Ecology

1.Griffin, J. N. et al. Spatial heterogeneity increases the importance of species richness for an ecosystem process. Oikos 118, 1335–1342 (2009).
Google Scholar 
2.Bulling, M. T. et al. Species effects on ecosystem processes are modified by faunal responses to habitat composition. Oecologia 158, 511–520 (2008).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
3.Godbold, J. A., Bulling, M. T. & Solan, M. Habitat structure mediates biodiversity effects on ecosystem properties. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 278, 2510–2518 (2011).CAS 

Google Scholar 
4.Carlucci, R. et al. Exploring spatio-temporal changes in the demersal and benthopelagic assemblages of the north-western Ionian Sea (central Mediterranean Sea). Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 598, 1–19 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
5.Garrison, L. P. & Link, J. S. Fishing effects on spatial distribution and trophic guild structure of the fish community in the Georges Bank region. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 57, 723–730 (2000).
Google Scholar 
6.Worm, B. & Myers, R. A. Meta-analysis of COD–shrimp interactions reveals top-down control in oceanic food webs. Ecology 84, 162–173 (2003).
Google Scholar 
7.Savenkoff, C. et al. Changes in the northern Gulf of St. Lawrence ecosystem estimated by inverse modelling: evidence of a fishery-induced regime shift?. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 73, 711–724 (2007).ADS 

Google Scholar 
8.Ellingsen, K. E. et al. The rise of a marine generalist predator and the fall of beta diversity. Glob. Chang. Biol. 6, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15027 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Casellato, S. & Stefanon, A. Coralligenous habitat in the northern Adriatic Sea: an overview. Mar. Ecol. 29, 321–341 (2008).ADS 

Google Scholar 
10.Guidetti, P., Lorenti, M., Buia, M. C. & Mazzella, L. Temporal dynamics and biomass partitioning in three Adriatic seagrass species: Posidonia oceanica, Cymodocea nodosa, Zostera marina. Mar. Ecol. 23, 51–67 (2002).ADS 

Google Scholar 
11.Sanfilippo, R. et al. Serpula aggregates and their role in deep-sea coral communities in the southern Adriatic Sea. Facies 59, 663–677 (2013).
Google Scholar 
12.FAO. The state of the Mediterranean and Black Sea fisheries 2020. (2020).13.Mannini, P. & Massa, F. Brief overview of Adriatic fisheries landing trends (1972–1997). Support paper prepared for the first Adriamed Coordination Committee Meeting. General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (FAO). Annex G. 3, 1–19 (2000).
Google Scholar 
14.Adriamed. Priority Topics Related to Small Pelagic Fishery Resources of the Adriatic Sea. Report of the First Meeting of the Adriamed Working Group on Shared Demersal Resources. FAO-MiPAF Scientific Cooperation to Support Responsible Fisheries in the Adriatic Sea. AdriaMed Tech. Doc. 1–21 (2000).15.Mannini, P., Massa, F. & Milone, N. Priority topics related to small pelagic fishery resources of the Adriatic Sea. Report of the first meeting of the adriamed working group on small pelagic resources. FAO-MiPAF scientific cooperation to support responsible fisheries in the Adriatic Sea. Adriamed Tech. Doc. 6, 1–92 (2001).
Google Scholar 
16.Vrgoč, N. et al. Review of current knowledge on shared demersal stocks of the Adriatic Sea. (Food and agriculture organization of the United nations (FAO), 2004).17.Cerrano, C. et al. Adriatic Sea: Description of the ecology and identification of the areas that may deserve to be protected. (2015).18.Arneri, E. & Morales-Nin, B. Aspects of the early life history of European hake from the central Adriatic. J. Fish Biol. 56, 1368–1380 (2000).
Google Scholar 
19.Zupanovic, S. & Jardas, I. A contribution to the study of biology and population dynamics of the Adriatic hake, M. merluccius (L). Acta Adriat. 27, 97–146 (1986).
Google Scholar 
20.Colloca, F. et al. Mapping of nursery and spawning grounds of demersal fish. Mediterr. Sensitive Habitats Final Report, DG MARE Specif. Contract SI2 600741, (2013).21.Sion, L. et al. Spatial distribution pattern of European hake, M. merluccius (Pisces: Merlucciidae), in the Mediterranean Sea. Sci. Mar. 83, 21–32 (2020).
Google Scholar 
22.GFCM. FAO: The state of the Mediterranean and Black Sea fisheries 2016. General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (2016). https://doi.org/10.1163/156853010X510807.23.NGOs. Urgent call for a Fisheries Restricted Area in the Jabuka/Pomo Pit closed to demersal fisheries. (2017).24.Fisher, W., Bauchot, W. M. & Schneider, M. Fiches FAO d’identification pour les besoins de la pêche (rev. 1). Méditerranée et mer Noire. Zone de pêche 37 2, 761–1530 (1987).
Google Scholar 
25.Carpentieri, P., Colloca, F. & Ardizzone, G. Daily ration and feeding activity of juvenile hake in the central Mediterranean Sea. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK 88, 1493–1501 (2008).
Google Scholar 
26.Cartes, J. E., Hidalgo, M., Papiol, V., Massutí, E. & Moranta, J. Changes in the diet and feeding of the hake M. merluccius at the shelf-break of the Balearic Islands: influence of the mesopelagic-boundary community. Deep Sea Res. Part I Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 56, 344–365 (2009).ADS 

