Ecology

1.Fernández, M. H. & Vrba, E. S. Rapoport effect and biomic specialization in African mammals: revisiting the climatic variability hypothesis. J. Biogeogr. 32, 903–918 (2005).
Google Scholar 
2.Tokeshi, M. & Arakaki, S. Habitat complexity in aquatic systems: fractals and beyond. Hydrobiologia 685, 27–47 (2012).
Google Scholar 
3.Connell, J. H. Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs. Science 199, 1302–1310 (1978).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
4.Yachi, S. & Loreau, M. Biodiversity and ecosystem productivity in a fluctuating environment: the insurance hypothesis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 96, 1463–1468 (1999).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
5.Tilman, D., Reich, P. B. & Knops, J. M. Biodiversity and ecosystem stability in a decade-long grassland experiment. Nature 441, 629–632 (2006).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
6.Willig, M. R., Kaufman, D. M. & Stevens, R. D. Latitudinal gradients of biodiversity: pattern, process, scale, and synthesis. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 34, 273–309 (2003).
Google Scholar 
7.Stein, A., Gerstner, K. & Kreft, H. Environmental heterogeneity as a universal driver of species richness across taxa, biomes and spatial scales. Ecol. Lett. 17, 866–880 (2014).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
8.Thomsen, M. S. et al. Secondary foundation species enhance biodiversity. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 634–639 (2018).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
9.Mac Arthur, R. H. & Wilson, E. O. The theory of island biogeography. Vol. 1 (Princeton university press, 2001).10.Guégan, J.-F., Lek, S. & Oberdorff, T. Energy availability and habitat heterogeneity predict global riverine fish diversity. Nature 391, 382–384 (1998).ADS 

Google Scholar 
11.Heidrich, L. et al. Heterogeneity–diversity relationships differ between and within trophic levels in temperate forests. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1204–1212 (2020).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
12.Kerr, J. T. & Packer, L. Habitat heterogeneity as a determinant of mammal species richness in high-energy regions. Nature 385, 252–254 (1997).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
13.Ranjard, L. et al. Turnover of soil bacterial diversity driven by wide-scale environmental heterogeneity. Nat. Commun. 4, 1–10 (2013).
Google Scholar 
14.Fahrig, L. et al. Functional landscape heterogeneity and animal biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Ecol. Lett. 14, 101–112 (2011).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
15.Ben‐Hur, E. & Kadmon, R. Heterogeneity–diversity relationships in sessile organisms: a unified framework. Ecol. Lett. 23, 193–207 (2020).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
16.Tews, J. et al. Animal species diversity driven by habitat heterogeneity/diversity: the importance of keystone structures. J. Biogeogr. 31, 79–92 (2004).
Google Scholar 
17.Tuanmu, M. N. & Jetz, W. A global, remote sensing‐based characterization of terrestrial habitat heterogeneity for biodiversity and ecosystem modelling. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 24, 1329–1339 (2015).
Google Scholar 
18.MacArthur, R. H. & MacArthur, J. W. On bird species diversity. Ecology 42, 594–598 (1961).
Google Scholar 
19.Allouche, O., Kalyuzhny, M., Moreno-Rueda, G., Pizarro, M. & Kadmon, R. Area–heterogeneity tradeoff and the diversity of ecological communities. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 109, 17495–17500 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
20.Fahrig, L. Rethinking patch size and isolation effects: the habitat amount hypothesis. J. Biogeogr. 40, 1649–1663 (2013).
Google Scholar 
21.Gómez, J., Valladares, F. & Puerta-Piñero, C. Differences between structural and functional environmental heterogeneity caused by seed dispersal. Funct. Ecol. 18, 787–792 (2004).
Google Scholar 
22.Azevedo, J. C., Jack, S. B., Coulson, R. N. & Wunneburger, D. F. Functional heterogeneity of forest landscapes and the distribution and abundance of the red-cockaded woodpecker. Forest Ecol. Manag. 127, 271–283 (2000).
Google Scholar 
23.Watson, D. M. & Herring, M. Mistletoe as a keystone resource: an experimental test. Proc. Royal Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 279, 3853–3860 (2012).
Google Scholar 
24.Ellison, A. M. et al. Loss of foundation species: consequences for the structure and dynamics of forested ecosystems. Front. Ecol. Environ. 3, 479–486 (2005).
Google Scholar 
25.Altieri, A. H., Silliman, B. R. & Bertness, M. D. Hierarchical organization via a facilitation cascade in intertidal cordgrass bed communities. Am. Natur. 169, 195–206 (2007).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
26.Angelini, C. et al. Foundation species’ overlap enhances biodiversity and multifunctionality from the patch to landscape scale in southeastern US salt marshes. Proc. Royal Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 282, 20150421 (2015).27.Angelini, C. & Silliman, B. R. Secondary foundation species as drivers of trophic and functional diversity: evidence from a tree-epiphyte system. Ecology 95, 185–196 (2014).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
28.Bishop, M. J., Byers, J. E., Marcek, B. J. & Gribben, P. E. Density-dependent facilitation cascades determine epifaunal community structure in temperate Australian mangroves. Ecology 93, 1388–1401 (2012).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
29.Bishop, M. J., Fraser, J. & Gribben, P. E. Morphological traits and density of foundation species modulate a facilitation cascade in Australian mangroves. Ecology 94, 1927–1936 (2013).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
30.Thomsen, M. S., Metcalfe, I., South, P. & Schiel, D. R. A host-specific habitat former controls biodiversity across ecological transitions in a rocky intertidal facilitation cascade. Marine Freshwater Res. 67, 144–152 (2016).
Google Scholar 
31.Gribben, P. E. et al. Positive and negative interactions control a facilitation cascade. Ecosphere 8, e02065 (2017).
Google Scholar 
32.Shurin, J. B. et al. A cross‐ecosystem comparison of the strength of trophic cascades. Ecol. Lett. 5, 785–791 (2002).
Google Scholar 
33.Thomsen, M. S. Experimental evidence for positive effects of invasive seaweed on native invertebrates via habitat-formation in a seagrass bed. Aquat. Invas. 5, 341–346 (2010).
Google Scholar 
34.Gribben, P. E. et al. Facilitation cascades in marine ecosystems: a synthesis and future directions. Oceanogr. Marine Biol. 57, 127–168 (2019).
Google Scholar 
35.Gotelli, N. J. & Colwell, R. K. Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecol. Lett. 4, 379–391 (2001).
Google Scholar 
36.Thomsen, M. S. et al. Habitat cascades: the conceptual context and global relevance of facilitation cascades via habitat formation and modification. Integrat. Comparat. Biol. 50, 158–175 (2010).
Google Scholar 
37.Thomsen, M. S. et al. Modified kelp seasonality and invertebrate diversity where an invasive kelp co-occurs with native mussels. Marine Biol. 165, 173 (2018).
Google Scholar 
38.Borst, A. C. et al. Food or furniture: separating trophic and non‐trophic effects of Spanish moss to explain its high invertebrate diversity. Ecosphere 10, e02846 (2019).
Google Scholar 
39.Bologna, P. A. & Heck, K. L. Jr. Macrofaunal associations with seagrass epiphytes: relative importance of trophic and structural characteristics. J. Exp. Marine Biol. Ecol. 242, 21–39 (1999).
Google Scholar 
40.Huston, M. A. & Huston, M. A. Biological diversity: the coexistence of species. (Cambridge University Press, 1994).41.Borer, E. T. et al. Finding generality in ecology: a model for globally distributed experiments. Methods Ecol. Evol. 5, 65–73 (2014).
Google Scholar 
42.Fraser, L. H. et al. Coordinated distributed experiments: an emerging tool for testing global hypotheses in ecology and environmental science. Front. Ecol. Environ. 11, 147–155 (2013).
Google Scholar 
43.Thompson, K., Askew, A., Grime, J., Dunnett, N. & Willis, A. Biodiversity, ecosystem function and plant traits in mature and immature plant communities. Funct. Ecol. 19, 355–358 (2005).
Google Scholar 
44.Duffy, J. E. et al. Biodiversity mediates top–down control in eelgrass ecosystems: a global comparative‐experimental approach. Ecol. Lett. 18, 696–705 (2015).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
45.Arft, A. et al. Responses of tundra plants to experimental warming: meta‐analysis of the international tundra experiment. Ecol. Monogr. 69, 491–511 (1999).
Google Scholar 
46.Thomas, M. A. & Klaper, R. Genomics for the ecological toolbox. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19, 439–445 (2004).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
47.Thomsen, M. S. et al. A sixth‐level habitat cascade increases biodiversity in an intertidal estuary. Ecol. Evol. 6, 8291–8303 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
48.Ricklefs, R. E. Environmental heterogeneity and plant species diversity: a hypothesis. Am. Natur. 111, 376–381 (1977).
Google Scholar 
49.Lundholm, J. T. Plant species diversity and environmental heterogeneity: spatial scale and competing hypotheses. J. Vegetation Sci. 20, 377–391 (2009).
Google Scholar 
50.Tamme, R., Hiiesalu, I., Laanisto, L., Szava‐Kovats, R. & Pärtel, M. Environmental heterogeneity, species diversity and co‐existence at different spatial scales. J. Vegetation Sci. 21, 796–801 (2010).
Google Scholar 
51.Hughes, A. R., Gribben, P. E., Kimbro, D. L. & Bishop, M. J. Additive and site-specific effects of two foundation species on invertebrate community structure. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Series 508, 129–138 (2014).ADS 

Google Scholar 
52.Yakovis, E. & Artemieva, A. Cockles, barnacles and ascidians compose a subtidal facilitation cascade with multiple hierarchical levels of foundation species. Sci. Rep. 7, 1–11 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
53.Thomsen, M. S., Stæhr, P. A., Nejrup, L. & Schiel, D. R. Effects of the invasive macroalgae Gracilaria vermiculophylla on two co-occurring foundation species and associated invertebrates. Aquat. Invas. 8, 133–145 (2013).
Google Scholar 
54.Littler, M. M. Morphological form and photosynthetic performances of marine macroalgae: tests of a functional/form hypothesis. Botan. Marina 22, 161–165 (1980).
Google Scholar 
55.Padilla, D. K. & Allen, B. J. Paradigm lost: reconsidering functional form and group hypotheses in marine ecology. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 250, 207–221 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
56.Wainwright, P. C. Functional morphology as a tool in ecological research. Ecol. Morphol.: Int. Organismal Biol. 42, 59 (1994).
Google Scholar 
57.Angelini, C. & Briggs, K. Spillover of secondary foundation species transforms community structure and accelerates decomposition in oak savannas. Ecosystems, 18, 780–791 (2015).
Google Scholar 
58.Gutiérrez, J. L., Bagur, M. & Palomo, M. G. Algal epibionts as co-engineers in mussel beds: effects on abiotic conditions and mobile interstitial invertebrates. Diversity 11, 17 (2019).
Google Scholar 
59.He, Q., Bertness, M. D. & Altieri, A. H. Global shifts towards positive species interactions with increasing environmental stress. Ecol. Lett. 16, 695–706 (2013).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
60.Watson, D. M. Mistletoe—a keystone resource in forests and woodlands worldwide. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 32, 219–249 (2001).
Google Scholar 
61.Mújica, E., Raventós, J., González, E. & Bonet, A. Long-term hurricane effects on populations of two epiphytic orchid species from Guanahacabibes Peninsula. Cuba. Lankesteriana Int. J. Orchidol. 13, 47–55 (2013).
Google Scholar 
62.Lobelle, D., Kenyon, E. J., Cook, K. J. & Bull, J. C. Local competition and metapopulation processes drive long-term seagrass-epiphyte population dynamics. PLoS ONE 8, e57072 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
63.Svirski, E., Beer, S. & Friedlander, M. Gracilaria conferta and its epiphytes: Interrelationship between the red seaweed and Ulva cf. lactuca. Hydrobiologia 260, 391–396 (1993).
Google Scholar 
64.Cummins, S., Roberts, D. & Zimmerman, K. Effects of the green macroalga Enteromorpha intestinalis on macrobenthic and seagrass assemblages in a shallow coastal estuary. Marine Ecol. Prog. Series 266, 77–87 (2004).ADS 

Google Scholar 
65.Holmquist, J. G. Disturbance and gap formation in a marine benthic mosaic: influence of shifting macroalgal patches on seagrass structure and mobile invertebrates. Marine Ecol. Prog. Series 158, 121–130 (1997).ADS 

Google Scholar 
66.Siciliano, A., Schiel, D. R. & Thomsen, M. S. Effects of local anthropogenic stressors on a habitat cascade in an estuarine seagrass system. Marine Freshwater Res. 70, 1129–1142 (2019).
Google Scholar 
67.Field, R. et al. Spatial species‐richness gradients across scales: a meta‐analysis. J. Biogeogr. 36, 132–147 (2009).
Google Scholar 
68.Šímová, I., Li, Y. M. & Storch, D. Relationship between species richness and productivity in plants: the role of sampling effect, heterogeneity and species pool. J. Ecol. 101, 161–170 (2013).
Google Scholar 
69.Crain, C. M., Kroeker, K. & Halpern, B. S. Interactive and cumulative effects of multiple human stressors in marine systems. Ecol. Lett. 11, 1304–1315 (2008).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
70.Berlow, E. L. Strong effects of weak interactions in ecological communities. Nature 398, 330–334 (1999).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
71.Darling, E. S. & Côté, I. M. Quantifying the evidence for ecological synergies. Ecol. Lett. 11, 1278–1286 (2008).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
72.Paine, R. T., Tegner, M. J. & Johnson, E. A. Compounded perturbations yield ecological surprises. Ecosystems 1, 535–545 (1998).
Google Scholar 
73.Christensen, M. R. et al. Multiple anthropogenic stressors cause ecological surprises in boreal lakes. Glob. Change Biol. 12, 2316–2322 (2006).ADS 

