Ecology

Cox, P. A., Banack, S. A. & Murch, S. J. Biomagnification of cyanobacterial neurotoxins and neurodegenerative disease among the Chamorro people of Guam. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 100, 13380–13383 (2003).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Brand, L. E., Pablo, J., Compton, A., Hammerschlag, N. & Mash, D. C. Cyanobacterial blooms and the occurrence of the neurotoxin, beta-N-methylamino-L-alanine (BMAA), in south Florida aquatic food webs. Harmful Algae 9, 620–635 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Metcalf, J. S., Banack, S. A., Richer, R. & Cox, P. A. Neurotoxic amino acids and their isomers in desert environments. J. Arid Environ. 112, 140–144 (2015).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Violi, J. P., Mitrovic, S. M., Colville, A., Main, B. J. & Rodgers, K. J. Prevalence of (beta)-methylamino-L-alanine (BMAA) and its isomers in freshwater cyanobacteria isolated from eastern Australia. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 172, 72–81 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Jonasson, S. et al. Transfer of a cyanobacterial neurotoxin within a temperate aquatic ecosystem suggests pathways for human exposure. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107, 9252–9257 (2010).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Metcalf, J. et al. Toxin analysis of freshwater cyanobacterial and marine harmful algal blooms on the west coast of Florida and implications for estuarine environments. Neurotox. Res. 39, 27–35 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Cox, P. A. et al. Cyanobacteria and BMAA exposure from desert dust: a possible link to sporadic ALS among Gulf War veterans. Amyotroph. Lateral Scler. 10, 109–117 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Charlton, T. S., Marini, A. M., Markey, S. P., Norstog, K. & Duncan, M. W. Quantification of the neurotoxin 2-amino-3-(methylamino)-propanoic acid (BMAA) in Cycadales. Phytochemistry 31, 3429–3432 (1992).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Whiting, M. G. Toxicity of cycads. Econ. Bot. 17, 270–302 (1963).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cox, P. A., Davis, D. A., Mash, D. C., Metcalf, J. S. & Banack, S. A. Dietary exposure to an environmental toxin triggers neurofibrillary tangles and amyloid deposits in the brain. Proc. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 283, 20152397 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Scott, L. L. & Downing, T. G. A single neonatal exposure to BMAA in a rat model produces neuropathology consistent with neurodegenerative diseases. Toxins 10, 22 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Roy, U. et al. Metabolic profiling of zebrafish (Danio rerio) embryos by NMR spectroscopy reveals multifaceted toxicity of (beta)-methylamino-L-alanine (BMAA). Sci. Rep. 7, 1–12 (2017).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Purdie, E. L., Metcalf, J. S., Kashmiri, S. & Codd, G. A. Toxicity of the cyanobacterial neurotoxin (beta)-N-methylamino-L-alanine to three aquatic animal species. Amyotroph. Lateral Scler. 10, 67–70 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Brenner, E. D. et al. Arabidopsis mutants resistant to s (+)-(beta)-methyl-(alpha), (beta)-diaminopropionic acid, a cycad-derived glutamate receptor agonist. Plant Physiol. 124, 1615–1624 (2000).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Schneider, D., Wink, M., Sporer, F. & Lounibos, P. Cycads: Their evolution, toxins, herbivores and insect pollinators. Naturwissenschaften 89, 281–294 (2002).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Koi, S. & Daniels, J. Life history variations and seasonal polyphenism in Eumaeus atala (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Florida Entomol. 100, 219–229 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Koi, S. A butterfly picks its poison: Cycads (Cycadaceae), integrated pest management and Eumaeus atala Poey (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Entomol. Ornithol. Herpetol. 6 (2017).Brenner, E. D., Stevenson, D. W. & Twigg, R. W. Cycads: Evolutionary innovations and the role of plant-derived neurotoxins. Trends Plant Sci. 8, 446–452 (2003).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Prado, A. The cycad herbivores. Bull. Soc. D’entomol. Quebec 18, 3–6 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Popova, A. & Koksharova, O. Neurotoxic non-proteinogenic amino acid (beta)-N-methylamino-L-alanine and its role in biological systems. Biochem. Mosc. 81, 794–805 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Salzman, S., Whitaker, M. R. L. & Pierce, N. E. Cycad-feeding insects share a core gut microbiome. Biol. J. Lin. Soc. 123, 728–738 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Whitaker, M. R. & Salzman, S. Ecology and evolution of cycad-feeding Lepidoptera. Ecol. Lett. 23, 1862–1877 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhou, X., Escala, W., Papapetropoulos, S., Bradley, W. G. & Zhai, R. G. BMAA neurotoxicity in Drosophila. Amyotroph. Lateral Scler. 10, 61–66 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhou, X., Escala, W., Papapetropoulos, S. & Zhai, R. G. (beta)-N-methylamino-L-alanine induces neurological deficits and shortened life span in Drosophila. Toxins 2, 2663–2679 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Mekdara, N. T. et al. A novel lenticular arena to quantify locomotor competence in walking fruit flies. J. Exp. Zool. A Ecol. Genet. Physiol. 317, 382–394 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Goto, J. J., Koenig, J. H. & Ikeda, K. The physiological effect of ingested (beta)-N-methylamino-L-alanine on a glutamatergic synapse in an in vivo preparation. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. Part C: Toxicol. Pharmacol. 156, 171–177 (2012).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Okle, O., Rath, L., Galizia, C. G. & Dietrich, D. R. The cyanobacterial neurotoxin (beta)-N-methylamino-L-alanine (BMAA) induces neuronal and behavioral changes in honeybees. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 270, 9–15 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Spencer, P. S. et al. Guam amyotrophis lateral sclerosis-parkinsonism-dementia linked to a plant excitant neurotoxin. Science 237, 517–522 (1987).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bernays, E. A. & Chapman, R. F. Host-plant selection by phytophagous insects. In Host-Plant Selection by Phytophagous Insects. Contemporary Topics in Entomology, vol. 2, 201–213 (Springer, Boston, MA, 1994).Zandt, P. A. V. Plant defense, growth, and habitat: A comparative assessment of constitutive and induced resistance. Ecology 88, 1984–1993 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Duncan, M. W. Role of the cycad neurotoxin BMAA in the amyotrophic lateral sclerosi-parkisonism dementia complex of the Western Pacific. Adv. Neurol. 56, 301–310 (1991).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Banack, S. A. & Cox, P. A. Distribution of the neurotoxic nonprotein amino acid BMAA in Cycas micronesica. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 143, 165–168 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria (2021).Therneau, T. M. A Package for Survival Analysis in R. R package version 3.2-11 (2021).Kassambara, A., Kosinski, M. & Biecek, P. survminer: Drawing Survival Curves using ’ggplot2’. R package version 0.4.9 (2021).Pennington, Z. T. et al. eztrack: An open-source video analysis pipeline for the investigation of animal behavior. Sci. Rep. 9, 1–11 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pérez, F. & Granger, B. E. IPython: A system for interactive scientific computing. Comput. Sci. Eng. 9, 21–29 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hammer, T. J., Janzen, D. H., Hallwachs, W., Jaffe, S. P. & Fierer, N. Caterpillars lack a resident gut microbiome. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114, 9641–9646 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Karlsson, O., Roman, E. & Brittebo, E. B. Long-term cognitive impairments in adult rats treated neonatally with (beta)-N-methylamino-L-alanine. Toxicol. Sci. 112, 185–195 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Whitaker, M. R. L., Salzman, S., Gratacos, X. & Tucker Lima, J. Localized overabundance of an otherwise rare butterfly threatens endangered cycads. Florida Entomol. 103, 519–522 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Backmann, P. et al. Delayed chemical defense: Timely expulsion of herbivores can reduce competition with neighboring plants. Am. Nat. 193, 125–139 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yáñez-Espinosa, L. & Sosa-Sosa, F. Population structure of Dioon purpusii rose in Oaxaca, Mexico. Neotrop. Biol. Conserv. 2, 46–54 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Robbins, R. K. et al. A switch to feeding on cycads generates parallel accelerated evolution of toxin tolerance in two clades of Eumaeus caterpillars (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.118 (2021).Grunseich, J. M., Thompson, M. N., Aguirre, N. M. & Helms, A. M. The role of plant-associated microbes in mediating host-plant selection by insect herbivores. Plants 9, 6 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, Y. & Whalen, J. K. Production of the neurotoxin beta-N-methylamino-L-alanine may be triggered by agricultural nutrients: An emerging public health issue. Water Res. 170, 115335 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

