Ecology

Barnosky, A. D. et al. Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature 471, 51–57 (2011).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P. R. & Dirzo, R. Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, E6089–E6096 (2017).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Cowie, R. H., Bouchet, P. & Fontaine, B. The Sixth Mass Extinction: fact, fiction or speculation? Biol. Rev. 97, 640–663 (2022).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Dirzo, R. et al. Defaunation in the anthropocene. Science 345, 401–406 (2014).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ceballos, G. et al. Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: entering the sixth mass extinction. Sci. Adv. 1, e1400253 (2015).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Pimm, S. L. et al. The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science 344, 1246752 (2014).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

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

Google Scholar 
Pincheira-Donoso, D. et al. Temporal and spatial patterns of vertebrate extinctions during the Anthropocene. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.05.490605 (2022).Brook, B. W., Sodhi, N. S. & Bradshaw, C. J. A. Synergies among extinction drivers under global change. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23, 453–460 (2008).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pacifici, M. et al. Assessing species vulnerability to climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 215–224 (2015).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Thomas, C. D. et al. Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427, 145–148 (2004).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Warren, R. et al. Quantifying the benefit of early climate change mitigation in avoiding biodiversity loss. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 678–682 (2013).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Román-Palacios, C. & Wiens, J. J. Recent responses to climate change reveal the drivers of species extinction and survival. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 4211–4217 (2020).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Gaston, K. J., Jackson, S. F., Cantú-Salazar, L. & Cruz-Piñón, G. The ecological performance of protected areas. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 39, 93–113 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Saout, S. L. et al. Protected areas and effective biodiversity conservation. Science 342, 803–805 (2013).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Watson, J. E. M., Dudley, N., Segan, D. B. & Hockings, M. The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature 515, 67–73 (2014).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Araújo, M. B., Alagador, D., Cabeza, M., Noguésbravo, D. & Thuiller, W. Climate change threatens European conservation areas. Ecol. Lett. 14, 484–492 (2011).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Chen, Y., Zhang, J., Jiang, J., Nielsen, S. & He, F. Assessing the effectiveness of China’s protected areas to conserve current and future amphibian diversity. Divers. Distrib. 23, 146–157 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jenkins, C. N. & Joppa, L. Expansion of the global terrestrial protected area system. Biol. Conserv. 142, 2166–2174 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Johnston, A. et al. Observed and predicted effects of climate change on species abundance in protected areas. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 1055–1061 (2013).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Lehikoinen, P., Santangeli, A., Jaatinen, K., Rajasärkkä, A. & Lehikoinen, A. Protected areas act as a buffer against detrimental effects of climate change-evidence from large-scale, long-term abundance data. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 304–313 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Coetzee, B. W. T., Robertson, M. P., Erasmus, B. F. N., Rensburg, B. J. V. & Thuiller, W. Ensemble models predict Important Bird Areas in southern Africa will become less effective for conserving endemic birds under climate change. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 18, 701–710 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Araújo, M. B., Cabeza, M., Thuiller, W., Hannah, L. & Williams, P. H. Would climate change drive species out of reserves? An assessment of existing reserve‐selection methods. Glob. Change Biol. 10, 1618–1626 (2004).Article 
ADS 

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

Google Scholar 
Monzn, J., Moyer-Horner, L. & Palamar, M. B. Climate change and species range dynamics in protected areas. Bioscience 61, 752–761 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Newbold, T., Oppenheimer, P., Etard, A. & Williams, J. J. Tropical and Mediterranean biodiversity is disproportionately sensitive to land-use and climate change. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1630–1638 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Liu, X. et al. Animal invaders threaten protected areas worldwide. Nat. Commun. 11, 2892 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Carlson, C. J. et al. Climate change increases cross-species viral transmission risk. Nature 607, 555–562 (2022).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Mi, C., Huettmann, F. & Guo, Y. Climate envelope predictions indicate an enlarged suitable wintering distribution for Great Bustards (Otis tarda dybowskii) in China for the 21st century. Peerj 4, e1630–e1630 (2016).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Guisan, A. et al. Predicting species distributions for conservation decisions. Ecol. Lett. 16, 1424–1435 (2013).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Zhu, G., Papeş, M., Giam, X., Cho, S.-H. & Armsworth, P. R. Are protected areas well-sited to support species in the future in a major climate refuge and corridor in the United States? Biol. Conserv. 255, 108982 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gutiérrez, J. A. & Duivenvoorden, J. F. Can we expect to protect threatened species in protected areas? A case study of the genus Pinus in Mexico. Rev. Mexicana Biodivers. 81, 875–882 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Velásquez-Tibatá, J., Salaman, P. & Graham, C. H. Effects of climate change on species distribution, community structure, and conservation of birds in protected areas in Colombia. Reg. Environ. Change 13, 235–248 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Riquelme, C. et al. Protected areas’ effectiveness under climate change: a latitudinal distribution projection of an endangered mountain ungulate along the Andes Range. Peerj 6, e5222 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bazzichetto, M. et al. Plant invasion risk: a quest for invasive species distribution modelling in managing protected areas. Ecol. Indic. 95, 311–319 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hannah, L. et al. Protected area needs in a changing climate. Front. Ecol. Environ. 5, 131–138 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cox, N. et al. A global reptile assessment highlights shared conservation needs of tetrapods. Nature 695, 285–290 (2022).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
IUCN. The IUCN red list of threatened species. http://www.iucnredlist.org/ (2021).Wake, D. B. & Vredenburg, V. T. Are we in the midst of the sixth mass extinction? A view from the world of amphibians. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 11466–11473 (2008).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Cordier, J. M. et al. A global assessment of amphibian and reptile responses to land-use changes. Biol. Conserv. 253, 108863 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Powers, R. P. & Jetz, W. Global habitat loss and extinction risk of terrestrial vertebrates under future land-use-change scenarios. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 323–329 (2019).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Pounds, J. A. et al. Widespread amphibian extinctions from epidemic disease driven by global warming. Nature 439, 161–167 (2006).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Scheele, B. C. et al. Amphibian fungal panzootic causes catastrophic and ongoing loss of biodiversity. Science 363, 1459–1463 (2019).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Blaustein, A. R. & Kiesecker, J. M. Complexity in conservation: lessons from the global decline of amphibian populations. Ecol. Lett. 5, 597–608 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kraus, F. Impacts from invasive reptiles and amphibians. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 46, 75–97 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Alford, R. A., Bradfield, K. S. & Richards, S. J. Global warming and amphibian losses. Nature 447, E3–E4 (2007).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hof, C., Araújo, M. B., Jetz, W. & Rahbek, C. Additive threats from pathogens, climate and land-use change for global amphibian diversity. Nature 480, 516–519 (2011).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Rohr, J. R. & Raffel, T. R. Linking global climate and temperature variability to widespread amphibian declines putatively caused by disease. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 8269–8274 (2008).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Pincheira‐Donoso, D. et al. The global macroecology of brood size in amphibians reveals a predisposition of low‐fecundity species to extinction. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 30, 1299–1310 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Smith, M. A. & Green, D. M. Dispersal and the metapopulation paradigm in amphibian ecology and conservation: are all amphibian populations metapopulations? Ecography 28, 110–128 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Borzée, A. et al. Climate change-based models predict range shifts in the distribution of the only Asian plethodontid salamander: Karsenia koreana. Sci. Rep. 9, 11838 (2019).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Heller, N. E. & Zavaleta, E. S. Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: a review of 22 years of recommendations. Biol. Conserv. 142, 14–32 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Haight, J. & Hammill, E. Protected areas as potential refugia for biodiversity under climatic change. Biol. Conserv. 241, 108258 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thomas, C. D. et al. Protected areas facilitate species’ range expansions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 14063–14068 (2012).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Lawson, C. R., Bennie, J. J., Thomas, C. D., Hodgson, J. A. & Wilson, R. J. Active management of protected areas enhances metapopulation expansion under climate change. Conserv. Lett. 7, 111–118 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Beale, C. M., Baker, N. E., Brewer, M. J. & Lennon, J. J. Protected area networks and savannah bird biodiversity in the face of climate change and land degradation. Ecol. Lett. 16, 1061–1068 (2013).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
D’Amen, M. et al. Will climate change reduce the efficacy of protected areas for amphibian conservation in Italy? Biol. Conserv. 144, 989–997 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Singh, M. Evaluating the impact of future climate and forest cover change on the ability of Southeast (SE) Asia’s protected areas to provide coverage to the habitats of threatened avian species. Ecol. Indic. 114, 106307 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hole, D. G. et al. Projected impacts of climate change on a continent‐wide protected area network. Ecol. Lett. 12, 420–431 (2009).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lehikoinen, P. et al. Increasing protected area coverage mitigates climate-driven community changes. Biol. Conserv. 253, 108892 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Araújo, M. B., Thuiller, W. & Pearson, R. G. Climate warming and the decline of amphibians and reptiles in Europe. J. Biogeogr. 33, 1712–1728 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Girardello, M., Griggio, M., Whittingham, M. J. & Rushton, S. P. Models of climate associations and distributions of amphibians in Italy. Ecol. Res. 25, 103–111 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
McMenamin, S. K., Hadly, E. A. & Wright, C. K. Climatic change and wetland desiccation cause amphibian decline in Yellowstone National Park. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 16988–16993 (2008).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ficetola, G. F. & Maiorano, L. Contrasting effects of temperature and precipitation change on amphibian phenology, abundance and performance. Oecologia 181, 683–693 (2016).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bickford, D., Howard, S. D., Ng, D. J. J. & Sheridan, J. A. Impacts of climate change on the amphibians and reptiles of Southeast Asia. Biodivers. Conserv. 19, 1043–1062 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Manne, L. L., Brooks, T. M. & Pimm, S. L. Relative risk of extinction of passerine birds on continents and islands. Nature 399, 258–261 (1999).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jenkins, C. N., Pimm, S. L. & Joppa, L. N. Global patterns of terrestrial vertebrate diversity and conservation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, E2602–E2610 (2013).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Pearson, R. G. et al. Life history and spatial traits predict extinction risk due to climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 217–221 (2014).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Wauchope, H. S. et al. Protected areas have a mixed impact on waterbirds, but management helps. Nature 605, 103–107 (2022).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
WWF. Tropical and Subtropical Moist Broadleaf Forest Ecoregions (World Wide Fund for Nature, 2019).Rodrigues, A. S. L. et al. Global gap analysis: priority regions for expanding the global protected-area network. Bioscience 54, 1092–1100 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hidasi‐Neto, J., Loyola, R. & Cianciaruso, M. V. Global and local evolutionary and ecological distinctiveness of terrestrial mammals: identifying priorities across scales. Divers. Distrib. 21, 548–559 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Martin, J.-L., Maris, V. & Simberloff, D. S. The need to respect nature and its limits challenges society and conservation science. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 6105–6112 (2016).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Czech, B., Krausman, P. & Devers, P. Economic associations among causes of species endangerment in the United States. Bioscience 50, 593–601 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
CBD. First draft of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/abb5/591f/2e46096d3f0330b08ce87a45/wg2020-03-03-en.pdf (2021).Roll, U. et al. The global distribution of tetrapods reveals a need for targeted reptile conservation. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1677–1682 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ficetola, G. F. et al. An evaluation of the robustness of global amphibian range maps. J. Biogeogr. 41, 211–221 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Aiello‐Lammens, M. E., Boria, R. A., Radosavljevic, A., Vilela, B. & Anderson, R. P. spThin: an R package for spatial thinning of species occurrence records for use in ecological niche models. Ecography 38, 541–545 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Erfanian, M. B., Sagharyan, M., Memariani, F. & Ejtehadi, H. Predicting range shifts of three endangered endemic plants of the Khorassan-Kopet Dagh floristic province under global change. Sci. Rep. 11, 9159 (2021).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Brown, J. L., Cameron, A., Yoder, A. D. & Vences, M. A necessarily complex model to explain the biogeography of the amphibians and reptiles of Madagascar. Nat. Commun. 5, 5046 (2014).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gaston, K. J. Rarity as double jeopardy. Nature 394, 229–230 (1998).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

