlier sites regarding habitat characteristics. Trapping was conducted in two habitat types in almost all locations: spruce (Picea abies) or mountain birch (Betula pubescens) forests and in open grassland habitats, primarily old agricultural land no longer in use. We used records between 1978 and 2017, including a total of 15 species sampled in 19 sites after applying our selection criteria (‘Study design and data preparation’ below).ButterfliesWe combined two similar surveys of butterflies conducted in agricultural landscapes in Finland. The first is a butterfly monitoring network based on volunteer transects initiated by the Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE)40. Between 1999 and 2017, the network included 101 sites, with an average of 47 sites recorded annually (range 30–59). At each site, the walking route (transect) is kept constant from year to year and walked repeatedly during the summer. Along each transect, the number of individuals for each species is recorded from a 5 × 5 × 5 m3 cube ahead of the observer41. The transects are monitored by volunteer butterfly enthusiasts with high species identification skills, who are asked to conduct a minimum of seven annual visits per transect, approximately once a fortnight from late May to late August. Weekly counts are recommended and are usually carried out on nearly half of the transects. The sampling period is typically no longer than 16 weeks and less than ten weeks in the northernmost transects. The second survey type spans between 2001 and 2014 and consists of 68 standardized transects of 1 km length in southern Finland and the Åland islands. These transects were sampled by researchers with a constant sampling frequency of seven counts per summer42. The median transect length of the combined data is 1.95 km (mean = 2.41 km). We used records between 1999 and 2017, including a total of 68 species sampled in 98 transects after applying our selection criteria (‘Study design and data preparation’ below).MothsData on moths have been collected under the National Moth Monitoring scheme (Nocturna) between 1993 and 201743,44, which is coordinated by the Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE). Nocturnal moths were sampled using ‘Jalas’ light traps45 equipped with 125 W Hg vapour or 160 W mixed-light bulbs, located mainly in forested areas across Finland. Traps are located in the same location from year to year and are usually emptied weekly. Sampling occurred every night from early spring to late autumn (usually between April and October). Sampling effort (that is, trapping period) was constant across years for each trap, but given that sampling aimed to cover the entire moth activity period at each location, the trapping period was longer in more southern traps. Volunteers empty the traps and identify the specimens43, with a variable number of traps being sampled per year. The taxonomic skills of the volunteer lepidopterists were typically excellent, and data quality control and cross checking was carried out by the monitoring coordinators43,44,46. The data used here consist of species records collected from 65 traps with at least eight years of sampling. We used records between 1993 and 2017, including a total of 615 species after applying our selection criteria (‘Study design and data preparation’ below).Understory vascular plants of forestsUnderstory vegetation was surveyed on a systematic network of 1,700 sites established on mineral soil in forested land between 1985 and 1986 (as part of the 8th Finnish National Forest Inventory47). This network consists of clusters, each including four sites with 400 m intervals. The clusters were located 16 km apart from each other in southern Finland, and 24 km and 32 km apart in northern Finland along east–west and north–south axes, respectively. All 1,700 sites were resurveyed in 1995, and a subset of 443 sites were resurveyed in 2006. The spatial extent of sampling was comparable across surveys covering the whole country. In all three surveys, vascular plant species (dwarf shrubs, herbs, ferns and graminoids, including also tree and shrub seedlings and saplings up to 50 cm tall) were identified and species’ cover (0.1–100%) was visually estimated; this was based on three to six permanent square‐shaped sampling plots of 2 m2, located 5 m apart from each other within each site. The data are curated by the Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke). For this analysis, we selected all sites with four sampling plots. The average of species cover across these four sampling plots is used as an estimate of species abundance at each site. This included occurrence records from 1,518, 1,673 and 443 sites in years 1985, 1995 and 2006, respectively. After applying the selection criteria (‘Study design and data preparation’ below), the data included a total of 109 species sampled in 1,712 sites.PhytoplanktonThe National Finnish Phytoplankton Monitoring Database maintained by the Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE; open data portal http://www.syke.fi/en-US/Open_information) comprises nationwide phytoplankton community data of lake surface water samples. We used data collected in the late summer months with samples taken during early July to late August, reflecting the peak productivity season of lake phytoplankton communities. To ensure consistent sampling methodology, we included only data between the years 1977 and 2017. All phytoplankton samples were preserved with acid Lugol’s solution and analysed using the standard Utermöhl technique48. We used records between 1978 and 2017, including a total of 464 species sampled in 1,544 sites after applying our selection criteria (‘Study design and data preparation’ below).Study design and data