FennelThe main effect of fertilization (F) significantly impacted all measured parameters of fennel. Intercropping (I) pattern affected all parameters except plant height and 1000-seed weight. Significant I × F interactions occurred for umbel number, seed yield, essential oil content (EO), EO yield, oil content, and oil yield (Table 2).Table 2 Analysis of variance for the effect of cropping pattern and fertilization on evaluated traits in fennel.Full size tablePlant heightThe tallest fennel plants (125.8 cm) occurred in the sole cropping (Fs), while the shortest plants (98.6 cm) occurred in 1F:2FG. Across intercropping patterns, the Fs treatment had 28%, 14%, 11% taller fennel plants than 1F:2FG, 2F:2FG, and 2F:4FG, respectively (Fig. 1A). Compared to the unfertilized control, HA and BFS increased fennel plant height by 10% and 13%, respectively (Fig. 1B).Figure 1Means comparison for the main effects of cropping patterns [Fs (fennel sole cropping), 1F:2FG, 2F:2FG, 2F:4FG (ratios of fennel and fenugreek in the intercropping patterns)] on plant height (A), and fertilization [C (control), HA (humic acid), BFS (biofertilizers)] on plant height (B) and 1000-seed weight (C) of fennel. Different lower-case letters above the bars indicate significant (p ≤ 0.05) differences.Full size image1000-seed weightCompared to the unfertilized control (3.9 g per 1000 seeds), BFS and HA increased the 1000-seed weight of fennel by 24.1% and 14.5% (4.9 and 4.5 g per 1000 seeds), respectively (Fig. 1C).Umbel numberThe fennel sole cropping fertilized with HA produced the most umbels of fennel (51.5), while 2F:4FG without fertilization produced the least (32). Averaged across fertilizer types within each intercropping system, 1F:2FG, 2F:2FG, and 2F:4FG had 21.1%, 16.3%, and 26.7% fewer umbels than fennel sole cropping, respectively. Across intercropping systems, HA and BFS increased the umbel number by 17.8% and 16.5% compared with the unfertilized control, respectively (Fig. 2A).Figure 2Means comparison for the interaction effect of fertilization [C (control), HA (humic acid), BFS (biofertilizers)] and different cropping patterns [Fs (fennel sole cropping), 1F:2FG, 2F:2FG, 2F:4FG (ratios of fennel and fenugreek in the intercropping patterns)] on umbel number (A) and seed yield (B) of fennel. Different lower-case letters above the bars indicate significant (p ≤ 0.05) differences.Full size imageSeed yieldThe different intercropping patterns had lower fennel seed yields than fennel sole cropping. Sole cropping fertilized with BFS and HA produced the highest fennel seed yields (2233 and 2209 kg ha–1, respectively), followed by unfertilized sole cropping (1960 kg ha–1). The lowest seed yields occurred in the unfertilized controls in 1F:2FG (933 kg ha–1) and 2F:4FG (1033 kg ha–1). Averaged across fertilization treatments, fennel seed yield in 1F:2FG, 2F:2FG, and 2F:4FG decreased by 41.7, 26.8, and 36.3%, respectively, compared to fennel sole cropping (Fs). Averaged across intercropping patterns, HA and BFS increased fennel seed yield by 33.3% and 39.5% compared with the unfertilized control, respectively (Fig. 2B).Essential oil content and yieldThe different intercropping patterns produced higher EO contents of fennel than fennel sole cropping. The highest absolute EO content of fennel (4.22%) occurred in 2F:2FG fertilized with BFS, although this did not statistically differ from the 2F:2FG fertilized with HA (4.04%) or 2F:4FG fertilized with HA or BFS (3.8% and 4.00%, respectively) (Fig. 3A). The lowest EO contents occurred in the unfertilized control (2.38%), HA (2.55%), and BFS (2.57%) in the Fs system. Averaged across fertilization treatments, the EO content of fennel in 1F:2FG, 2F:2FG, and 2F:4FG increased by 36%, 52%, and 44% compared to fennel sole cropping, respectively. Within each intercropping pattern, and with the exception of Fs, the HA and BFS treatments had higher EO contents of fennel, none of which significantly differed, increasing by 25% and 29%, respectively (Fig. 3A).Figure 3Means comparison for the interaction effect of fertilization [C (control), HA (humic acid), BFS (biofertilizers)] and different cropping patterns [Fs (fennel sole cropping), 1F:2FG, 2F:2FG, 2F:4FG (ratios of fennel and fenugreek in the intercropping patterns)] on essential oil content (A), essential oil yield (B), oil content (C), and oil yield (D) of fennel. Different lower-case letters above the bars indicate significant (p ≤ 0.05) differences.Full size imageMaximum EO yields of fennel occurred with HA or BFS applied in 2F:2FG (65.2 and 66.6 kg ha–1) and 2F:4FG (60.7 and 65.5 kg ha–1), respectively, while the lowest EO yields occurred in the unfertilized control in 1F:2FG (27.2 kg ha–1), 2F:2FG (33.2 kg ha–1), and 2F:4FG (32.1 kg ha–1). Averaged across intercropping patterns, the EO yield of fennel increased by 66.1% and 74.7% with HA and BFS, respectively (Fig. 3B).Fennel essential oil compositionGC–FID and GC–MS analyses identified 14 components in the fennel EO (representing 97.4–99.9% of the total composition) (Table 3), with the main constituents being trans-anethole (78.3–84.85%), estragole (3.02–7.17%), fenchone (4.14–7.52%), and limonene (3.15–4.88%). The highest percentage of (E)-anethole, estragole, and fenchone occurred in 2F:2FG with BFS. The highest limonene content occurred in 2F:4 FG with HA. The relative contents of trans-anethole, fenchone, and limonene increased by 3.9%, 16.6%, and 8.4% compared with fennel sole cropping. Notably, the contents of most compounds increased with HA and BFS. Compared to the unfertilized control, trans-anethole, fenchone, and limonene contents increased by 2.9%, 21.5%, and 7.9% with BFS and 2.3%, 22.4%, and 11.9% with HA, respectively (Table 3).Table 3 Proportion of fennel essential oil constituents under different cropping patterns and fertilization.Full size tableFennel oil content and yieldAmong the studied treatments, the highest fennel oil content occurred with HA or BFS application in 1F:2FG (16.3% and 16.6%) and 2F:2FG (16.3% and 17.4%), respectively. The lowest fennel oil contents occurred in the unfertilized control, HA, and BFS treatments (12.5%, 12.8%, and 12.9%, respectively) under fennel sole cropping, and the unfertilized control in 2F:4FG (12.6%). Averaged across fertilizer treatments, fennel oil content in 1F:2FG, 2F:2FG, and 2F:4FG increased by 22.8%, 26.0%, and 12.6% compared with fennel sole cropping, respectively. Across intercropping patterns, HA and BFS increased fennel oil content by 13.5% and 16.5%, respectively (Fig. 3C).The maximum oil yield of fennel (318.6 kg ha–1) occurred in 2F:2FG fertilized with BFS, while the lowest oil yield (129.3 kg ha–1) occurred in 1F:2FG without fertilization. Across intercropping patterns, HA and BFS increased fennel oil yield by 50.8% and 62.6%, respectively (Fig. 3D).Oil compoundsGC–FID and GC–MS analyses identified nine constituents that represented 94.3–97.9% of the total fennel oil composition. The main oil constituents were oleic acid (39.2–48.3%), linoleic acid (17.1–24.8%), stearic acid (10.9–15.4%), lauric acid (10.1–14.00%), and arachidic acid (2.2–3.4%). The highest oleic and linoleic acid contents occurred in 2F:4FG and 2F:2FG fertilized with BFS, respectively. Across fertilizer treatments, oleic and linoleic acid contents increased by 6% and 21%, respectively, under different intercropping patterns compared with fennel sole cropping. Across systems, HA and BFS enhanced oleic acid content by 1.8% and 8% and linoleic acid by 7.9% and 8.2%, respectively, compared with the unfertilized control. The highest percentage of stearic and lauric acids occurred in the unfertilized control of fennel sole cropping. Conversely, the lowest stearic and lauric acid contents occurred in 2F:2FG and 2F:4FG fertilized with BFS, 16.1% and 14.2% higher than fennel sole cropping, respectively. Finally, HA and BFS decreased stearic acid content by an average of 5.4% and 7.2%, respectively (Table 4).Table 4 Proportion of fennel oil constituents under different cropping patterns and fertilization.Full size tablePhenolic compoundsThe main phenolic compounds of fennel were chlorogenic acid (10.4–15.3 ppm), quercetin (7.0–17.2 ppm), and cinnamic acid (4.1–8.9 ppm). The highest chlorogenic acid and quercetin contents occurred in 2F:2FG fertilized with BFS and HA, respectively, while the lowest contents occurred in the fennel sole cropping system without fertilizer. Averaged across the three intercropping patterns, the chlorogenic acid and quercetin contents were 18.5% and 80.1% higher than the fennel sole cropping system. The chlorogenic acid and quercetin contents increased by 13% and 17% with BFS and 22% and 15% with HA, respectively (Table 5).Table 5 Concentration of phenolic compounds in fennel under different cropping patterns and fertilization.Full size tableFenugreekThe main effects of intercropping (I) pattern (C) and fertilizer (F) were significant for all parameters analyzed in fenugreek. Significant I × F interactions occurred for plant height, pod number per plant, seed yield, oil content, and oil yield of fenugreek (Table 6).Table 6 Analysis of variance for the effects of cropping patterns and fertilization on evaluated traits in fenugreek.Full size tablePlant heightThe 2F:2FG intercropping system fertilized with BFS produced the tallest fenugreek plants (63 cm), followed by 1F:2FG with BFS (53.3 cm) and 2F:4FG with BFS (56 cm), and 2F:2FG with HA (55 cm). The unfertilized control produced the shortest fenugreek plants (42 cm) in the sole cropping. Most fertilizer treatments across different intercropping patterns produced taller fenugreek plants than their sole cropping counterparts. Across fertilizer treatments, 1F:2FG, 2F:2FG, and 2F:4FG produced 16.2%, 26.8%, and 14.6% taller fenugreek plants than sole cropping, respectively. Across cropping patterns, BFS and HA increased fenugreek plant height by 5.7% and 15.2% compared with the unfertilized control, respectively (Fig. 4A).Figure 4Means comparison for the interaction effect of fertilization [C (control), HA (humic acid), BFS (biofertilizers)] and different cropping patterns [FGs (fenugreek sole cropping), 1F:2FG, 2F:2FG, 2F:4FG (ratios of fennel and fenugreek in the intercropping patterns)] on plant height (A) and pod number per plant (B) of fenugreek. Different lower-case letters above the bars indicate significant (p ≤ 0.05) differences.Full size imagePod number per plantThe fenugreek sole cropping with BFS and HA and 2F:4FG with BFS produced the most pods per plant (21.3, 20.3, and 20, respectively), while the unfertilized controls in 1F:2FG, 2F:2FG, and 2F:4FG produced the least (11.6, 12, and 13.3, respectively). Across fertilization treatments, 1F:2FG, 2F:2FG, and 2F:4FG had 30.1%, 25.6%, and 14.3% fewer pods per plant, respectively, than the fenugreek sole cropping system. Across cropping systems, HA and BFS increased pod number per plant in fenugreek by 25% and 33%, respectively, relative to the corresponding sole cropping (Fig. 4B).Seed number per podAcross fertilization treatments, fenugreek sole cropping produced the most seeds per pod (7.09), followed by 2F:4FG (6.02), 2F:2FG (4.93), and 1F:2FG (4.41) (Fig. 5A). In relative terms, sole cropping produced 60.5%, 43.9%, and 17.6% more seeds per pod than 1F:2FG, 2F:2FG, and 2F:4FG (Fig. 5A). Across cropping patterns, BFS and HA increased seed number per pod by 8.1% and 17.4% compared with the unfertilized control, respectively (Fig. 5B).Figure 5Means comparison for the main effects of cropping patterns [FGs (fenugreek sole cropping), 1F:2FG, 2F:2FG, 2F:4FG (ratios of fennel and fenugreek in the intercropping patterns)] on seed number per pod (A) and 1000-seed weight (C), and fertilization [C (control), HA (humic acid), BFS (biofertilizers)] on seed number per pod (B) and 1000-seed weight (D) of fennel. Different lower-case letters above the bars indicate significant (p ≤ 0.05) differences.Full size image1000-seed weightAmong different cropping patterns, sole cropping and 1F:2FG produced the highest (10.45 g) and lowest (8.34 g) fenugreek seed weights, respectively. In relative terms, fenugreek sole cropping produced 25.3%, 21.8%, and 12.4% higher seed weights than 1F:2FG, 2F:2FG, and 2F:4FG, respectively (Fig. 5C). Across cropping patterns, BFS and HA increased fenugreek seed weight by 3.7% and 5.7% compared with the control, respectively (Fig. 5D).Seed yieldMeans comparisons showed that sole cropping produced higher fenugreek seed yields than intercropping patterns. Sole cropping with BFS (1240 kg ha–1) and HA (1217 kg ha–1) produced the highest seed yields followed by the unfertilized control (Fig. 6A). The unfertilized control in 1F:2FG (437 kg ha–1) and 2F:2FG (467 kg ha–1) produced the lowest fenugreek seed yields. In all cases, and within each cropping pattern, BFS and HS produced higher fenugreek seed yields than the unfertilized control. As a result, BFS and HA increased fenugreek seed yield by 25.2% and 31.5% compared with the unfertilized control, respectively (Fig. 6A).Figure 6Means comparison for the interaction effects of fertilization [C (control), HA (humic acid), BFS (biofertilizers)] and different cropping patterns [FGs (fenugreek sole cropping), 1F:2FG, 2F:2FG, 2F:4FG (ratios of fennel and fenugreek in the intercropping patterns)] on seed yield (A), oil content (B), and oil yield (C) of fenugreek. Different lower-case letters above the bars indicate significant (p ≤ 0.05) differences.Full size imageOil content and yieldThe 2F:2FG cropping pattern with BFS produced the highest fenugreek oil content (8.3%), while the unfertilized control in sole cropping produced the lowest (5.9%). Across fertilizer treatments, 1F:2FG, 2F:2 FG, and 2F:4 FG produced 11.7%, 18.5%, and 15.7% higher fenugreek oil contents than sole cropping, respectively. In the 2F:2FG and 2F:4FG cropping patterns, BFS produced higher oil content (%) than HA. As a result, across cropping patterns, HA and BFS increased fenugreek oil content by 12.3% and 19.4%, respectively (Fig. 6B).Sole cropping with HA and BFS and 2F:2FG with BFS produced the highest fenugreek oil yields (77.1, 80.0, and 74.4 kg ha–1, respectively), while the unfertilized controls in 1F:2FG and 2F:4FG produced the lowest (27.51 and 29.8 kg ha–1, respectively). The 1F:2FG, 2F:2FG, and 2F:4FG cropping patterns produced 45.9%, 20.7%, and 41.5% lower fenugreek oil yields than fenugreek sole cropping, respectively. Moreover, except for sole cropping, BFS produced the highest fenugreek oil yield, followed by HA and the unfertilized control (Fig. 6C).Oil compoundsGC–FID and GC–MS analyses identified seven constituents (representing 91.09–99.27% of the total composition) in fenugreek oil. The main oil constituents were linoleic acid (26.1–37.1%), linolenic acid (16.9–22.4%), oleic acid (15.1–21.2%), palmitic acid (11.2–17.1%), lauric acid (5.0–12.3%), and myristic acid (3.1–6.4%). The highest linoleic and oleic acid percentages occurred in 1F:2FG and 2F:4FG with BFS. The 1F:2FG cropping pattern with BFS also had the highest linolenic acid percentage. The fenugreek sole cropping system without fertilization (control) had the lowest content of these three compounds. The intercropping patterns had 17%, 18.2%, and 17.1% higher oleic, linoleic, and linolenic acid contents than fenugreek sole cropping. In addition, HA and BFS increased oleic acid content by 15.6% and 8.8%, linoleic acid content by 12.8% and 7%, and linolenic acid content by 7.5% and 12.9%, respectively. Fenugreek sole cropping without fertilization produced the highest lauric acid and palmitic contents, 29.33% and 22.81% higher than the intercropping patterns (Table 7).Table 7 Proportion of fenugreek oil constituents under different cropping patterns and fertilization.Full size tablePhenolic compoundsThe main phenolic compounds in fenugreek were chlorogenic acid (2.01–5.49 ppm), caffeic acid (2.42–4.93 ppm), quercetin (1.98–4.45 ppm), comaric (1.09–2.43 ppm), apigenin (1.97–2.99 ppm), and gallic acid (1.76–2.92 ppm). The 2F:2FG cropping pattern with HA produced the highest quercetin and gallic acid contents, and 2F:4FG with HA produced the highest chlorogenic and caffeic acid contents. The 2F:2FG and 2F:4FG cropping patterns with BFS produced the highest comaric and apigenin contents, respectively. In contrast, fenugreek sole cropping without fertilization produced the lowest contents of the abovementioned compounds (Table 8).Table 8 Proportion of fenugreek concentration of phenolic compounds under different cropping patterns and fertilization.Full size tableLand equivalent ratio (LER)The 2F:4FG and 2F:2FG intercropping patterns treated with BFS had the highest partial LERs for fennel (0.82) and fenugreek (0.72), respectively. In addition, 2F:2FG with BFS and 1F:2FG without fertilization produced the highest (1.42) and lowest (0.86) total LERs, respectively (Fig. 7).Figure 7Partial and total land equivalent ratio (LER) for seed yields of different fennel and fenugreek intercropping patterns [1F:2FG, 2F:2FG, 2F:4FG (ratios of fennel and fenugreek in the intercropping patterns)] and fertilization [C (Control), HA (humic acid), BFS (biofertilizers)]. Different lower-case letters above the bars indicate significant (p ≤ 0.05) differences.Full size image More