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

Google Scholar 
Li, X., Liu, X., Kraus, F., Tingley, R. & Li, Y. Risk of biological invasions is concentrated in biodiversity hotspots. Front. Ecol. Environ. 14, 411–417 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Naimi, B., Hamm, N. A. S., Groen, T. A., Skidmore, A. K. & Toxopeus, A. G. Where is positional uncertainty a problem for species distribution modelling? Ecography 37, 191–203 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Xin, X., Wu, T. & Zhang, J. Introduction of CMIP5 experiments carried out with the climate system models of beijing climate center. Adv. Clim. Change Res. 4, 41–49 (2013).Article 

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

Google Scholar 
Watanabe, S. et al. MIROC-ESM 2010: model description and basic results of CMIP5-20c3m experiments. Geosci. Model Dev. 4, 845–872 (2011).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Mi, C. et al. Temperate and tropical lizards are vulnerable to climate warming due to increased water loss and heat stress. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 289, 20221074 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Naimi, B. & Araújo, M. B. sdm: a reproducible and extensible R platform for species distribution modelling. Ecography 39, 368–375 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Holt, B. G. et al. An update of Wallace’s zoogeographic regions of the world. Science 339, 74–78 (2013).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

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

Google Scholar 
Andrade, A. F. A., de, Velazco, S. J. E. & Júnior, P. D. M. ENMTML: an R package for a straightforward construction of complex ecological niche models. Environ. Modell. Softw. 125, 104615 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Senay, S. D., Worner, S. P. & Ikeda, T. Novel three-step pseudo-absence selection technique for improved species distribution modelling. PLos ONE 8, e71218 (2013).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Thuiller, W. BIOMOD–optimizing predictions of species distributions and projecting potential future shifts under global change. Glob. Change Biol. 9, 1353–1362 (2003).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Williams, J. N. et al. Using species distribution models to predict new occurrences for rare plants. Divers. Distrib. 15, 565–576 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Graham, C. H. et al. The influence of spatial errors in species occurrence data used in distribution models. J. Appl. Ecol. 45, 239–247 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Elith, J. et al. Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data. Ecography 29, 129–151 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mi, C., Huettmann, F., Guo, Y., Han, X. & Wen, L. Why choose Random Forest to predict rare species distribution with few samples in large undersampled areas? Three Asian crane species models provide supporting evidence. Peerj 5, e2849 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Drake, J. M., Randin, C. & Guisan, A. Modelling ecological niches with support vector machines. J. Appl. Ecol. 43, 424–432 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Allouche, O., Tsoar, A. & Kadmon, R. Assessing the accuracy of species distribution models: prevalence, kappa and the true skill statistic (TSS). J. Appl. Ecol. 43, 1223–1232 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
McPherson, J., Jetz, W. & Rogers, D. J. The effects of species’ range sizes on the accuracy of distribution models: ecological phenomenon or statistical artefact? J. Appl. Ecol. 41, 811–823 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, B. et al. Australian wheat production expected to decrease by the late 21st century. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 2403–2415 (2017).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Gallardo, B. et al. Protected areas offer refuge from invasive species spreading under climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 5331–5343 (2017).Article 
ADS 

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

Google Scholar 
UNEP-WCMC, I. and. The world database on protected areas (WDPA). https://www.protectedplanet.net/en#4_43.25_111_0 (2014).Asamoah, E. F., Beaumont, L. J. & Maina, J. M. Climate and land-use changes reduce the benefits of terrestrial protected areas. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 1105–1110 (2021).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Brennan, A. et al. Functional connectivity of the world’s protected areas. Science 376, 1101–1104 (2022).You, Z. et al. Pitfall of big databases. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 201813323 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nelson, A. & Chomitz, K. M. Effectiveness of strict vs. multiple use protected areas in reducing tropical forest fires: a global analysis using matching methods. PLoS ONE 6, e22722 (2011).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Albuquerque, F. & Beier, P. Rarity-weighted richness: a simple and reliable alternative to integer programming and heuristic algorithms for minimum set and maximum coverage problems in conservation planning. PLoS ONE 10, e0119905 (2015).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Tang, C. Q. et al. Identifying long-term stable refugia for relict plant species in East Asia. Nat. Commun. 9, 4488 (2018).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kier, G. & Barthlott, W. Measuring and mapping endemism and species richness: a new methodological approach and its application on the flora of Africa. Biodivers. Conserv 10, 1513–1529 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Albuquerque, F. & Gregory, A. The geography of hotspots of rarity-weighted richness of birds and their coverage by Natura 2000. PLoS ONE 12, e0174179 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Jennings, M. D. Gap analysis: concepts, methods, and recent results. Landsc. Ecol. 15, 5–20 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Romero‐Muñoz, A. et al. Increasing synergistic effects of habitat destruction and hunting on mammals over three decades in the Gran Chaco. Ecography 43, 954–966 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brooks, T. M. et al. Global biodiversity conservation priorities. Science 313, 58–61 (2006).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar  More