preparationBefore running the joint species distribution models (below), we converted abundance data into presence records. Each site was assigned to one of the four bioclimatic zones in Finland49—from south to north: hemiboreal (HB), southern boreal (SB), middle boreal (MB) and northern boreal (NB). We combined the two southernmost regions by pooling the occurrence records to obtain a better distribution and number of samples given the much smaller extent of the HB zone. Each occurrence record was also assigned to a different decade based on the year of sampling: decade 1 (1978–1987), decade 2 (1988–1997), decade 3 (1998–2007) and decade 4 (2008–2017) (Fig. 1). Scarce records before 1978 were excluded. Splitting the data into discrete zone and decade subsets allowed us to use independent (and computationally manageable) data to jointly model species responses within each taxonomic group and to disentangle any contrasting imprints of climatic changes between regions and periods. Each subset therefore covered a wide range of climatic conditions for each taxon, with the majority including ten years of data. While the number of sites varied over decades, zones and taxa, the change was not systematic, neither over time nor across taxonomic groups—that is, there was no consistent pattern of more sampling in later decades, and for each group, there could be more sampling sites in a given zone in a later or in an earlier decade (Supplementary Table S2). In addition, the frequency distribution of the pairwise distances between all sites remained similar across decades in each zone (Supplementary Fig. S4), suggesting no changes in the spatial aggregation of sites over time. Furthermore, our analyses are model based and thus explicitly account for the number and distribution of sampling sites, while making inference on both environmental covariates and spatial random effects50. Thus, the variation in the number and distribution of sampling sites affects the uncertainty on trend estimates, rather than affecting the estimates themselves.Species were included if they had a minimum of ten occurrences in each zone × decade combination. Finally, due to the difficulty of obtaining reliable model estimates from very sparse data, we set two additional criteria, including only data subsets with at least 20 samples and at least six species; this meant that despite data being available, some subsets were not included in the analyses (for instance, small rodents in NB).Environmental dataFor each site across the different taxonomic datasets and for each year sampled, we extracted values of daily mean temperature, daily precipitation sum and daily snow depth from the Finnish Meteorological Institute (https://etsin.fairdata.fi/datasets/fmi?keys=Finnish%20Meteorological%20Insitute&terms=organization_name_en.keyword&p=1&sort=best; first accessed in April 2019 and updated in May 2020). These datasets are part of the Finnish Meteorological Institute ClimGrid, which is a gridded daily climatology dataset of Finland, with a spatial resolution of 10 × 10 km 51. From these, we calculated values of annual mean temperature, total precipitation and number of days with snow cover. We extracted annual NAO values from the Climate Analysis Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), Boulder, Colorado, United States52. The NAO index is calculated based on surface sea level pressure difference between the Subtropical (Azores) High and the Subpolar (Iceland) Low, with a high index (NAO +) indicating cool summers and mild and wet winters, whereas low values (NAO −) indicate cold dry winters53. We explored whether other climatic variables might also be relevant for our analysis. Specifically, we additionally calculated January temperature, July temperature, temperature range, mean temperature standard deviation, temperature seasonality, growing degree days (over 5 °C), summer precipitation, precipitation range and mean snow depth. For calculating these additional variables, we extracted daily maximum and minimum temperature data from the ClimGrid data. We evaluated the correlation patterns among these variables and found they were highly correlated, particularly with annual values (Supplementary Fig. S5). As such, we included annual mean and summed values in our models because the relevance of the more detailed variables is likely to vary among taxa. Using annual values also facilitates comparisons with other studies and climate scenarios and allows overcoming issues regarding the overlap between some variables and seasonal sampling of the different species surveys.Quantifying climatic change patternsWe used two approaches to quantify changes in the different climatic variables. First, we used linear regressions with an interaction term between decade and bioclimatic zone to test whether changes over time differed between the different zones in our analysis framework. Second, for a more spatio-temporally resolved assessment of changing patterns we used the k-means clustering method to characterize regions of common climatic profiles for each variable considering all available data over space and time. We set k = 4, resulting in four groups of respectively similar variable conditions. Subsequently we calculated the mean and standard deviation of each resulting cluster for all variables and highlighted the average climate regimes over the whole latitudinal gradient and decades.Joint species distribution modellingWe used a joint species distribution modelling framework to (1) determine how the different climatic variables affected species occurrence patterns and (2) assess whether their relative importance in structuring assemblages has changed over time or across latitude. We fitted separate spatially explicit models for each