Abbott RJ, Brennan AC (2014) Altitudinal gradients, plant hybrid zones and evolutionary novelty. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 369:6–9Article 

Google Scholar 
Avise JC (2000) Phylogeography: the history and formation of species. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MABook 

Google Scholar 
Baldassarre DT, White TA, Karubian J, Webster MS (2014) Genomic and morphological analysis of a semipermeable avian hybrid zone suggests asymmetrical introgression of a sexual signal. Evolution 68:2644–2657PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Barr KR, Dharmarajan G, Rhodes OE, Lance R, Leberg PL (2007) Novel microsatellite loci for the study of the black-capped vireo (Vireo atricapillus). Mol Ecol Notes 7:1067–1069CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Barton NH, Gale KS (1993) Hybrid zones and the evolutionary process. In: Harrison RG (ed.) Hybrid Zones and the Evolutionary Process. Oxford University Press, New York, NY
Google Scholar 
Barton NH, Hewitt GM (1989) Adaption, speciation and hybrid zones. Nature 341:497–503CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Billerman SM, Murphy MA, Carling MD (2016) Changing climate mediates sapsucker (Aves: Sphyrapicus) hybrid zone movement. Ecol Evol 6:7976–7990PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bell RC, Irian CG (2019) Phenotypic and genetic divergence in reed frogs across a mosaic hybrid zone on São Tomé Island. Biol J Linn Soc 128:672–680Article 

Google Scholar 
Bensch S, Price T, Kohn J (1997) Isolation and characterization of microsatellite loci in a Phylloscopus warbler. Mol Ecol 6:91–92CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bradbury IR, Bowman S, Borza T, Snelgrove PVR, Hutchings JA, Berg PR et al. (2014) Long distance linkage disequilibrium and limited hybridization suggest cryptic speciation in Atlantic cod. PLoS ONE 9:e106330Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Brelsford A, Irwin DE (2009) Incipient speciation despite little assortative mating: the yellow-rumped warbler hybrid zone. Evolution 63:3050–3060PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Burg TM, Croxall JP (2004) Global population structure and taxonomy of the wandering albatross species complex. Mol Ecol 13:2345–2355CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Carling MD, Zuckerberg B (2011) Spatio-temporal changes in the genetic structure of the Passerina bunting hybrid zone. Mol Ecol 20:1166–1175PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Carling MD, Thomassen HA (2012) The role of environmental heterogeneity in maintaining reproductive isolation between hybridizing Passerina (Aves: Cardinalidae) buntings. Int J Ecol 2012:295463Article 

Google Scholar 
Carpenter AM, Graham BA, Spellman GM, Klicka J, Burg TM (2021) Genetic, bioacoustic and morphological analyses reveal cryptic speciation in the warbling vireo complex (Vireo gilvus: Vireonidae: Passeriformes). Zool J Linn Soc zlab036 https://doi.org/10.1093/zoolinnean/zlab036Cicero C, Johnson NK (1998) Molecular phylogeny and ecological diversification in a clade of New World songbirds (genus Vireo). Mol Ecol 7:1359–1370CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Chenuil A, Cahill AE, Délémontey N, Du Salliant du Luc E, Fanton H (2019) Problems and questions posed by cryptic species. A framework to guide future studies. Assessing to conserving biodiversity. History, philosophy and theory of the life sciences, Vol. 24. Springer. Daubenmire, Cham
Google Scholar 
Cheviron ZA, Brumfield RT (2012) Genomic insights into adaptation to high-altitude environments. Heredity 108:354–361CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Coyne JA, Orr HA (2004) Speciation. Sinauer and Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts
Google Scholar 
Culumber ZW, Shepard DB, Colemans SW, Rosenthal GG, Tobler M (2012) Physiological adaptation along environmental gradients and replicated hybrid zone structure in swordtails (Teleostei: Xiphophorus). J Evol Biol 25:1800–1814CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Dubay SG, Witt CC (2014) Differential high-altitude adaptation and restricted gene flow across a mid-elevation hybrid zone in Andean tit-tyrant flycatchers. Mol Ecol 23:3551–3565PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Garroway CJ, Bowman J, Cascaden TJ, Holloway GL, Mahan CG, Malcolm JR et al. (2010) Climate change induced hybridization in flying squirrels. Glob Chang Biol 16:113–121Article 

Google Scholar 
Grabenstein KC, Taylor SA (2018) Breaking barriers: Causes, consequences, and experimental utility of human-mediated hybridization. Trends Ecol Evol 33:198–212PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Graham BA, Cicero C, Strickland D, Woods JG, Coneybeare H, Dohms KM et al. (2021) Cryptic genetic diversity and cytonuclear discordance characterize contact among Canada jay (Perisoreus canadensis) morphotypes in western North America. Biol J Linn Soc 132:725–740Article 

Google Scholar 
Hammer Ø, Harper DA, Ryan PD (2001) Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol Electron 4:9Haselhorst MSH, Parchman TL, Buerkle CA (2019) Genetic evidence for species cohesion, substructure and hybrids in spruce. Mol Ecol 28:2029–2045PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hijmans RJ, Cameron SE, Parra JL, Jones PG, Jarvis A (2005) Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int J Climatol 25:1965–1978Article 

Google Scholar 
Hawley DM (2005) Isolation and characterization of eight microsatellite loci from the house finch (Carpodactus mexicanus). Mol Ecol Notes 5:443–445CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hebert PDN, Stoeckle MY, Zemlak TS, Francis CM (2004) Identification of birds through DNA barcodes. PLoS Biol 2:e312PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hewitt GM (1988) Hybrid zones-natural laboratories for evolutionary studies. Trends Ecol Evol 3:158–167CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hewitt GM (2001) Speciation, hybrid zones and phylogeography—or seeing genes in space and time. Mol Ecol 10:537–549CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hijmans RJ, Cameron SE, Parra JL, Jones PG, Jarvis A (2005) Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int J Climatol 25:1965–1978Article 

Google Scholar 
Hindley JA, Graham BA, Pulgarin-R PC, Burg TM (2018) The influence of latitude, geographic distance, and habitat discontinuities on genetic variation in a high latitude montane species. Sci Rep. 8:11846CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hinojosa JC, Koubínová D, Szenteczki MA, Pitteloud C, Dincă V, Alvarez N et al. (2019) A mirage of cryptic species: Genomics uncover striking mitonuclear discordance in the butterfly Thymelicus sylvestris. Mol Ecol 28:3857–3868PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hubisz MJ, Falush D, Stephens M, Pritchard JK (2009) Inferring weak population structure with the assistance of sample group information. Mol Ecol Res 9:1322–1332Article 

Google Scholar 
Irwin DE (2020) Assortative mating in hybrid zones is remarkably ineffective in promoting speciation. Evolution 195:E150–E167
Google Scholar 
Johnson NK (1995) Speciation in vireos. I. Macrogeographic patterns of allozymic variation in the Vireo solitarius complex in the contiguous United States. Condor 97:903–919Article 

Google Scholar 
Johnson NK, Cicero C (2004) New mitochondrial DNA data affirm the importance of Pleistocene speciation in North American birds. Evolution 58:1122–1130PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Larson EL, Tinghitella RM, Taylor SA (2019) Insect hybridization and climate change. Front Ecol Evol 7:348Article 

Google Scholar 
Legendre P, Fortin M-J (2010) Comparison of the Mantel test and alternative approaches for detecting complex multivariate relationships in the spatial analysis of genetic data. Mol Ecol Resour 10:831–844PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lovell SF, Lein MR, Rogers SM (2021) Cryptic speciation in the warbling vireo (Vireo gilvus). Ornithology 138:ukaa071Article 

Google Scholar 
MacDonald ZG, Dupuis JR, Davis CS, Acorn JH, Nielsen SE, Sperling FAH (2020) Gene flow and climate-associated genetic variation in a vagile habitat specialist. Mol Ecol 29:3889–3906PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Manthey JD, Klicka J, Spellman GM (2011) Cryptic diversity in a widespread North American songbird: phylogeography of the brown creeper (Certhia americana). Mol Phylogenet Evol 58:502–512PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Marchetti K, Price T, Richman A (1995) Correlates of wing morphology with foraging behaviour and migration distance in the genus Phylloscopus. J Av Biol 26:177–181Article 

Google Scholar 
Martin H, Touzet P, Dufay M, Gode C, Schmitt E, Lahiani E et al. (2017) Lineages of Silene nutans developed rapid, strong, asymmetric postzygotic reproductive isolation in allopatry. Evolution 71:1519–1531CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Martinez JG, Soler JJ, Soler M, Moller AP, Burke T (1999) Comparative population structure and gene flow of a brood parasite, the great spotted cuckoo (Clamator glandarius) and its primary host, the magpie (Pica pica). Evolution 53:269–278CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Mettler RD, Spellman GM (2009) A hybrid zone revisited: Molecular and morphological analysis of the maintenance, movement, and evolution of a Great Plains avian (Cardinalidae: Pheucticus) hybrid zone. Mol Ecol 18:3256–3267CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Meirmans PG, Van Tienderen PH (2004) GENOTYPE and GENODIVE: two programs for the analysis of genetic diversity of asexual organisms. Mol Ecol Notes 4:792–794Article 