Ellis, E. C. et al. People have shaped most of terrestrial nature for at least 12,000 years. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2023483118 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Williams, B. A. et al. Change in terrestrial human footprint drives continued loss of intact ecosystems. One Earth 3, 371–382 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kuipers, K. J. J. et al. Habitat fragmentation amplifies threats from habitat loss to mammal diversity across the world’s terrestrial ecoregions. One Earth 4, 1505–1513 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Venter, O. et al. Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation. Nat. Commun. 7, 12558 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Watson, J. E. M. & Venter, O. Mapping the continuum of humanity’s footprint on land. One Earth 1, 175–180 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Foley, J. A. et al. Global consequences of land use. Science 309, 570–574 (2005).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Glidden, C. K. et al. Human-mediated impacts on biodiversity and the consequences for zoonotic disease spillover. Curr. Biol. 31, R1342–R1361 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Grobbelaar, A. A. et al. Resurgence of yellow fever in Angola, 2015-2016. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 22, 1854–1855 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gubler, D. J. Epidemic dengue/dengue hemorrhagic fever as a public health, social and economic problem in the 21st century. Trends Microbiol. 10, 100–103 (2002).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hotez, P. J. Neglected tropical diseases in the Anthropocene: the cases of Zika, Ebola, and other infections. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 10, e0004648 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Paixão, E. S., Teixeira, M. G. & Rodrigues, L. C. Zika, chikungunya and dengue: the causes and threats of new and re-emerging arboviral diseases. BMJ Glob. Health 3, e000530 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rosenberg, R. et al. Vital signs: trends in reported vectorborne disease cases – United States and territories, 2004-2016. Morb. Mortal. Wk. Rep. 67, 496–501 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
World Malaria Report 2020: 20 Years of Global Progress and Challenges (WHO, 2020); https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/337660Lambin, E. F., Tran, A., Vanwambeke, S. O., Linard, C. & Soti, V. Pathogenic landscapes: interactions between land, people, disease vectors, and their animal hosts. Int. J. Health Geogr. 9, 54 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shocket, M. S. et al. Transmission of West Nile and five other temperate mosquito-borne viruses peaks at temperatures between 23 °C and 26 °C. eLife 9, e58511 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kilpatrick, A. M. & Randolph, S. E. Drivers, dynamics, and control of emerging vector-borne zoonotic diseases. Lancet 380, 1946–1955 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Franklinos, L. H. V., Jones, K. E., Redding, D. W. & Abubakar, I. The effect of global change on mosquito-borne disease. Lancet Infect. Dis. 19, e302–e312 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Keys, P. W., Barnes, E. A. & Carter, N. H. A machine-learning approach to human footprint index estimation with applications to sustainable development. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 044061 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Venter, O. et al. Global terrestrial human footprint maps for 1993 and 2009. Sci. Data 3, 160067 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Di Marco, M., Ferrier, S., Harwood, T. D., Hoskins, A. J. & Watson, J. E. M. Wilderness areas halve the extinction risk of terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 573, 582–585 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hill, J. E., DeVault, T. L., Wang, G. & Belant, J. L. Anthropogenic mortality in mammals increases with the human footprint. Front. Ecol. Environ. 18, 13–18 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Elsen, P. R., Monahan, W. B. & Merenlender, A. M. Topography and human pressure in mountain ranges alter expected species responses to climate change. Nat. Commun. 11, 1974 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Su, J., Yin, H. & Kong, F. Ecological networks in response to climate change and the human footprint in the Yangtze River Delta urban agglomeration, China. Landsc. Ecol. 36, 2095–2112 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hansen, A. J. et al. A policy-driven framework for conserving the best of Earth’s remaining moist tropical forests. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1377–1384 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dos Santos, C. V. B., da Paixão Sevá, A., Werneck, G. L. & Struchiner, C. J. Does deforestation drive visceral leishmaniasis transmission? A causal analysis. Proc. R. Soc. B 288, 20211537 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
MacDonald, A. J. & Mordecai, E. A. Amazon deforestation drives malaria transmission, and malaria burden reduces forest clearing. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 116, 22212–22218 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Honório, N. A. et al. Dispersal of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) in an urban endemic dengue area in the State of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz 98, 191–198 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rodrigues, N. B. et al. Brazilian Aedes aegypti as a competent vector for multiple complex arboviral coinfections. J. Infect. Dis. 224, 101–108 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Weinstein, J. S., Leslie, T. F. & von Fricken, M. E. Spatial associations between land use and infectious disease: Zika virus in Colombia. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17, E1127 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Heukelbach, J., Alencar, C. H., Kelvin, A. A., de Oliveira, W. K. & Pamplona de Góes Cavalcanti, L. Zika virus outbreak in Brazil. J. Infect. Dev. Countr. 10, 116–120 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lowe, R. et al. The Zika virus epidemic in Brazil: from discovery to future implications. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 15, E96 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Alves, M. C. G. P., de Matos, M. R., de Lourdes Reichmann, M. & Dominguez, M. H. Estimation of the dog and cat population in the State of São Paulo. Rev. Saude Publica 39, 891–897 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mordecai, E. A. et al. Thermal biology of mosquito-borne disease. Ecol. Lett. 22, 1690–1708 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gage, K. L., Burkot, T. R., Eisen, R. J. & Hayes, E. B. Climate and vectorborne diseases. Am. J. Prev. Med. 35, 436–450 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Doenças e Agravos de Notificação – 2007 em Diante (SINAN) (DATASUS, Ministério da Saúde do Brasil, 2021); https://datasus.saude.gov.br/acesso-a-informacao/doencas-e-agravos-de-notificacao-de-2007-em-diante-sinan/SIVEP – MALÁRIA Notificação de Casos (Ministério da Saúde do Brasil, 2021); http://200.214.130.44/sivep_malaria/R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020); https://www.R-project.org/Sorichetta, A. et al. High-resolution gridded population datasets for Latin America and the Caribbean in 2010, 2015, and 2020. Sci. Data 2, 150045 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Harris, I., Osborn, T. J., Jones, P. & Lister, D. Version 4 of the CRU TS monthly high-resolution gridded multivariate climate dataset. Sci. Data 7, 109 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Souza at. al. Reconstructing three decades of land use and land cover changes in Brazilian biomes with Landsat archive and Earth Engine. Remote Sens. 12, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12172735 (2020).Fountain-Jones, N. M. et al. How to make more from exposure data? An integrated machine learning pipeline to predict pathogen exposure. J. Anim. Ecol. 88, 1447–1461 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Breiman, L. Random forests. Mach. Learn. 45, 5–32 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Genuer, R., Poggi, J.-M. & Tuleau-Malot, C. Variable selection using random forests. Pattern Recogn. Lett. 31, 2225–2236 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wei, T. et al. Package ‘corrplot’. Statistician 56, e24 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Ratner, B. The correlation coefficient: its values range between +1/−1, or do they? J. Target. Meas. Anal. Mark. 17, 139–142 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ishwaran, H. & Kogalur, U. B. Fast unified random forests for survival, regression, and classification (RF-SRC) (2019).O’Brien, R. & Ishwaran, H. A random forests quantile classifier for class imbalanced data. Pattern Recognit. 90, 232–249 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Silge, J. & Mahoney, M. spatialsample: spatial resampling infrastructure. R version 0.2.1 (2023).Bhatt, S. et al. The global distribution and burden of dengue. Nature 496, 504–507 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Weaver, S. C. & Forrester, N. L. Chikungunya: evolutionary history and recent epidemic spread. Antivir. Res. 120, 32–39 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Puntasecca, C. J., King, C. H. & LaBeaud, A. D. Measuring the global burden of chikungunya and Zika viruses: a systematic review. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 15, e0009055 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Baeza, A., Santos-Vega, M., Dobson, A. P. & Pascual, M. The rise and fall of malaria under land-use change in frontier regions. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 108 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
de Araújo Pedrosa, F. & de Alencar Ximenes, R. A. Sociodemographic and environmental risk factors for American cutaneous leishmaniasis (ACL) in the State of Alagoas, Brazil. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 81, 195–201 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gonçalves, N. V. et al. Cutaneous leishmaniasis: spatial distribution and environmental risk factors in the state of Pará, Brazilian Eastern Amazon. J. Infect. Dev. Countr. 13, 939–944 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Leishmaniasis (Pan American Health Organization, 2022); https://www.paho.org/en/topics/leishmaniasisHarhay, M. O., Olliaro, P. L., Costa, D. L. & Costa, C. H. N. Urban parasitology: visceral leishmaniasis in Brazil. Trends Parasitol. 27, 403–409 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Non-prokaryotic metagenomic sequences confound average genome size estimationsIn this work, we employed MicrobeCensus22 for de novo estimation of the average genome size (AGS) of microorganisms captured in shotgun metagenome sequences (Fig. 1a; Supplementary Data 1). Briefly, MicrobeCensus optimally aligns metagenomic reads to a set of 30 conserved single-copy gene (CSCG) families found in prokaryotes 22. Based on these mappings, the relative abundance of each CSCG is then computed and used to estimate AGS based on the proportionality principle—that is, the AGS of the community is inversely proportional to the relative abundance of each marker genes22. Finally, a weighted average AGS is calculated that excludes outliers to obtain a robust AGS estimate for a given metagenomic sample22.Fig. 1: Eukaryotic and viral metagenomic reads bias AGS estimates in marine microbial metagenomes.a Schematic workflow of procedures used for estimating AGS in metagenomic samples. AGS is estimated based directly on preprocessed high-quality metagenomic reads (AGS1) and after three iterative steps to remove potential eukaryotic reads (AGS2) and viral reads detected based on the RefSeq viral genome database (AGS3) or de novo (AGS4). See the “Methods” section for more details. b Relationship between depth and proportion of total putative eukaryotic and viral sequences in marine metagenomic collections. The blue line indicates the fitted one-tailed Spearman correlation (r), with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals for the curve indicated by grey bands. The density distribution of the estimated proportion of contaminants is shown in green, with the corresponding median values (µ) highlighted. Values in parenthesis denote the filter size range of sampled metagenomes. c The fraction of ‘contaminating’ reads is highest in the epipelagic ocean relative to other ocean depth layers. EPI Epipelagic (~3–200 m), MES Mesopelagic (200–1000 m), BAT Bathypelagic (1000–4000 m). Values in parenthesis indicate the number of metagenomes. Only the results from the Malaspina Vertical Profiles (MProfile) metagenomes are shown as they cover greater depths of the global ocean (mean 1114 m; Supplementary Data 1). d Eukaryotic and viral metagenomic sequences significantly increase AGS estimates for prokaryotic plankton in marine metagenomes. Values in parenthesis show number of metagenomes for AGS1 and AGS2. e AGS estimates decreased in most metagenomic samples (85%; n = 220) after decontamination compared to predictions directly from preprocessed metagenomes by 1–19% (n = 39). Boxplots (c–e) show the median as middle horizontal (c, d) or vertical (e) lines and interquartile ranges as boxes (whiskers extend no further than 1.5 times the interquartile ranges). Data are shown as circular symbols, while mean values are shown as white colored diamonds. Values at the top (c, d) indicate the adjusted significant P-values of the unpaired (c) and paired (d) two-sided Wilcoxon test with Benjamini-Hochberg correction. Source data are provided as a Source Data file.Full size imageOf note, the AGS of complete prokaryotic genomes increases with the cumulative number of associated phages and other mobile genetic elements37. Similarly, AGS estimates derived from metagenomic sequences of uncultured “free-living” microbes (captured in 0.1–3 µm-size filters) may also be affected by putative phage and eukaryotic microbiomes sequenced concurrently in fractionated seawater samples (see,8,22). To evaluate this possibility in our AGS predictions, we compared AGS estimates obtained directly from quality-controlled metagenomes with estimates from the same metagenomes iteratively subjected to three (de novo) decontamination procedures to filter out potential eukaryotic and viral sequence reads (Fig. 1a; see details in the “Methods” section). Overall, putatively ‘contaminating’ viral and eukaryotic reads accounted for 1% to 20% (average 7.5%) of the high-quality trimmed sequences in the four microbial metagenome collections (Fig. 1b; Supplementary Data 1). As expected, the average proportion of contaminating sequences in metagenomes from large (0.2–3.0 µm) and small (0.1–1.2 µm) size fraction filters were the highest (~11%) and lowest (~5%), respectively (Fig. 1b). In addition, the proportion of contaminating reads was significantly dependent on the depth layer of the ocean (Kruskal-Wallis χ2 = 32.40, df = 2, p  200–1000 m), and bathypelagic (BAT,  > 1000–4000 m). c AGS estimates in the “free-living” (0.2–0.8 µm) and particle-associated (0.8–20 µm) bathypelagic microbiome sampled latitudinally at 4000 m depth during the Malaspina expedition. Boxplots show the median as middle horizontal line and interquartile ranges as boxes (whiskers extend no further than 1.5 times the interquartile ranges). Data are shown as circular symbols, while mean values are shown as white colored diamonds. Values at the top indicate the adjusted significant P-values of the unpaired (b) and paired (c) two-sided Wilcoxon test with Benjamini-Hochberg correction. The number of metagenomes analyzed is indicated in parentheses in all three panels. Source data are provided as a Source Data file.Full size imageThe median AGS estimate range of 2.2 to ~3.0 Mbp in the sampled free-living (0.1–3 µm in size) marine prokaryotic communities (n = 209 metagenomes) is consistent with other large-scale metagenome sequence-based estimates and the sizes of metagenome-assembled prokaryotic genomes (MAGs; in 0.22–3 µm filters) from the photic ocean (surface to mesopelagic) based on the Tara Oceans Expedition (1.5–2.3 Mbp)15,16. Overall, our metagenome sequence-based AGS estimates support the unimodal distribution of prokaryotic genome sizes recently demonstrated in environmental genomes in several biomes38 and on cultured isolates (including marine bacterioplankton)14,39. However, estimates from isolates are likely biased since current cultivation approaches tend to favor copiotrophs (see, ref. 3).We next tested whether the derived AGS estimates depended on microbial cell size by analyzing 25 paired bathypelagic metagenomes (MDeep; Supplementary Data 1) sampled during the global Malaspina Expedition40 in which both prokaryotic life strategies, free-living (0.2–0.8 µm size) and particle-associated (0.8–20 µm size), were sampled simultaneously35. The analyzed metagenomes (MDeep) were from the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Ocean provinces and cover a spatial distance of 9437 km with an average depth (± SD) of 3688 ± 526 m at the tropical and subtropical latitudes (–33.55°N to 32.0788°N). These microbial metagenomes were also screened for contaminating eukaryotic and viral sequences as indicated in Fig. 1a (see details in the “Methods” section and Supplementary Data 1). The genomes of bathypelagic prokaryotes associated with marine particles (5.6 ± 0.97 Mbp) were twice as large (paired two-sided Wilcoxon test, p  3 µm) prokaryotes, respectively (Supplementary Data 3). These estimates are also consistent with those of MAGs reconstructed from the same metagenomes in the Challenger Deep (Mariana Trench)43. Overall, this reinforces the patterns of larger AGS in particle-associated compared to free-living bathypelagic prokaryotes, and larger microbial genomes in the deep ocean compared to the upper ocean.AGS patterns are not geographically constrainedExamination of the geographic patterns of AGS estimates showed that AGS distribution was independent of geographic distance in both the regional (Red Sea, Mantel statistic r = 0.01824, p = 0.2971) and global (MProfile, r = –0.01413, p = 0.7924) ocean metagenomes. Furthermore, AGS estimates in the vertically profiled global Malaspina metagenomes (MProfile, n = 81) were significantly independent of the Longhurst biogeochemical province sampled (n = 9; Kruskal-Wallis χ2 = 1.0006, df = 8, p = 0.9982; Supplementary Data 1). The lack of covariance between the patterns of AGS estimates and geographic distance or Longhurst province sampled may reflect the high connectivity of microbial communities throughout the global ocean, particularly the redistributive effects of circulation by ocean currents and other transport processes, as well as the enormous population sizes of plankton that allow dispersal constraints to be overcome44,45. This is consistent with the relatively small differences in microbial assemblages recently found in different ocean basins23,46. Another possible explanation is the effect of seasonality, which can cause selection of different taxa, resulting in the succession of microbial communities and affecting their distribution (see, ref. 47), and thus influence AGS patterns.An assessment of the relationship between AGS and measured environmental variables (Supplementary Fig. S1; Data 1)—separately for the Red Sea metagenomes (regional scale) and Malaspina Vertical Profiles metagenomes (global scale), showed that the cumulative effect of temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, and depth on AGS patterns was significant at both the regional scale (n = 45; Mantel statistic r = 0.1944, p = 0.0057) and the global scale (n = 81; Mantel statistic r = 0.1779, p = 1 × 10–4). This result suggests that environmental conditions are a driving force behind predicted AGS patterns in the marine microbiome. While no significant interaction effect was evident between many environmental variables (i.e., salinity, depth, oxygen, nitrate, and phosphate) in controlling AGS patterns (one-way ANOVA, p  More