combination of taxonomic group × bioclimatic zone × decade, yielding a total of 63 models. We modelled the probability of species presence in response to temperature, precipitation and snow cover with quadratic and to NAO with a linear function. Because we model presence data, we used probit regression models. Towards (1), we used the species responses to the climatic variables to quantify the proportion of species at the lower end of their niche (that is, occurrences increasing along the climatic gradient), at the upper end of their niche (that is, occurrences decreasing along the gradient) or at the optimum of their niche (that is, occurrences peaking within the gradient; Fig. 2b; ‘Scoring species’ position within niche domains’ below) within each bioclimatic zone and decade. Towards (2), we compared the proportion of explained variance attributed to each variable and examined whether their relative contribution shifted through time and/or space.For each taxon × bioclimatic zone × decade combination, we fitted latent-variable joint species distribution models using the Hierarchical Modelling of Species Communities (HMSC) framework. HMSC is a multi-variate Bayesian generalized linear mixed-effect model framework, which allows joint modelling of the responses of entire species assemblages and explicit modelling of spatial and temporal autocorrelation18,54,55. We used spatially structured latent variables which were originally proposed by Ovaskainen et al. 56. and later expanded to big spatial data by Tikhonov et al. 57. We fitted the models with the ‘Hmsc’ v 3.0.9 package55 in R58 with a probit link function and assuming the default prior distributions. As fixed effects, we included the climatic variables described above, estimating a second-order polynomial term for all covariates except for NAO, for which we estimated a linear term only. To account for variation in other (unmeasured) environmental variables and potential year-to-year variation not captured by the climatic covariates, we included the random effects of site and year, respectively. All models had the same structure for all the taxon × zone × decade subsets, except for the understory vegetation data for which we did not include the covariate NAO nor the random effect of year because these data were collected only in three individual years, corresponding to a single year per decade in our analytical framework (Fig. 1). Finally, due to computational bottlenecks for large data subsets, some model runs failed to complete with available resources; when this was the case, we randomly subsetted 1,000 records before re-fitting the models (specifically, bird and phytoplankton subsets for the last decade in SB and six mammal subsets for MB and SB in the second, third and fourth decades). We performed posterior sampling using four Markov Chain Monte Carlo chains, each collecting 250 samples, yielding a total of 1,000 samples. We used a thinning interval of 100 and excluded the first 12,500 iterations as burn-in, only sampling the subsequent 25,000 iterations per chain. For phytoplankton in the southernmost region in decade 4, we used a thinning of 10 due to computational constraints due to large site and species numbers. To evaluate Markov Chain Monte Carlo convergence, we examined the distribution of the potential scale reduction factor over the parameters related to the fixed effects and the random effects (equivalent to the Gelman-Rubin statistic59). We assessed model fit via the Area Under the Curve (AUC) statistic60 and model discriminatory power was quantified by Tjur’s R2, which is recommended as a standard measure of discriminatory power for binary outcomes61.To quantify shifts in the explanatory power associated with each covariate, we assessed variance component estimates, that is, the relative explanatory power of each environmental covariate in the HMSC models18,54. We estimated how the relative importance of the covariates in explaining species occurrences varied over time by fitting linear regression models to the species variance component estimate values as a function of decade (using the function ‘lm’ in R) and then compared these changes across zones for the different taxonomic groups (Fig. 4). These model comparisons were carried out after weighing the variance component values by each model’s ability to explain species occurrence patterns (that is, discriminatory power quantified using Tjur’s R2 values).Scoring species’ position within niche domainsTo analyse whether a species occurred at the lower end, at the optimum or at the upper end of its climatic niche within a particular bioclimatic zone and decade, we assessed the species’ responses to each of the climatic variables as follows. First, we classified a species as non-responsive to a specific climate variable within the measured range of that variable if the posterior distribution of the corresponding beta parameter estimates included zero with a probability of more than 10% (corresponding to having less than 90% posterior probability for the response). The non-zero responses were then classified as positive, negative or ‘bell-shaped’ based on the sign of the derivative of the response over the observed environmental gradient. A positive response corresponds to a species being at the lower end of its niche, ‘bell-shaped’ response corresponds to a species being at the optimum of its niche, and a negative response corresponds to a species being at the upper end of its niche. In cases where the derivative is positive/negative at both ends of the environmental gradient, responses were classified as either positive or negative, respectively. Cases where the derivative changed from positive to negative required subsequent evaluation. More specifically, if the