Google Scholar 
Nowakowski JK, Szulc J, Remisiewicz M (2014) The further the flight, the longer the wing: relationship between wing length and migratory distance in Old World reed and bush warblers (Acrocephalidae and Locustellidae). Ornis Fennica 91:178–186
Google Scholar 
Pavolova A, Amos JN, Joseph L, Loynes K, Austin JJ, Keogh JS et al. (2013) Perched at the mito-nuclear crossroads: divergent mitochondrial lineages correlate with environment in the face of ongoing nuclear gene flow in an Australian bird. Evol 67:3412–3428Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Piertney SB, Marquiss M, Summers R (1998) Characterization of tetranucleotide microsatellite markers in the Scottish crossbill (Loxia scotica). Mol Ecol 7:1261–1263CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Porras-Hurtado L, Ruiz Y, Santos C, Phillips C, Carracedo A, Lareu MV (2013) An overview of STRUCTURE: Applications, parameter settings, and supporting software. Front Genet 4:98PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pritchard J, Stephens M, Donnelly P (2000) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155:945–959CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Reding DM, Castañeda-Rico S, Shirazi S, Hofman CA, Cancellare IA, Lance SL et al. (2021) Mitochondrial genomes of the United States distribution of gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) reveal a major phylogeographic break at the Great Plains suture zone. Front Ecol Evol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.666800.Richardson DS, Jury FL, Dawson DA, Salgueiro P, Komdeur J, Burke T (2003) Fifty Seychelles warbler (Acrocephalus sechellensis) microsatellite loci polymorphic in Sylviidae species and their cross-species amplification in other passerine birds. Mol Ecol 9:2225–2230Article 

Google Scholar 
Riordan EC, Gugger PF, Ortego J, Smith C, Gaddis K, Thompson P et al. (2016) Association of genetic and phenotypic variability with geography and climate in three southern California oaks. Am J Bot 103:73–85PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rush AC, Cannings RJ, Irwin DE (2009) Analysis of multilocus DNA reveals hybridization in a contact zone between Empidonax flycatchers. J Avian Biol 40:614–624Article 

Google Scholar 
Sartor CC, Cushman SA, Wan HY, Kretschmer R, Pereira JA, Bou N et al. (2021) The role of the environment in the spatial dynamics of an extensive hybrid zone between two neotropical cats. J Evol Biol 34:614–627PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Schukman JM, Lira-Noriega A, Townsend Peterson A (2011) Multiscalar ecological characterization of Say’s and eastern phoebes and their zone of contact in the Great Plains. Condor 113:372–384Article 

Google Scholar 
Seehausen O, Takimoto G, Roy D, Jokela J (2008) Speciation reversal and biodiversity dynamics with hybridization in changing environments. Mol Ecol 17:30–44PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Semenchuk GP (1992) The Atlas of Breeding Birds of Alberta. Fed. of Alberta Naturalists, Edmonton, p 243
Google Scholar 
Peakall R, Smouse PE (2012) GenAlEx 6.5: Genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research–an update. Bioinformatics 28:2537–2539CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sorenson MD, Ast JC, Dimcheff DE, Yuri T, Mindell DP (1999) Primers for a PCR-based approach to mitochondrial genome sequencing in birds and other vertebrates. Mol Phylogent Evol 12:105–114CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Spellman GM, Klicka J (2007) Phylogeography of the white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis): diversification in North American pine and oak woodlands. Mol Ecol 16:1729–1740CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Stenzler LM, Fitzpatrick JW (2002) Isolation of microsatellite loci in the Florida scrub jay Aphelocoma coerulescens. Mol Ecol Notes 2:547–550CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Swenson NG (2006) GIS-based niche models reveal unifying climatic mechanisms that maintain location of avian hybrid zones in a North America suture zone. J Evol Biol. 19:717–725CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Swenson NG, Howard DJ (2005) Clustering of contact zones, hybrid zones, and phylogeographic breaks in North America. Am Nat 166:581–591PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tarr CL, Fleischer RC (1998) Primers for polymorphic GT microsatellites isolated from the Mariana crow, Corvus kubaryi. Mol Ecol 7:253–255CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tarroso P, Pereira RJ, Martínez-Freiría F, Godinho R, Brito JC (2014) Hybridization at an ecotone: Ecological and genetic barriers between three Iberian vipers. Mol Ecol 23:1108–1123CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Taylor SA, Larson EL, Harrison RG (2015) Hybrid zones: windows on climate change. Trends Ecol Evol 30:398–406PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Toews DPL, Mandic M, Richards JG, Irwin DE (2014) Migration, mitochondria and the yellow-rumped warbler. Evolution 68:241–255CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Toews DPL, Campagna L, Taylor SA, Balakrishnan CN, Baldassarre DT, Deane-Coe PE et al. (2016) Genomic approaches to understanding population divergence and speciation in birds. Auk 133:13–30Article 

Google Scholar 
Toews DPL, Irwin DE (2008) Cryptic speciation in a Holarctic passerine revealed by genetic and bioacoustic analyses. Mol Ecol 17:2691–2705CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
van Els P, Cicero C, Klicka J (2012) High latitudes and high genetic diversity: Phylogeography of a widespread boreal bird, the gray jay (Perisoreus canadensis). Mol Phylogenet Evol 63:456–465PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Voelker G, Rohwer S (1998) Contrasts in scheduling of molt and migration in eastern and western warbling vireos. Auk 155:142–155Article 

Google Scholar 
Walsh J, Billerman SM, Rohwer VG, Butcher BG, Lovette IJ (2020) Genomic and plumage variation across the controversial Baltimore and Bullock’s oriole hybrid zone. Auk 137:1–15Article 

Google Scholar 
Walsh J, Rowe RJ, Olsen BJ, Shriver WG, Kovach AI (2016) Genotype-environment associations support a mosaic hybrid zone between two tidal marsh birds. Ecol Evol 6:279–294PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Walsh P, Metzger D, Higuchi R (1991) Chelex 100 as a medium for simple extraction of DNA for PCR-based typing from forensic material. Biotechniques 10:506–513CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Weir JT, Schluter D (2004) Ice sheets promote speciation in boreal birds. Proc R Soc B 271:1881–1887PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Williams JW (2003) Variations in tree cover in North America since the last glacial maximum. Glob Planet Change 35:1–23Article 

Google Scholar 
Williams DA, Berg EC, Hale AM, Hughes CR (2004) Characterization of microsatellites for parentage studies of white-throated magpie-jays (Calocitta formosa) and brown jays (Cyanocorax morio). Mol Ecol Notes 4:509–511CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zwartjes PW (2001) Genetic structuring among migratory populations of the black-whiskered vireo, with a comparison to the red-eyed vireo. Condor 103:439–448Article 

Google Scholar  More

Paez-Espino D, Eloe-Fadrosh EA, Pavlopoulos GA, Thomas AD, Huntemann M, Mikhailova N, et al. Uncovering Earth’s virome. Nature. 2016;536:425–30.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Anderson PK, Cunningham AA, Patel NG, Morales FJ, Epstein PR, Daszak P. Emerging infectious diseases of plants: pathogen pollution, climate change and agrotechnology drivers. Trends Ecol Evol. 2004;19:535–44.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Taylor LH, Latham SM, Woolhouse MEJ. Risk factors for human disease emergence. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2001;356:983–9.CAS 

Google Scholar 
White R, Murray S, Rohweder M. Pilot analysis of global ecosystems: grassland ecosystems. 2000 World Resources Institute. Washington, DC.Zhao Y, Liu Z, Wu J. Grassland ecosystem services: a systematic review of research advances and future directions. Landsc Ecol. 2020;35:793–814.
Google Scholar 
Trubl G, Jang HBin, Roux S, Emerson JB, Solonenko N, Vik DR, et al. Soil viruses are underexplored players in ecosystem carbon processing. mSystems. 2018;3:e00076–18.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Emerson JB, Roux S, Brum JR, Bolduc B, Woodcroft BJ, Jang HBin, et al. Host-linked soil viral ecology along a permafrost thaw gradient. Nat Microbiol. 2018;3:870–80.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Zablocki O, Adriaenssens EM, Frossard A, Seely M, Ramond J-B, Cowan D. Metaviromes of extracellular soil viruses along a Namib desert aridity gradient. Genome Announc. 2017;5:e01470–16.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Jin M, Guo X, Zhang R, Qu W, Gao B, Zeng R. Diversities and potential biogeochemical impacts of mangrove soil viruses. Microbiome. 2019;7:58.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Adriaenssens EM, Kramer R, Van Goethem MW, Makhalanyane TP, Hogg I, Cowan DA. Environmental drivers of viral community composition in Antarctic soils identified by viromics. Microbiome. 2017;5:83.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Williamson KE, Fuhrmann JJ, Wommack KE, Radosevich M. Viruses in soil ecosystems: an unknown quantity within an unexplored territory. Annu Rev Virol. 2017;4:201–19.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Starr EP, Nuccio EE, Pett-Ridge J, Banfield JF, Firestone MK. Metatranscriptomic reconstruction reveals RNA viruses with the potential to shape carbon cycling in soil. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2019;116:25900–8.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wu R, Davison MR, Gao Y, Nicora CD, Mcdermott JE, Burnum-Johnson KE, et al. Moisture modulates soil reservoirs of active DNA and RNA viruses. Commun Biol. 2021;4:1–11.
Google Scholar 
Hurwitz BL, Sullivan MB. The Pacific Ocean Virome (POV): a marine viral metagenomic dataset and associated protein clusters for quantitative viral ecology. PLoS One. 2013;8:e57355.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Breitbart M, Bonnain C, Malki K, Sawaya NA. Phage puppet masters of the marine microbial realm. Nat Microbiol. 2018;3:754–66.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wolf YI, Kazlauskas D, Iranzo J, Lucía-Sanz A, Kuhn JH, Krupovic M, et al. Origins and evolution of the Global RNA virome. MBio. 2018;9:e02329–18.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Shi M, Lin XD, Tian JH, Chen LJ, Chen X, Li CX, et al. Redefining the invertebrate RNA virosphere. Nature. 2016;540:539–43.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Callanan J, Stockdale SR, Shkoporov A, Draper LA, Ross RP, Hill C. Expansion of known ssRNA phage genomes: from tens to over a thousand. Sci Adv. 2020;6:eaay5981.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Koonin EV, Dolja VV, Krupovic M, Varsani A, Wolf YI, Yutin N, et al. Global organization and proposed megataxonomy of the virus world. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2020;84:e00061-19.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Cobbin JC, Charon J, Harvey E, Holmes EC, Mahar JE. Current challenges to virus discovery by meta-transcriptomics. Curr Opin Virol. 2021;51:48–55.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Trubl G, Hyman P, Roux S, Abedon ST. Coming-of-age characterization of soil viruses: a user’s guide to virus isolation, detection within metagenomes, and viromics. Soil Syst. 2020;4:1–34. MDPI AG.
Google Scholar 
Santos-Medellin C, Zinke LA, ter Horst AM, Gelardi DL, Parikh SJ, Emerson JB. Viromes outperform total metagenomes in revealing the spatiotemporal patterns of agricultural soil viral communities. ISME J. 2021;15:1–15.
Google Scholar 
Adriaenssens EM, Farkas K, Harrison C, Jones DL, Allison HE, McCarthy AJ. Viromic analysis of wastewater input to a river catchment reveals a diverse assemblage of RNA viruses. mSystems. 2018;3:e00025–18.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bibby K, Peccia J. Identification of viral pathogen diversity in sewage sludge by metagenome analysis. Environ Sci Technol. 2013;47:1945–51.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Culley A. New insight into the RNA aquatic virosphere via viromics. Virus Res. 2018;244:84–89.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Withers E, Hill PW, Chadwick DR, Jones DL. Use of untargeted metabolomics for assessing soil quality and microbial function. Soil Biol Biochem. 2020;143:107758.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Trubl G, Solonenko N, Chittick L, Solonenko SA, Rich VI, Sullivan MB. Optimization of viral resuspension methods for carbon-rich soils along a permafrost thaw gradient. PeerJ. 2016;4:e1999.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Martin M. Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet. J. 2011;17:10.
Google Scholar 
Joshi N, Fass J. Sickle: a sliding-window, adaptive, quality-based trimming tool for FastQ files. 2011.Schmieder R, Edwards R. Quality control and preprocessing of metagenomic datasets. Bioinformatics. 2011;27:863–4.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kopylova E, Noé L, Touzet H. SortMeRNA: fast and accurate filtering of ribosomal RNAs in metatranscriptomic data. Bioinformatics. 2012;28:3211–7.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Li D, Liu C-M, Luo R, Sadakane K, Lam T-W. MEGAHIT: an ultra-fast single-node solution for large and complex metagenomics assembly via succinct de Bruijn graph. Bioinformatics. 2015;31:1674–6.CAS 
PubMed 