Google Scholar 
27.Modica, L., Cartes, J. E., Velasco, F. & Bozzano, A. Juvenile hake predation on Myctophidae and Sternoptychidae: quantifying an energy transfer between mesopelagic and neritic communities. J. Sea Res. 95, 217–225 (2015).ADS 

Google Scholar 
28.Druon, J.-N. et al. Modelling of European hake nurseries in the Mediterranean Sea: an ecological niche approach. Prog. Oceanogr. 130, 188–204 (2015).ADS 

Google Scholar 
29.Mellon-Duval, C. et al. Trophic ecology of the European hake in the Gulf of Lions, northwestern Mediterranean Sea. Sci. Mar. 81, 7–18 (2017).
Google Scholar 
30.Stagioni, M., Montanini, S. & Vallisneri, M. Feeding habits of European hake, M. merluccius (Actinopterygii: Gadiformes: Merlucciidae), from the Northeastern Mediterranean Sea. Acta Ichthyol. Piscat. 41, 109 (2011).
Google Scholar 
31.Albaina, A., Aguirre, M., Abad, D., Santos, M. & Estonba, A. 18S rRNA V9 metabarcoding for diet characterization: a critical evaluation with two sympatric zooplanktivorous fish species. Ecol. Evol. 6, 1809–1824 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
32.Berry, O. et al. Comparison of morphological and DNA metabarcoding analyses of diets in exploited marine fishes. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 540, 167–181 (2015).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
33.Leray, M. et al. A new versatile primer set targeting a short fragment of the mitochondrial COI region for metabarcoding metazoan diversity: application for characterizing coral reef fish gut contents. Front. Zool. 10, 34 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
34.Siegenthaler, A. et al. Metabarcoding of shrimp stomach content: Harnessing a natural sampler for fish biodiversity monitoring. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 19, 206–220 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
35.Riccioni, G., Stagioni, M., Piccinetti, C. & Libralato, S. A metabarcoding approach for the feeding habits of European hake in the Adriatic Sea. Ecol. Evol. 8, 10435–10447 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
36.Carpentieri, P., Colloca, F., Cardinale, M., Belluscio, A. & Ardizzone, G. Feeding habits of European hake (M. merluccius) in the central Mediterranean Sea. Fish. Bull. 103, 411–416 (2005).
Google Scholar 
37.Carrozzi, V. et al. Prey preferences and ontogenetic diet shift of European hake M. merluccius (Linnaeus, 1758) in the central Mediterranean. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 25, 100440 (2019).
Google Scholar 
38.Bozzano, A., Sardà, F. & Ríos, J. Vertical distribution and feeding patterns of the juvenile European hake, M. merluccius in the NW Mediterranean. Fish. Res. 73, 29–36 (2005).