Vitamin B12 biosynthesis potential of different bacteriaB vitamins play a key role in complex marine microbial interactions as they are obligatory cofactors in various essential metabolic reactions in all living organism [13, 14, 39,40,41]. An exciting fact about B12 is that genes for synthesis of this complex cofactor have never made the transition to the eukaryotic kingdom, although it is required by both prokaryotes and eukaryotes. De novo synthesis is restricted to a minor fraction of bacteria and archaea, thus, suggesting that the ability to synthesise B12 is disproportionate to its demand in nature [1, 4]. This phenomenon can be observed in various habitats, for example in the soil microbiome, where the proportion of B12 producers is less than one tenth [8]. Similar findings have been shown for the microbiome on human skin, where only 1% of the core species are predicted to produce B12 de novo, while 39 % of the species are predicted to use B12 for metabolism [42]. In order to adequately answer this fundamental question regarding the balance between B12 availability and consumption, we should aim to better understand the synthesis potential of individual prototrophic prokaryotes.Here we present intra- and extracellular B12 concentrations of various B12 prototrophic, alphaproteobacterial strains. The concentration of intracellular B12 differs widely between the various heterotrophic bacteria examined. Converted, B12 molecules detected per cell ranged between 664 to 26,619 in the analysed bacterial cultures, including B12-provider and B12-retainer. Such strong variation in intracellular B12 concentrations have already been shown for a number of other prokaryotes, including Archaea, heterotrophic bacteria, and cyanobacteria [11, 34]. Also, in these studies, the detected intracellular B12 values differed up to three orders of magnitude and showed values similar to the ones we detected. Whether factors such as cell size, which we did not consider in our analysis, or the exact growth phase in which we took the samples had an influence on the strong variation cannot be clarified here. It is quite conceivable that different B12 requirements of the individual cells or different regulatory mechanisms of B12 synthesis played a decisive role for the intracellular B12 concentrations. Nevertheless, we can conclude that not only the genetic B12 biosynthetic potential within a microbial community is decisive, but rather which prokaryote is actually present is crucial for the availability of B12.The extracellular concentrations of B12 detected in M. algicola and P. inhibens were about 8 and 256 times lower than respective intracellular levels. For example, M. algicola secreted about 936 B12 molecules per cell, which was roughly 85 times more as detected for P. inhibens. On the basis of the detected B12 demand of T. pseudonana determined by the bioassay, we can calculate that the eukaryote requires roughly 135,000 B12 molecules per cell, if we base the limitation of cell number solely on B12 availability. Thus, it would take about 144 living M. algicola cells that release B12 to cover the requirements for the growth of one T. pseudonana cell. In fact, the bacterial cell numbers in the stationary phase of the B12-provider-diatom co-cultures were at least 110 times higher than the cell numbers of T. pseudonana. These calculations are all based on ideal laboratory conditions, with sufficient supply of inorganic nutrients and organic substrates and may differ in natural environments where viral infections or sloppy feeding can lead to cell disruption and subsequent release of intracellular B12 [43, 44]. Also, B12 requirement of T. pseudonana cells can vary under different growth conditions. For example, it has been shown that growth of T. pseudonana even with 1 pM of B12 can result in a significant change in the metabolite pool of the diatom, which in turn may have implications for the interaction with bacteria [45]. Nevertheless, our data give a first approximate insight into the interplay between B12-producers and -consumers in the world of microorganisms.Bacterial effects on the growth of T. pseudonana
Growth characteristics of T. pseudonana in co-culture show not only the obligatory provision of B12 by bacteria but also other bacterial factors that influence growth. For example, we observed that Sulfitobacter litoralis, a representative of the Roseobacter group, showed inhibitory behaviour towards the diatom. Other studies have shown that Roseobacter group isolates can produce inhibitory substances, roseobacticides, which can suppress the growth of eukaryotic phototrophs [46]. The provision of B12 leads to a promotion in growth and, at the same time, growth of the diatom is inhibited. One reason for the different growth characteristics of the diatoms observed in co-culture with different bacteria could be the adaptation to different habitats where the bacterial isolates naturally occur.In contrast to these observations, Celeribacter baekdonensis DSM 27375 significantly stimulated the growth of T. pseudonana. Even though C. baekdonensis did not provide B12 despite being synthesized, its presence in co-culture with B12 addition significantly increased the growth rate and growth yield of T. pseudonana compared to the positive control of the corresponding experimental run. In previous bacterial-diatom co-culture experiments, it has been shown that the excretion of cyclic peptides, diketopiperazines, by a bacterium, significantly increased diatom cell numbers [47]. Another plausible scenario is the synthesis and excretion of indoleacetic acid (IAA) by C. baekdonensis, which is a growth-promoting hormone for diatoms [48]. A similar effect is also conceivable for C. baekdonensis and would be exciting to explore in greater depth.A finding that appears to be overlooked in the context of our actual question is the fact that the expected bacterial cell death does not necessarily lead to the release of B12, which would promote the growth of T. pseudonana, and thus promote the interaction. Even after up to six weeks in co-culture, we cannot observe significant growth of T. pseudonana despite the presence of a bacterial B12 prototroph. This fact highlights the importance of cell lysis mechanisms in nature, for example caused by viral infections or sloppy feeding. Already today, these two natural processes are considered to play a significant role in the turnover of dissolved organic matter [44, 49,50,51] and are likely to also have a decisive influence on the release of B-vitamins in marine ecosystems [23]. Additionally, T. pseudonana is known to secret a B12 binding protein under B12 deficient conditions that has an affinity constant of 2 × 1011 M−1. This protein might help them to acquire B12 from the surroundings, when it is released through bacterial cell lysis mechanism [52]. Other phytoplankton might also have a similar strategy to scavenge B12 from the environment. When intracellular B12 is considered as a reservoir for other B12 auxotrophic microorganisms, then, for example, already 19 M. algicola cells would be sufficient to enable the growth of one T. pseudonana cell.The vital cofactor B12 is not shared by all prototrophic bacteriaAbout half of the marine phytoplankton species are B12 auxotrophs and rely on prototrophic prokaryotes to obtain this essential vitamin [1, 53]. Several co-culture experiments have confirmed that individual marine bacterial isolates, mainly Alphaproteobacteria, enable phytoplankton species to overcome their auxotrophy by providing the essential cofactor [13,14,15,16, 27, 28]. In our study we hypothesised that not all B12 prototrophs share B12 with other microorganisms and to prove that we performed individual co-culture experiments between T. pseudonana and 33 B12 prototrophic bacteria. B12 prototrophy of the bacterial isolates was confirmed by their genetic ability to synthesize B12 (Supplementary table S2) and their ability to grow in B12-free medium. The results of our study support this hypothesis, as we were able to identify one group of bacteria that enables growth of T. pseudonana by the supply of the essential cofactor, B12-providers. On the other hand, we also identified a second group of B12 prototrophic bacteria that did not support the growth of the diatom, the B12-retainers. Moreover, while categorizing them into B12-providers and B12-retainers, we observed that there are species within one genus, such as P. inhibens and P. galleciensis, in which one is a B12-provider and the other is a B12-retainer, respectively, although both of them possess the necessary genes for B12 biosynthesis. Yet, the question remains why some bacteria share the cofactor, and others, despite an obligatory interaction enforced in co-culture, do not. In the following, we describe and discuss three scenarios that we consider plausible, whereby not only one scenario has to be correct, but rather all three can take place in the B12-retainer strains that we have identified.First, biosynthesis of metabolites, such as the energetically costly B12 cofactor, are subject to intracellular regulation. Transcriptional regulation of the B12 biosynthesis pathway determines whether, and in what quantity B12 is synthesised in the cell. For example, sigma factors can alter the specificity of an RNA polymerase for a particular promoter, so that gene expression is enhanced or reduced [54]. In the case of the bacterial isolate Propionibacterium strain UF1, the riboswitch cbiMCbl was identified to regulate the gene expression of the cobA operon and thus controls B12 biosynthesis [55]. It is also known that sufficient availability of B12 can repress B12 biosynthesis gene expression in bacteria [56, 57]. In gram-negative proteobacteria as well as in cyanobacteria, for example, cobalamin (pseudocobalamin, in case of some bacteria) biosynthesis and B12 transport genes are regulated by inhibition of translation initiation, whereas in some gram-positive bacteria gene regulation proceeds by transcriptional antitermination [58]. The mechanisms described above are likely to also occur in the bacterial isolates that we tested. The large difference between the detected intracellular B12 concentrations could therefore be due to differences in gene regulation of the different bacteria and may also have had an influence on the release of B12 in the co-culture with T. pseudonana.Second, cobalamin, which we referred to here as B12 for simplicity, belongs to a group of B12-like metabolites, called cobamides. Each cobamide differs in the lower ligand attached. For example, the common cobamide, cobalamin, which is bioavailable to most microorganisms, carries 5,6-dimethylbenzimidazol (DMB) as its lower ligand, whereas pseudocobalamin synthesised by cyanobacteria in high concentrations in the ocean and being less or not bioavailable to most microorganisms, has adenine attached as its lower ligand [11, 41, 59, 60]. In general, the lower ligands of cobamides can be divided into benzimidazoles, purines, and phenols, and more than a dozen cobamides and cobamide-analogs have already been discovered [61]. However, research into the synthesis and actual diversity of cobamides, especially in marine bacteria and archaea, is still in its infancy. In our study, we were unable to detect intracellular B12 in four out of eight bacterial B12-retainer strains, although the cell counts at the time of sampling should have been sufficient for its detection. However, as is generally the case, our LC-MS analysis only targets cobalamin (B12) with its different upper ligands (adenosyl-, cyano-, methyl-, and hydroxy-cobalamin). Therefore, we cannot exclude the possibility that the here studied bacteria synthesise different cobamides, which are possibly not or less bioavailable to T. pseudonana, and not covered by our analytical measurement method. This speculation was supported by the fact that one of these four B12- retainer strains, Sulfitobacter sp. DFL-23, does not possess the DMB synthesis gene bluB and there was no intracellular B12 detected in this strain (Supplementary table S2 and Table 2). Again, it is difficult to explain this phenomenon solely depending on the presence of annotated DMB synthesis gene, as for Loktanella salsilacus DSM 16199 no bluB gene was annotated, still we detected intracellular B12 in this strain using our detection method (Supplementary table S2 and Table 2).Third, the bacteria we have identified as B12-retainer simply may not have actively released the synthesised B12 into their environment. Regardless of the importance of B12 for the vast majority of living organisms on our planet, its excretion mechanisms are to our knowledge still largely unknown. Its size of more than 1,350 Dalton does not allow sufficient diffusion through the cell membrane, which would enable microbial interactions [32]. Thus, it is likely that an unknown mechanism is required for its release. This assumption is further supported by the fact that we were able to detect intracellular B12 in four of the eight B12-retainer strains and at concentrations comparable to those detected in the B12-provider strains. In addition, we could detect intracellular B12 in P. xiamenensis, but none in its exometabolome. On the other hand, presence of extracellular B12 was detected in the exometabolome of both the provider strains examined, M. algicola and P. inhibens. Our findings show that not all bacteria share the pivotal cofactor with their environment, which has an impact on our current understanding of the marine B12 cycle and presumably in other ecosystems as well. The active exchange of B12 and thus microbial interaction plays a much smaller role than previously assumed for a relatively large number of bacteria. Consequently, for some of the B12 prototrophic bacteria within a community, it is likely that the cofactor is only released upon cell lysis.B12 production in the marine ecosystem and ecological implicationsLooking at the original source of B12 in nature, namely prototrophic bacteria and archaea, the bacteria studied here show pronounced differences between the biosynthetic potentials of the cofactors and the ability to share them with their environment. Thus, the natural source of vitamin B12 within a given ecosystem does not primarily depend on the ratio of prototrophic bacteria, but even more crucially on how much of the cofactor is synthesised by the prototrophic prokaryotes within an ecosystem and is actively released. The fact that some bacteria do not voluntarily share B12 with ambient microorganisms, significantly increases the importance of processes, such as sloppy feeding by zooplankton or virus infections [44, 49,50,51], for the release of vitamins in the marine and likely also other ecosystems.Our results also contribute to the controversially discussed question of whether B12 prototrophic bacteria live in symbiosis with phototrophic microorganisms [13, 30]. Despite numerous co-cultivation experiments demonstrating the obligatory provision of B12 by individual bacteria to phototrophic microorganisms, the decisive question of the mechanism of provision has so far been overlooked [13,14,15,16, 27, 28]. In our view, however, this question is crucial when assessing whether a symbiotic interaction is taking place. Our results support the hypothesis that a bacterial mechanism for the active release is likely to exist, as our experiments distinguish between B12-provider and B12-retainer within prototrophic bacteria. Looking at the ecological niches and the isolation sites of the two respective groups, differences can be identified. Most B12-provider strains were isolated from or discovered in association with eukaryotic microorganisms, whereas most B12-retainer strains were isolated as free-living in the ocean (Supplementary table S4). Moreover, six of the tested bacterial strains were isolated from dinoflagellates and five of them were B12-provider. Since we used a diatom as a B12 auxotrophic organism in our study, it would also be interesting to know if these B12-provider strains also provide B12 to other phytoplankton, such as dinoflagellates. Also, in this study we only studied bacteria from the alphaproteobacteria class, since a large share of them are known to be B12 prototrophs and abundant in the marine ecosystem. For future studies, it would be interesting to see if a similar pattern of B12 provisioning can be observed in bacteria from other classes. Our results indicate that the B12 prototrophy of a bacterium does not necessarily indicate a mutualistic interaction with other auxotrophic microorganisms. However, the bacterial group of B12-provider in particular seems to favour living in close proximity to other microorganisms, which is why the exchange of B12 for e.g. organic compounds can establish itself as a distinct symbiotic interaction between individual microorganisms. More