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

Google Scholar 
Huson DH, Beier S, Flade I, Górska A, El-Hadidi M, Mitra S. et al.MEGAN Community Edition – interactive exploration and analysis of large-scale microbiome sequencing data.PLOS Comput Biol. 2016;12:e1004957PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hyatt D, Chen GL, LoCascio PF, Land ML, Larimer FW, Hauser LJ. Prodigal: prokaryotic gene recognition and translation initiation site identification. BMC Bioinform. 2010;11:119.
Google Scholar 
Mistry J, Finn RD, Eddy SR, Bateman A, Punta M. Challenges in homology search: HMMER3 and convergent evolution of coiled-coil regions. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41:e121–e121.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Li W, Godzik A. Cd-hit: a fast program for clustering and comparing large sets of protein or nucleotide sequences. Bioinformatics. 2006;22:1658–9.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Roux S, Adriaenssens EM, Dutilh BE, Koonin EV, Kropinski AM, Krupovic M, et al. Minimum information about an uncultivated virus genome (MIUViG). Nat Biotechnol. 2018;37:29–37.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Germain P-L, Vitriolo A, Adamo A, Laise P, Das V, Testa G. RNAontheBENCH: computational and empirical resources for benchmarking RNAseq quantification and differential expression methods. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44:5054–67.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Friendly M, Kindt R, Legendre P, McGlinn D, et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. 2019.Wickham H. ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. 2016. Springer-Verlag New York.Conway JR, Lex A, Gehlenborg N. UpSetR: an R package for the visualization of intersecting sets and their properties. Bioinformatics. 2017;33:2938–40.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Katoh K. MAFFT: a novel method for rapid multiple sequence alignment based on fast Fourier transform. Nucleic Acids Res. 2002;30:3059–66.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Price MN, Dehal PS, Arkin AP. FastTree 2 – approximately maximum-likelihood trees for large alignments. PLoS One. 2010;5:e9490.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Letunic I, Bork P. Interactive Tree Of Life (iTOL) v4: recent updates and new developments. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47:W256–W259.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Roux S, Emerson JB, Eloe-Fadrosh EA, Sullivan MB. Benchmarking viromics: an in silico evaluation of metagenome-enabled estimates of viral community composition and diversity. PeerJ. 2017;5:e3817.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ayllón MA, Turina M, Xie J, Nerva L, Marzano SYL, Donaire L, et al. ICTV virus taxonomy profile: botourmiaviridae. J Gen Virol. 2020;101:454–5.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Krishnamurthy SR, Janowski AB, Zhao G, Barouch D, Wang D. Hyperexpansion of RNA bacteriophage diversity. PLOS Biol. 2016;14:e1002409.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hillman BI, Cai G. The family Narnaviridae. Simplest of RNA viruses. Adv Virus Res. 2013;86:149–76.
Google Scholar 
Obbard DJ, Shi M, Roberts KE, Longdon B, Dennis AB. A new lineage of segmented RNA viruses infecting animals. Virus Evol. 2020;6:61.
Google Scholar 
Xu X, Bei J, Xuan Y, Chen J, Chen D, Barker SC, et al. Full-length genome sequence of segmented RNA virus from ticks was obtained using small RNA sequencing data. BMC Genom. 2020;21:1–8.
Google Scholar 
Roossinck MJ. The good viruses: viral mutualistic symbioses. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2011;9:99–108. Nature Publishing Group.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Milgroom MG, Cortesi P. Biological control of chestnut blight with hypovirulence: a critical analysis. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2004;42:311–38. Annual ReviewsCAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Zell R, Delwart E, Gorbalenya AE, Hovi T, King AMQ, Knowles NJ, et al. ICTV virus taxonomy profile: Picornaviridae. J Gen Virol. 2017;98:2421–2.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Valles SM, Chen Y, Firth AE, Guérin DMA, Hashimoto Y, Herrero S, et al. ICTV virus taxonomy profile: Dicistroviridae. J Gen Virol. 2017;98:355–6.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Barrios E. Soil biota, ecosystem services and land productivity. Ecol Econ. 2007;64:269–85.
Google Scholar 
Vainio EJ, Chiba S, Ghabrial SA, Maiss E, Roossinck M, Sabanadzovic S, et al. ICTV virus taxonomy profile: Partitiviridae. J Gen Virol. 2018;99:17–18.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Yong CY, Yeap SK, Omar AR, Tan WS. Advances in the study of nodavirus. PeerJ. 2017;2017:e3841.
Google Scholar 
Schmitt AP, Lamb RA. Escaping from the cell: assembly and budding of negative-strand RNA viruses. In: Kawaoka Y (ed). Biology of negative-strand RNA viruses: the power of reverse genetics. 2004. (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 145–96.Käfer S, Paraskevopoulou S, Zirkel F, Wieseke N, Donath A, Petersen M, et al. Re-assessing the diversity of negative-strand RNA viruses in insects. PLoS Pathog. 2019;15:e1008224.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bejerman N, Debat H, Dietzgen, RG. The plant negative-sense RNA virosphere: virus discovery through new eyes. Front. Microbiol. 2020;11:588427.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wolf YI, Silas S, Wang Y, Wu S, Bocek M, Kazlauskas D, et al. Doubling of the known set of RNA viruses by metagenomic analysis of an aquatic virome. Nat Microbiol. 2020;5:1262–70.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Adriaenssens EM, Kramer R, van Goethem MW, Makhalanyane TP, Hogg I, Cowan DA. Environmental drivers of viral community composition in Antarctic soils identified by viromics. Microbiome. 2017;5:1–14.
Google Scholar 
Mahmoud H, Jose L. Phage and nucleocytoplasmic large viral sequences dominate coral viromes from the Arabian Gulf. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:2063.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Koyama A, Steinweg JM, Haddix ML, Dukes JS, Wallenstein MD. Soil bacterial community responses to altered precipitation and temperature regimes in an old field grassland are mediated by plants. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2018;94:fix156.
Google Scholar 
Hurwitz BL, Hallam SJ, Sullivan MB. Metabolic reprogramming by viruses in the sunlit and dark ocean. Genome Biol. 2013;14:R123.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar  More