derivative was positive or negative over less than 20% of the gradient, we classified the response as negative or positive, respectively. If the derivative was positive or negative over more than 80% of the gradient, we classified the response as positive or negative, respectively. Finally, if the derivative was positive or negative over at most 60% of the environmental gradient, we classified the response as bell-shaped. We evaluated whether this threshold affected the overall results by implementing the same classification using two other criteria for the derivatives being positive or negative: over less than 10% and more than 90% of the environmental gradient, and over less than 30% and more than 70% of the gradient. This showed that our classification of species’ responses was robust to these choices (Supplementary Fig. S6). This classification procedure did not apply to the beta parameters for NAO because we did not include a polynomial term for this covariate, as explained above. Thus, we obtained the number of species for each taxon × bioclimatic zone × decade model that showed responses to the different covariates and calculated the proportion of these species relative to the total number of species in each model (Fig. 3 and Extended Data Fig. 2).Comparing overall species composition between decadesWe compiled the species list present in each decade and each zone for the different taxonomic groups and compared these lists between consecutive decades, that is, comparing decades 1 and 2, 2 and 3, and 3 and 4. For each comparison, we noted how many species were present in both decades (‘shared’ = A), were present only in the first decade in the comparison (‘unique to earlier decade’ = C) or were present only in the last decade in the comparison (‘unique to later decade’ = B). We did this exercise for all taxa in all zones, plotting the sum of ‘shared’ and ‘unique species in each decade’ (Supplementary Fig. S2) and all the consecutive decade comparisons for each taxon (Supplementary Fig. S1). To quantify these patterns over a larger temporal extent, we implemented the same procedure but only comparing the first and last decades sampled for each taxon (Supplementary Figs. S1 and S2; note that for butterflies, these analyses are identical, because this taxon was sampled only in decades 3 and 4).Quantifying community dissimilarityTo assess how community composition changed over space and time, we calculated overall dissimilarity among all the sampling units within a given zone and decade—that is, we quantified variation in composition among sites within a given spatio-temporal extent, regardless of their location. Dissimilarity indices range between 0 and 1, representing cases where all or no species are shared between sites, respectively. We used the same occurrence matrices that were analysed with the HMSC models, that is, the raw species data matrices. We used the function ‘beta.sample’ in the ‘betapart’ package v 1.5.262,63 to calculate total dissimilarity (Sørensen index), which can be additively decomposed into the turnover (Simpson index) and nestedness components64. ‘beta.sample’ randomly selects a specified number of sites to generate distributions of the multiple‐site dissimilarity measures. This is important because the number of sites affects the estimated compositional change values. For each taxonomic group, we first determined the minimum number of sites among the different zone × decade combinations, which was used to define the number of sites to be randomly sampled from the original occurrence matrix, performing this subsampling 1,000 times. We then plotted the mean and standard deviation of these distributions to compare compositional change for each taxonomic group across the different zones and decades. We focus on the turnover metric (that is, species replacement among sites independent of changes in species richness; Extended Data Fig. 3), as it was systematically the main component of dissimilarity except for the small rodent data where the nestedness component had a relatively higher contribution to total dissimilarity. We show the results for the three metrics in Supplementary Fig. S3.Reporting SummaryFurther information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article. More

Kolodny, O. et al. Coordinated change at the colony level in fruit bat fur microbiomes through time. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 116–124 (2019).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Schlomann, B. H. & Parthasarathy, R. Timescales of gut microbiome dynamics. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 50, 56–63 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Koch, H. & Schmid-Hempel, P. Socially transmitted gut microbiota protect bumble bees against an intestinal parasite. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 19288–19292 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Finnicum, C. T. et al. Cohabitation is associated with a greater resemblance in gut microbiota which can impact cardiometabolic and inflammatory risk. BMC Microbiol. 19, 230 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bashan, A. et al. Universality of human microbial dynamics. Nature 534, 259–262 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Costello, E. K., Stagaman, K., Dethlefsen, L., Bohannan, B. J. & Relman, D. A. The application of ecological theory toward an understanding of the human microbiome. Science 336, 1255–1262 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Miller, E. T., Svanback, R. & Bohannan, B. J. Microbiomes as metacommunities: understanding host-associated microbes through metacommunity ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 33, 926–935 (2018).