Google Scholar 
39.Cartes, J. E., Rey, J., Lloris, D. & De Sola, L. G. Influence of environmental variables on the feeding and diet of European hake (M. merluccius) on the Mediterranean Iberian coasts. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK 84, 831–835 (2004).
Google Scholar 
40.Papaconstantinou, C. & Caragitsou, E. The food of hake (M. merluccius) in Greek Seas. Vie milieu 37, 77–83 (1987).
Google Scholar 
41.Sartor, P., Carlini, F. & De Ranieri, S. Diet of young European hake (M. merluccius) in the Northern Tyrrhenian Sea. (Società italiana di biologia marina, 2003).42.Ungaro, N., Mannini, P. & Vrgoč, N. The biology and stock assessment of M. merluccius in the Adriatic Sea: an historical review by geographical subareas. Acta Adriat. 44, 9–20 (2003).
Google Scholar 
43.Froglia, C. & Gramitto, M. E. Summary of biological parameters on Micromesistius poutassou (Risso) in the Adriatic. FAO Fish. Report= FAO Rapp. sur les pêches (1981).44.Krstulovic, S. S. et al. Composition and distribution of the cephalopod fauna in the eastern Adriatic and eastern Ionian Sea. Isr. J. Zool. 51, 315–330 (2005).
Google Scholar 
45.Nožina, I. Biogenic deep scattering layers in the Adriatic mesopelagial. (1979).46.Sobrino, I., Silva, C., Sbrana, M. & Kapiris, K. A review of the biology and fisheries of the deep water rose shrimp, parapenaeus longirostris, in European atlantic and Mediterranean Waters (Decapoda, Dendrobranchiata, Penaeidae). Crustaceana 78, 1153–1184 (2005).
Google Scholar 
47.Ciavaglia, E. & Manfredi, C. Distribution and some biological aspects of cephalopods in the North and Central Adriatic. Boll. Malacol 45, 61–69 (2009).
Google Scholar 
48.Stagioni, M., Montanini, S. & Vallisneri, M. Feeding habits of European hake, M. merluccius (Actinopterygii: Gadiformes: Merlucciidae), from the Northeastern Mediterranean Sea. Acta Ichthyol. Piscat. 41, 277–284 (2011).
Google Scholar 
49.Cartes, J. E., Sorbe, J. C. & Sardà, F. Spatial distribution of deep-sea decapods and euphausiids near the bottom in the northwestern Mediterranean. J. Exp. Mar. Bio. Ecol. 179, 131–144 (1994).
Google Scholar 
50.Despalatovic, M., Grubelic, I. & Simunovic, A. Distribution and abundance of the Atlantic mud shrimp, Solenocera membranacea (Risso, 1816)(Decapoda, Solenoceridae) in the northern and central Adriatic Sea. Crustac. J. Crustac. Res. 79, 1025 (2006).
Google Scholar 
51.Koulouri, P., Dounas, C. & Eleftheriou, A. Hyperbenthic community structure over oligotrophic continental shelves and upper slopes: crete (South Aegean Sea, NE Mediterranean). Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 117, 188–198 (2013).ADS 