Seymour, C. L. et al. Caught on camera: The impacts of urban domestic cats on wild prey in an African city and neighbouring protected areas. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 23, e01198 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mori, E. et al. License to Kill? Domestic Cats Affect a Wide Range of Native Fauna in a Highly Biodiverse Mediterranean Country. Front. Ecol. Evol. 7, 477 (2019).Kays, R. et al. The small home ranges and large local ecological impacts of pet cats. Anim. Conserv. 23, 516–523 (2020).Loss, S. R., Will, T. & Marra, P. P. The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States. Nat. Commun. 4, 1396 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Van Heezik, Y., Smyth, A., Adams, A. & Gordon, J. Do domestic cats impose an unsustain386 able harvest on urban bird populations?. Biol. Conserv. 143, 121–130 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Woods, M., McDonald, R. A. & Harris, S. Predation of wildlife by domestic cats Felis catus in Great Britain. Mammal Rev. 33, 174–188 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, Y. et al. Estimates of wildlife killed by free-ranging cats in China. Biol. Conserv. 253, 108929 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Barratt, D. G. Home range size, habitat utilisation and movement patterns of suburban and farm cats Felis catus. Ecography 20, 271–280 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
Moseby, K. E., Stott, J. & Crisp, H. Movement patterns of feral predators in an arid environment–implications for control through poison baiting. English. Wildl. Res. 36, 422–435 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hall, C. M. et al. Factors determining the home ranges of pet cats: A meta-analysis. Biol. Conserv. 203, 313–320 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Castañeda, I. et al. Trophic patterns and home-range size of two generalist urban carnivores: A review. J. Zool. 307, 79–92 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hebblewhite, M. & Haydon, D. T. Distinguishing technology from biology: A critical review of the use of GPS telemetry data in ecology. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 365, 2303–2312 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Allen, A. M. et al. Scaling up movements: From individual space use to population patterns. Ecosphere 7, e01524 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Trouwborst, A., McCormack, P. C. & Martínez Camacho, E. Domestic cats and their impacts on biodiversity: A blind spot in the application of nature conservation law. People Nat. 2, 235–250 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sims, V., Evans, K. L., Newson, S. E., Tratalos, J. A. & Gaston, K. J. Avian assemblage structure and domestic cat densities in urban environments. Divers. Distrib. 14, 387–399 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lepczyk, C. A., Mertig, A. G. & Liu, J. Landowners and cat predation across rural-to-urban landscapes. Biol. Conserv. 115, 191–201 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing R Foundation for Statistical Computing (Vienna, Austria, 2021).Heggøy, O. & Shimmings, P. Huskattens predasjon på fugler i Norge. En vurdering basert på en litteraturgjennomgang tech. rep. 36 (2018).Morgan, S. et al. Urban cat (Felis catus) movement and predation activity associated with a wetland reserve in New Zealand. Wildl. Res. 36, 574–580 (2009).Calver, M., Grayson, J., Lilith, M. & Dickman, C. Applying the precautionary principle to the issue of impacts by pet cats on urban wildlife. Biol. Conserv. 144, 1895–1901 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Crowley, S., Cecchetti, M. & Mcdonald, R. Diverse perspectives of cat owners indicate bar riers to and opportunities for managing cat predation of wildlife. Front. Ecol. Environ. 18, 544–549 (2020).Treves, A., Krofel, M., Ohrens, O. & van Eeden, L. M. Predator control needs a standard of unbiased randomized experiments with cross-over design. Front. Ecol. Evol. 7, 462 (2019).Ferreira, G. A., Machado, J. C., Nakano-Oliveira, E., Andriolo, A. & Genaro, G. The effect of castration on home range size and activity patterns of domestic cats living in a natural area in a protected area on a Brazilian island. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 230, 105049 (2020).Bengsen, A. J. et al. Feral cat home-range size varies predictably with landscape productivity and population density. J. Zool. 298, 112–120 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
López-Jara, M. J. et al. Free-roaming domestic cats near conservation areas in Chile: Spatial movements, human care and risks for wildlife. Perspect. Ecol. Conserv. 19, 387–398 (2021).Gillies, C. & Clout, M. The prey of domestic cats (Felis catus) in two suburbs of Auckland City, New Zealand. J. Zool. 259, 309–315 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pirie, T. J., Thomas, R. L. & Fellowes, M. D. E. Pet cats (Felis catus) from urban boundaries use different habitats, have larger home ranges and kill more prey than cats from the suburbs. Landsc. Urban Plan. 220, 104338 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vucetich, J. A., Hebblewhite, M., Smith, D. W. & Peterson, R. O. Predicting prey population dynamics from kill rate, predation rate and predator-prey ratios in three wolf-ungulate systems. J. Anim. Ecol. 80, 1236–1245 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kennedy, M., Phillips, B. E. N. L., Legge, S., Murphy, S. A. & Faulkner, R. A. Do dingoes suppress the activity of feral cats in northern Australia?. Austral Ecol. 37, 134–139 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Crooks, K. R. & Soule, M. E. Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a fragmented system. English. Nature 400, 563–566 (1999).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ferreira, J. P., Leita, O. I., Santos-Reis, M. & Revilla, E. Human-related factors regulate the spatial ecology of domestic cats in sensitive areas for conservation. PLOS ONE 6, e25970 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Brook, L. A., Johnson, C. N. & Ritchie, E. G. Effects of predator control on behaviour of an apex predator and indirect consequences for mesopredator suppression. J. Appl. Ecol. 49, 1278–1286 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Laundre, J. W., Hernandez, L. & Altendorf, K. B. Wolves, elk, and bison: Reestablishing the “landscape of fear’’ in Yellowstone National Park, USA. English. Can. J. Zool. 79, 1401–1409 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ritchie, E. G. & Johnson, C. N. Predator interactions, mesopredator release and biodiversity conservation. English. Ecol. Lett. 12, 9820–998 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Milleret, C. et al. GPS collars have an apparent positive effect on the survival of a large carnivore. Biol. Lett. 17, 20210128 (2021).Cecchetti, M., Crowley, S. L., Goodwin, C. E. D. & McDonald, R. A. Provision of high meat content food and object play reduce predation of wild animals by domestic cats Felis catus. Curr. Biol. 31, 1107-1111.e5 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Linklater, W., Farnworth, M., van Heezik, Y., Stafford, K. & Macdonald, E. Prioritizing cat owner behaviors for a campaign to reduce wildlife depredation. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 1, 1:e29 (2019).Selinske, M. J. et al. Identifying and prioritizing human behaviors that benefit biodiversity. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2, e249 (2020).
Google Scholar 
McDonald, J. L., Maclean, M., Evans, M. R. & Hodgson, D. J. Reconciling actual and perceived rates of predation by domestic cats. Ecol. Evol. 5, 2745–2753 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bischof, R. et al. Estimating and forecasting spatial population dynamics of apex predators using transnational genetic monitoring. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 117, 30531–30538 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bischof, R., Gjevestad, J. G. O., Ordiz, A., Eldegard, K. & Milleret, C. High frequency GPS bursts and path-level analysis reveal linear feature tracking by red foxes. Sci. Rep. 9, 8849 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gupte, P. R. et al. A guide to pre-processing high-throughput animal tracking data. J. Anim. Ecol. 91, 287–307 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Morris, G. & Conner, L. Assessment of accuracy, fix success rate, and use of estimated horizontal position error (EHPE) to filter inaccurate data collected by a common commercially available GPS logger. PLoS ONE 12, e0189020 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Clapp, J. G., Holbrook, J. D. & Thompson, D. J. GPSeqClus: An R package for sequential clustering of animal location data for model building, model application and field site investigations. Methods Ecol. Evol. 12, 787–793 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nielson, M., R., Sawyer, H. & McDonald, T. L. BBMM: Brownian Bridge Movement Model R Package Version 3.0 (2013).Horne, J. S., Garton, E. O., Krone, S. M. & Lewis, J. S. Analyzing animal movements using Brownian bridges. Ecology 88, 2354–2363 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sawyer, H., Kauffman, M. J., Nielson, R. M. & Horne, J. S. Identifying and prioritizing ungulate migration routes for landscape-level conservation. Ecol. Appl. 19, 2016–2025 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fischer, J. W., Walter, W. D. & Avery, M. L. Brownian bridge movement models to characterize birds’ home ranges. Condor 115, 298–305 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Seidler, R., Long, R., Berger, J., Bergen, S. & Beckmann, J. Identifying impediments to long-distance mammal migrations. Conserv. Biol. 29 (2014).Collins, G. Seasonal distribution and routes of pronghorn in the Northern Great Basin. West. N. Am. Nat. 76, 101–112 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Phylogenetic analysis with multiple markersThe final alignment of 5670 bp length contained 843 variable sites (14.7%). Missing data accounted for 53.5% of the alignment cells and the relative GC content was 39.5%. Our phylogeny suggests that the investigated Holarctic taxa of the niger clade sensu Ref.34 are divided into two major clades with strong statistical support (Fig. 1). The first major clade (L. niger group) consists exclusively of Palearctic species (L. niger, L. platythorax, L. japonicus, L. emarginatus, L. balearicus, L. grandis, L. cinereus, the L. alienus-complex, L. sakagamii, L. productus and L. hayashi), with the exception of an unnamed Nearctic subclade recovered as sister to the rest of the group. This unnamed subclade we describe as a new species below (L. ponderosae sp. nov.). Lasius ponderosae sp. nov. corresponds to what was previously known as the Nearctic form of “L. niger” sensu ref.17, but includes some western Nearctic populations formerly assigned to “L. alienus”17,52 as well. Monophyly of L. ponderosae sp. nov. was fully supported by Bayesian inference (pp = 1) and moderately supported by maximum likelihood (66% bootstrap support, Fig. 1). Lasius ponderosae sp. nov. is distantly related to L. niger; and L.niger is a close relative of L. japonicus and L. platythorax, as well as other Palearctic taxa. The second major clade (L. brunneus group) within the investigated Holarctic members of the L. niger clade contains both Nearctic and Palearctic species not closely related to the taxa of interest (Fig. 1).Figure 1Molecular phylogeny of 26 Holarctic ant taxa belonging to the subgenus Lasius sensu Wilson (1955) and two outgroup taxa (L. pallitarsis and L. mixtus). The phylogeny was calculated under the coalescent model and incorporates data from 9 genes (mtDNA: COI, COII, 16S, nuDNA: Defensin, H3, LR, Wg, Top1 & 28S). Names of species native to the Nearctic are shown in red and those of species native to the Palearctic in blue. Node labels show posterior probability (Bayesian inference) followed by bootstrap support (Maximum likelihood). The scale bar indicates the length of 0.01 substitutions/site.Full size imageDNA-barcodingThe native North American species L. ponderosae sp. nov. contains at least 15 COI-mitotypes (n = 28 sequenced specimens) belonging to four distinct deep lineages, with divergences of up to 5.9%. Haplotype diversity was 0.899 and nucleotide diversity was 0.012. None of the mitotypes of this species was found to be widespread or particularly abundant. In striking contrast, low genetic diversity was found in L. niger across its entire distribution (Fig. 2). No more than 7 different COI-mitotypes were detected in samples from distant localities representing most of the known range (n = 70 specimens from 12 countries), from Spain in the West to the Siberian Baikal-region in the East (Fig. 2). Their maximum pairwise divergence was only 0.6%, with a haplotype diversity of 0.682 and a nucleotide diversity below 0.001. One mitotype of L. niger is highly dominant within the native range, occurring from Western Europe to Central Siberia (mitotype h2 in Fig. 2).Figure 2Mitotype tree and distribution maps for 98 DNA-barcodes belonging to 7 mitotypes of the ant Lasius niger (blue, n = 70) and 15 mitotypes of L. ponderosae sp. nov. (red, n = 28). The red dashed line delimits the expected natural range of L. ponderosae sp. nov.53 Maps have been created using the free R-package “ggmap” v3.0.0 (https://github.com/dkahle/ggmap) in R v4.1.1. Map tiles by Stamen Design, under CC BY 3.0.Full size imageRecent Palearctic L. niger introduction to CanadaPalearctic Lasius niger was introduced to several localities in coastal Canada in recent times, where at least 11 populations were found in two metropolitan areas (Vancouver and Halifax areas, see Table S2 for details). Those populations consist of the most dominant Palearctic mitotype of L. niger (h2). However, in 3 localities in the Vancouver area, 3 specimens with a second mitotype were found (mitotype h4, Fig. 2, Table S2) in syntopy with those carrying the most common mitotype h2. This second Canadian COI-mitotype (h4) was not found among our samples from the Old World, although it only differs by a single nucleotide substitution from mitotypes found there. A review of BOLD data revealed that the Canadian barcoded specimens of L. niger were mostly collected in anthropogenic habitats such as schoolyards (Supplementary Table S2).Description of Lasius ponderosae sp. novLasius ponderosae Schär, Talavera, Rana, Espadaler, Cover, Shattuck and Vila. ZooBank LSID: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:22E2743A-2F1C-4870-B318-A1F2DF2B464C Etymology: ponderosae alludes to the ponderosa pine tree (Pinus ponderosa) that is at the centre of occurrence in the ponderosa pine—gambel oak communities in the western Rocky Mountains and northern Arizona.Type material: located at the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, USA. Two paratype workers each will be deposited at the collections of University of California Davis (UCDC), the University of Utah (JTLC) and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM).Holotype: worker, Fig. 3a–c. Type locality: USA, Utah: Uintah Co., Uintah Mtns., 2408 m. 18.6 mi N. Jct. Rt. 40 on Rt. 191, 40.66378°N, − 109.47918°E, leg. 15.VII.2013, S. P. Cover; J. D. Rana, collection code SPC 8571. Measurements [mm]: HL: 0.899, HW: 0.823, SL: 0.821, EL: 0.239, EW: 0.189, ProW: 0.56, ML: 1.069, HTL: 0.863, CI: 92, SI: 100.Figure 3Frontal, lateral and dorsal view of the holotype worker (a–c), a paratype gyne (d–f) and a paratype male of Lasius ponderosae sp. nov. (g–i).Full size imageParatypes: 15 workers, two gynes (Fig. 3d–f), two males (Fig. 3g–i) from the same series as the holotype, morphometric data is given in the Appendix, Table S5 and Table S6. CO1 mitotype h17: Genbank Accession no. LT977508.Description of the worker caste: A member of a complex of cryptic species resembling L. niger. Intermediate in overall body size, antennal scape length and eye size and comparable to related species (Table 1). Terminal segment of maxillary palps and torulo-clypeal distance relative to head size shorter than in related Palearctic species (Table 1). Mandibles with 8 or rarely 7 or 9 regular denticles and lacking offset teeth at their basal angle. Penultimate and terminal basal mandibular teeth of subequal size, and the gap in between with subequal area than the basal tooth. Anterior margin of clypeus evenly rounded. Dorsofrontal profile of pronotum slightly angular (Fig. 4a). Propodeal dome short and flat, usually lower than mesonotum (Fig. 4a). Body with abundant and long pilosity, especially lateral propodeum, genae, hind margin and underside of head. Pilosity of tibiae and antennal scapes variable, ranging from almost no setae (“L. alienus”-like phenotype) to very hairy (“L. niger”-like phenotype). Microscopic pubescent hairs on forehead between frontal carinae long and fine. Clypeus typically with only few scattered pubescent hairs (Figs. 3, 4c). Coloration of body dark brown, occasionally yellowish- or reddish-brown or slightly bicolored with head and thorax lighter than abdomen. Femora and antennal scapes brown. Mandibles and distal parts of legs yellowish to dark brown. Specimens of all 3 castes are shown in Fig. 3a–i and morphometric data are summarized in Table 1 and raw measurements are available in Table S5 and S6.Table 1 Morphometric data of Lasius ponderosae sp. nov. and comparison to morphologically similar Palearctic species.Full size tableFigure 4Average thorax profile of Lasius ponderosae sp. nov. (a) and members of the Palearctic L. niger-complex (b). Figures were created by image averaging (L. ponderosae sp. nov n = 35; Palearctic L. niger-complex n = 30 specimens). Frontal view of head and detail of clypeus of the Holotype worker of L. ponderosae sp. nov. (c) and a non-type worker of L. niger (d).Full size imageDiagnosis: Lasius ponderosae sp. nov. workers key out to “L. niger” using Wilson’s 1955 key to the Nearctic Lasius species. However, some populations with reduced pilosity may also be identified as “L. alienus” using this key. Lasius alienus is a Eurasian species not known from North America33. The Nearctic “L. alienus” sensu Wilson (1955) includes both, L. americanus as well as populations of L. ponderosae sp. nov. with sparse setae counts on tibia and/or scapes. Lasius ponderosae sp. nov. can be distinguished from L. americanus by the presence of abundant, long setae surpassing the sides of the head in full face view (nGen  > 5 and nOcc  > 10 vs. nGen  0.8 across models and runs). The strongest predictors were: Annual Mean Temperature (mean variable importance = 0.32), Mean Temperature of Coldest Quarter (0.23), Temperature Annual Range (0.23) and Temperature Seasonality (0.24). The contribution of land cover was low (0.02). The model predicted high probabilities of occurrence of L. niger in the eastern United States and southeastern Canada, including the island of Newfoundland, and small areas of suitable habitat in southwestern Canada and the Aleutians (Fig. 6). The area with high predicted occurrence probability of L. niger in the New World includes the two sites where populations have actually established (which were not used in the modeling): Nova Scotia and Vancouver. Further areas with high occurrence probabilities are New England, Southern Ontario, the Great Lakes-region and the Northern Appalachians. Low occurrence probabilities were found for the central North American prairies as well as arctic, boreal, arid, subtropical and tropical regions (Fig. 6). Considering the highest occurrence probability range (0.8–1 on a 0–1 probability scale), the area of suitable habitats for L. niger is 4,547,537 km2 in Europe and 1,308,920 km2 in North America. For an intermediate to high occurrence probability range (0.5–1) we estimated 5,371,055 km2 in Europe and 3,054,283 km2 in North America, and for the widest probability range (0.2–1) we estimated 6,155,643 km2 of suitable areas in Europe and 6,889,745 km2 in North America (Fig. 6).Figure 6Projected occurrence probability from ecological niche modeling for the Palearctic ant Lasius niger which has been introduced to Canada, based on 19 climatic and one land use variable. The intensity of blue colour indicates the probability of occurrence on a 0–1 scale based on 180 presences (black circles) and 182 absences (white circles) in the native range in the Old World (a). The model was then projected to North America to estimate areas of suitable habitat for this introduced species (b). These maps have been created using the free R-package “ggplot2” v3.3.5 (https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org) in R v4.1.1.Full size image More