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bjork, J., Díez-Vives, C., Astudillo-García, C., Archie, E. A. & Montoya, J. M. Vertical transmission of sponge microbiota is inconsistent and unfaithful. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 1172–1183 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Sieber, M. et al. Neutrality in the metaorganism. PLoS Biol. 17, e3000298 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Tredennick, A. T., de Mazancourt, C., Loreau, M. & Adler, P. B. Environmental responses, not species interactions, determine synchrony of dominant species in semiarid grasslands. Ecology 98, 971–981 (2017).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Loreau, M. & de Mazancourt, C. Species synchrony and its drivers: neutral and nonneutral community dynamics in fluctuating environments. Am. Nat. 172, E48–E66 (2008).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Isbell, F. I., Polley, H. W. & Wilsey, B. J. Biodiversity, productivity and the temporal stability of productivity: patterns and processes. Ecol. Lett. 12, 443–451 (2009).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hector, A. et al. General stabilizing effects of plant diversity on grassland productivity through population asynchrony and overyielding. Ecology 91, 2213–2220 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
de Mazancourt, C. et al. Predicting ecosystem stability from community composition and biodiversity. Ecol. Lett. 16, 617–625 (2013).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gross, K. et al. Species richness and the temporal stability of biomass production: a new analysis of recent biodiversity experiments. Am. Nat. 183, 1–12 (2014).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Louca, S. et al. Function and functional redundancy in microbial systems. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 936–943 (2018).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Rainey, P. B. & Quistad, S. D. Toward a dynamical understanding of microbial communities. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 375, 20190248 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Martiny, J. B., Jones, S. E., Lennon, J. T. & Martiny, A. C. Microbiomes in light of traits: a phylogenetic perspective. Science 350, aac9323 (2015).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Debray, R. et al. Priority effects in microbiome assembly. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 20, 109–121 (2022).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Risely, A., Wilhelm, K., Clutton-Brock, T., Manser, M. B. & Sommer, S. Diurnal oscillations in gut bacterial load and composition eclipse seasonal and lifetime dynamics in wild meerkats. Nat. Commun. 12, 6017 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Franzosa, E. A. et al. Identifying personal microbiomes using metagenomic codes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, E2930–E2938 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Faith, J. J. et al. The long-term stability of the human gut microbiota. Science 341, 1237439 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bik, E. M. et al. Marine mammals harbor unique microbiotas shaped by and yet distinct from the sea. Nat. Commun. 7, 10516 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Caporaso, J. G. et al. Moving pictures of the human microbiome. Genome Biol. 12, R50 (2011).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Costello, E. K. et al. Bacterial community variation in human body habitats across space and time. Science 326, 1694–1697 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Flores, G. E. et al. Temporal variability is a personalized feature of the human microbiome. Genome Biol. 15, 531 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Johnson, A. J. et al. Daily sampling reveals personalized diet–microbiome associations in humans. Cell Host Microbe 25, 789–802 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Smits, S. A., Marcobal, A., Higginbottom, S., Sonnenburg, J. L. & Kashyap, P. C. Individualized responses of gut microbiota to dietary intervention modeled in humanized mice. mSystems 1, e00098 (2016).Rothschild, D. et al. Environment dominates over host genetics in shaping human gut microbiota. Nature 555, 210–215 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Falony, G. et al. Population-level analysis of gut microbiome variation. Science 352, 560–564 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Zhernakova, A. et al. Population-based metagenomics analysis reveals markers for gut microbiome composition and diversity. Science 352, 565–569 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Grieneisen, L. et al. Gut microbiome heritability is nearly universal but environmentally contingent. Science 373, 181–186 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Alberts S. C. & Altmann, J. in Long-Term Field Studies of Primates (eds Kappeler, P. & Watts, D. P.) 261–287 (Springer, 2012).Ren, T., Grieneisen, L., Alberts, S. C., Archie, E. A. & Wu, M. Development, diet, and dynamism: longitudinal and cross-sectional predictors of gut microbial communities in wild baboons. Environ. Microbiol. 18, 1312–1325 (2016).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Grieneisen, L. et al. Genes, geology, and germs: gut microbiota across a primate hybrid zone are explained by site soil properties, not host species. Proc. R. Soc. B 286, 20190431 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hicks, A. L. et al. Gut microbiomes of wild great apes fluctuate seasonally in response to diet. Nat. Commun. 