Google Scholar 
74.Strain, E. M. et al. A global analysis of complexity–biodiversity relationships on marine artificial structures. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 30, 140–153 (2021).
Google Scholar 
75.Richardson, J. T. Eta squared and partial eta squared as measures of effect size in educational research. Educ. Res. Rev. 6, 135–147 (2011).
Google Scholar 
76.Clarke, K. R., Gorley, R., Somerfield, P. J. & Warwick, R. Change in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation. (Primer-E Ltd, 2014).77.Gartner, A., Tuya, F., Lavery, P. S. & McMahon, K. Habitat preferences of macroinvertebrate fauna among seagrasses with varying structural forms. J. Exp. Marine Biol. Ecol. 439, 143–151 (2013).
Google Scholar 
78.Green, D. S. & Crowe, T. P. Context-and density-dependent effects of introduced oysters on biodiversity. Biol. Invasions 16, 1145–1163 (2014).
Google Scholar 
79.Lawton, J. H. Are there general laws in ecology? Oikos 84, 177–192 (1999).
Google Scholar 
80.Borer, E. et al. What determines the strength of a trophic cascade? Ecology 86, 528–537 (2005).
Google Scholar 
81.Vellend, M. Conceptual synthesis in community ecology. Quart. Rev. Biol. 85, 183–206 (2010).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
82.Chase, J. M. & Leibold, M. A. Ecological niches: linking classical and contemporary approaches. (University of Chicago Press, 2003).83.Anderson, M. J. et al. Navigating the multiple meanings of β diversity: a roadmap for the practicing ecologist. Ecol. Lett. 14, 19–28 (2011).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
84.Anderson, M. J. A new method for non‐parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecol. 26, 32–46 (2001).
Google Scholar 
85.Veech, J. A. & Crist, T. O. Habitat and climate heterogeneity maintain beta‐diversity of birds among landscapes within ecoregions. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 16, 650–656 (2007).
Google Scholar 
86.Turner, M. G. Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 20, 171–197 (1989).
Google Scholar 
87.Wilson, M. V. & Shmida, A. Measuring beta diversity with presence-absence data. J. Ecol. 72, 1055–1064 (1984).
Google Scholar 
88.Jost, L. Partitioning diversity into independent alpha and beta components. Ecology 88, 2427–2439 (2007).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
89.Socolar, J. B., Gilroy, J. J., Kunin, W. E. & Edwards, D. P. How should beta-diversity inform biodiversity conservation? Trends Ecol. Evol. 31, 67–80 (2016).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
90.McAfee, D., Cole, V. J. & Bishop, M. J. Latitudinal gradients in ecosystem engineering by oysters vary across habitats. Ecology 97, 929–939 (2016).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
91.Altieri, A. H. & Irving, A. D. Species coexistence and the superior ability of an invasive species to exploit a facilitation cascade habitat. PeerJ 5, e2848 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
92.Lindenmayer, D., Franklin, J. & Fischer, J. General management principles and a checklist of strategies to guide forest biodiversity conservation. Biol. Conser. 131, 433–445 (2006).
Google Scholar 
93.Le Roux, D. S., Ikin, K., Lindenmayer, D. B., Manning, A. D. & Gibbons, P. Single large or several small? Applying biogeographic principles to tree-level conservation and biodiversity offsets. Biol. Conser. 191, 558–566 (2015).
Google Scholar 
94.Wernberg, T. et al. Genetic diversity and kelp forest vulnerability to climatic stress. Sci. Rep. 8, 1–8 (2018).
Google Scholar 
95.Macintosh, D. J. & Ashton, E. C. A review of mangrove biodiversity conservation and management. Centre for tropical ecosystems research. (University of Aarhus, 2002).96.Grabowski, J. H. et al. Economic valuation of ecosystem services provided by oyster reefs. Bioscience 62, 900–909 (2012).
Google Scholar 
97.Renzi, J. J., He, Q. & Silliman, B. R. Harnessing positive species interactions to enhance coastal wetland restoration. Front. Ecol. Evol. 7, 131 (2019).
Google Scholar 
98.Silliman, B. R. et al. Facilitation shifts paradigms and can amplify coastal restoration efforts. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 112, 14295–14300 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
99.Bulleri, F. et al. Harnessing positive species interactions as a tool against climate-driven loss of coastal biodiversity. PLoS Biol. 16, e2006852 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
100.Brancalion, P. H. et al. Global restoration opportunities in tropical rainforest landscapes. Sci. Adv. 5, eaav3223 (2019).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
101.Burns, K. Meta-community structure of vascular epiphytes in a temperate rainforest. Botany 86, 1252–1259 (2008).
Google Scholar 
102.Chapman, M. & Blockley, D. Engineering novel habitats on urban infrastructure to increase intertidal biodiversity. Oecologia 161, 625–635 (2009).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
103.Schneider-Mayerson, M. Some islands will rise: Singapore in the Anthropocene. Resilience: J. Environ. Human. 4, 166–184 (2017).
Google Scholar 
104.Wangpraseurt, D. et al. Bionic 3D printed corals. Nat. Commun. 11, 1–8 (2020).
Google Scholar 
105.de Alvarenga, R. A. F., Galindro, B. M., de Fátima Helpa, C. & Soares, S. R. The recycling of oyster shells: an environmental analysis using Life Cycle Assessment. J. Environ. Manag. 106, 102–109 (2012).CAS 

Google Scholar 
106.Morris, J. P., Backeljau, T. & Chapelle, G. Shells from aquaculture: a valuable biomaterial, not a nuisance waste product. Rev. Aqua. 11, 42–57 (2019).
Google Scholar 
107.Hylander, K. & Nemomissa, S. Home garden coffee as a repository of epiphyte biodiversity in Ethiopia. Front. Ecol. Environ. 6, 524–528 (2008).
Google Scholar 
108.Franken, R. J. et al. Effects of interstitial refugia and current velocity on growth of the amphipod Gammarus pulex Linnaeus. J. North Am. Bentholog. Soc. 25, 656–663 (2006).
Google Scholar 
109.Bishop, M. et al. Facilitation of molluscan assemblages in mangroves by the fucalean alga Hormosira banksii. Marine Ecol. Prog. Series 392, 111–122 (2009).ADS 

Google Scholar 
110.Macreadie, P. I., Kimbro, D. L., Fourgerit, V., Leto, J. & Hughes, A. R. Effects of Pinna clams on benthic macrofauna and the possible implications of their removal from seagrass ecosystems. J. Molluscan Studies 80, 102–106 (2014).
Google Scholar 
111.Thomsen, M. S. et al. Earthquake-driven destruction of an intertidal habitat cascade. Aquat. Botany 164, 103217 (2020).
Google Scholar 
112.Enochs, I. C., Toth, L. T., Brandtneris, V. W., Afflerbach, J. C. & Manzello, D. P. Environmental determinants of motile cryptofauna on an eastern Pacific coral reef. Marine Ecol. Prog. Series 438, 105–118 (2011).ADS 

Google Scholar  More

1.McGill, B. J., Enquist, B. J., Weiher, E. & Westoby, M. Rebuilding community ecology from functional traits. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 178–185 (2006).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
2.Urban, M. C. et al. Improving the forecast for biodiversity under climate change. Science 353, 6304 (2016).
Google Scholar 
3.Sheridan, J. A. & Bickford, D. Shrinking body size as an ecological response to climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 1, 401–406 (2011).ADS 

Google Scholar 
4.Zeuss, D., Brandl, R., Brändle, M., Rahbek, C. & Brunzel, S. Global warming favours light-coloured insects in Europe. Nat. Commun. 5, 1–10 (2014).
Google Scholar 
5.Senf, C., Sebald, J. & Seidl, R. Increasing canopy mortality affects the future demographic structure of Europe’s forests. One Earth 4, 749–755 (2021).
Google Scholar 
6.Zellweger, F. et al. Forest microclimate dynamics drive plant responses to warming. Science 368, 772–775 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
7.Scharenbroch, B. C. & Bockheim, J. G. Impacts of forest gaps on soil properties and processes in old growth northern hardwood-hemlock forests. Plant Soil 294, 219–233 (2007).CAS 

Google Scholar 
8.de Frenne, P. et al. Global buffering of temperatures under forest canopies. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 744–749 (2019).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
9.Kermavnar, J. et al. Effects of various cutting treatments and topographic factors on microclimatic conditions in Dinaric fir-beech forests. Agric. For. Meteorol. 295, 108186 (2020).ADS 

Google Scholar 
10.Brown, M. J., Parker, G. G. & Posner, N. E. A survey of ultraviolet-B radiation in forests. J. Ecol. 82, 843 (1994).
Google Scholar 
11.Thom, D. et al. Effects of disturbance patterns and deadwood on the microclimate in European beech forests. Agric. For. Meteorol. 291, 108066 (2020).ADS 

Google Scholar 
12.Frank, A. et al. Risk of genetic maladaptation due to climate change in three major European tree species. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 5358–5371 (2017).ADS 

Google Scholar 
13.Maxime, C. & Hendrik, D. Effects of climate on diameter growth of co-occurring Fagus sylvatica and Abies alba along an altitudinal gradient. Trees 25, 265–276 (2011).
Google Scholar 
14.Vitasse, Y. et al. Contrasting resistance and resilience to extreme drought and late spring frost in five major European tree species. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 3781–3792 (2019).ADS 

Google Scholar 
15.Seidl, R. et al. Forest disturbances under climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 7, 395–402 (2017).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
16.Penone, C. et al. Specialisation and diversity of multiple trophic groups are promoted by different forest features. Ecol. Lett. 22, 170–180 (2019).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
17.Müller, J. et al. Primary determinants of communities in deadwood vary among taxa but are regionally consistent. Oikos 129, 1579–1588 (2020).
Google Scholar 
18.Krah, F.-S. et al. Independent effects of host and environment on the diversity of wood-inhabiting fungi. J. Ecol. 106, 1428–1442 (2018).
Google Scholar 
19.Nagy, L. G. et al. Six key traits of fungi: Their evolutionary origins and genetic bases. Microbiol. Spect. 5, 4 (2017).
Google Scholar 
20.Baldrian, P. Forest microbiome: Diversity, complexity and dynamics. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 41, 109–130 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
21.Raudaskoski, M. & Salonen, M. Interrelationships between vegetative development and basidiocarp initiation. in The Ecology and Physiology of the Fungal Mycelium: Symposium of the British Mycological Society, vol. 8, p. 291 (Cambridge University Press, 1984).22.Kües, U. & Liu, Y. Fruiting body production in Basidiomycetes. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 54, 141–152 (2000).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
23.Sakamoto, Y. Influences of environmental factors on fruiting body induction, development and maturation in mushroom-forming fungi. Fungal Biol. Rev. 32, 236–248 (2018).
Google Scholar 
24.Luo, L., Zhang, S., Wu, J., Sun, X. & Ma, A. Heat stress in macrofungi: Effects and response mechanisms. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 1, 1–10 (2021).
Google Scholar 
25.Krah, F., Hess, J., Hennicke, F., Kar, R. & Bässler, C. Transcriptional response of mushrooms to artificial sun exposure. Ecol. Evol. 11, 10538–10546 (2021).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
26.Krah, F.-S. et al. European mushroom assemblages are darker in cold climates. Nat. Commun. 10, 2890 (2019).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
27.Bässler, C. et al. Global analysis reveals an environmentally driven latitudinal pattern in mushroom size across fungal species. Ecol. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13678 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
28.Bässler, C. et al. Mean reproductive traits of fungal assemblages are correlated with resource availability. Ecol. Evol. 6, 582–592 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
29.Abrego, N., Norberg, A. & Ovaskainen, O. Measuring and predicting the influence of traits on the assembly processes of wood-inhabiting fungi. J. Ecol. 105, 1070–1081 (2016).
Google Scholar 
30.Sánchez-García, M. et al. Fruiting body form, not nutritional mode, is the major driver of diversification in mushroom-forming fungi. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 117, 32528–32534 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
31.Hibbett, D. S. & Binder, M. Evolution of complex fruiting–body morphologies in homobasidiomycetes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269, 1963–1969 (2002).CAS 

Google Scholar 
32.Hibbett, D. S., Pine, E. M., Langer, E., Langer, G. & Donoghue, M. J. Evolution of gilled mushrooms and puffballs inferred from ribosomal DNA sequences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 94, 12002–12006 (1997).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
33.Halbwachs, H., Simmel, J. & Bässler, C. Tales and mysteries of fungal fruiting: How morphological and physiological traits affect a pileate lifestyle. Fungal Biol. Rev. 30, 36–61 (2016).
Google Scholar 
34.Wilson, A. W., Binder, M. & Hibbett, D. S. Effects of gasteroid fruiting body morphology on diversification rates in three independent clades of fungi estimated using binary state speciation and extinction analysis. Evol. Int. J. Org. Evol. 65, 1305–1322 (2011).
Google Scholar 
35.Cordero, R. J. B. & Casadevall, A. Functions of fungal melanin beyond virulence. Fungal Biol. Rev. 31, 99–112 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
36.Zamora-Camacho, F. J., Reguera, S. & Moreno-Rueda, G. Bergmann’s Rule rules body size in an ectotherm: Heat conservation in a lizard along a 2200-metre elevational gradient. J. Evol. Biol. 27, 2820–2828 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
37.Kalmus, H. Physiology and ecology of cuticle colour in insects. Nature 148, 693 (1941).ADS 

Google Scholar 
38.Law, S. J. et al. Darker ants dominate the canopy: Testing macroecological hypotheses for patterns in colour along a microclimatic gradient. J. Anim. Ecol. 89, 347–359 (2020).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
39.Bogert, C. M. Thermoregulation in reptiles, a factor in evolution. Evolution 3, 195–211 (1949).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
40.R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (R Core Team, 2015).41.Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (Springer, 2016).MATH 

Google Scholar 
42.Olou, B. A., Yorou, N. S., Striegel, M., Bässler, C. & Krah, F.-S. Effects of macroclimate and resource on the diversity of tropical wood-inhabiting fungi. For. Ecol. Manage. 436, 79–87 (2019).
Google Scholar 
43.Moser, M. Fungal growth and fructification under stress conditions. Ukrainian Bot. J. 50, 5–11 (1993).
Google Scholar 
44.Walter, H. et al. Vegetation of the Earth in Relation to Climate and the Eco-Physiological Conditions (English Universities Press, 1973).
Google Scholar 
45.Botti, D. A phytoclimatic map of Europe. Cybergeo Eur. J. Geogr. https://doi.org/10.4000/cybergeo.29495 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Sofo, A., Manfreda, S., Fiorentino, M., Dichio, B. & Xiloyannis, C. The olive tree: A paradigm for drought tolerance in Mediterranean climates. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 12, 293–301 (2008).ADS 