Synthetic data for Fig. 1To provide examples of the proposed two hypotheses, i.e., species-response hypothesis and community structure hypothesis, for Fig. 1, we generated synthetic data assuming bivariate lognormal distributions of species relative woody productivity pi and species standing biomass Bi, where i for species identity, with log-log linear, (or power-law) correlations, ln pi = k + b ln Bi, as in left-hand panels of Fig. 1. The slope (scaling exponent) b is common at –0.15, and the constant k = –3.4 and –3.8 for tropical and temperate forests respectively for species response hypothesis (Fig. 1a), whereas k = –3.6 for both ‘tropical’ and ‘temperate’ forests for the community structure hypothesis (Fig. 1b). Mean ln Bi are –0.6 for two forests in Fig. 1a, while they are –1.0 and –0.2 for tropical and temperate forest respectively in Fig. 1b, Standard deviations of ln Bi and ln pi are 2.0 and 0.65 respectively for all forests, except those in tropical forest in Fig. 1b are 1.6 and 0.6, respectively. In the left-hand panels, the Bi axis ranges 0.005–500 (Mg C ha–1), and the pi axis ranges 0.001–0.5 (yr–1). In the right-hand panels, the axis for B = Σi Bi ranges 50–500 (Mg C ha–1) and the axis for P = Σi pi Bi ranges 0.5–20 (Mg C ha–1 yr–1).Forest plot dataWe selected 60 forest plots located in old-growth forests along the climatic gradient of insular eastern Asia, located on Java (3 plots), Kalimantan (5 plots), Peninsular Malaysia (2 plots), Taiwan (6 plots), and the Japanese archipelago (44 plots), ranging from 6.8°S to 44.4°N latitude and from 20 to 1,880 m in elevation (Supplementary Fig. 1, Supplementary Data 1). We collected climate data for all the plots for the period 1981–2010 from CHELSA version 2.139; these are the period-average annual and monthly ground surface mean temperature, precipitation, and potential evapotranspiration. The potential evapotranspiration was estimated by Hargreaves-Samani equation40 based on monthly data of these climatic variables. Supplementary Data 2 presents mean annual temperature (MAT, °C), annual precipitation (AP, mm yr–1), annual potential evapotranspiration (PET, mm yr–1), monthly-data-based Thornthwaite moisture index (TMI) and the climatic types defined by TMI26. The target region is in Asian monsoon climate41,42, and moist forest ecosystems predominate from tropics in Southeast Asia to sub-boreal biomes in northern Japan. Across 60 plots, MAT ranges from 2.0 °C to 26.6 °C, AP-PET ranges from 58.5 to 5049 mm yr–1, and plots are classified as “perhumid” or “humid” by TMI (Supplementary Data 2); the smallest TMI for the plot in cloud forest on Hahajima Island, oceanic Ogasawara Islands, where AP-PET was +217 mm yr–1 (against +58.5 by CHELSA39) based on the weather station records on the island. AP-PET sowed no correlation with MAT or with any forest structural or dynamic variable, in contrast to MAT exhibiting significant correlations to all forest variables (Supplementary Fig. 5). We therefore mainly employ MAT to quantify climatic dependence of the 60 plots. According to bioclimatic classification of the region43,44, we define forest biomes into tropical (MAT ≥ 24 °C), subtropical (20–24 °C), warm-temperate (12–20 °C), cool-temperate (5–12 °C) and sub-boreal or subalpine ( More

Liang, J. et al. Positive biodiversity-productivity relationship predominant in global forests. Science 354, aaf8957 (2016).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Huang, Y. et al. Impacts of species richness on productivity in a large-scale subtropical forest experiment. Science 362, 80–83 (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Luo, S. et al. Community‐wide trait means and variations affect biomass in a biodiversity experiment with tree seedlings. Oikos 129, 799–810 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pérez-Harguindeguy, N. et al. New handbook for standardised measurement of plant functional traits worldwide. Aust. J. Bot. 61, 167–234 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bergmann, J. et al. The fungal collaboration gradient dominates the root economics space in plants. Sci. Adv. 6, 1–10 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Freschet, G. T. et al. Root traits as drivers of plant and ecosystem functioning: current understanding, pitfalls and future research needs. N. Phytol. 232, 1123–1158 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhong, Y. et al. Arbuscular mycorrhizal trees influence the latitudinal beta-diversity gradient of tree communities in forests worldwide. Nat. Commun. 12, 1–12 (2021).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Carteron, A., Vellend, M. & Laliberté, E. Mycorrhizal dominance reduces local tree species diversity across US forests. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 6, 370–374 (2022).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Phillips, R. P., Brzostek, E. & Midgley, M. G. The mycorrhizal‐associated nutrient economy: a new framework for predicting carbon–nutrient couplings in temperate forests. N. Phytol. 199, 41–51 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Averill, C., Turner, B. L. & Finzi, A. C. Mycorrhiza-mediated competition between plants and decomposers drives soil carbon storage. Nature 505, 543–545 (2014).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Craig, M. E. et al. Tree mycorrhizal type predicts within‐site variability in the storage and distribution of soil organic matter. Glob. Chang. Biol. 24, 3317–3330 (2018).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
van der Heijden, M. G. A. et al. Mycorrhizal fungal diversity determines plant biodiversity, ecosystem variability and productivity. Nature 396, 69–72 (1998).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Klironomos, J. N., McCune, J., Hart, M. & Neville, J. The influence of arbuscular mycorrhizae on the relationship between plant diversity and productivity. Ecol. Lett. 3, 137–141 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wagg, C., Jansa, J., Stadler, M., Schmid, B. & Van Der Heijden, M. G. A. Mycorrhizal fungal identity and diversity relaxes plant-plant competition. Ecology 92, 1303–1313 (2011).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Luo, S., Schmid, B., De Deyn, G. B. & Yu, S. Soil microbes promote complementarity effects among co‐existing trees through soil nitrogen partitioning. Funct. Ecol. 32, 1879–1889 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ferlian, O. et al. Mycorrhiza in tree diversity–ecosystem function relationships: conceptual framework and experimental implementation. Ecosphere 9, e02226 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Tedersoo, L. & Bahram, M. Mycorrhizal types differ in ecophysiology and alter plant nutrition and soil processes. Biol. Rev. 94, 1857–1880 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Rineau, F. et al. The ectomycorrhizal fungus Paxillus involutus converts organic matter in plant litter using a trimmed brown-rot mechanism involving Fenton chemistry. Environ. Microbiol. 14, 1477–1487 (2012).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Lindahl, B. D. & Tunlid, A. Ectomycorrhizal fungi – potential organic matter decomposers, yet not saprotrophs. N. Phytol. 205, 1443–1447 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hodge, A. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi influence decomposition of, but not plant nutrient capture from, glycine patches in soil. N. Phytol. 151, 725–734 (2001).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Read, D. J. & Perez-Moreno, J. Mycorrhizas and nutrient cycling in ecosystems – A journey towards relevance? N. Phytol. 157, 475–492 (2003).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Toju, H., Kishida, O., Katayama, N. & Takagi, K. Networks depicting the fine-scale co-occurrences of fungi in soil horizons. PLoS ONE 11, 1–18 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Taylor, D. L. et al. A first comprehensive census of fungi in soil reveals both hyperdiversity and fine-scale niche partitioning. Ecol. Monogr. 84, 3–20 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chen, W. et al. Root morphology and mycorrhizal symbioses together shape nutrient foraging strategies of temperate trees. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 8741–8746 (2016).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Liu, X. et al. Partitioning of soil phosphorus among arbuscular and ectomycorrhizal trees in tropical and subtropical forests. Ecol. Lett. 21, 713–723 (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Averill, C., Bhatnagar, J. M., Dietze, M. C., Pearse, W. D. & Kivlin, S. N. Global imprint of mycorrhizal fungi on whole-plant nutrient economics. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 23163–23168 (2019).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Dietrich, P. et al. Tree diversity effects on productivity depend on mycorrhizae and life strategies in a temperate forest experiment. Ecology 104, e3896 https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.3896 (2022).Averill, C., Dietze, M. C. & Bhatnagar, J. M. Continental-scale nitrogen pollution is shifting forest mycorrhizal associations and soil carbon stocks. Glob. Chang. Biol. 24, 4544–4553 (2018).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Jo, I., Fei, S., Oswalt, C. M., Domke, G. M. & Phillips, R. P. Shifts in dominant tree mycorrhizal associations in response to anthropogenic impacts. Sci. Adv. 5, eaav6358, (2019).Fei, S. et al. Impacts of climate on the biodiversity-productivity relationship in natural forests. Nat. Commun. 9, 5436 (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bongers, F. J. et al. Functional diversity effects on productivity increase with age in a forest biodiversity experiment. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 1594–1603 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Schoener, T. W. Resource partitioning in ecological communities. Science 185, 27–39 (1974).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Tilman, D., Lehman, C. L. & Thomson, K. T. Plant diversity and ecosystem productivity: theoretical considerations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 94, 1857–1861 (1997).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Schwilk, D. W. & Ackerly, D. D. Limiting similarity and functional diversity along environmental gradients. Ecol. Lett. 8, 272–281 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wagg, C., Jansa, J., Schmid, B. & van der Heijden, M. G. A. Belowground biodiversity effects of plant symbionts support aboveground productivity. Ecol. Lett. 14, 1001–1009 (2011).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Agerer, R. Exploration types of ectomycorrhizae: a proposal to classify ectomycorrhizal mycelial systems according to their patterns of differentiation and putative ecological importance. Mycorrhiza 11, 107–114 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cheng, L. et al. Mycorrhizal fungi and roots are complementary in foraging within nutrient patches. Ecology 97, 2815–2823 (2016).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wambsganss, J. et al. Tree species mixing causes a shift in fine-root soil exploitation strategies across European forests. Funct. Ecol. 35, 1886–1902 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gerz, M., Guillermo Bueno, C., Ozinga, W. A., Zobel, M. & Moora, M. Niche differentiation and expansion of plant species are associated with mycorrhizal symbiosis. J. Ecol. 106, 254–264 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Niklaus, P. A., Baruffol, M., He, J. S., Ma, K. & Schmid, B. Can niche plasticity promote biodiversity–productivity relationships through increased complementarity? Ecology 98, 1104–1116 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Barry, K. E. et al. The future of complementarity: disentangling causes from consequences. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34, 167–180 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Jacobs, L. M., Sulman, B. N., Brzostek, E. R., Feighery, J. J. & Phillips, R. P. Interactions among decaying leaf litter, root litter and soil organic matter vary with mycorrhizal type. J. Ecol. 106, 502–513 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Midgley, M. G., Brzostek, E. & Phillips, R. P. Decay rates of leaf litters from arbuscular mycorrhizal trees are more sensitive to soil effects than litters from ectomycorrhizal trees. J. Ecol. 103, 1454–1463 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kumar, A., Phillips, R. P., Scheibe, A., Klink, S. & Pausch, J. Organic matter priming by invasive plants depends on dominant mycorrhizal association. Soil Biol. Biochem. 140, 107645 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Tedersoo, L., Bahram, M. & Zobel, M. How mycorrhizal associations drive plant population and community biology. Science 367, eaba1223 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kitajima, K. & Poorter, L. Functional basis for resource niche partitioning by tropical trees. Trop. For. community Ecol. 1936, 160–181 (2008).MacArthur, R. H. Patterns of species diverstiy. Biol. Rev. 40, 510–533 (1965).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pellissier, V., Barnagaud, J. Y., Kissling, W. D., Şekercioğlu, Ç. & Svenning, J. C. Niche packing and expansion account for species richness–productivity relationships in global bird assemblages. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 27, 604–615 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Huang, Y. et al. Effects of enemy exclusion on biodiversity–productivity relationships in a subtropical forest experiment. J. Ecol. 110, 2167–2178. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13940 (2022).Tilman, D. Community invasibility, recruitment limitation, and grassland biodiversity. Ecology 78, 81–92 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
Feng, Y. et al. Multispecies forest plantations outyield monocultures across a broad range of conditions. Science 376, 865–868 (2022).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Harper, J. L. Population biology of plants. (1977).Ewel, J. J. Designing agricultural ecosystems for the humid tropics. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 17, 245–271 (1986).Article 