Google Scholar 
52.Panzeri, D. et al. Developing spatial distribution models for demersal species by the integration of trawl surveys data and relevant ocean variables. Copernicus Mar. Serv. Ocean State Rep. J. Oper Oceanogr. 14, 114–124 (2021).
Google Scholar 
53.Albo-Puigserver, M. et al. Year-round energy dynamics of sardine and anchovy in the north-western Mediterranean Sea. Mar. Environ. Res. 159, 105021 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
54.Harmelin-Vivien, M., Bӑnaru, D., Dromard, C. R., Ourgaud, M. & Carlotti, F. Biochemical composition and energy content of size-fractionated zooplankton east of the Kerguelen Islands. Polar Biol. 42, 603–617 (2019).
Google Scholar 
55.McClatchie, S. et al. Food limitation of sea lion pups and the decline of forage off central and southern California. R. Soc. Open Sci. 3, 150628 (2020).
Google Scholar 
56.Schaafsma, F. L. et al. Review: the energetic value of zooplankton and nekton species of the Southern Ocean. Mar. Biol. 165, 129 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
57.Cai, L. et al. Interrelationships between feeding, food deprivation and swimming performance in juvenile grass carp. Aquat. Biol. 20, 69–76 (2014).
Google Scholar 
58.Nunn, A. D., Tewson, L. H. & Cowx, I. G. The foraging ecology of larval and juvenile fishes. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 22, 377–408 (2012).
Google Scholar 
59.Ferraton, F., Harmelin-Vivien, M. & Mellon-Duval, C. Spatio-temporal variation in diet may affect condition and abundance of juvenile European hake in the Gulf of Lions (NW Mediterranean). Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 337, 197–208 (2007).ADS 

Google Scholar 
60.Bascompte, J., Jordano, P., Melián, C. J. & Olesen, J. M. The nested assembly of plant–animal mutualistic networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 100, 9383–9387 (2003).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
61.Almeida-Neto, M., Guimaraes, P., Guimaraes, P. R. Jr., Loyola, R. D. & Ulrich, W. A consistent metric for nestedness analysis in ecological systems: reconciling concept and measurement. Oikos 117, 1227–1239 (2008).
Google Scholar 
62.Baumgartner, M. T. Connectance and nestedness as stabilizing factors in response to pulse disturbances in adaptive antagonistic networks. J. Theor. Biol. 486, 110073 (2020).PubMed 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
63.Libralato, S. et al. Food-web traits of protected and exploited areas of the Adriatic Sea. Biol. Conserv. 143, 2182–2194 (2010).
Google Scholar 
64.van Denderen, P. D., van Kooten, T. & Rijnsdorp, A. D. When does fishing lead to more fish? Community consequences of bottom trawl fisheries in demersal food webs. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 280, 20131883 (2013).
Google Scholar 
65.Agnetta, D. et al. Benthic-pelagic coupling mediates interactions in Mediterranean mixed fisheries: an ecosystem modeling approach. PLoS One 14, e0210659 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
66.Walters, C. J., Christensen, V., Martell, S. J. & Kitchell, J. F. Possible ecosystem impacts of applying MSY policies from single-species assessment. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 62, 558–568 (2005).
Google Scholar 
67.GFCM. Report of the nineteenth session of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Fisheries. Working copy vol. 1209 (2017).68.NOAA. Essential fish habitat and consultation. NOAA Fish. Pacific Isl. Reg. Off. (2004) https://doi.org/10.17128/9781589483651_11.1.69.Rohland, N. & Reich, D. Cost-effective, high-throughput DNA sequencing libraries for multiplexed target capture. Genome Res. 22, 939–946 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
70.Boyer, F. et al. obitools: a unix-inspired software package for DNA metabarcoding. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 16, 176–182 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
71.Zhang, Z., Schwartz, S., Wagner, L. & Miller, W. A greedy algorithm for aligning DNA sequences. J. Comput. Biol. 7, 203–214 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
72.Oksanen, J. Vegan: an introduction to ordination. (2016).73.Legendre, P. & Gallagher, E. D. Ecologically meaningful transformations for ordination of species data. Oecologia 129, 271–280 (2001).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
74.R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (2015).75.Dormann, C. F. How to be a specialist? Quantifying specialisation in pollination networks. Netw. Biol. 1, 1–20 (2011).
Google Scholar 
76.Almeida-Neto, M. & Ulrich, W. A straightforward computational approach for measuring nestedness using quantitative matrices. Environ. Model. Softw. 26, 173–178 (2011).
Google Scholar 
77.Jacobs, J. Quantitative measurement of food selection. Oecologia 14, 413–417 (1974).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar  More