McFall-Ngai M, Hadfield MG, Bosch TCG, Carey HV, Domazet-Lošo T, Douglas AE, et al. Animals in a bacterial world, a new imperative for the life sciences. PNAS. 2013;s110:3229–36. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1218525110.Article 

Google Scholar 
Davenport ER, Sanders JG, Song SJ, Amato KR, Clark AG, Knight R. The human microbiome in evolution. BMC Biol. 2017;15:127 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12915-017-0454-7.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Mazel F, Davis KM, Loudon A, Kwong WK, Groussin M, Parfrey LW. Is host filtering the main driver of phylosymbiosis across the Tree of Life? mSystems. 2018;3:e00097–18. https://doi.org/10.1128/mSystems.00097-18.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kohl KD. Ecological and evolutionary mechanisms underlying patterns of phylosymbiosis in host-associated microbial communities. Phil Trans R Soc B. 2020;375:20190251 https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0251.CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Greyson-Gaito CJ, Bartley TJ, Cottenie K, Jarvis WMC, Newman AEM, Stothart MR. Into the wild: microbiome transplant studies need broader ecological reality. Proc Royal Soc B. 2020;287:20192834 https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.2834.Article 

Google Scholar 
Brooks AW, Kohl KD, Brucker RM, van Opstal EJ, Bordenstein SR. Phylosymbiosis: relationships and functional effects of microbial communities across host evolutionary history. PLOS Biol. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2000225.Delsuc F, Metcalf JL, Parfrey LW, Song SJ, González A, Knight R. Convergence of gut microbiomes in myrmecophagus mammals. Mol Ecol. 2014;23:1301–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.12501.CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Song SJ, Sanders JG, Delsuc F, Metcalf J, Amato K, Taylor MW, et al. Comparative analyses of vertebrate gut microbiomes reveal convergence between birds and bats. mBio. 2020;11:e02901–19. https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.02901-19.CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bodawatta KH, Hird SM, Grond K, Poulsen M, Jønsson KA. Avian gut microbiomes taking flight. Trends Microbiol. 2021;30:268–0. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2021.07.003.CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Egerton S, Culloty S, Whooley J, Stanton C, Ross RP. The gut microbiota of marine fish. Front Microbiol. 2018; 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.00873.Mallott EK, Amato KR. Host specificity of the gut microbiome. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2021;19:639–653. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-021-00562-3.CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ley RE, Hamady M, Lozupone C, Turnbaugh P, Ramey RR, Bircher S, et al. Evolution of mammals and their gut microbes. Science. 2008;320:1647–51. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1155725.CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Gogarten JF, Davies TJ, Benjamino J, Gogarten JP, Graf J, Mielke A, et al. Factors influencing bacterial microbiome composition in a wild non-human primate community in Tai National Park, Côte d’Ivoire. ISME J. 2018;12:2559–74. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-018-0166-1.CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Perofsky AC, Lewis RJ, Meyers LA. Terrestriality and bacterial transfer: a comparative study of GMs in sympatric Malagasy mammals. ISME. 2019;13:50–63. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-018025-5.Article 

Google Scholar 
Amato KR, Mallott EK, McDonald D, Dominy NJ, Goldberg T, Lambert LE, et al. Convergence of human and old world monkey gut microbiomes demonstrate the importance of human ecology over phylogeny. Genome Biol. 2019;20:201 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-019-1807-z.CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Gomez A, Sharma AK, Mallott EK, Petrzelkova KJ, Robinson CAJ, Yeoman CJ, et al. Plasticity in the human gut microbiome defies evolutionary constraints. mSphere. 2019;4:e00271–19. https://doi.org/10.1128/mSphere.00271-19.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hale VL, Tan CL, Niu K, Yang Y, Knight R, Zhang Q, et al. Diet versus phylogeny: a comparison of gut microbiota in captive colobine monkey species. Microb Ecol. 2018;75:515–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-017-1041-8.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ochman H, Worobey M, Kuo CH, Ndjando JBN, Peeters M, Hahn BH, et al. Evolutionary relationships of wild hominids recapitulated by gut microbial communities. PLOS Biol. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000546.McKenney EA, Maslanka M, Rodrigo A, Yoder AD. Bamboo specialists from two mammalian orders (Primates, Carnivora) share a high number of low-abundance gut microbes. Microb Ecol. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-017-1114-8.Amato KR, Sanders J, Song SJ, Nute M, Metcalf JL, Thompson LR, et al. Evolutionary trends in host physiology outweigh dietary niche in structuring primate gut microbiomes. ISME J. 2019;13:576–87. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-018-0175-0.CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bornbusch SL, Greene LK, McKenney EA, Volkoff SJ, Midani FS, Joseph G, et al. A comparative study of gut microbiomes in captive nocturnal strepsirrhines. Am J Primatol. 2019;81:e22986 https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.22986.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Greene LK, Bornbusch SL, McKenney EA, Harris RL, Gorvetzian SR, Yoder AD, et al. The importance of scale in comparative microbiome research: new insights from the gut and glands of captive and wild lemurs. Am J Primatol. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.22974.Yoder AD, Nowak MD. Has vicariance or dispersal been the predominant biogeographic force in Madagascar? Only time will tell. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2006;37:405–31. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.37.091305.110239.Article 

Google Scholar 
Horvath JE, Weisrock DW, Embry SL, Fiorentino I, Balhodd JP, Kappeler P, et al. Development and application of a phylogenomic toolkit: resolving the evolutionary history of Madagascar’s lemurs. Genome Res. 2008;18:489–99. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.7265208.CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Herrera JP, Dávalos LM. Phylogeny and divergence times of lemurs inferred with recent and ancient fossils in the tree. Syst Biol. 2016;65:772–91. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syw035.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Herrera JP. Testing the adaptive radiation hypothesis for the lemurs of Madagascar. R Soc Open Sci. 2017;4:161014 https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.161014.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Herrera JP. Convergent evolution in lemur environmental niches. J Biogeogr. 2019;47:795–806. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.13741.Article 

Google Scholar 
Wright PC. Lemur traits and Madagascar ecology: coping with an island environment. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1999;110:31–72. 10.1002/(SICI)1096-8644(1999)110:29+3.0.CO;2-0.Article 

Google Scholar 
Greene LK, McKenney EA, O’Connell TM, Drea CM. The critical role of dietary foliage in maintaining the gut microbiome and metabolome of folivorous sifakas. Sci Rep. 2018;8:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-32759-7.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Greene LK, Clayton JB, Rothman RS, Semel BP, Semel M, Gillespie TR, et al. Local habitat, not phylogenetic relatedness, predicts gut microbiota better within folivorous than frugivorous lemur lineages. Biol Lett. 2019;15:20190028 https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2019.0028.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
McKenney EA, O’Connell TM, Rodrigo A, Yoder AD. Feeding strategy shapes gut metagenomic enrichment and functional specialization in captive lemurs. Gut Microbes. 2018;9:202–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/19490976.2017.1408762.CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bennett G, Malone M, Sauther ML, Cuozzo FP, White B, Nelson KE, et al. Host age, social group, and habitat type influence the gut microbiota of wild ring-tailed lemurs (Lemur catta). Am J Primatol. 2016;78:883–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.22555.CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
de Winter I, Umanets A, Ijdema F, Ramiro-Garcia J, van Hooft P, Heitkönig IMA, et al. Occupancy strongly influences faecal microbial composition of wild lemurs. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2018;94:fiy017 https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiy017.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Donohue ME, Absanga AE, Ralainirina J, Weisrock DW, Stumpf RM, Wright PC. Extensive variability in the gut microbiome of a highly-specialized and critically endangered lemur species across sites. Am J Primatol. 2019;81:e23046 https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.23046.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Fogel AT. The gut microbiome of wild lemurs: a comparison of sympatric Lemur catta and Propithecus verreauxi. Folia Primatol. 2015;86:85–95. https://doi.org/10.1159/000369971.Article 

Google Scholar 
de Winter, Umanets A, Gort G, Nieuwland H, van Hooft P, Heitkönig IMA, et al. Effects of seasonality and previous logging on faecal helminth-microbiota associations in wild lemurs. Sci Rep. 2020;10:16818 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-73827-1.CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Rowe AK, Donohue ME, Clare EL, Drinkwater R, Koenig A, Ridgway ZM, et al. Exploratory analysis reveals arthropod consumption in 10 lemur species using DNA metabarcoding. Am J Primatol. 2021;83:e23256 https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.23256.CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kozich JJ, Westcott SL, Baxter NT, Highlander SK, Schloss PD. Development of a dual-index sequencing strategy and curation pipeline for analyzing amplicon sequence data on the MiSeq Illumina sequencing platform. AEM. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01043-13.Callahan BJ, McMurdie PJ, Rosen MJ, Han AW, Johnson AJA, Holmes SP. DADA2: high resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat Methods. 2016;13:581–3. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3869.CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bolyen E, Rideout JR, Dillon MR, Bokulich NA, Abnet C, Al-Ghalith GA, et al. QIIME2: reproducible, interactive, scalable, and extensive microbiome data science. Nat Biotechnol. 2018;6:e27295v2 https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.27295v2.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. Nucl Acids Res. 2013;41:D590–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gks1219.CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Karstens L, Asquith M, Davin S, Fair D, Gregory WT, Wolfe AJ, et al. Controlling for contaminants in low-biomass 16S rRNA gene sequencing experiments. mSystems. 2019;4:e00290–19. https://doi.org/10.1128/mSystems.00290-19.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Lozupone CA, Knight R. Species divergence and the measurement of microbial diversity. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2008;32:557–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6976.2008.00111.x.CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Sanders JG, Powell S, Kronauer DJC, Vasconcelos HL, Frederickson ME, Pierce NE. Stability and phylogenetic correlation in gut microbiota: lessons from ants and apes. Mol Ecol. 2014;23:1268–83. 10.111/mec.12611.Article 