9, 1786 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Orkin, J. D. et al. Seasonality of the gut microbiota of free-ranging white-faced capuchins in a tropical dry forest. ISME J. 13, 183–196 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Baniel, A. et al. Seasonal shifts in the gut microbiome indicate plastic responses to diet in wild geladas. Microbiome 9, 26 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Mellard, J. P., Audoye, P. & Loreau, M. Seasonal patterns in species diversity across biomes. Ecology 100, e02627 (2019).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Sloan, W. T. et al. Quantifying the roles of immigration and chance in shaping prokaryote community structure. Environ. Microbiol. 8, 732–740 (2006).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Sloan, W. T., Woodcock, S., Lunn, M., Head, I. M. & Curtis, T. P. Modeling taxa-abundance distributions in microbial communities using environmental sequence data. Microb. Ecol. 53, 443–455 (2007).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Tung, J. et al. Social networks predict gut microbiome composition in wild baboons. eLife 4, e05224 (2015).PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Moeller, A. H. et al. Social behavior shapes the chimpanzee pan-microbiome. Sci. Adv. 2, e1500997 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Lax, S. et al. Longitudinal analysis of microbial interaction between humans and the indoor environment. Science 345, 1048–1052 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Amato, K. R. et al. Patterns in gut microbiota similarity associated with degree of sociality among sex classes of a neotropical primate. Microb. Ecol. 74, 250–258 (2017).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Amato, K. R. et al. The role of gut microbes in satisfying the nutritional demands of adult and juvenile wild, black howler monkeys (Alouatta pigra). Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 155, 652–664 (2014).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Perofsky, A. C., Leriw, R. J., Abondano, L. A., Di Fiore, A. & Meyers, L. A. Hierarchical social networks shape gut microbial composition in wild Verreaux’s sifaka. Proc. R. Soc. B 284, 20172274 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Silk, J. B. Activities and feeding behavior of free-ranging pregnant baboons. Int. J. Primatol. 8, 593–613 (1987).
Google Scholar 
Altmann, S. A. Foraging for Survival: Yearling Baboons in Africa (Univ. Chicago Press, 1998).Bronikowski, A. M. & Altmann, J. Foraging in a variable environment: weather patterns and the behavioral ecology of baboons. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 39, 11–25 (1996).
Google Scholar 
Muruthi, P., Altmann, J. & Altmann, S. Resource base, parity and reproductive condition affect females’ feeding time and nutrient intake within and between groups of a baboon population. Oecologia 87, 467–472 (1991).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Shopland, J. M. Food quality, spatial deployment, and the intensity of feeding interference in yellow baboons (Papio cynocephalus). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 21, 149–156 (1987).
Google Scholar 
Callahan, B. J. et al. DADA2: high-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat. Methods 13, 581–583 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

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

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 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020).Burns, A. R. et al. Contribution of neutral processes to the assembly of gut microbial communities in the zebrafish over host development. ISME J. 10, 655–664 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Sprockett D. tyRa: Build Models for Microbiome Data. R package version 0.1.0 https://danielsprockett.github.io/tyRa/articles/tyRa.html (2020).Oksanen J. et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.5-7 (2020).Vieira-Silva, S. et al. Species–function relationships shape ecological properties of the human gut microbiome. Nat. Microbiol. 1, 16088 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wood, S. N. Stable and efficient multiple smoothing parameter estimation for generalized additive models. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 99, 673–686 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Wood, S. N. Fast stable restricted maximum likelihood and marginal likelihood estimation of semiparametric generalized linear models. J. R. Stat. Soc. B 73, 3–36 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Wood, S. N. Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R 2nd edn (CRC Press, 2017).Gonzalez, A. et al. Qiita: rapid, web-enabled microbiome meta-analysis. Nat. Methods 15, 796–798 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar  More

Sarkar, A. et al. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1020–1035 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tung, J. et al. eLife 4, e05224 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bennett, G. et al. Am. J. Primatol. 78, 883–892 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Moeller, A. H. et al. Sci. Adv. 2, e1500997 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Perofsky, A. C., Ancel Meyers, L., Abondano, L. A., Di Fiore, A. & Lewis, R. J. Mol. Ecol. 30, 6759–6775 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yarlagadda, K., Razik, I., Malhi, R. S. & Carter, G. G. Biol. Lett. 17, 20210389 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Björk, J. R. et al. Nat. Ecol. Evol., https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01773-4 (2022).Blekhman, R. et al. Genome Biol. 16, 191 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Grieneisen, L. et al. Science 186, 181–186 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lloyd-Price, J. et al. Nature 550, 61–66 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar  More