Google Scholar 
47.Poorter, H., Niinemets, Ü., Poorter, L., Wright, I. J. & Villar, R. Causes and consequences of variation in leaf mass per area (LMA): A meta-analysis. New Phytol. 182, 565–588 (2009).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
48.Ellenberg, H. H. Spring areas and adjacent swamps. in Vegetation ecology of central Europe 313–313 (Cambridge University Press, 1988).49.Gardner, J. L., Peters, A., Kearney, M. R., Joseph, L. & Heinsohn, R. Declining body size: A third universal response to warming?. New Phytol. 26, 285–291 (2011).
Google Scholar 
50.Stamets, P. Growing Gourmet and Medicinal Mushrooms (Ten Speed Press, 2011).
Google Scholar 
51.Cordero, R. J. B. et al. Impact of yeast pigmentation on heat capture and latitudinal distribution. Curr. Biol. 28, 2657-2664.e3 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
52.Graham, J. H. et al. Species richness, equitability, and abundance of ants in disturbed landscapes. Ecol. Ind. 9, 866–877 (2009).
Google Scholar 
53.Palladini, J. D., Jones, M. G., Sanders, N. J. & Jules, E. S. The recovery of ant communities in regenerating temperate conifer forests. For. Ecol. Manage. 242, 619–624 (2007).
Google Scholar 
54.Punttila, P., Haila, Y., Niemelä, J. & Pajunen, T. Ant communities in fragments of old-growth taiga and managed surroundings. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 31, 131–144 (1994).
Google Scholar 
55.Entling, W., Schmidt-Entling, M. H., Bacher, S., Brandl, R. & Nentwig, W. Body size–climate relationships of European spiders. J. Biogeogr. 37, 477–485 (2010).
Google Scholar 
56.Gotelli, N. J. Null model analysis of species co-occurrence patterns. Ecology 81, 2606–2621 (2000).
Google Scholar 
57.Tucker, C. M., Shoemaker, L. G., Davies, K. F., Nemergut, D. R. & Melbourne, B. A. Differentiating between niche and neutral assembly in metacommunities using null models of beta-diversity. Oikos 125, 778–789 (2015).
Google Scholar 
58.Shipley, B. et al. Reinforcing loose foundation stones in trait-based plant ecology. Oecologia 180, 923–931 (2016).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
59.Krah, F.-S. & Bässler, C. What can intraspecific trait variability tell us about fungal communities and adaptations?. Mycol. Prog. 20, 905–910 (2021).
Google Scholar 
60.Norros, V. & Halme, P. Growth sites of polypores from quantitative expert evaluation: Late-stage decayers and saprotrophs fruit closer to ground. Fungal Ecol. 28, 53–65 (2017).
Google Scholar 
61.Senf, C. et al. Canopy mortality has doubled in Europe’s temperate forests over the last three decades. Nat. Commun. 9, 4978 (2018).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
62.Bässler, C., Seifert, L. & Müller, J. The BIOKLIM project in the National Park Bavarian Forest: Lessons from a biodiversity survey. Silva Gabreta 21, 81–93 (2015).
Google Scholar 
63.Halme, P. & Kotiaho, J. S. The importance of timing and number of surveys in fungal biodiversity research. Biodivers. Conserv. 21, 205–219 (2012).
Google Scholar 
64.Crous, P. W. et al. MycoBank: An online initiative to launch mycology into the 21st century. Stud. Mycol. 50, 19–22 (2004).
Google Scholar 
65.van den Broek, E. L. & van Rikxoort, E. M. Evaluation of color representation for texture analysis. in Paper presented at 16th Belgium-Dutch Conference on Artificial Intelligence, BNAIC 2004, Groningen, Netherlands 35–42 (2004).66.Bernicchia, A. Fungi Europaei, Volume 10. Polyporaceae sl. (Alassio, Italia: Edizioni Candusso, 2005).67.Kembel, S. Community Phylogenetic Analysis with Picante Installing Picante 1–18 (Springer, 2009).
Google Scholar 
68.Gotelli, N. J. & Graves, G. R. Null Models in Ecology (Springer, 1996).
Google Scholar 
69.Hochberg, Y. & Tamhane, A. C. Multiple Comparison Procedures (Wiley, 1987).MATH 

Google Scholar 
70.Dormann, C. G., Elith, J., Bacher, S., Buchmann, C. & Lautenback, S. Collinearity: A review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography 35, 001–020 (2012).
Google Scholar 
71.Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).
Google Scholar 
72.Purhonen, J. et al. Morphological traits predict host-tree specialization in wood-inhabiting fungal communities. Fungal Ecol. 46, 100863 (2020).
Google Scholar 
73.Heilmann-Clausen, J. & Christensen, M. Does size matter?: On the importance of various dead wood fractions for fungal diversity in Danish beech forests. For. Ecol. Manage. 201, 105–117 (2004).
Google Scholar 
74.Lenth, R. V. Least-squares means: The R package lsmeans. J. Stat. Softw. 69, 1–33 (2016).
Google Scholar  More

1.Chen, L. et al. Spatiotemporal dynamics of coastal wetlands and reclamation in the Yangtze estuary during past 50 years (1960s–2015). Chin. Geogr. Sci. 28(3), 386–399 (2018).
Google Scholar 
2.Lv, W. et al. Effect of freshwater inflow on self-restoration of macrobenthic diversity in seaward intertidal wetlands influenced by reclamation projects in the Yangtze estuary, China. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 138, 177–186 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
3.Lv, W. et al. Loss and selfrestoration of macrobenthic diversity in reclamation habitats of estuarine islands in Yangtze Estuary, China. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 103, 128–136 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
4.Matsuda, O. & Kokubu, H. Recent coastal environmental management based on new concept of Satoumi which promotes land-ocean interaction: A case study in Japan. Estuar. Coast. Shelf S 183, 179–186 (2016).ADS 

Google Scholar 
5.Wang, J. et al. Exotic Spartina alterniflora provides compatible habitats for native estuarine crab Sesarma dehaani in the Yangtze River estuary. Ecol. Eng. 34, 57–64 (2008).CAS 

Google Scholar 
6.Lee, S. Y. & Khim, J. S. Hard science is essential to restoring soft-sediment intertidal habitats in burgeoning East Asia. Chemosphere 168, 765–776 (1998).ADS 

Google Scholar 
7.Wang, L. The complete larval development of Sesarma dehaani. J. Shanghai Fisheries Univ. 10(3), 199–206 (2001).CAS 

Google Scholar 
8.Liu, Z. et al. Different effects of reclamation methods on macrobenthos community structure in the Yangtze Estuary, China. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 127, 429–436 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
9.Henry, R. P., Lucu, C., Onken, H. & Weihrauch, D. Multiple functions of the crustacean gill: Osmotic/ionic regulation, acid-base balance, ammonia excretion, and bioaccumulation of toxic metals. Front. Physiol. 3, 431 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
10.McNamara, J. C. & Faria, S. C. Evolution of osmoregulatory patterns and gill ion transport mechanisms in the decapod Crustacea: A review. J. Comp. Physiol. B. 182(8), 997–1014 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
11.Thabet, R., Ayadi, H., Koken, M. & Leignel, V. Homeostatic responses of crustaceans to salinity changes. Hydrobiologia 799(1), 1–20 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
12.Boonsanit, P. & Pairohakul, S. Effects of salinity on haemolymph osmolality, gill Na+/K+ ATPase and antioxidant enzyme activities in the male mud crab Scylla olivacea (Herbst, 1796). Mar. Biol. Res. 17(1), 86–97 (2021).
Google Scholar 
13.Wang, R. et al. Osmotic and ionic regulation and Na+/K+-ATPase, carbonic anhydrase activities in mature Chinese mitten crab, Eriocheir sinensis H. Milne Edwards, 1853 (Decapoda, Brachyura) exposed to different salinities. Crustaceana 85(12–13), 1431–1447 (2012).
Google Scholar 
14.Garçon, D. P. et al. Na+, K+-ATPase activity in the posterior gills of the blue crab, Callinectes ornatus (Decapoda, Brachyura): Modulation of ATP hydrolysis by the biogenic amines spermidine and spermine. J. Membr. Biol. 244, 9–20 (2011).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
15.Jiang, S. & Xu, Q. Influence of salinity stress on the activity of gill Na+/K+-ATPase in swimming crab(Portunus trituberculatus). J. Fish. China 35(10), 1475–1480 (2011).CAS 

Google Scholar 
16.Mo, J. L., Devos, P. & Trausch, G. Active absorption of Cl– and Na+ in posterior gills of Chinese crab, Eriocheir sinensis: modulation by dopamine and cAMP. J. Crust. Biol. 23, 505–512 (2003).
Google Scholar 
17.Charmantier, G. Ontogeny of osmoregulation in crustaceans: A review. Invertebr. Reprod. Dev. 33(2–3), 177–190 (1998).CAS 

Google Scholar 
18.Vargas-Chacoff, L. et al. Effects on the metabolism, growth, digestive capacity and osmoregulation of juvenile of sub-Antarctic Notothenioid fish Eleginops maclovinus acclimated at different salinities. Fish Physiol. Biochem. 41, 1369–1381 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
19.Wang, R. et al. The response of digestive enzyme activity in the mature Chinese mitten crab, Eriocheir sinensis (Decapoda: Brachyura), to gradual increase of salinity. Sci. Mar. 77(2), 323–329 (2013).
Google Scholar 
20.Li, E. et al. Comparison of digestive and antioxidant enzymes activities, haemolymph oxyhemocyanin contents and hepatopancreas histology of white shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei, at various salinities. Aquaculture 274, 80–86 (2008).CAS 

Google Scholar 
21.Asaro, A., del Valle, J. C. & López Mañanes, A. A. Amylase, maltase and sucrase activities in hepatopancreas of the euryhaline crab Neohelice granulata (Decapoda: Brachyura: Varunidae): Partial characterization and response to low environmental salinity. Sci. Mar. 75, 517–524 (2011).CAS 

Google Scholar 
22.Sǒderhǎll, I. et al. Hemocyte production andmaturation in an invertebrate animal; proliferation and gene expression in hematopoietic stem cells of Pacifastacus leniusculus. Dev. Comp. Immunol. 97(8), 661–672 (2004).
Google Scholar 
23.Liu, S., Jiang, X., Mou, H., Wang, H. & Guan, H. Effects of immunopoiysaccharide on LSZ, ALP, ACP and POD activities of Penaeus chinensis serum. Oceanol. Limnol. Sin. 30(3), 278–283 (1999).CAS 

Google Scholar 
24.Ma, Z., Zhang, F. & Jing, A. Overview and graph theory of the immune system of crustacean. Aquacul. Sci. Technol. 11(8), 19–23 (2010).CAS 

Google Scholar 
25.Gu, Q. & He, L. Analysis of hemolymph osmotic pressure in crab (Eriocheir sinensis H. Milne Edwards) during oogenesis. Acta Zool. Sin. 36(2), 165–171 (1990).
Google Scholar 
26.Esser, L. J. & Cumberlidge, N. Evidence that salt water may not be a barrier to the dispersal of Asian freshwater crabs (Decapoda: Brachyura: Gecarcinucidae and potamidae). Raffles B. Zool. 59(2), 259–268 (2011).
Google Scholar 
27.Novo, M. S., Miranda, R. B. & Bianchini, A. Sexual and seasonal variations in osmoregulation and ionoregulation in the estuarine crab Chasmagnathus granulatus (Crustacea, Decapoda). J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 323(2), 118–137 (2005).CAS 

Google Scholar 
28.Huong, D. T. T., Yang, W., Okuno, A. & Wilder, M. N. Changes in free amino acids in the hemolymph of giant freshwater prawn Macrobrachium rosenbergii exposed to varying salinities: Relationship to osmoregulatory ability. Comp. Biochem. Phys. A 128(2), 317–326 (2001).CAS 

Google Scholar 
29.Malmsten, M. & Larsson, A. Immobilization of trypsin on porous glycidyl methacrylate beads: Effects of polymer hydrophilization. Colloid. Surf. B 18, 277–284 (2000).CAS 

Google Scholar 
30.Hosoi, M. et al. Effect of salinity change on free amino acid content in Pacific oyster. Fish. Sci. 69(2), 395–400 (2003).CAS 

Google Scholar 
31.Wang, G. D., Xu, K. F., Tian, X. L., Dong, S. L. & Fang, Z. H. Changes in plasma osmolality, cortisol and amino acid levels of tongue sole (Cynoglossus semilaevis) at different salinities. J. Ocean Univ. China 14(5), 881–887 (2015).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
32.Johnston, D. & Freeman, J. Dietary preference and digestive enzyme activities as indicators of trophic resource utilization by six species of crab. Biol. Bull. 208, 36–46 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
33.Zhang, Y. & Tong, C. Stomach content characteristics and feeding preference of Chiromantes dehaani in the salt marsh of Yangtze estuary. Chinese J. Ecol. 37(7), 2059–2066 (2018).
Google Scholar 
34.Ye, Y. et al. Comparative study on some traits of male and female Eriocheir sinensis raised in pond. Contemp. Aquacult. 38(4), 7–8 (2000).
Google Scholar 
35.Han, S. & Guan, W. Growth and maturity of Chiromantes dehaani in Dazhi River Estuary. Trans. Oceanol. Limnol. 15(1), 51–65 (2012).
Google Scholar 
36.Li, W., Guan, Y. & Yu, Z. Effects of salinity variation on outbreak of white spot syndrome and immunocompetence in Penaeus japonicas. Mar. Environ. Sci. 21(4), 6–9 (2002).
Google Scholar 
37.Pan, L. & Jiang, L. The effect of sudden changes in salinity and pH on immune activity of two species of shrimps. J. Ocean Univ. Qingdao 32(6), 903–910 (2002).CAS 

Google Scholar 
38.Gamperl, A. K., Vijayan, M. M. & Boutilier, R. G. Experimental control of stress hormone levels in fishes: Techniques and applications. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 4(2), 215–255 (1994).
Google Scholar 
39.Weerd, J. H. V. & Komen, J. The effects of chronic stress on growth in fish: A critical appraisal. Comp. Biochem. Phys. A 120(1), 107–112 (1998).
Google Scholar 
40.Barton, B. A., Schreck, C. B. & Barton, L. D. Effects of chronic cortisol administration and daily acute stress on growth, physiological conditions, and stress responses in juvenile rainbow trout. Dis. Aquat. Organ. 2(3), 173–185 (1987).CAS 

Google Scholar 
41.Zhao, Q., Qin, F., Li, C. & Jin, S. Preliminary study on the activities of enzymes in haemolymph of three species of marine crabs. J. Ningbo Univ. 22(1), 33–38 (2009).CAS 