Google Scholar 
Grossiord, C. Having the right neighbors: how tree species diversity modulates drought impacts on forests. N. Phytol. 228, 42–49 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Allen, M. F. Mycorrhizal fungi: highways for water and nutrients in arid soils. Vadose Zo. J. 6, 291–297 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brzostek, E. R. et al. Chronic water stress reduces tree growth and the carbon sink of deciduous hardwood forests. Glob. Chang. Biol. 20, 2531–2539 (2014).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Liese, R., Lübbe, T., Albers, N. W. & Meier, I. C. The mycorrhizal type governs root exudation and nitrogen uptake of temperate tree species. Tree Physiol. 38, 83–95 (2018).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Steidinger, B. S. et al. Climatic controls of decomposition drive the global biogeography of forest-tree symbioses. Nature 569, 404–408 (2019).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Linton, M. J., Sperry, J. S. & Williams, D. G. Limits to water transport in Juniperus osteosperma and Pinus edulis: Implications for drought tolerance and regulation of transpiration. Funct. Ecol. 12, 906–911 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Johnson, D. M. et al. Co-occurring woody species have diverse hydraulic strategies and mortality rates during an extreme drought. Plant. Cell Environ. 41, 576–588 (2018).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lin, G. et al. Mycorrhizal associations of tree species influence soil nitrogen dynamics via effects on soil acid–base chemistry. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 31, 168–182 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Read, D. J. Mycorrhizas in ecosystems. Experientia 47, 376–391 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hobbie, S. E. Plant species effects on nutrient cycling: revisiting litter feedbacks. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 357–363 (2015).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
De Schrijver, A. et al. Tree species traits cause divergence in soil acidification during four decades of postagricultural forest development. Glob. Chang. Biol. 18, 1127–1140 (2012).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Loreau, M. & Hector, A. Partitioning selection and complementarity in biodiversity experiments. Nature 412, 72–76 (2001).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Braghiere, R. K. et al. Modeling global carbon costs of plant nitrogen and phosphorus acquisition. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 14, 1–23 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Eisenhauer, N. et al. Biotic interactions as mediators of context-dependent biodiversity-ecosystem functioning relationships. Res. Ideas Outcomes 8, e85873 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fisher, J. B. et al. Tree-mycorrhizal associations detected remotely from canopy spectral properties. Glob. Chang. Biol. 22, 2596–2607 (2016).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Soudzilovskaia, N. A. et al. Global mycorrhizal plant distribution linked to terrestrial carbon stocks. Nat. Commun. 10, 1–10 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Burrill, E. A. et al. The forest inventory and analysis database. USDA . Serv. 2, 1026 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Chao, A., Chiu, C.-H. & Jost, L. Unifying species diversity, phylogenetic diversity, functional diversity, and related similarity and differentiation measures through hill numbers. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 45, 297–324 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cleland, D. T. et al. Ecological subregions: Sections and subsections for the conterminous United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-76D (2007).Soudzilovskaia, N. A. et al. FungalRoot: global online database of plant mycorrhizal associations. N. Phytol. 227, 955–966 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gallion, J. et al. Indiana DNR State Forest Properties Report of Continuous Forest Inventory (CFI) Summary of years 2015–2019. 1–25 (2020).Dormann, C. F. et al. Methods to account for spatial autocorrelation in the analysis of species distributional data: a review. Ecography 30, 609–628 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Craven, D. et al. A cross-scale assessment of productivity–diversity relationships. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 29, 1940–1955 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Paquette, A. & Messier, C. The effect of biodiversity on tree productivity: from temperate to boreal forests. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 20, 170–180 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/ (2020).Dowle, M. & Srinivasan, A. data.table: Extension of ‘data.frame‘. R package version 1.14.2 (2021).Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Springer-Verlag New York, 2016.Kassambara, A. ggpubr: ‘ggplot2’ Based Publication Ready Plots. R package version 0.4.0 (2020).Dunnington, D. ggspatial: Spatial Data Framework for ggplot2. R package version 1.1.5 (2021).Robert, J. Hijmans. raster: Geographic Data Analysis and Modeling. R package version 3.5-2 (2021).Wickham, H., François, R., Henry, L. & Müller, K. dplyr: A Grammar of Data Manipulation. R package version 1.0.8 (2022).Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lefcheck, J. S. piecewiseSEM: piecewise structural equation modeling in R for ecology, evolution, and systematics. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 573–579 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Luo, S. et al. High productivity in forests with mixed mycorrhizal strategies. Figshare https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.22060238. (2023). More

Proctor, L. Priorities for the next 10 years of human microbiome research. Nature 569(7758), 623–625 (2019).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bahl, M. I., Bergström, A. & Licht, T. R. Freezing fecal samples prior to DNA extraction affects the Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes ratio determined by downstream quantitative PCR analysis. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 329, 193–197 (2012).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wu, X. et al. Metagenomic insights into nitrogen and phosphorus cycling at the soil aggregate scale driven by organic material amendments. Sci. Total Environ. 785, 147329 (2021).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Singh, B. K., Millard, P., Whiteley, A. S. & Murrell, J. C. Unravelling rhizosphere-microbial interactions: Opportunities and limitations. Trends Microbiol. 12, 386–393 (2004).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Methé, B. A. et al. A framework for human microbiome research. Nature 486, 215–221 (2012).Article 
ADS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Pascoe, E. L., Hauffe, H. C., Marchesi, J. R. & Perkins, S. E. Network analysis of gut microbiota literature: An overview of the research landscape in non-human animal studies. ISME J. 11, 2644–2651 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Gilbert, J. A., Jansson, J. K. & Knight, R. Earth microbiome project and global systems biology. mSystems 3, e00217-17 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Trivedi, P., Leach, J. E., Tringe, S. G., Sa, T. & Singh, B. K. Plant–microbiome interactions: from community assembly to plant health. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 18(11), 607–621 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lloyd-Price, J. et al. Multi-omics of the gut microbial ecosystem in inflammatory bowel diseases. Nature 569(7758), 655–662 (2019).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Chen, T. et al. A plant genetic network for preventing dysbiosis in the phyllosphere. Nature 580(7805), 653–657 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Holman, D. B. & Gzyl, K. E. A meta-analysis of the bovine gastrointestinal tract microbiota. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 95, 72 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chen, L. et al. Plant growth–promoting bacteria improve maize growth through reshaping the rhizobacterial community in low-nitrogen and low-phosphorus soil. Biol. Fertil. Soils 57, 1075–1088. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00374-021-01598-6 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sommer, F. et al. The gut microbiota modulates energy metabolism in the hibernating brown bear Ursus arctos. Cell Rep. 14, 1655–1661 (2016).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hauffe, H. C. & Barelli, C. Conserve the germs: The gut microbiota and adaptive potential. Conserv. Genet. 20(1), 19–27 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pollock, J., Glendinning, L., Wisedchanwet, T. & Watson, M. The madness of microbiome: Attempting to find consensus ‘best practice’ for 16S microbiome studies. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 84(7), e02627-17 (2018).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Thompson, L. R. et al. A communal catalogue reveals Earth’s multiscale microbial diversity. Nature 551(7681), 457–463 (2017).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Costea, P. I. et al. Towards standards for human fecal sample processing in metagenomic studies. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 1069–1076 (2017).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