Google Scholar 
McMurdie PJ, Holmes S. phyloseq: an R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PLOS One. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0061217.Paliy O, Shankar V. Application of multivariate statistical techniques in microbial ecology. Mol Ecol. 2016;25:1032–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13536.CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wickham H. ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer-Verlag New York. 2016.Paradis E, Schliep K. ape 5.0: an environment for modern phylogenetics and evolutionary analyses in R. Bioinformatics. 2019;35:526–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bty633.CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Revell LJ. phytools: an R package for phylogenetic comparative biology (and other things). Methods Ecol Evol. 2012;3:217–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2011.00169.x.Article 

Google Scholar 
Robinson DF, Foulds LR. Comparison of phylogenetic trees. Math Biosci. 1981;53:131–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/0025-5564(81)90043-2.Article 

Google Scholar 
Schliep KP. phangorn: phylogenetic analysis in R. Bioinformatics. 2011;27:592–3. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btq706.CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Jombart T, Balloux F, Dray S. adephylo: new tools for investigating the phylogenetic signal in biological traits. Bioinformatics. 2010;26:1907–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btq292.CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin PR, O’Hara R, et al. Package “Vegan”. Community Ecology Package. 2016. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan.Easson CG, Thacker RW. Phylogenetic signal in the community structure of host-specific microbiomes of tropical marine sponges. Front Microbiol. 2014;5:532 https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2014.00532.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Blomberg SP, Garland T, Ives AR. Testing for phylogenetic signal in comparative data: behavioral traits are more labile. Evolution. 2007;57:717–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.00143820.2003.tb00285.x.Article 

Google Scholar 
Pagel M. Detecting correlated evolution on phylogenies: a general method for the comparative analysis of discrete characters. Proc Royal Soc B. 1994;255:37–45. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1994.0006.Article 

Google Scholar 
Harmon LJ, Weird JT, Brock CD, Glor RE, Challenger W. GEIGER: investigating evolutionary radiations. Bioinformatics. 2007;24:129–31. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btm538.CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Phillips SJ, Anderson RP, Dudík M, Schapire RE, Blair ME. Opening the black box: an open-source release of Maxent. Ecography. 2017;40:887–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.03049.Article 

Google Scholar 
Hijmans RJ, Cameron SE, Parra JL, Jones PG, Jarvis A. Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int J Climatol. 2005;25:1965–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1276.Article 

Google Scholar 
Orme D, Freckleton R, Thomas G, Petzoldt T, Fritz S, Isaac N, et al. CAPER: comparative analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R. 2012. http://cran.r-project.org/package=caper.Groussin M, Mazel F, Sanders JG, Smillie CS, Lavergne S, Thuiller W, et al. Unraveling the processes shaping mammalian GMs over evolutionary time. Nat Commun. 2017;8:14319 https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14319.CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Knowles SCL, Eccles RM, Baltrūnaitė L. Species identity dominates over environment in shaping the microbiota of small mammals. Ecol Lett. 2019;22:826–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13240.CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kohl KD, Varner J, Wilkening JL, Dearing MD. Gut microbial communities of American pikas (Ochotona princeps): evidence for phylosymbiosis and adaptations to novel diets. J Anim Ecol. 2018a;87:323–330. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12692.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kohl KD, Dearing MD, Bordenstein SR. Microbial communities exhibit host species distinguishability and phylosymbiosis along the length of the gastrointestinal tract. Mol Ecol. 2018;27:1874–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.14460.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Weinstein SB, Martínez-Mota R, Stapleton TE, Klure DM, Greeenhalgh R, Orr TJ, et al. Microbiome stability and structure is governed by host phylogeny over diet and geography in woodrats (Neotoma spp.). PNAS. 118:e2108787118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2108787118.Grond K, Bell KC, Demboski JR, Santos M, Sullivan JM, Hird SM. No evidence for phylosymbiosis in western chipmunk species. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2020;96:fiz182 https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiz182.CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Perofsky AC, Lewis RJ, Adondano LA, Di Fiore A, Meyers LA. Hierarchical social networks shape gut microbial composition in wild Verreaux’s sifaka. Proc R Soc B. 2017;284:20172274 https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.2274.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Raulo A, Ruokolainen L, Lane A, Amato K, Knight R, Leigh S, et al. Social behavior and gut microbiota in red-bellied lemurs (Eulemur rubriventer): in search of the role of immunity in the evolution of sociality. J Anim Ecol. 2017;87:388–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12781.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Overdorff DJ. Similarities, differences, and seasonal patterns in the diets of Eulemur rubriventer and Eulemur fulvus rufus in the Ranomafana National Park, Madagascar. Int J Primatol. 1993;14:721–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02192188.Article 

Google Scholar 
Johnson SE. Ecology and speciation in brown lemurs: white-collared lemur (Eulemur albocollaris) and hybrids (Eulemur albocollaris x Eulemur fulvus rufus) in southeastern Madagascar. 2002. PhD Dissertation. The University of Texas at Austin.Wyner YM, Johnson SE, Stumpf RM, DeSalle R. Genetic assessment of a white-collared x red-fronted lemur hybrid zone at Andringitra, Madagascar. Am J Primatol. 2002;67:51–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.10033.Article 

Google Scholar 
Hladik CM, Charles-Dominique P, Petter JJ. Feeding strategies of five nocturnal prosimians in the dry forest of the west coast of Madagascar. In: Charles-Dominique P, Cooper HM, Hladik A, Pages E, Pariente GF, Petter-Rousseaux A, Schilling A (eds). Nocturnal Malagasy primates: ecology, physiology, and behavior. Academic Press, New York, NY. 1980. pp 41-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-169350-3.50007-1.Perelman P, Johnson WE, Roos C, Seuánez HN, Horvath JE, Moreira MAM, et al. A molecular phylogeny of living primates. PLOS Genet. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1001342. More

The coefficient of variation of phytoplankton ((CV_P)) varies with the changes in environmental factors, namely, light, temperature and salinity and many more. The focus of our discussion will be on the variation of (CV_P) of phytoplankton.Case 1: (CV_P < 1) Measured (CV_P) values are 0.32, 0.37, 0.78 at the depth of 10 m, 50 m, 50 m of Region 3, Region 4 and Region 2 respectively. From Fig. 1c, we observe that for Region 3, concentrated mean of phytoplankton has escalated over a larger domain along the horizontal axis, while spread of phytoplankton is comparatively very low and constant for all times, whereas for Region 2 and Region 4 (Fig. 1,b,e), spread of phytoplankton is comparatively high, but, quantity of concentrated biomass is higher at Region 4 than Region 2, which is also supported by higher phytoplankton productivity at Region 4 than Region 2.Nature of spread of phytoplankton is obtained from the dynamics of normalized variance x of phytoplankton, which depends on (beta). At a fixed depth, x increases with increasing (beta) (Fig. 5b). For all regions where (CV_P1). Therefore, spread x remains comparatively low (Fig. 7b), whereas (p_0) is close to 1 (Fig. 7a), which causes (CV_P) to be less than 1 (Fig. 7c) at this zone.From above discussion we observe that when (varepsilon) belongs to (0.035, 0.1) and due to this range of (varepsilon), domain of (beta) reduces for a location, then (CV_P) remains less than 1 at that zone. These domains of (varepsilon , beta) are determined from nature of phytoplankton productivity at a location during the period of observation and nature of the spread of dominating class. It has been observed that in case of Region 3, during early summer season (May), the existing phytoplankton communities are Skeletonema Costatum, Navicula species and Pyraminonas Grossii36, for Region 4, the existing phytoplankton communities in Sep are diatom Skeletonema Costatum, Dinoflagellates, Raphidophytes and others35, whereas for Region 2, the existing classes in May are diatom Skeletonema Costatum, Raphidophytes and others35. But, for all three regions during corresponding time periods, most of the phytoplankton biomass is dominated by the diatom class, Skeletonema Costatum35,36. Spread of this phytoplankton class has a peculiar nature, which is influenced by its measure of stickiness (alpha), where (alpha in (0,,0.98))43. Now, during the period of observation, since the dominating class Skeletonema Costatum coexists with some other phytoplankton classes at all three regions, therefore range of its measure of stickiness (alpha) should belong to (0.02, 0.25) for these regions and depending on (alpha), scatteredness of Skeletonema Costatum has varied for these zones, that is, when (alpha) is high, scatteredness of Skeletonema Costatum reduces and when (alpha) is low, this scatteredness increases. In field observation, we have seen that, at Region 3, scatteredness of Skeletonema Costatum is very low in May 2011, whereas for Region 4 and Region 2, it is slightly higher in Sep 2007 and May 2011. For all three zones, (alpha) belongs to ((0.02,,0.25)) but its value has varied differently for each zone. If we consider (alpha) to be high for Region 3 in May 2011, then Skeletonema Costatum will be more sticky for that zone during that time period which will hinder the scatteredness. If we assume (alpha) to be slightly high for Region 2, Region 4 for corresponding time periods, then Skeletonema Costatum will be less sticky than Region 3 and scatteredness will be slightly higher for these zones by that time.In the model, spread due to scatteredness is controlled by low (beta) value. Therefore, ecologically it might be considered that during early summer at Region 3, (alpha) value was close to 0.25, which has caused Skeletonema Costatum to remain more sticky at that zone, as a result, spread was very low which represents low (beta) value. Similar ecological assumptions can be drawn in case of Region 2, Region 4, but the only difference is probably, for these two zones in summer and early spring season respectively, (alpha) was slightly low than Region 3. As a result, the dominating class Skeletonema Costatum was less sticky than Region 3 and spread due to scatteredness was slightly higher than Region 3 (Fig. S4b). Hence, differences in the nature of total biomass of a system, nature of productivity and finally nature of stickiness of dominating phytoplankton species cause high irregularity in phytoplankton distribution and produce low (CV_P) values for Region 2, Region 3 (Fig. 7c, Fig. S4c) and Region 4 (Fig. 8c, Fig. S4c). Case 2: (CV_P > 1)
In case of Region 4, at the depth of 50 m, (CV_P) remains 1.61 and 1.36 in Dec 2006 and Feb 2008 respectively. In Dec 2006, Feb 2008, due to very low productivity, range of (varepsilon) remains (0.35, 1.0) at Region 4, which generates larger domain of (beta) (considering total biomass and half saturation constant remain the same at Region 4 during both time periods Dec 2006 and Feb 2008). Since total biomass A is conserved, large value of (beta) indicates larger value of B, which ecologically implies spread of all fluctuating components of nutrient and phytoplankton remains higher. Therefore, in Dec 2006 and Feb 2008, spread of phytoplankton remains higher, whereas due to very low productivity, most of the total biomass A is dominated by nutrient biomass (n_0) and phytoplankton biomass (p_0) remains very low, that is, (p_0 More