Google Scholar 
42.Lv, W. et al. Macrobenthic diversity in protected, disturbed, and newly formed intertidal wetlands of a subtropical estuary in China. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 89, 259–266 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
43.Ma, Z., Jing, K., Tang, S. & Chen, J. Shorebirds in the eastern intertidal areas of Chongming island during the 2001 northern migration. Stilt 41, 6–10 (2002).
Google Scholar 
44.Sui, L., Wille, M., Cheng, Y., Wu, X. & Sorgeloos, P. Larviculture techniques of Chinese mitten crab Eriocheir sinensis. Aquaculture 315(1–2), 16–19 (2011).
Google Scholar 
45.Luo, M. et al. Community characteristics of macrobenthos in waters around the nature reserve of the Chinese sturgeon Acipenser sinensis and the adjacent waters in Yangtze River estuary. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 27, 425–432 (2011).
Google Scholar 
46.Yang, Z., Zhu, L., Zhao, X. & Cheng, Y. Effects of salinity stress on osmotic pressure, free amino acids, and immune-associated parameters of the juvenile Chinese mitten crab, Eriocheir sinensis. Aquaculture 549, 737776 (2022).
Google Scholar 
47.Tian, L., Tan, P., Yang, L., Zhu, W. & Xu, D. Effects of salinity on the growth, plasma ion concentrations, osmoregulation, non-specific immunity, and intestinal microbiota of the yellow drum (Nibea albiflora). Aquaculture 528, 735470 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar  More

1.Lloyd, G. T. et al. Dinosaurs and the Cretaceous terrestrial revolution. Proc. R. Soc. B 275, 2483–2490 (2008).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
2.Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P. et al. The delayed rise of present-day mammals. Nature 446, 507–512 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
3.Herrera-Flores, J. A., Stubbs, T. L. & Benton, M. J. Ecomorphological diversification of squamates in the Cretaceous. R. Soc. Open Sci. 8, 201961 (2021).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
4.Benton, M. J. The origins of modern biodiversity on land. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 365, 3667–3679 (2010).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
5.Roelants, K. et al. Global patterns of diversifcation in the history of modern amphibians. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 887–892 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
6.Grosberg, R. K., Vermeij, G. J. & Wainwright, P. C. Biodiversity in water and on land. Curr. Biol. 22, 900–903 (2012).
Google Scholar 
7.Condamine, F. L., Silvestro, D., Koppelhus, E. B. & Antonelli, A. The rise of angiosperms pushed conifers to decline during global cooling. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 28867–28875 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
8.Buggs, R. J. The deepening of Darwin’s abominable mystery. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 0169 (2017).
Google Scholar 
9.Friis, E. M., Crane, P. R., Pedersen, K. R., Stampanoni, M. & Marone, F. Exceptional preservation of tiny embryos documents seed dormancy in early angiosperms. Nature 528, 551–554 (2015).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
10.Friis, E. M., Crane, P. R. & Pedersen, K. R. Early Flowers and Angiosperm Evolution (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2011).11.Friis, E. M., Pedersen, K. R. & Crane, P. R. Cretaceous angiosperm flowers: Innovation and evolution in plant reproduction. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 232, 251–293 (2006).
Google Scholar 
12.Soltis, P. S., Folk, R. A. & Soltis, D. E. Darwin review: angiosperm phylogeny and evolutionary radiations. Proc. R. Soc. B 286, 20190099 (2019).PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
13.Bond, W. J. & Scott, A. C. Fire and the spread of flowering plants in the Cretaceous. New Phytol. 188, 1137–1150 (2010).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
14.Bond, W. J. & Midgley, J. J. Fire and the angiosperm revolutions. Int. J. Plant Sci. 173, 569–583 (2012).
Google Scholar 
15.Belcher, C. M. & Hudspith, V. A. Changes to Cretaceous surface fire behaviour influenced the spread of the early angiosperms. New Phytol. 213, 1521–1532 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
16.He, T., Lamont, B. B. & Pausas, J. G. Fire as a key driver of Earth’s biodiversity. Biol. Rev. 94, 1983–2010 (2019).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
17.Cruickshank, R. D. & Ko, K. Geology of an amber locality in the Hukawng Valley, Northern Myanmar. J. Asian Earth Sci. 21, 441–455 (2003).
Google Scholar 
18.Shi, G. H. et al. Age constraint on Burmese amber based on U–Pb dating of zircons. Cretac. Res. 37, 155–163 (2012).
Google Scholar 
19.Yu, T. et al. An ammonite trapped in Burmese amber. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 166, 11345–11350 (2019).
Google Scholar 
20.Xing, L. D. & Qiu, L. Zircon U–Pb age constraints on the Hkamti amber biota in northern Myanmar. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 558, 109960 (2020).
Google Scholar 
21.Xia, F. Y., Yang, G., Zhang, Q. & Shi, G. L. Amber Lives Through Time and Space (Beijing Science Press, 2015).22.Poinar, G. O. & Brown, A. E. A green algae (Chaetophorales: Chaetophoraceae) in Burmese amber. Hist. Biol. 33, 323–327 (2019).
Google Scholar 
23.Liu, Z. J., Huang, D., Cai, C. Y. & Wang, X. The core eudicot boom registered in Myanmar amber. Sci. Rep. 8, 16765 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
24.Poinar, G. O. & Chambers, K. L. Tropidogyne pentaptera sp. nov., a new mid-Cretaceous fossil angiosperm flower in Burmese amber. Palaeodiversity 10, 135–140 (2017).
Google Scholar 
25.Poinar, G. O. & Chambers, K. L. Palaeoanthella huangii gen. and sp. nov., an Early Cretaceous flower (Angiospermae) in Burmese amber. SIDA 21, 2087–2092 (2005).
Google Scholar 
26.Goldblatt, P. An analysis of the flora of Southern Africa: its characteristics, relationships, and orgins. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 65, 369–436 (1978).
Google Scholar 
27.Verboom, G. A. et al. in Fynbos: Ecology, Evolution and Conservation of a Megadiverse Region (eds Allsopp, N. et al.) 93–118 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2014).28.Hauenschild, F., Favre, A., Michalak, I. & Muellner-Riehl, A. N. The influence of the Gondwanan breakup on the biogeographic history of the ziziphoids (Rhamnaceae). J. Biogeogr. 45, 2669–2677 (2018).
Google Scholar 
29.Onstein, R. E. & Linder, H. P. Beyond climate: convergence in fast evolving sclerophylls in Cape and Australian Rhamnaceae predates the mediterranean climate. J. Ecol. 104, 665–677 (2016).
Google Scholar 
30.Brown, S., Scott, A. C., Glasspool, I. J. & Collinson, M. E. Cretaceous wildfires and their impact on the Earth system. Cretac. Res. 36, 162–190 (2012).
Google Scholar 
31.Richardson, J. E. et al. Rapid and recent origin of species richness in the Cape flora of South Africa. Nature 412, 181–183 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
32.Pillans, N. S. The genus Phylica. J. S. Afr. Bot. 8, 1–164 (1942).
Google Scholar 
33.Rebelo, T. et al. in The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (eds Mucina, L. & Rutherford, M. C.) 52–219 (South African National Biodiversity Institute, 2006).34.Gimingham, C. H. & Cowling, R. The ecology of fynbos: nutrients, fire and diversity. J. Ecol. 81, 195–196 (1993).
Google Scholar 
35.Richardson, J. E., Fay, M. F., Cronk, Q. C. B. & Cronk, M. W. Species delimitation and the origin of populations in island representatives of Phylica (Rhamnaceae). Evolution 57, 816–827 (2003).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
36.Richardson, J. E. Molecular Systematics of the Genus Phylica L. With an Emphasis on the Island Species (Edinburgh Univ. Press, 1999).37.Schirarend, C. & Köhler, E. World Pollen and Spore Flora: Rhamnaceae Juss (Scandinavian Univ. Press, 1993).38.Medan, D. & Schirarend, C. in Flowering plants · Dicotyledons (ed. Kubitzki, K.) 320–338 (Springer, 2004).39.Gotelli, M. M., Galati, B. G. & Medan, D. Morphological and ultrastructural studies of floral nectaries in Rhamnaceae. J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 144, 63–73 (2017).
Google Scholar 
40.Friedrich, O., Norris, R. D. & Erbacher, J. Evolution of middle to Late Cretaceous oceans–a 55 m.y. record of Earth’s temperature and carbon cycle. Geology 40, 107–110 (2012).CAS 

Google Scholar 
41.Lenton, T. M., Daines, S. J. & Mills, B. J. W. COPSE reloaded: an improved model of biogeochemical cycling over Phanerozoic time. Earth Sci. Rev. 178, 1–28 (2018).CAS 

Google Scholar 
42.Huber, B. T., Hodell, D. A. & Hamilton, C. P. Middle-Late Cretaceous climate of the southern high latitudes: stable isotopic evidence for minimal equator-to-pole thermal gradients. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 107, 1164–1191 (1995).
Google Scholar 
43.Belcher, C. M., Yearsley, J. M., Hadden, R. M., Mcelwain, J. C. & Rein, G. Baseline intrinsic flammability of Earth’s ecosystems estimated from paleoatmospheric oxygen over the past 350 million years. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 22448–22453 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
44.Berner, R. A., Beerling, D. J., Dudley, R., Robinson, J. M. & Wildman, R. A. Phanerozoic atmospheric oxygen. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 31, 105–134 (2003).CAS 

Google Scholar 
45.Glasspool, I. J. & Scott, A. C. Phanerozoic concentrations of atmospheric oxygen reconstructed from sedimentary charcoal. Nat. Geosci. 3, 627–630 (2010).CAS 