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

Google Scholar 
Tourlousse, D. M. et al. Synthetic spike-in standards for high-throughput 16S rRNA gene Amplicon sequencing. Nucleic Acids Res. 45, e23–e23 (2017).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Thissen, J. B. et al. Axiom Microbiome Array, the next generation microarray for high-throughput pathogen and microbiome analysis. PLoS ONE 14, e0212045 (2019).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ducarmon, Q. R., Hornung, B. V. H., Geelen, A. R., Kuijper, E. J. & Zwittink, R. D. Toward standards in clinical microbiota studies: Comparison of three DNA extraction methods and two bioinformatic pipelines. mSystems 5, e00547-19 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ray, T. et al. The microbiome of common bedding materials before and after use on commercial dairy farms. Anim. Microbiome 4(1), 1–21 (2022).Article 
MathSciNet 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Akhremchuk, K. V. et al. Gut microbiome of healthy people and patients with hematological malignancies in Belarus. Microbiol. Indep. Res. J. (MIR J.) 9, 18–30 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Smets, W. et al. A method for simultaneous measurement of soil bacterial abundances and community composition via 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Soil Biol. Biochem. 96, 145–151 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Palmer, J. M., Jusino, M. A., Banik, M. T. & Lindner, D. L. Non-biological synthetic spike-in controls and the AMPtk software pipeline improve mycobiome data. PeerJ 6, e4925 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Alteio, L. V. et al. A critical perspective on interpreting amplicon sequencing data in soil ecological research. Soil Biol. Biochem. 160, 108357 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Stämmler, F. et al. Adjusting microbiome profiles for differences in microbial load by spike-in bacteria. Microbiome 4, 1–13 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Risely, A., Wilhelm, K., Clutton-Brock, T., Manser, M. B. & Sommer, S. Diurnal oscillations in gut bacterial load and composition eclipse seasonal and lifetime dynamics in wild meerkats. Nat. Commun. 12(1), 1–12 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Risely, A., et al. Gut microbiota repeatability is contingent on temporal scale and age in wild meerkats. ecoevorxiv (2022). https://doi.org/10.32942/OSF.IO/DSQFRSzóstak, N. et al. The standardisation of the approach to metagenomic human gut analysis: From sample collection to microbiome profiling. Sci. Rep. 12(1), 1–21 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tourlousse, D. M. et al. Synthetic spike-in standards for high-throughput 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing. Nucleic Acids Res. 45, e23 (2017).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Sheu, S. Y., Arun, A. B., Jiang, S. R., Young, C. C. & Chen, W. M. Allobacillus halotolerans gen. nov., sp. Nov. isolated from shrimp paste. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 61, 1023–1027 (2011).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Surendra, V., Bhawana, P., Suresh, K., Srinivas, T. N. R. & Anil Kumar, P. Imtechella halotolerans gen. nov., sp. nov., a member of the family Flavobacteriaceae isolated from estuarine water. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 62, 2624–2630 (2012).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Praeg, N. et al. The role of land management and elevation in shaping soil microbial communities: Insights from the Central European Alps. Soil Biol. Biochem. 150, 107951 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Albonico, F. et al. Raw milk and fecal microbiota of commercial Alpine dairy cows varies with herd, fat content and diet. PLoS ONE 15, e0237262 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Watson, S. E. et al. Global change-driven use of onshore habitat impacts polar bear faecal microbiota. ISME J. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-019-0480-2 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Huebner, K. L. et al. Effects of a Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation product on liver abscesses, fecal microbiome, and resistome in feedlot cattle raised without antibiotics. Sci. Rep. 9(1), 1–11 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fan, P. et al. Host genetic effects upon the early gut microbiota in a bovine model with graduated spectrum of genetic variation. ISME J. 14(1), 302–317 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Mtshali, K., Khumalo, Z. T. H., Kwenda, S., Arshad, I. & Thekisoe, O. M. M. Exploration and comparison of bacterial communities present in bovine faeces, milk and blood using 16S rRNA metagenomic sequencing. PLoS ONE 17, e0273799 (2022).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Johnson, J. S. et al. Evaluation of 16S rRNA gene sequencing for species and strain-level microbiome analysis. Nat. Commun. 10(1), 5029 (2019).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Pei, A. Y. et al. Diversity of 16S rRNA genes within individual prokaryotic genomes. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 76, 3886 (2010).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Stoler, N. & Nekrutenko, A. Sequencing error profiles of Illumina sequencing instruments. NAR Genomics Bioinforma. 3, lqab019 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schirmer, M. et al. Insight into biases and sequencing errors for amplicon sequencing with the Illumina MiSeq platform. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, e37–e37 (2015).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
McLaren, M. R., Willis, A. D. & Callahan, B. J. Consistent and correctable bias in metagenomic sequencing experiments. Elife 8, e46923 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Gonzalez, J. M., Portillo, M. C., Belda-Ferre, P. & Mira, A. Amplification by PCR artificially reduces the proportion of the rare biosphere in microbial communities. PLoS ONE 7, e29973 (2012).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Gilbert, J. A., Jansson, J. K. & Knight, R. The earth microbiome project: Successes and aspirations. BMC Biol. 12, 1–4 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Caporaso, J. G. et al. Global patterns of 16S rRNA diversity at a depth of millions of sequences per sample. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108, 4516–4522 (2011).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Caporaso, J. G. et al. Moving pictures of the human microbiome. Genome Biol. 12, 1–8 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
McDonald, D. et al. American gut: An open platform for citizen science microbiome research. mSystems 3, e00031-18 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Illumina. IMPORTANT NOTICE This document provides information for an application for 16S Metagenomic Sequencing Library Preparation Preparing 16S Ribosomal RNA Gene Amplicons for the Illumina MiSeq System.Teng, F. et al. Impact of DNA extraction method and targeted 16S-rRNA hypervariable region on oral microbiota profiling. Sci. Rep. 8(1), 1–12 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Willis, C., Desai, D. & Laroche, J. Influence of 16S rRNA variable region on perceived diversity of marine microbial communities of the Northern North Atlantic. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 366, fnz152 (2019).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Chen, Z. et al. Impact of preservation method and 16S rRNA hypervariable region on gut microbiota profiling. mSystems 4, e00271-18 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Sanada, T. J. et al. Gut microbiota modification suppresses the development of pulmonary arterial hypertension in an SU5416/hypoxia rat model. Pulm. Circ. 10(3), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1177/2045894020929147 (2020).Article 
MathSciNet 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Praeg, N., Schwinghammer, L. & Illmer, P. Larix decidua and additional light affect the methane balance of forest soil and the abundance of methanogenic and methanotrophic microorganisms. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 366, 259 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vandeputte, D. et al. Quantitative microbiome profiling links gut community variation to microbial load. Nature 551(7681), 507–511 (2017).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Sanders, H. L. Marine benthic diversity: A comparative study. Am. Nat. 102, 243–282. https://doi.org/10.1086/282541 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Aitchison, J. The statistical analysis of compositional data. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 44, 139–160 (1982).MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Stanaway, I. B. et al. Human oral buccal microbiomes are associated with farmworker status and azinphos-methyl agricultural pesticide exposure. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 83, e02149-16 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Grice, E. A. et al. A diversity profile of the human skin microbiota. Genome Res. 18, 1043–1050 (2008).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Payne, M. A. et al. Horizontal and vertical transfer of oral microbial dysbiosis and periodontal disease. J. Dent. Res. 98, 1503–1510 (2019).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Karasov, T. L. et al. The relationship between microbial population size and disease in the Arabidopsis thaliana phyllosphere. bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/828814 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Caporaso, J. G. et al. Ultra-high-throughput microbial community analysis on the Illumina HiSeq and MiSeq platforms. ISME J. 6(8), 1621–1624 (2012).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Apprill, A., McNally, S., Parsons, R. & Weber, L. Minor revision to V4 region SSU rRNA 806R gene primer greatly increases detection of SAR11 bacterioplankton. Aquat. Microb. Ecol. 75, 129–137 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Albanese, D., Fontana, P., De Filippo, C., Cavalieri, D. & Donati, C. MICCA: A complete and accurate software for taxonomic profiling of metagenomic data. Sci. Rep. 5(1), 1–7 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Edgar, R. C. UNOISE2: improved error-correction for Illumina 16S and ITS amplicon sequencing. bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/081257 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Team, R. C. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (2019).Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. M. & Walker, S. C. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
De Mendiburu, F. Agricolae: statistical procedures for agricultural research. R package version, 1(1). https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=it&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Agricolae%3A+Statistical+Procedures+for+Agricultural+Research&btnG (2014).Mortazavi, A., Williams, B. A., McCue, K., Schaeffer, L. & Wold, B. Mapping and quantifying mammalian transcriptomes by RNA-Seq. Nat. Methods 5(7), 621–628 (2008).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Metsalu, T. & Vilo, J. ClustVis: A web tool for visualizing clustering of multivariate data using Principal Component Analysis and heatmap. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, W566–W570 (2015).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Gloor, G. B. & Reid, G. Compositional analysis: A valid approach to analyze microbiome high-throughput sequencing data. Can. J. Microbiol. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjm-2015-082162,692-703 (2016).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
McMurdie, P. J. & Holmes, S. phyloseq: An R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PLoS ONE 8, e61217 (2013).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Oksanen, J., Blanchet, F. G., Friendly, M., Kindt, R., Legendre, P., McGlinn, D., Minchin, P. R., O’Hara, R. B., Simpson, G. L., Solymos, P., Stevens M. H. H., Szöcs, E. & Wagner, H. vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.5-7. 2020 (2022).Wickham H (2016). ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Springer-Verlag, New York. More