Google Scholar 
46.Poulsen, C. J., Tabor, C. & White, J. D. Long-term climate forcing by atmospheric oxygen concentrations. Science 348, 1238–1241 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
47.Hudspith, V. A. & Belcher, C. M. Fire biases the production of charred flowers: implications for the Cretaceous fossil record. Geology 45, 727–730 (2017).
Google Scholar 
48.Scott, A. C. Charcoal recognition, taphonomy and uses in palaeoenvironmental analysis. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 291, 11–39 (2010).
Google Scholar 
49.Scott, A. C. The use of charcoal to interpret Cretaceous wildfires and volcanic activity. Glob. Geol. 22, 217–241 (2019).
Google Scholar 
50.Scott, A. C., Cripps, J. A., Nichols, G. J. & Collinson, M. E. The taphonomy of charcoal following a recent heathland fire and some implications for the interpretation of fossil charcoal deposits. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 164, 1–31 (2000).
Google Scholar 
51.Whtilock, C., Higuera, P. E., McWethy, D. B. & Briles, C. E. Paleoecological perspectives on fire ecology: revisiting the fire-regime concept. Open Ecol. J. 3, 6–23 (2010).
Google Scholar 
52.Bond, W. J. & Keeley, J. E. Fire as global ‘herbivore’: the ecology and evolution of flammable ecosystems. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20, 387–394 (2005).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
53.Bowman, D. M. J. S. et al. Fire in the Earth system. Science 324, 481–484 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
54.Crisp, M. D., Burrows, G. E., Cook, L. G., Thornhill, A. H. & Bowman, D. M. J. S. Flammable biomes dominated by eucalypts originated at the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary. Nat. Commun. 2, 193 (2011).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
55.Pausas, J. G. & Keeley, J. E. A burning story: the role of fire in the history of life. Bioscience 59, 593–601 (2009).
Google Scholar 
56.Scott, A. C. Burning Planet. The Story of Fire Through Time (Oxford Univ. Press, 2018).57.Scott, A. C. Fire: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford Univ. Press, 2020).58.Scott, A. C., Bowman, D. J. M. S., Bond, W. J., Pyne, S. J. & Alexander M. Fire on Earth: An Introduction (J. Wiley & Sons Press, 2014).59.Keeley, J. E., Pausas, J. G., Rundel, P. W., Bond, W. J. & Bradstock, R. A. Fire as an evolutionary pressure shaping plant traits. Trends Plant Sci. 16, 406–411 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
60.Lenton,T. M. in Fire Phenomena and the Earth System: An Interdisciplinary Guide to Fire Science (ed. Belcher, C. M.) 289–308 (J. Wiley & Sons Press, 2013).61.Herendeen, P. S., Magallon-Puebla, S., Lupia, R., Crane, P. R. & Kobylinska, J. A preliminary conspectus of the Allon flora from the Late Cretaceous (Late Santonian) of the central Georgia, USA. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 86, 407–471 (1999).
Google Scholar 
62.He, T., Pausas, J. G., Belcher, C. M., Schwilk, D. W. & Lamont, B. B. Fire-adapted traits of Pinus arose in the fiery Cretaceous. New Phytol. 194, 751–759 (2012).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
63.Cornwell, W. K. et al. Flammability across the gymnosperm phylogeny: the importance of litter particle size. New Phytol. 206, 672–681 (2015).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
64.Lamont, B. B. & He, T. Fire-adapted Gondwanan angiosperm floras evolved in the Cretaceous. BMC Evol. Biol. 12, 223 (2012).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
65.He, T., Lamont, B. B. & Manning, J. A. Cretaceous origin for fire adaptations in the Cape flora. Sci. Rep. 6, 34880 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
66.He, T., Lamont, B. B. & Downes, K. S. Banksia born to burn. New Phytol. 191, 184–196 (2011).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
67.Midgley, J. & Bond, W. Pushing back in time, the role of fire in plant evolution. New Phytol. 191, 5–7 (2011).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
68.Scott, A. C. The Pre-Quaternary history of fire. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 164, 281–329 (2000).
Google Scholar 
69.Midgley, J. J., Kruger, L. M. & Skelton, R. How do fires kill plants? The hydraulic death hypothesis and Cape Proteaceae “fire-resisters”. S. Afr. J. Bot. 77, 381–386 (2011).
Google Scholar 
70.Lamont, B. B., Groom, P. K., Williams, M. & He, T. LMA, density and thickness: recognizing different leaf shapes and correcting for their non-laminarity. New Phytol. 207, 942–947 (2015).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
71.Lamont, B. B., He, T. & Yan, Z. Evolutionary history of fire-stimulated resprouting, flowering, seed release and germination. Biol. Rev. 94, 903–928 (2019).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
72.Schwilk, D. W. & Kerr, B. Genetic niche-hiking: an alternative explanation for the evolution of flammability. Oikos 99, 431–442 (2002).
Google Scholar 
73.Kilian, D. & Cowling, R. M. Comparative seed biology and co-existence of two fynbos shrub species. J. Veg. Sci. 3, 637–646 (1992).
Google Scholar 
74.Hall, S. A., Newton, R. J., Holmes, P. M., Gaertner, M. & Esler, K. J. Heat and smoke pre‐treatment of seeds to improve restoration of an endangered Mediterranean climate vegetation type. Austral Ecol. 42, 354–366 (2017).
Google Scholar 
75.Ruprecht, E., Fenesi, A., Fodor, E. I., Kuhn, T. & Tklyi, J. Shape determines fire tolerance of seeds in temperate grasslands that are not prone to fire. Perspect. Plant Ecol. 17, 397–404 (2015).
Google Scholar 
76.Mohr, B. A. R. & Friis, E. M. Early angiosperms from the Lower Cretaceous Crato Formation (Brazil), a preliminary report. Int. J. Plant Sci. 161, 155–167 (2000).
Google Scholar 
77.Forest, F. et al. Preserving the evolutionary potential of floras in biodiversity hotspots. Nature 445, 757–760 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
78.Linder, H. P. Evolution of diversity: the Cape flora. Trends Plant Sci. 10, 536–541 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
79.Linder, H. P. The radiation of the Cape flora, southern Africa. Biol. Rev. 78, 597–638 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
80.Poinar, G. O. Burmese amber: evidence of Gondwanan origin and Cretaceous dispersion. Hist. Biol. 31, 1304–1309 (2019).
Google Scholar 
81.Oliveira, I. D. S. et al. Earliest onychophoran in amber reveals Gondwanan migration patterns. Curr. Biol. 26, 2594–2601 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
82.Poinar, G. O., Lambert, J. B. & Wu, Y. Araucarian source of fossiliferous Burmese amber: spectroscopic and anatomical evidence. J. Bot. Res. Inst. Tex. 1, 449–455 (2007).
Google Scholar 
83.Cai, C. Y. et al. Basal polyphagan beetles in mid-Cretaceous amber from Myanmar: biogeographic implications and long-term morphological stasis. Proc. R. Soc. B 286, 2175 (2019).
Google Scholar 
84.Zhang, W., Li, H., Shih, C., Zhang, A. & Ren, D. Phylogenetic analyses with four new Cretaceous bristletails reveal inter-relationships of Archaeognatha and Gondwana origin of Meinertellidae. Cladistics 34, 384–406 (2018).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
85.Westerweel, J. et al. Burma Terrane part of the Trans-Tethyan Arc during collision with India according to palaeomagnetic data. Nat. Geosci. 12, 5–6 (2019).
Google Scholar 
86.Metcalfe, I. in Biogeography and Geological Evolution of SE Asia (eds Hall, R. & Holloway, J. D.) 25–41 (Backhuys Publishers Press,1998).87.Li, J., Wu, Y., Peng, J. & Batten, D. J. Palynofloral evolution on the northern margin of the Indian Plate, southern Xizang, China during the Cretaceous period and its phytogeographic significance. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 515, 107–122 (2019).
Google Scholar 
88.Smith, A. G., Smith, D. G. & Funnell B. M. Atlas of Mesozoic and Cenozoic Coastlines (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2004).89.Klages, J. P. et al. Temperate rainforests near the South Pole during peak Cretaceous warmth. Nature 580, 81–86 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
90.Coetzee, J. A. & Muller, J. The phytogeographic significance of some extinct Gondwana pollen types from the Tertiary of the southwestern Cape (South Africa). Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 71, 1088–1099 (1984).
Google Scholar 
91.De Villiers, S. E. & Cadman, A. The palynology of Tertiary sediments from a palaeochannel in Namaqualand, South Africa. Palaeontol. Afr. 34, 69–99 (1997).
Google Scholar 
92.De Villiers, S. E. & Cadman, A. An analysis of the palynomorphs obtained from Tertiary sediments at Koingnaas, Namaqualand, South Africa. J. Afr. Earth Sci. 33, 17–47 (2001).
Google Scholar 
93.Sandersen, A., Scott, L., McLachlan, I. R. & Hancox, P. J. Cretaceous biozonation based on terrestrial palynomorphs from two wells in the offshore Orange Basin of South Africa. Palaeontol. Afr. 46, 21–41 (2011).
Google Scholar 
94.Hooghiemstra, H., Lézine, A. M., Leroy, S. A. G., Dupont, L. & Marret, F. Late Quaternary palynology in marine sediments: a synthesis of the understanding of pollen distribution patterns in the NW African setting. Quat. Int. 148, 29–44 (1988).
Google Scholar 
95.Scholtz, A. The palynology of the upper lacustrine sediments of the Arnot Pipe, Banke, Namaqualand. Ann. S. Afr. Mus. 95, 1–109 (1985).
Google Scholar 
96.Sciscio, L. et al. Fluctuations in Miocene climate and sea levels along the south-western South African coast: inferences from biogeochemistry, palynology and sedimentology. Palaeontol. Afr. 48, 2–18 (2013).
Google Scholar 
97.Roberts, D. L. et al. Miocene fluvial systems and palynofloras at the southwestern tip of Africa: implications for regional and global fluctuations in climate and ecosystems. Earth Sci. Rev. 124, 184–201 (2013).
Google Scholar 
98.Roberts, D. L. et al. Palaeoenvironments during a terminal Oligocene or early Miocene transgression in a fluvial system at the southwestern tip of Africa. Glob. Planet. Change 150, 1–23 (2017).
Google Scholar 
99.Grimaldi, D., Engel, M. S. & Nascimbene, P. Fossiliferous Cretaceous amber from Myanmar (Burma): its rediscovery, biotic diversity, and paleontological significance. Am. Mus. Novit. 3361, 1–72 (2002).
Google Scholar 
100.Mao, Y. et al. Various amberground marine animals on Burmese amber with discussions on its age. Palaeoentomology 1, 91–103 (2018).
Google Scholar 
101.Smith, R. D. & Ross, A. J. Amberground pholadid bivalve borings and inclusions in Burmese amber: implications for proximity of resin-producing forests to brackish waters, and the age of the amber. Earth Env. Sci. Trans. R. Soc. Edinb. 107, 239–247 (2018).
Google Scholar 
102.Schmidt, A. R. & Dilcher, D. L. Aquatic organisms as amber inclusions and examples from a modern swamp forest. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 16581–16585 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
103.Cole, L. E., Bhagwat, S. A. & Willis, K. J. Fire in the swamp forest: palaeoecological insights into natural and human-induced burning in intact tropical peatlands. Front. For. Glob. Change 2, 48 (2019).
Google Scholar 
104.Labandeira, C. C. in Reading and Writing of the Fossil Record: Preservational Pathways to Exceptional Fossilization. The Paleontological Society Papers (eds Laflamme, M. et al.) 163–216 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).105.Seyfullah, L. J. et al. Production and preservation of resins–past and present. Biol. Rev. 93, 1684–1714 (2018).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
106.Putz, M. K. & Taylor, E. L. Wound response in fossil trees assemblages from Antarctica and its potential as a palaeoenvironmental indicator. IAWA J. 17, 77–88 (1996).
Google Scholar 
107.McKellar, R. C. et al. Insect outbreaks produce distinctive carbon isotope signatures in defensive resins and fossiliferous ambers. Proc. R. Soc. B 278, 3219–3224 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
108.Pausas, J. G. Generalized fire response strategies in plants and animals. Oikos 128, 147–153 (2019).
Google Scholar 
109.Schmidt, A. R. et al. Arthropods in amber from the Triassic Period. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 14796–14801 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
110.Silvestro, D. et al. Fossil data support a pre-Cretaceous origin of flowering plants. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 449–457 (2021).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
111.Donoghue, P. Evolution: the flowering of land plant evolution. Curr. Biol. 29, 753–756 (2019).
Google Scholar 
112.Thulin, M. et al. Family relationships of the enigmatic rosid genera Barbeya and Dirachma from the Horn of Africa region. Plant Syst. Evol. 213, 103–119 (1998).
Google Scholar 
113.Wilf, P., Carvalho, M. R., Gandolfo, M. A. & Cúneo, N. R. Eocene lantern fruits from Gondwanan Patagonia and the early origins of Solanaceae. Science 355, 71–75 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar  More

1.Blicharska, M. & Mikusiński, G. Incorporating social and cultural significance of large old trees in conservation policy. Conserv. Biol. 28, 1558–1567 (2014).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
2.Lindenmayer, D. B. & Laurance, W. F. The ecology, distribution, conservation and management of large old trees. Biol. Rev. Camb. Phil. Soc. 92, 1434–1458 (2017).
Google Scholar 
3.Munné-Bosch, S. Limits to tree growth and longevity. Trends Plant Sci. 23, 985–993 (2018).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
4.Lindenmayer, D. B. Conserving large old trees as small natural features. Biol. Conserv. 211, 51–59 (2017).
Google Scholar 
5.Lutz, J. A. et al. Global importance of large-diameter trees. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 27, 849–864 (2018).
Google Scholar 
6.Slik, J. W. F. et al. Large trees drive forest aboveground biomass variation in moist lowland forests across the tropics: large trees and tropical forest biomass. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 22, 1261–1271 (2013).
Google Scholar 
7.McMahon, S. M., Arellano, G. & Davies, S. J. The importance and challenges of detecting changes in forest mortality rates. Ecosphere 10, e02615 (2019).
Google Scholar 
8.Vieira, S. et al. Slow growth rates of Amazonian trees: consequences for carbon cycling. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 18502–18507 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
9.Martınez-Ramos, M. & Alvarez-Buylla, E. R. How old are tropical rain forest trees? Trends Plant Sci. 3, 400–405 (1998).
Google Scholar 
10.Schöngart, J., Bräuning, A., Barbosa, A. C. M. C., Lisi, C. S. & de Oliveira, J. M. in Dendroecology: Tree-Ring Analyses Applied to Ecological Studies (eds Amoroso, M. M. et al.) 35–73 (Springer, 2017).11.Brienen, R. J. W. & Zuidema, P. A. Lifetime growth patterns and ages of Bolivian rain forest trees obtained by tree ring analysis. J. Ecol. 94, 481–493 (2006).
Google Scholar 
12.Piovesan, G. & Biondi, F. On tree longevity. New Phytol. 231, 1318–1337 (2021).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
13.Esquivel-Muelbert, A. et al. Tree mode of death and mortality risk factors across Amazon forests. Nat. Commun. 11, 5515 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
14.Condit, R., Hubbell, S. P. & Foster, R. B. Mortality rates of 205 neotropical tree and shrub species and the impact of a severe drought. Ecol. Monogr. 65, 419–439 (1995).
Google Scholar 
15.Acker, S. A. et al. Recent tree mortality and recruitment in mature and old-growth forests in western Washington. Ecol. Manage. 336, 109–118 (2015).
Google Scholar 
16.Thomas, R. Q., Kellner, J. R., Clark, D. B. & Peart, D. R. Low mortality in tall tropical trees. Ecology 94, 920–929 (2013).
Google Scholar 
17.Stephenson, N. L. & Mantgem, P. J. Forest turnover rates follow global and regional patterns of productivity. Ecol. Lett. 8, 524–531 (2005).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
18.Drobyshev, I. et al. Lifespan and mortality of old oaks—combining empirical and modelling approaches to support their management in Southern Sweden. Ann. Sci. 65, 401–401 (2008).
Google Scholar 
19.Richardson, S. J. et al. Large-tree growth and mortality rates in forests of the central North Island, New Zealand. N. Z. J. Ecol. 33, 208–215 (2009).
Google Scholar 
20.Chambers, J. Q., Higuchi, N. & Schimel, J. P. Ancient trees in Amazonia. Nature 391, 135–136 (1998).CAS 

Google Scholar 
21.Laurance, W. F., Nascimento, H. E. M., Laurance, S. G., Condit, R., D’Angelo, S. & Andrade, A. Inferred longevity of Amazonian rainforest trees based on a long-term demographic study. Ecol. Manage. 190, 131–143 (2004).
Google Scholar 
22.Fichtler, E., Clark, D. A. & Worbes, M. Age and long-term growth of trees in an old-growth tropical rain forest, based on analyses of tree rings and C-14. Biotropica 35, 306–317 (2003).
Google Scholar 
23.Foster, D. R. Land-use history (1730–1990) and vegetation dynamics in central New England, USA. J. Ecol. 80, 753–771 (1992).
Google Scholar 
24.Senf, C., Buras, A., Zang, C. S., Rammig, A. & Seidl, R. Excess forest mortality is consistently linked to drought across Europe. Nat. Commun. 11, 6200 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
25.van Mantgem, P. J. et al. Widespread increase of tree mortality rates in the western United States. Science 323, 521–524 (2009).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
26.Qiu, T. et al. Is there tree senescence? The fecundity evidence. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2106130118 (2021).27.Barrett, S. C. H. Influences of clonality on plant sexual reproduction. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 8859–8866 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
28.Thomas, H. Senescence, ageing and death of the whole plant. New Phytol. 197, 696–711 (2013).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
29.Munné-Bosch, S. Long-lived trees are not immortal. Trends Plant Sci. 25, 846–849 (2020).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
30.Sillett, S. C. et al. Comparative development of the four tallest conifer species. Ecol. Manage. 480, 118688 (2021).
Google Scholar 
31.Koch, G. W., Sillett, S. C., Jennings, G. M. & Davis, S. D. The limits to tree height. Nature 428, 851–854 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
32.Thomas, H. Ageing in plants. Mech. Ageing Dev. 123, 747–753 (2002).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
33.Dahlgren, J. P., García, M. B. & Ehrlén, J. Nonlinear relationships between vital rates and state variables in demographic models. Ecology 92, 1181–1187 (2011).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
34.Klimešová, J., Malíková, L., Rosenthal, J. & Šmilauer, P. Potential bud bank responses to apical meristem damage and environmental variables: matching or complementing axillary meristems? PLoS ONE 9, e88093 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
35.Plomion, C. et al. Oak genome reveals facets of long lifespan. Nat. Plants 4, 440–452 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
36.Hanlon, V. C. T., Otto, S. P. & Aitken, S. N. Somatic mutations substantially increase the per-generation mutation rate in the conifer Picea sitchensis. Evol. Lett. 1, 95 (2019).
Google Scholar 
37.Amaral, J. et al. Advances and promises of epigenetics for forest trees. Trees Livelihoods 11, 976 (2020).
Google Scholar 
38.Carbó, M. et al. in Epigenetics in Plants of Agronomic Importance: Fundamentals and Applications: Transcriptional Regulation and Chromatin Remodelling in Plants (eds Alvarez-Venegas, R. et al.) 381–403 (Springer, 2019).39.Sow, M. D. et al. in Advances in Botanical Research (eds Mirouze, M. et al.) Vol. 88, 387–453 (Academic Press, 2018).40.Das, A., Battles, J., Stephenson, N. L. & van Mantgem, P. J. The contribution of competition to tree mortality in old-growth coniferous forests. Ecol. Manage. 261, 1203–1213 (2011).
Google Scholar 
41.Etzold, S. et al. One century of forest monitoring data in Switzerland reveals species-and site-specific trends of climate-induced tree mortality. Front. Plant Sci. 10, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.00307 (2019).42.McNellis, B. E., Smith, A. M. S., Hudak, A. T. & Strand, E. K. Tree mortality in western U.S. forests forecasted using forest inventory and Random Forest classification. Ecosphere 12, https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3419 (2021).43.Piovesan, G. et al. Lessons from the wild: slow but increasing long-term growth allows for maximum longevity in European beech. Ecology 100, e02737 (2019).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
44.Piovesan, G. et al. Radiocarbon dating of Aspromonte sessile oaks reveals the oldest dated temperate flowering tree in the world. Ecology 101, e03179 (2020).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
45.Körner, C. A matter of tree longevity. Science 355, 130–131 (2017).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
46.Poulter, B. et al. The global forest age dataset and its uncertainties (GFADv1.1). PANGAEA https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.889943 (2019).47.Di Filippo, A., Biondi, F., Piovesan, G. & Ziaco, E. Tree ring-based metrics for assessing old-growth forest naturalness. J. Appl. Ecol. 54, 737–749 (2017).
Google Scholar 
48.Caetano-Andrade, V. L. et al. Tropical trees as time capsules of anthropogenic activity. Trends Plant Sci. 25, 369–380 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
49.Roskilly, B., Keeling, E., Hood, S., Giuggiola, A. & Sala, A. Conflicting functional effects of xylem pit structure relate to the growth–longevity trade-off in a conifer species. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 15282–15287 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
50.Kingman, J. F. C. The coalescent. Stoch. Process. Appl. 13, 235–248 (1982).
Google Scholar 
51.Joly, S., McLenachan, P. A. & Lockhart, P. J. A statistical approach for distinguishing hybridization and incomplete lineage sorting. Am. Nat. 174, E54–E70 (2009).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
52.Leaché, A. D., Harris, R. B., Rannala, B. & Yang, Z. The influence of gene flow on species tree estimation: a simulation study. Syst. Biol. 63, 17–30 (2014).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
53.Yu, Y., Dong, J., Liu, K. J. & Nakhleh, L. Maximum likelihood inference of reticulate evolutionary histories. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 16448–16453 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
54.Zhou, Y. et al. Importance of incomplete lineage sorting and introgression in the origin of shared genetic variation between two closely related pines with overlapping distributions. Heredity 118, 211–220 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
55.Petit, R. J. & Hampe, A. Some evolutionary consequences of being a tree. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 37, 187–214 (2006).
Google Scholar 
56.Tejo, C. F. & Fontúrbel, F. E. A vertical forest within the forest: millenary trees from the Valdivian rainforest as biodiversity hubs. Ecology 100, e02584 (2019).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
57.Stephenson, N. L. et al. Rate of tree carbon accumulation increases continuously with tree size. Nature 507, 90–93 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar  More

1.Herrero, M. et al. Livestock and the environment: What have we learned in the past decade?. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 40, 177–202 (2015).
Google Scholar 
2.Robinson, T. P. et al. Mapping the global distribution of livestock. PLoS ONE 9, e96084 (2014).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
3.Firbank, L. G., Petit, S., Smart, S., Blain, A. & Fuller, R. J. Assessing the impacts of agricultural intensification on biodiversity: A British perspective. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 363, 777–787 (2007).
Google Scholar 
4.Laurance, W. F., Sayer, J. & Cassman, K. G. Agricultural expansion and its impacts on tropical nature. Trends Ecol. Evol. 29, 107–116 (2014).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
5.Steinfeld, H., de Haan, C. & Blackburn, H. Livestock—Environment Interactions 88 (WRENmedia, 1997).
Google Scholar 
6.Eldridge, D. J., Poore, A. G. B., Ruiz-Colmenero, M., Letnic, M. & Soliveres, S. Ecosystem structure, function, and composition in rangelands are negatively affected by livestock grazing. Ecol. Appl. 26, 1273–1283 (2016).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
7.Schieltz, J. M. & Rubenstein, D. I. Evidence based review: Positive versus negative effects of livestock grazing on wildlife. What do we really know?. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 113003 (2016).ADS 

Google Scholar 
8.Cornwell, W. K. & Ackerly, D. D. Community assembly and shifts in plant trait distributions across an environmental gradient in coastal California. Ecol. Monogr. 79, 109–126 (2009).
Google Scholar 
9.Kraft, N. J. B. et al. Community assembly, coexistence and the environmental filtering metaphor. Funct. Ecol. 29, 592–599 (2015).
Google Scholar 
10.Keddy, P. A. Assembly and response rules: Two goals for predictive community ecology. J. Veg. Sci. 3, 157–164 (1992).
Google Scholar 
11.Pärtel, M., Zobel, M., Zobel, K., van der Maarel, E. & Partel, M. The species pool and its relation to species richness: Evidence from Estonian plant communities. Oikos 75, 111–117 (1996).
Google Scholar 
12.Temperton, V., Hobbs, R. J., Nuttle, T. & Halle, S. Assembly Rules and Restoration Ecology. Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Practice (Island Press, 2004).
Google Scholar 
13.Leibold, M. A. Similarity and local co-existence of species in regional biotas. Evol. Ecol. 12, 95–110 (1998).
Google Scholar 
14.Hortal, J. et al. Ice age climate, evolutionary constraints and diversity patterns of European dung beetles: Ice age determines European scarab diversity. Ecol. Lett. 14, 741–748 (2011).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
15.de Bello, F., Lepš, J. & Sebastià, M.-T. Variations in species and functional plant diversity along climatic and grazing gradients. Ecography 29, 801–810 (2006).
Google Scholar 
16.Reymond, A., Purcell, J., Cherix, D., Guisan, A. & Pellissier, L. Functional diversity decreases with temperature in high elevation ant fauna: Functional diversity in high elevation ant. Ecol. Entomol. 38, 364–373 (2013).
Google Scholar 
17.Safi, K. et al. Understanding global patterns of mammalian functional and phylogenetic diversity. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 366, 2536–2544 (2011).
Google Scholar 
18.Mason-Romo, E. D., Farías, A. A. & Ceballos, G. Two decades of climate driving the dynamics of functional and taxonomic diversity of a tropical small mammal community in western Mexico. PLoS ONE 12, e0189104 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
19.Wen, Z. et al. Functional diversity overrides community-weighted mean traits in linking land-use intensity to hydrological ecosystem services. Sci. Total Environ. 682, 583–590 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
20Corbelli, J. M. et al. Integrating taxonomic, functional and phylogenetic beta diversities: Interactive effects with the biome and land use across taxa. PLoS ONE 10, e0126854 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
21.Flynn, D. F. B. et al. Loss of functional diversity under land use intensification across multiple taxa. Ecol. Lett. 12, 22–33 (2009).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
22.Spector, S. Scarabaeine dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae): An invertebrate focal taxon for biodiversity research and conservation. Coleopt. Bull. 60, 71–83 (2006).
Google Scholar 
23.Gardner, T. A. et al. The cost-effectiveness of biodiversity surveys in tropical forests: Cost-effectiveness of biodiversity surveys. Ecol. Lett. 11, 139–150 (2008).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
24.Mason, N. W. H., Mouillot, D., Lee, W. G. & Wilson, J. B. Functional richness, functional evenness and functional divergence: The primary components of functional diversity. Oikos 111, 112–118 (2005).
Google Scholar 
25.Villéger, S., Mason, N. W. H. & Mouillot, D. New multidimensional functional diversity indices for a multifaceted framework in functional ecology. Ecology 89, 2290–2301 (2008).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
26.Laliberté, E. & Legendre, P. A distance-based framework for measuring functional diversity from multiple traits. Ecology 91, 299–305 (2010).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
27.Audino, L. D., Louzada, J. & Comita, L. Dung beetles as indicators of tropical forest restoration success: Is it possible to recover species and functional diversity?. Biol. Cons. 169, 248–257 (2014).
Google Scholar 
28.Barragán, F., Moreno, C. E., Escobar, F., Halffter, G. & Navarrete, D. Negative impacts of human land use on dung beetle functional diversity. PLoS ONE 6, e17976 (2011).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
29.Correa, C. M. A., Braga, R. F., Puker, A. & Korasaki, V. Patterns of taxonomic and functional diversity of dung beetles in a human-modified variegated landscape in Brazilian Cerrado. J. Insect Conserv. 23, 89–99 (2019).
Google Scholar 
30.Gómez-Cifuentes, A., Munevar, A., Gimenez, V. C., Gatti, M. G. & Zurita, G. A. Influence of land use on the taxonomic and functional diversity of dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae) in the southern Atlantic forest of Argentina. J. Insect Conserv. 21, 147–156 (2017).
Google Scholar 
31.Guerra Alonso, C. B., Zurita, G. A. & Bellocq, M. I. Dung beetles response to livestock management in three different regional contexts. Sci. Rep. 10, 3702 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
32de Siqueira Neves, F. et al. Successional and seasonal changes in a community of dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae) in a Brazilian tropical dry forest. Nat. Conserv. 08, 160–164 (2010).
Google Scholar 
33Kottek, M., Grieser, J., Beck, C., Rudolf, B. & Rubel, F. World Map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification updated. Meteorol. Z. 15, 259–263 (2006).
Google Scholar 
34.Brown, A. La situación ambiental Argentina 2005 (Fundación Vida Silvestre Argentina, 2006).
Google Scholar 
35.Larsen, T. H., Lopera, A. & Forsyth, A. Extreme trophic and habitat specialization by Peruvian dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae). Coleopt. Bull. 60, 315–324 (2006).
Google Scholar 
36Vaz-de-Mello, F. Z. A Multilingual Key to the Genera and Subgenera of the Subfamily Scarabaeinae of the New World (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) (Magnolia Press, 2011).
Google Scholar 
37.Braun-Blanquet, J. Fitosociología [Phytosociology]. Bases para el estudio de las comunidades vegetales [Basis for the study of plant communities] 820 (Editorial H. Blume, 1979).
Google Scholar 
38.Fick, S. E. & Hijmans, R. J. WorldClim 2: New 1-km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 37, 4302–4315 (2017).
Google Scholar 
39Scholtz, C. H., Davis, A. L. V. & Kryger, U. Evolutionary Biology and Conservation of Dung Beetles (Pensoft, 2009).
Google Scholar 
40.Simmons, L. W. & Ridsdill-Smith, J. Reproductive competition and its impact on the evolution and ecology of dung beetles. In Ecology and Evolution of Dung Beetles (eds Simmons, L. W. & Ridsdill-Smith, T. J.) 1–20 (Wiley, 2011). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444342000.ch1.Chapter 

Google Scholar 
41.Vaz-de-Mello, F. Scarabaeidae in Catálogo Taxonômico da Fauna do Brasil. Catálogo Taxonômico da Fauna do Brasil. http://fauna.jbrj.gov.br/fauna/faunadobrasil/128171 (2018).42.Zunino, M. Food relocation behaviour: A multivalent strategy of Coleoptera. In Advances in Coleopterology (eds Zunino, M. et al.) 297–314 (AEC, 1991).
Google Scholar 
43.LaBarbera, M. Analyzing body size as a factor in ecology and evolution. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 20, 97–117 (1989).
Google Scholar 
44Soto, C. S., Giombini, M. I., Giménez Gómez, V. C. & Zurita, G. A. Phenotypic differentiation in a resilient dung beetle species induced by forest conversion into cattle pastures. Evol. Ecol. 33, 385–402 (2019).
Google Scholar 
45.Laliberté, E., Legendre, P. & Shipley, B. Package ‘FD’. Measuring Functional Diversity (FD) from Multiple Traits, and Other Tools for Functional Ecology (2014).46.Gower, J. C. A general coefficient of similarity and some of its properties. Biometrics 27, 857 (1971).
Google Scholar 
47.Pavoine, S., Vallet, J., Dufour, A.-B., Gachet, S. & Daniel, H. On the challenge of treating various types of variables: Application for improving the measurement of functional diversity. Oikos 118, 391–402 (2009).
Google Scholar 
48.Moran, P. A. P. Notes on continuous stochastic phenomena. Biometrika 37, 17–23 (1950).MathSciNet 
CAS 
PubMed 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
49.Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N. & Elphick, C. S. A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems: Data exploration. Methods Ecol. Evol. 1, 3–14 (2010).
Google Scholar 
50.Lavorel, S. et al. Assessing functional diversity in the field—Methodology matters!. Funct. Ecol. 22, 134–147 (2008).
Google Scholar 
51.Oksanen, J. et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package (2017).52.Clarke, K. R. & Green, R. H. Statistical design and analysis for a ‘biological effects’ study. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 46, 213–226 (1988).ADS 

Google Scholar 
53.da Silva, P. G. & Cassenote, S. Environmental drivers of species composition and functional diversity of dung beetles along the Atlantic Forest-Pampa transition zone. Austral. Ecol. 44, 786–799 (2019).
Google Scholar 
54.Giraldo, C., Escobar, F., Chará, J. D. & Calle, Z. The adoption of silvopastoral systems promotes the recovery of ecological processes regulated by dung beetles in the Colombian Andes: Ecological processes regulated by dung beetles. Insect Conserv. Divers. 4, 115–122 (2011).
Google Scholar 
55.Nichols, E. et al. Trait-dependent response of dung beetle populations to tropical forest conversion at local and regional scales. Ecology 94, 180–189 (2013).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
56Gómez-Cifuentes, A., Giménez Gómez, V. C., Moreno, C. E. & Zurita, G. A. Tree retention in cattle ranching systems partially preserves dung beetle diversity and functional groups in the semideciduous Atlantic forest: The role of microclimate and soil conditions. Basic Appl. Ecol. 34, 64–74 (2019).
Google Scholar 
57.Cerullo, G. R., Edwards, F. A., Mills, S. C. & Edwards, D. P. Tropical forest subjected to intensive post-logging silviculture maintains functionally diverse dung beetle communities. For. Ecol. Manage. 444, 318–326 (2019).
Google Scholar 
58.Filloy, J., Zurita, G. A., Corbelli, J. M. & Bellocq, M. I. On the similarity among bird communities: Testing the influence of distance and land use. Acta Oecol. 36, 333–338 (2010).ADS 