Cheung, W. W. L. et al. Shrinking of fishes exacerbates impacts of global ocean changes on marine ecosystems. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 1–5 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Pilotto, F. et al. Meta-analysis of multidecadal biodiversity trends in Europe. Nat. Commun. 11, 3486 (2010).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Ong, J. J. L. et al. Contrasting environmental drivers of adult and Juvenile growth in a marine fish: Implications for the effects of climate change. Sci. Rep. 5, 10859 (2015).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Rijnsdorp, A. D., Peck, M. A., Engelhard, G. H., Moellmann, C. & Pinnegar, J. K. Resolving the effect of climate change on fish populations. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 66(7), 1570–1583 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pankhurst, N. W. & Munday, P. L. Effects of climate change on fish reproduction and early life history stages. Mar. Freshw. Res. 62(9), 1015 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ainsworth, C. H. et al. Potential impacts of climate change on Northeast Pacific marine foodwebs and fisheries. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 68, 1217–1229 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Morrongiello, J. R., Horn, P. L., Ó Maolagáin, C. & Sutton, P. J. H. Synergistic effects of harvest and climate drive synchronous somatic growth within key New Zealand fisheries. Glob. Change Biol. 27(7), 1470–1484 (2021).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ottersen, G., Hjermann, D. O. & Stensenth, N. C. Changes in spawning stocks structure strengthen the link between climate and recruitment in a heavily fished cod (Gadus morhua) stock. Fish. Oceanogr. 15(3), 230–243 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cheung, W. W. L. & Oyinlola, M. A. Vulnerability of flatfish and their fisheries to climate change. J. Sea Res. 140, 1–10 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Fedewa, E. J., Miller, J. A. & Hurst, T. P. Pre-settlement process of northern rock sole (Lepidopsetta polyxystra) in relation to interannual variability in the Gulf of Alaska. J. Sea Res. 111, 25–36 (2016).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Cabral, H. N. et al. Relative importance of estuarine flatfish nurseries along the Portuguese coast. J. Sea Res. 57, 209–217 (2007).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Martinho, F., van der Veer, H. W., Cabral, H. N. & Pardal, M. A. Juvenile nursery colonization patterns for the European flounder (Platichthys flesus): A latitudinal approach. J. Sea Res. 84, 61–69 (2013).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Primo, A. L. et al. Contrasting links between growth and survival in the early life stages of two flatfish species. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 254, 107314 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vaz, A., Scarcella, G., Pardal, M. A. & Martinho, F. Water temperature gradients drive early life-history patterns of the common sole (Solea solea L.) in the Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean. Aquat. Ecol. 53(5) (2019).Geffen, A., van der Veer, H. W. & Nash, R. The cost of metamorphosis in flatfishes. J. Sea Res. 58(1), 35–45 (2007).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Cowen, R. K., Lwiza, K. M. M., Sponaugle, S., Paris, C. B. & Olson, D. B. Connectivity in marine populations: Open or closed?. Science 287, 857–859 (2000).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gillanders, B. M., Black, B. A., Meekan, M. G. & Morrison, M. A. Climatic effects on the growth of a temperate reef fish from the Southern Hemisphere: a biochronological approach. Mar. Biol. 159, 1327–1333 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Treml, E. A., Ford, J. R., Black, K. P. & Swearer, S. E. Identifying the key biophysical drivers, connectivity outcomes, and metapopulation consequences of larval dispersal in the sea. Mov. Ecol. 3(1), 345 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gibson, R. N. Behaviour and the distribution of flatfishes. J. Sea Res. 37(1997), 241–256 (1997).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Mellado-Cano, J., Barriopedro, D., García-Herrera, R., Trigo, R. M. & Hernández, A. Examining the North Atlantic Oscillation, East Atlantic Pattern, and jet variability since 1685. J. Clim. 32, 6285–6298 (2019).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Tanner, S. E. et al. Marine regime shifts impact synchrony of deep-sea fish growth in the northeast Atlantic. Oikos 129(12), 1781–1794 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Trigo, R. M., Osborn, T. J. & Corte-Real, J. M. The North Atlantic Oscillation influence on Europe: Climate impacts and associated physical mechanisms. Clim. Res. 20, 9–17 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Leis, J. M. et al. Does fish larval dispersal differ between high and low latitudes?. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 280(1759), 20130327 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Raventos, N., Torrado, H., Arthur, R., Alcoverro, T. & Macpherson, E. Temperature reduces fish dispersal as larvae grow faster to their settlement size. J. Anim. Ecol. 90(6), 1419–1432 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Santos, A. M. P. et al. Physical-biological interactions in the life history of small Pelagic Fish in the Western Iberia upwelling ecosystem. Prog. Oceanogr. 74(2), 192–209 (2007).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Le Pape, O. & Bonhommeau, S. The food limitation hypothesis for juvenile marine fish. Fish Fish. 16(3), 373–398 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fox, C. et al. Birth-date selection in early life stage of plaice Pleuronectes platessa in the eastern Irish Sea (British Isles). Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 345, 255–269 (2007).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Joh, M. & Wada, A. Inter-annual and spatial difference in hatch date and settlement date distribution and planktonic larval duration in yellow striped flounder Pseudopleuronectes Herzensteini. J. Sea Res. 137, 26–34 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Pinto, M. et al. Influence of oceanic and climate conditions on the early life history of European seabass Dicentrarchus labrax. Mar. Environ. Res. 169, 105362 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Morais, P., Dias, E., Babaluk, J. & Antunes, C. The migration patterns of the European flounder Platichthys flesus (Linnaeus, 1758) (Pleuronectidae, Pisces) at the southern limit of its distribution range: Ecological implications and fishery management. J. Sea Res. 65, 235–246 (2011).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Lacroix, G., Maes, G. E., Bolle, L. J. & Volckaert, F. Modelling dispersal dynamics of the early life stages of a marine flatfish (Solea Solea L.). J. Sea Res. 84(C), 13–25 (2013).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Tanner, S. E., Teles-Machado, A., Martinho, F., Peliz, A. & Cabral, H. N. Modelling larval dispersal Dynamics of common sole (Solea solea) along the western Iberian coast. Prog. Oceanogr. 156, 78–90 (2017).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Amorim, E., Ramos, S., Elliott, M. & Bordalo, A. A. Immigration and early life stages recruitment of the European flounder (Platichthys flesus) to an estuarine nursery: The influence of environmental factors. J. Sea Res. 107(Part 1), 56–66 (2016).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Vasconcelos, R. P., Reis-Santos, P., Costa, M. J. & Cabral, H. N. Connectivity between estuaries and marine environment: Integrating metrics to assess estuarine nursery function. Ecol. Indic. 11(5), 1123–1133 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Orio, A. et al. Spatial contraction of demersal fish populations in a large marine ecosystem. J. Biogeogr. 46(3), 633–645 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Peliz, A., Rosa, T. L., Santos, A. M. P. & Pissarra, J. L. Fronts, jets, and counter-flows in the Western Iberian upwelling system. J. Mar. Syst. 35, 61–77 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Teles-Machado, A., Peliz, A., McWilliams, J. C., Dubert, J. & Le Cann, B. Circulation on the Northwestern Iberian Margin: Swoddies. Prog. Oceanogr 140, 116–133 (2016).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Primo, A. L. et al. Colonization and nursery habitat use patterns of larval and juvenile flatfish species in a small temperate estuary. J. Sea. Res. 76(C), 126–134 (2013).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Vasconcelos, R. P. et al. Evidence of estuarine nursery origin of five coastal fish species along the Portuguese coast through otolith elemental fingerprints. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 79, 317–327 (2008).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
du Sert, N. P. et al. The ARRIVAGE guidelines 2.0: updated guidelines for reporting animal research. J. Physiol. Lond. 598(18), 3793–3801 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Trigo, R. M. et al. The impact of north atlantic wind and cyclone trends on European precipitation and significant wave height in the Atlantic. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1146(1), 212–234 (2008).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Murase, H., Nagashima, H., Yonezaki, S., Matsukura, R. & Kitakado, T. Application of a generalized additive model (GAM) to reveal relationships between environmental factors and distributions of Pelagic Fish and Krill: a Case Study in Senday Bay, Japan. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 66(6), 1417–1424 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wood, S. N. Fast stable restricted maximum likelihood and marginal likelihood estimation of semiparametric generalized linear models. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat. Methodol. 73(1), 3–36 (2011).Article 
MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Tanner, S. E. et al. Regional climate, primary productivity and fish biomass drive growth cariation and population resilience in a small pelagic fish. Ecol. Indic. 103, 530–541 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Almeida, J. R., Gravato, C. & Guilermino, L. Effects of temperature in juvenile Seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax L.) biomarker responses and behaviour: implications for environmental monitoring. Estuaries Coasts 38, 45–55 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sims, D. W., Wearmouth, V. J., Genner, M. J., Southward, A. J. & Hawkins, S. J. Low-temperature-driven early spawning migration of a temperate marine fish. J. Anim. Ecol. 73(2), 333–341 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Faria, A. M., Muha, T., Morote, R. & Chicharro, M. A. Influence of starvation on the critical swimming behaviour of the Senegalensis sole (Solea senegalensis) and its relationship with RNA/DNA ratios during ontogeny. Sci. Mar. 75(1), 87–94 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Downie, A. T., Illing, B., Faria, A. M. & Rummer, J. L. Swimming performance of marine fish larvae: review of a universal trait under ecological and environmental pressure. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 30, 93–108 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Durant, J. M. et al. Contrasting effects of rising temperatures on trophic interactions in marine ecosystems. Na. Sci. Rep. 9(1), 15213 (2019).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Stenseth, N. C. et al. Ecological effects of climate fluctuations. Science 297(5585), 1292–1296 (2002).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Harrington, A. M., Clark, K. F. & Hamlin, H. J. Expected ocean warming conditions significantly alter the transcriptone of developing postlarval American lobsters (Homarus americanus): Implications for energetic trade-offs. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. D Genom. Proteom. 36, 100716 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pörtner, H. O. & Farrell, A. P. Ecology. Physiol. Clim. Change. Sci. 322(5902), 690–692 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Drinkwater, K. F. et al. On the processes linking climate to ecosystem changes. J. Mar. Syst. 79, 374–388 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Alix, M., Kjesbu, O. S. & Anderson, K. C. From Gametogenesis to spawning: How climate-driven warming affects teleost reproductive biology. J. Fish Biol. 97(3), 607–632 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Conover, D. O. & Present, T. M. C. Countergradient variation in growth rate: compensation for length of the growing season among Atlantic silversides from different latitudes. Oceanologia 83, 316–324 (1990).ADS 

Google Scholar 
van de Wolfshaar, K. E., Barbut, L. & Lacroix, G. From spawning to first-year recruitment: the fate of Juvenile Sole Growth and survival under future climate conditions in the North Sea. ICES J. Mar. Sci. (2021).Cabral, H. et al. Contrasting impacts of climate change on connectivity and larval recruitment to estuarine nursery areas. Prog. Oceanogr. 196, 102608 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Iglesias, I., Lorenzo, M. N. & Taboada, J. J. Seasonal predictability of the East Atlantic Pattern from sea surface temperatures. PLoS ONE 9(1), 86439–86448 (2014).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Rodríguez-Puebla, C., Encinas, A. H., García-Casado, L. A. & Nieto, S. Trends in warm days and cold nights over the Iberian Peninsula: relationships to large-scale variables. Clim. Change 100(3), 667–684 (2010).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Hurrell, J. W. & Van Loon, H. Decadal variations in climate associated with the North Atlantic oscillation. Clim. Change 36, 301–326 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
Henderson, P. A. & Seaby, R. M. The role of climate in determining the temporal variation in abundance, recruitment and growth of sole Solea solea in the Bristol Channel. JMBA 85, 197–204 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Rodwell, M. J., Rowell, D. P. & Folland, C. K. Oceanic forcing of the wintertime North Atlantic Oscillation and European Climate. Letters to Nature 398, 320–323 (1999).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hurrell, J. W. Decadal trends in the North Atlantic oscillation: Regional temperatures and precipitation. Sci. 269, 676–679 (1995).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Avalos, M. R. et al. Comparing the foraging strategies of a seabird predator when recovering from drastic climatic event. Mar. Biol. 164, 48 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, C., Liu, H. & Lee, S. K. The record-breaking cold temperatures during the winter of 2009/2010 in the Northern Hemisphere. Atmos. Sci. Lett. 11(3), 161–168 (2010).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rodrigo, F. S. Exploring combined influences of Seasonal East Atlantic (EA) and North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) on the temperature-precipitation relationship in the Iberian Peninsula. Geosciences 11(5), 211 (2021).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Alvarez, I., Gommez-Gesteira, M., Decastro, M. & Dias, J. M. Spatiotemporal evolution of upwelling regime along the western coast of the Iberian Peninsula. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 113(C7), C07020 (2008).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Demarcq, H. Trends in primary production, Sea surface temperature and wind in upwelling systems (1998–2007). Prog. Oceanogr. 83(1), 376–385 (2009).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Thorrold, S. R., Latkoczy, C., Swart, P. K. & Jones, C. M. Natal homing in a marine fish metapopulation. Science 291, 297–299 (2001).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar  More