Google Scholar 
59.Chown, S. L., Sørensen, J. G. & Terblanche, J. S. Water loss in insects: An environmental change perspective. J. Insect Physiol. 57, 1070–1084 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
60.Duncan, F. D. & Byrne, M. J. Discontinuous gas exchange in dung beetles: Patterns and ecological implications. Oecologia 122, 452–458 (2000).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
61.Lobo, J. M., Lumaret, J.-P. & Jay-Robert, P. Sampling dung beetles in the French Mediterranean area: Effects of abiotic factors and farm practices. Pedobiología 42(3), 252–266 (1998).
Google Scholar 
62.Navarrete, D. & Halffter, G. Dung beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae) diversity in continuous forest, forest fragments and cattle pastures in a landscape of Chiapas, Mexico: The effects of anthropogenic changes. Biodivers. Conserv. 17, 2869–2898 (2008).
Google Scholar 
63.Verdú, J. R., Arellano, L. & Numa, C. Thermoregulation in endothermic dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae): Effect of body size and ecophysiological constraints in flight. J. Insect Physiol. 52, 854–860 (2006).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
64.Davis, A. J., Huijbregts, H. & Krikken, J. The role of local and regional processes in shaping dung beetle communities in tropical forest plantations in Borneo. Glob. Ecol. 9, 281–292 (2000).
Google Scholar 
65.Tuff, K. T., Tuff, T. & Davies, K. F. A framework for integrating thermal biology into fragmentation research. Ecol. Lett. 19, 361–374 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
66.Davis, A. L. V. Habitat fragmentation in southern Africa and distributional response patterns in five specialist or generalist dung beetle families (Coleoptera). Afr. J. Ecol. 32, 192–207 (1994).
Google Scholar 
67.Halffter, G. & Arellano, L. Response of dung beetle diversity to human-induced changes in a tropical landscape. Biotropica 34, 144–154 (2002).
Google Scholar 
68.Hill, C. Habitat specificity and food preferences of an assemblage of tropical Australian dung beetles. J. Trop. Ecol. 12, 449–460 (1996).
Google Scholar 
69.Supp, S. R. & Ernest, S. K. M. Species-level and community-level responses to disturbance: A cross-community analysis. Ecology 95, 1717–1723 (2014).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
70.Davis, A. L. V., Scholtz, C. H. & Deschodt, C. Multi-scale determinants of dung beetle assemblage structure across abiotic gradients of the Kalahari-Nama Karoo ecotone, South Africa. J. Biogeogr. 35, 1465–1480 (2008).
Google Scholar 
71.Nervo, B., Tocco, C., Caprio, E., Palestrini, C. & Rolando, A. The effects of body mass on dung removal efficiency in dung beetles. PLoS ONE 9, e107699 (2014).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
72.Bui, V. B., Ziegler, T. & Bonkowski, M. Morphological traits reflect dung beetle response to land use changes in tropical karst ecosystems of Vietnam. Ecol. Ind. 108, 105697 (2020).
Google Scholar 
73.Giménez Gómez, V. C., Verdú, J. R. & Zurita, G. A. Thermal niche helps to explain the ability of dung beetles to exploit disturbed habitats. Sci. Rep. 10, 13364 (2020).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
74.Verdú, J. R., Alba-Tercedor, J. & Jiménez-Manrique, M. Evidence of different thermoregulatory mechanisms between two sympatric Scarabaeus species using infrared thermography and micro-computer tomography. PLoS ONE 7, e33914 (2012).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
75.Gómez-Cifuentes, A., Vespa, N., Semmartín, M. & Zurita, G. Canopy cover is a key factor to preserve the ecological functions of dung beetles in the southern Atlantic Forest. Appl. Soil. Ecol. 154, 103652 (2020).
Google Scholar 
76.Fernández, P. D. et al. Understanding the distribution of cattle production systems in the South American Chaco. J. Land Use Sci. 15, 52–68 (2020).
Google Scholar 
77Grau, H. R. & Aide, M. Globalization and land-use transitions in Latin America. Ecol. Soc. 13, 16 (2008).
Google Scholar 
78.Mastrangelo, M. E. & Gavin, M. C. Trade-offs between cattle production and bird conservation in an agricultural frontier of the Gran Chaco of Argentina. Conserv. Biol. 26, 1040–1051 (2012).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
79.Macchi, L. et al. Thresholds in forest bird communities along woody vegetation gradients in the South American Dry Chaco. J. Appl. Ecol. 56, 629–639 (2019).
Google Scholar 
80.Díaz, S. & Cabido, M. Vive la différence: Plant functional diversity matters to ecosystem processes. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16, 646–655 (2001).
Google Scholar 
81.Slade, E. M., Mann, D. J., Villanueva, J. F. & Lewis, O. T. Experimental evidence for the effects of dung beetle functional group richness and composition on ecosystem function in a tropical forest. J. Anim. Ecol. 76, 1094–1104 (2007).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
82.Ortega-Martínez, I. J., Moreno, C. E. & Escobar, F. A dirty job: manure removal by dung beetles in both a cattle ranch and laboratory setting. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 161, 70–78 (2016).
Google Scholar  More

Study areaThe study was conducted in central Hungary, ca. 25–60 km south of Budapest, at around the settlements Alsónémedi (47°18′; 19°09′), Apaj (47°06′; 19°05′), Kunszentmiklós (47°01′; 19°07′) and Tass (47°01′; 19°01′) during the 2020 and 2021 breeding seasons. We also used heterospecific controls with Eurasian collared doves for comparisons conducted in the year 2016. In this study area common cuckoos can be found in high densities in their breeding season (May and June). They almost exclusively parasitize great reed warblers (Acrocephalus arundinaceus) locally, a large host which breeds in narrow reed-beds along small irrigation and flood-relief channels47.All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. Local animal ethics regulations and agreements were followed for fieldwork. All work complied with the Hungarian laws, and the Middle-Danube-Valley Inspectorate for Environmental Protection, Nature Conservation and Water Management, Budapest, provided permission for research (permit no. PE/KTF/17190-3/2015).Playback filesWe used cuckoo calls recorded in May between 2016 and 2019. Recording were made with a Telinga Universal parabola dish, equipped with a Sennheiser ME-62 microphone, a K6 powering module, a FEL MX mono preamp, and a Marantz PMD-620 MKII recorder (sampling rate: 48 kHz, 24-bit quality)30.We constructed ten different sound files for playback from the basic “cu-coo” calls:Heterospecific (negative) control(1) The calls of a neutral species from the local avifauna, the Eurasian collared dove, were used for interspecific vocalization control.Natural (positive) control(2) Normal (natural) “cu-coo” calls.Experimental treatments; one-note calls(3) Deleting the second note, i.e. contained “cu”, only.(4) Deleting the first note, i.e. contained “coo”, only.Two-note calls(5) Reversal of the basic “cu-coo” call, i.e. “coo-cu”.(6) Repeating the first note, and deleting the second note, i.e. “cu-cu”.(7) Repeating the second note, and deleting the first note, i.e. “coo-coo”.Three-note calls(8) Repeating the first note, i.e. “cu-cu-coo”.(9) Repeating the second note. i.e. “cu-coo-coo”.Three-note natural(10) Normal (but rare and context specific) “nat. cu-cu-coo”.The experimental 3-note variant of the calls (“cu-cu-coo”; call type No. (8)) differs from our natural 3-note calls (“nat. cu-cu-coo”; call type No. (10)) in two out of the three acoustic parameters (length: F1,18 = 79.258, P  More

1.Rinke C, Chuvochina M, Mussig AJ, Chaumeil P-A, Davín AA, Waite DW, et al. A standardized archaeal taxonomy for the Genome Taxonomy Database. Nat Microbiol. 2021;6:946–59.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
2.Karner MB, DeLong EF, Karl DM. Archaeal dominance in the mesopelagic zone of the Pacific Ocean. Nature. 2001;409:507–10.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
3.Buckley DH, Graber JR, Schmidt TM. Phylogenetic analysis of nonthermophilic members of the kingdom Crenarchaeota and their diversity and abundance in soils. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1998;64:4333–9.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
4.Casamayor EO, Schäfer H, Bañeras L, Pedrós-Alió C, Muyzer G. Identification of and spatio-temporal differences between microbial assemblages from two neighboring sulfurous lakes: Comparison by microscopy and denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2000;66:499–508.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
5.Francis CA, Roberts KJ, Beman JM, Santoro AE, Oakley BB. Ubiquity and diversity of ammonia-oxidizing Archaea in water columns and sediments of the ocean. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005;102:14683–8.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
6.Stahl DA, de la Torre JR. Physiology and diversity of ammonia-oxidizing archaea. Annu Rev Microbiol. 2012;66:83–101.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
7.DeLong EF. Archaea in coastal marine environments. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1992;89:5685–9.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
8.Fuhrman JA, McCallum K, Davis AA. Novel major archaebacterial group from marine plankton. Nature. 1992;356:148–9.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
9.Qin W, Zheng Y, Zhao F, Wang Y, Urakawa H, Martens-Habbena W, et al. Alternative strategies of nutrient acquisition and energy conservation map to the biogeography of marine ammonia-oxidizing archaea. ISME J. 2020;14:2596–609.
Google Scholar 
10.Aylward FO, Santoro AE. Heterotrophic Thaumarchaea with small genomes are widespread in the dark ocean. mSystems. 2020;5:e00415–00420.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
11.Reji L, Francis CA. Metagenome-assembled genomes reveal unique metabolic adaptations of a basal marine Thaumarchaeota lineage. ISME J. 2020;14:2105–15.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
12.Wang Y, Huang J-M, Cui G-J, Nunoura T, Takaki Y, Li W-L, et al. Genomics insights into ecotype formation of ammonia-oxidizing archaea in the deep ocean. Environ Microbiol. 2019b;21:716–29.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
13.Zhong H, Lehtovirta-Morley L, Liu J, Zheng Y, Lin H, Song D, et al. Novel insights into the Thaumarchaeota in the deepest oceans: their metabolism and potential adaptation mechanisms. Microbiome. 2020;8:78.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
14.Wang B, Qin W, Ren Y, Zhou X, Jung M-Y, Han P, et al. Expansion of Thaumarchaeota habitat range is correlated with horizontal transfer of ATPase operons. ISME J. 2019a;13:3067–79.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
15.Sheridan PO, Raguideau S, Quince C, Holden J, Zhang L, Gaze WH, et al. Gene duplication drives genome expansion in a major lineage of Thaumarchaeota. Nat Commun. 2020;11:5494.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
16.Ren M, Feng X, Huang Y, Wang H, Hu Z, Clingenpeel S, et al. Phylogenomics suggests oxygen availability as a driving force in Thaumarchaeota evolution. ISME J. 2019;13:2150–61.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
17.Yang Y, Zhang C, Lenton TM, Yan X, Zhu M, Zhou M, et al. The evolution pathway of ammonia-oxidizing archaea shaped by major geological events. Mol Biol Evol. 2021;38:3637–48.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
18.Alves RJE, Minh BQ, Urich T, von Haeseler A, Schleper C. Unifying the global phylogeny and environmental distribution of ammonia-oxidising archaea based on amoA genes. Nat Commun. 2018;9:1517.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
19.Llirós M, Casamayor EO, Borrego C. High archaeal richness in the water column of a freshwater sulfurous karstic lake along an interannual study. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2008;66:331–42.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
20.Wang Z, Wang Z, Huang C, Pei Y. Vertical distribution of ammonia-oxidizing archaea (AOA) in the hyporheic zone of a eutrophic river in North China. World J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2014;30:1335–46.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
21.Mußmann M, Brito I, Pitcher A, Sinninghe Damsté JS, Hatzenpichler R, Richter A, et al. Thaumarchaeotes abundant in refinery nitrifying sludges express amoA but are not obligate autotrophic ammonia oxidizers. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108:16771–6.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
22.Biller S, Mosier A, Wells G, Francis C. Global biodiversity of aquatic ammonia-oxidizing archaea is partitioned by habitat. Front Microbiol. 2012;3:252.23.Beman JM, Francis CA. Diversity of ammonia-oxidizing archaea and bacteria in the sediments of a hypernutrified subtropical estuary: Bahia del Tobari, Mexico. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006;72:7767–77.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
24.Auguet J-C, Nomokonova N, Camarero L, Casamayor EO. Seasonal changes of freshwater ammonia-oxidizing archaeal assemblages and nitrogen species in oligotrophic alpine lakes. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2011;77:1937–45.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
25.Small GE, Bullerjahn GS, Sterner RW, Beall BFN, Brovold S, Finlay JC, et al. Rates and controls of nitrification in a large oligotrophic lake. Limnol Oceanogr. 2013;58:276–86.CAS 

Google Scholar 
26.Herber J, Klotz F, Frommeyer B, Weis S, Straile D, Kolar A, et al. A single Thaumarchaeon drives nitrification in deep oligotrophic Lake Constance. Environ Microbiol. 2020;22:212–28.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
27.Auguet J-C, Triadó-Margarit X, Nomokonova N, Camarero L, Casamayor EO. Vertical segregation and phylogenetic characterization of ammonia-oxidizing Archaea in a deep oligotrophic lake. ISME J. 2012;6:1786–97.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
28.Podowski JC, Paver SF, Newton RJ, Coleman ML. Genome streamlining, proteorhodopsin, and organic nitrogen metabolism in freshwater nitrifiers. bioRxiv. 2021;2021.2001.2019.427344.29.Gohl DM, Vangay P, Garbe J, MacLean A, Hauge A, Becker A, et al. Systematic improvement of amplicon marker gene methods for increased accuracy in microbiome studies. Nat Biotech. 2016;34:942–9.CAS 

Google Scholar 
30.Restrepo-Ortiz CX, Auguet J-C, Casamayor EO. Targeting spatiotemporal dynamics of planktonic SAGMGC-1 and segregation of ammonia-oxidizing thaumarchaeota ecotypes by newly designed primers and quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Environ Microbiol. 2014;16:689–700.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
31.Liu S, Wang H, Chen L, Wang J, Zheng M, Liu S, et al. Comammox Nitrospira within the Yangtze River continuum: community, biogeography, and ecological drivers. ISME J. 2020;14:2488–504.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
32.Santos-Júnior CD, Sarmento H, de Miranda FP, Henrique-Silva F, Logares R. Uncovering the genomic potential of the Amazon River microbiome to degrade rainforest organic matter. Microbiome. 2020;8:151.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
33.Jung M-Y, Sedlacek CJ, Kits KD, Mueller AJ, Rhee S-K, Hink L, et al. Ammonia-oxidizing archaea possess a wide range of cellular ammonia affinities. ISME J. 2022;16:272–83.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
34.Kim BK, Jung MY, Yu DS, Park SJ, Oh TK, Rhee SK, et al. Genome sequence of an ammonia-oxidizing soil archaeon, “Candidatus Nitrosoarchaeum koreensis” MY1. J Bacteriol. 2011;193:5539–40.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
35.Jung MY, Park SJ, Kim SJ, Kim JG, Sinninghe Damste JS, Jeon CO, et al. A mesophilic, autotrophic, ammonia-oxidizing archaeon of thaumarchaeal group I.1a cultivated from a deep oligotrophic soil horizon. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2014;80:3645–55.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
36.Lebedeva EV, Hatzenpichler R, Pelletier E, Schuster N, Hauzmayer S, Bulaev A, et al. Enrichment and genome sequence of the group i.1a ammonia-oxidizing archaeon “Ca. Nitrosotenuis uzonensis” representing a clade globally distributed in thermal habitats. PLoS One. 2013;8:e80835.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
37.Li Y, Ding K, Wen X, Zhang B, Shen B, Yang Y. A novel ammonia-oxidizing archaeon from wastewater treatment plant: Its enrichment, physiological and genomic characteristics. Sci Rep. 2016;6:23747.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
38.Sauder LA, Albertsen M, Engel K, Schwarz J, Nielsen PH, Wagner M, et al. Cultivation and characterization of Candidatus Nitrosocosmicus exaquare, an ammonia-oxidizing archaeon from a municipal wastewater treatment system. ISME J. 2017;11:1142–57.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
39.Wang Y, Qin W, Jiang X, Ju F, Mao Y, Zhang A, et al. Seasonal prevalence of ammonia-oxidizing archaea in a full-scale municipal wastewater treatment plant treating saline wastewater revealed by a 6-year time-series analysis. Environ Sci Technol. 2021;55:2662–73.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
40.Xing P, Tao Y, Luo J, Wang L, Li B, Li H, et al. Stratification of microbiomes during the holomictic period of Lake Fuxian, an alpine monomictic lake. Limnol Oceanogr. 2020;65:S134–S148.
Google Scholar 
41.Cabello-Yeves PJ, Zemskaya TI, Rosselli R, Coutinho FH, Zakharenko AS, Blinov VV, et al. Genomes of novel microbial lineages assembled from the sub-ice waters of Lake Baikal. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2017;84:e02132–02117.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
42.Cabello-Yeves PJ, Zemskaya TI, Zakharenko AS, Sakirko MV, Ivanov VG, Ghai R et al. Microbiome of the deep Lake Baikal, a unique oxic bathypelagic habitat. Limnol Oceanogr. 2020;65:1471–88.43.Qin W, Amin SA, Martens-Habbena W, Walker CB, Urakawa H, Devol AH, et al. Marine ammonia-oxidizing archaeal isolates display obligate mixotrophy and wide ecotypic variation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2014;111:12504–9.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
44.Bayer B, Vojvoda J, Offre P, Alves RJ, Elisabeth NH, Garcia JA, et al. Physiological and genomic characterization of two novel marine thaumarchaeal strains indicates niche differentiation. ISME J. 2016;10:1051–63.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
45.Bristow LA, Dalsgaard T, Tiano L, Mills DB, Bertagnolli AD, Wright JJ, et al. Ammonium and nitrite oxidation at nanomolar oxygen concentrations in oxygen minimum zone waters. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2016;113:10601–6.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
46.Hink L, Gubry-Rangin C, Nicol GW, Prosser JI. The consequences of niche and physiological differentiation of archaeal and bacterial ammonia oxidisers for nitrous oxide emissions. ISME J. 2018;12:1084–93.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
47.Martens-Habbena W, Berube PM, Urakawa H, de la Torre JR, Stahl DA. Ammonia oxidation kinetics determine niche separation of nitrifying Archaea and Bacteria. Nature. 2009;461:976–9.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
48.Mayr MJ, Zimmermann M, Guggenheim C, Brand A, Bürgmann H. Niche partitioning of methane-oxidizing bacteria along the oxygen–methane counter gradient of stratified lakes. ISME J. 2020;14:274–87.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
49.Reis PCJ, Thottathil SD, Ruiz-González C, Prairie YT. Niche separation within aerobic methanotrophic bacteria across lakes and its link to methane oxidation rates. Environ Microbiol. 2020;22:738–51.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
50.Tran PQ, Bachand SC, McIntyre PB, Kraemer BM, Vadeboncoeur Y, Kimirei IA, et al. Depth-discrete metagenomics reveals the roles of microbes in biogeochemical cycling in the tropical freshwater Lake Tanganyika. ISME J 2021;15:1971–86.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
51.Sauder LA, Engel K, Lo C-C, Chain P, Neufeld JD. Candidatus Nitrosotenuis aquarius, an ammonia-oxidizing archaeon from a freshwater aquarium biofilter. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2018;84:e01430-18.52.Hug LA, Thomas BC, Brown CT, Frischkorn KR, Williams KH, Tringe SG, et al. Aquifer environment selects for microbial species cohorts in sediment and groundwater. ISME J. 2015;9:1846–56.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
53.Barco RA, Garrity GM, Scott JJ, Amend JP, Nealson KH, Emerson D. A genus definition for Bacteria and Archaea based on a standard genome relatedness index. MBio. 2020;11:e02475–02419.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
54.Haas S, Desai DK, LaRoche J, Pawlowicz R, Wallace DWR. Geomicrobiology of the carbon, nitrogen and sulphur cycles in Powell Lake: a permanently stratified water column containing ancient seawater. Environ Microbiol. 2019;21:3927–52.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
55.Herbold CW, Lehtovirta-Morley LE, Jung M-Y, Jehmlich N, Hausmann B, Han P, et al. Ammonia-oxidising archaea living at low pH: Insights from comparative genomics. Environ Microbiol. 2017;19:4939–52.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
56.Shen M, Li Q, Ren M, Lin Y, Wang J, Chen L, et al. Trophic status is associated with community structure and metabolic potential of planktonic microbiota in plateau lakes. Front Microbiol. 2019;10:2560–2560.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
57.Giovannoni SJ, Cameron Thrash J, Temperton B. Implications of streamlining theory for microbial ecology. ISME J. 2014;8:1553–65.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
58.Swan BK, Tupper B, Sczyrba A, Lauro FM, Martinez-Garcia M, González JM, et al. Prevalent genome streamlining and latitudinal divergence of planktonic bacteria in the surface ocean. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2013;110:11463–8.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
59.Grzymski JJ, Dussaq AM. The significance of nitrogen cost minimization in proteomes of marine microorganisms. ISME J. 2012;6:71–80.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
60.Bragg JG, Hyder CL. Nitrogen versus carbon use in prokaryotic genomes and proteomes. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2004;271:S374–7.CAS 

Google Scholar 
61.Mende DR, Bryant JA, Aylward FO, Eppley JM, Nielsen T, Karl DM, et al. Environmental drivers of a microbial genomic transition zone in the ocean’s interior. Nat Microbiol. 2017;2:1367–73.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
62.Baudouin-Cornu P, Schuerer K, Marlière P, Thomas D. Intimate evolution of proteins: Proteome atomic content correlates with genome base composition. J Biol Chem. 2004;279:5421–8.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
63.Santoro AE, Dupont CL, Richter RA, Craig MT, Carini P, McIlvin MR, et al. Genomic and proteomic characterization of Candidatus Nitrosopelagicus brevis: An ammonia-oxidizing archaeon from the open ocean. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2015;112:1173–8.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
64.Luo H, Tolar BB, Swan BK, Zhang CL, Stepanauskas R, Ann Moran M, et al. Single-cell genomics shedding light on marine Thaumarchaeota diversification. ISME J. 2014;8:732–6.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
65.Reji L, Tolar BB, Smith JM, Chavez FP, Francis CA. Depth distributions of nitrite reductase (nirK) gene variants reveal spatial dynamics of thaumarchaeal ecotype populations in coastal Monterey Bay. Environ Microbiol. 2019;21:4032–45.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
66.Hallam SJ, Konstantinidis KT, Putnam N, Schleper C, Watanabe Y, Sugahara J, et al. Genomic analysis of the uncultivated marine crenarchaeote Cenarchaeum symbiosum. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2006;103:18296–301.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
67.Martiny JBH, Jones SE, Lennon JT, Martiny AC. Microbiomes in light of traits: A phylogenetic perspective. Science. 2015;350:aac9323.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
68.Logares R, Bråte J, Bertilsson S, Clasen JL, Shalchian-Tabrizi K, Rengefors K. Infrequent marine–freshwater transitions in the microbial world. Trends Microbiol. 2009;17:414–22.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
69.Paver SF, Muratore D, Newton RJ, Coleman ML, Flynn TM. Reevaluating the salty divide: Phylogenetic specificity of transitions between marine and freshwater systems. mSystems. 2018;3:e00232–00218.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
70.Henson MW, Lanclos VC, Faircloth BC, Thrash JC. Cultivation and genomics of the first freshwater SAR11 (LD12) isolate. ISME J. 2018;12:1846–60.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
71.Luo H, Csűros M, Hughes AL, Moran MA, Azam F, Zehr J. Evolution of divergent life history strategies in marine Alphaproteobacteria. MBio. 2013;4:e00373–00313.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
72.Zaremba-Niedzwiedzka K, Viklund J, Zhao W, Ast J, Sczyrba A, Woyke T, et al. Single-cell genomics reveal low recombination frequencies in freshwater bacteria of the SAR11 clade. Genome Biol. 2013;14:R130.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
73.Fillol M, Auguet J-C, Casamayor EO, Borrego CM. Insights in the ecology and evolutionary history of the Miscellaneous Crenarchaeotic Group lineage. ISME J. 2016;10:665–77.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
74.Siuda W, Kiersztyn B. Urea in lake ecosystem: The origin, concentration and distribution in relation to trophic state of the Great Mazurian Lakes (Poland). Pol J Ecol. 2015;63:110–23. 114
Google Scholar 
75.Spang A, Poehlein A, Offre P, Zumbragel S, Haider S, Rychlik N, et al. The genome of the ammonia-oxidizing Candidatus Nitrososphaera gargensis: insights into metabolic versatility and environmental adaptations. Environ Microbiol. 2012;14:3122–45.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
76.Kitzinger K, Padilla CC, Marchant HK, Hach PF, Herbold CW, Kidane AT, et al. Cyanate and urea are substrates for nitrification by Thaumarchaeota in the marine environment. Nat Microbiol. 2019;4:234–43.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
77.Kerou M, Offre P, Valledor L, Abby SS, Melcher M, Nagler M, et al. Proteomics and comparative genomics of Nitrososphaera viennensis reveal the core genome and adaptations of archaeal ammonia oxidizers. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2016;113:E7937–E7946.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
78.Carini P, Dupont Christopher L, Santoro, Alyson E. Patterns of thaumarchaeal gene expression in culture and diverse marine environments. Environ Microbiol. 2018;20:2112–24.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
79.Bogard MJ, Donald DB, Finlay K, Leavitt PR. Distribution and regulation of urea in lakes of central North America. Freshw Biol. 2012;57:1277–92.CAS 

Google Scholar 
80.Glibert PM, Harrison J, Heil C, Seitzinger S. Escalating worldwide use of urea – a global change contributing to coastal eutrophication. Biogeochemistry. 2006;77:441–63.CAS 

Google Scholar 
81.Alonso-Sáez L, Waller AS, Mende DR, Bakker K, Farnelid H, Yager PL, et al. Role for urea in nitrification by polar marine Archaea. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012;109:17989–94.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
82.Tolar BB, Wallsgrove NJ, Popp BN, Hollibaugh JT. Oxidation of urea-derived nitrogen by thaumarchaeota-dominated marine nitrifying communities. Environ Microbiol. 2017;19:4838–50.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
83.Gunde-Cimerman N, Plemenitaš A, Oren A. Strategies of adaptation of microorganisms of the three domains of life to high salt concentrations. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2018;42:353–75.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
84.Hagemann M. Molecular biology of cyanobacterial salt acclimation. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2011;35:87–123.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
85.Blount P, Iscla I. Life with bacterial mechanosensitive channels, from discovery to physiology to pharmacological target. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2020;84:e00055–00019.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
86.Martinac B, Bavi N, Ridone P, Nikolaev YA, Martinac AD, Nakayama Y, et al. Tuning ion channel mechanosensitivity by asymmetry of the transbilayer pressure profile. Biophys Rev. 2018;10:1377–84.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
87.Widderich N, Czech L, Elling FJ, Konneke M, Stoveken N, Pittelkow M, et al. Strangers in the archaeal world: osmostress-responsive biosynthesis of ectoine and hydroxyectoine by the marine thaumarchaeon Nitrosopumilus maritimus. Environ Microbiol. 2016;18:1227–48.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
88.Jung H, Hilger D, Raba M. The Na+/L-proline transporter PutP. Front Biosci-Landmark. 2012;17:745–59.CAS 

Google Scholar 
89.Tyedmers J, Mogk A, Bukau B. Cellular strategies for controlling protein aggregation. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2010;11:777–88.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
90.Li D-C, Yang F, Lu B, Chen D-F, Yang W-J. Thermotolerance and molecular chaperone function of the small heat shock protein HSP20 from hyperthermophilic archaeon, Sulfolobus solfataricus P2. Cell Stress Chaperones. 2012;17:103–8.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
91.Qin W, Amin SA, Lundeen RA, Heal KR, Martens-Habbena W, Turkarslan S, et al. Stress response of a marine ammonia-oxidizing archaeon informs physiological status of environmental populations. ISME J. 2017a;12:508–19.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
92.Phadtare S, Inouye M. Role of CspC and CspE in regulation of expression of RpoS and UspA, the stress response proteins in Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol. 2001;183:1205–14.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
93.Albers S-V, Jarrell KF. The archaellum: An update on the unique archaeal motility structure. Trends Microbiol. 2018;26:351–62.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
94.Mosier AC, Lund MB, Francis CA. Ecophysiology of an ammonia-oxidizing archaeon adapted to low-salinity habitats. Micro Ecol. 2012;64:955–63.CAS 

Google Scholar 
95.Qin W, Heal KR, Ramdasi R, Kobelt JN, Martens-Habbena W, Bertagnolli AD, et al. Nitrosopumilus maritimus gen. nov., sp. nov., Nitrosopumilus cobalaminigenes sp. nov., Nitrosopumilus oxyclinae sp. nov., and Nitrosopumilus ureiphilus sp. nov., four marine ammonia-oxidizing archaea of the phylum Thaumarchaeota. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2017b;67:5067–79.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
96.Dupuis M-È, Villion M, Magadán AH, Moineau S. CRISPR-Cas and restriction–modification systems are compatible and increase phage resistance. Nat Commun. 2013;4:2087.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
97.Krupovic M, Makarova KS, Wolf YI, Medvedeva S, Prangishvili D, Forterre P, et al. Integrated mobile genetic elements in Thaumarchaeota. Environ Microbiol. 2019;21:2056–78.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar  More