Effects of environmental fluctuations on co-culture composition and intermixingWe first tested the effects of fluctuations between anoxic (inducing a mutualistic interaction) and oxic (inducing a competitive interaction) conditions on co-culture composition (quantified as the ratio of consumer-to-producer at the expansion edge) and interspecific mixing (quantified as the number of interspecific boundaries divided by the colony circumference). We expected that, over a series of anoxic/oxic transitions, the ratio of consumer-to-producer at the expansion edge and the degree of intermixing would both decrease (Fig. 1d). To test this, we performed range expansions where we transitioned the environment between anoxic and oxic conditions. While we performed the experiments with defined anoxic and oxic incubation times, our main prediction (i.e., that repeated transitions between anoxic and oxic conditions can induce irreversible pattern transitions that alter co-culture composition and functioning) is independent of the time spent under either of those conditions as far as cells can adjust their metabolism to the new environment (Fig. 1d).As expected, the ratio of consumer-to-producer and the intermixing index both decreased over the series of anoxic/oxic transitions (Fig. 2a, b). The changes in these quantities appear to have two distinct dynamic phases; a first phase with a relatively steep decay and a second phase with a shallower decay. We therefore modeled their dynamics using a two-phase linear regression model [53,54,55]. During the first phase, the ratio of consumer-to-producer decreased significantly more rapidly at pH 7.5 (r2 = 0.90, p = 2 × 10−9, coeff = −0.0374, 95% CI = [−0.038, −0.0368]) than at 6.5 (r2 = 0.94, p = 1 × 10−7, coeff = −0.0103, 95% CI = [−0.0108, −0.0097]) (Fig. 2a). We observed consistent results for the intermixing index, where it also decreased significantly more rapidly at pH 7.5 (r2 = 0.90, p = 2 × 10−9, coeff = −0.0289, 95% CI = [−0.0295, −0.0284]) than at 6.5 (r2 = 0.93, p = 9 × 10−8, coeff = −0.01, 95% CI = [−0.0109, −0.0098]) (Fig. 2b). During the second phase, the change in the ratio of consumer-to-producer did not significantly differ between pH 7.5 (r2 = 0.90, p = 2 × 10−9, coeff = 0.0008, 95% CI = [0.0002, 0.0014]) and 6.5 (r2 = 0.94, p = 1 × 10−7, coeff = 0.0003, 95% CI = [−0.0002, 0.0008]) (Fig. 2a). However, we observed that the decrease in the intermixing index was significantly different between pH 7.5 (r2 = 0.94, p = 2 × 10−9, coeff = 0.0018, 95% CI = [0.0013, 0.0024]) and 6.5 (r2 = 0.94, p = 8 × 10−8, coeff = −0.0019, 95% CI = [−0.0025, −0.0013]). Overall, the final ratio of consumer-to-producer is lower at pH 7.5 (mean = 0.0163, SD = 0.01) than at 6.5 (mean = 0.052, SD = 0.02) (two-sample two-sided t-test; p = 0.03, n = 4) (Fig. 2). Consistently, the final intermixing index is also lower at pH 7.5 (mean = 0.0039, SD = 0.0032) than at 6.5 (mean = 0.0107, SD = 0.0049) (two-sample two-sided t-test; p = 0.05, n = 4) (Fig. 2b).Fig. 2: Dynamics of co-culture composition and intermixing during repeated anoxic/oxic transitions.a Co-culture composition measured as the ratio of consumer-to-producer. b Intermixing between the consumer and producer measured as the intermixing index, where N is the number of interspecific boundaries between the two strains. Experiments were performed at pH 6.5 (strong mutualistic interaction) (magenta data points) or pH 7.5 (weak mutualistic interaction) (cyan data points). Each data point is for an independent replicate (n = 4). The solid black lines are the two-phase linear regression models for pH 6.5, while the dashed black lines are the two-phase linear regression models for pH 7.5. Images of the final expansions after 350 h of incubation at c pH 6.5 and d pH 7.5. The scale bars are 1000 μm.Full size imageThe results described above yielded two important outcomes. First, the modeled two-phase linear regression of the ratio of consumer-to-producer and the intermixing index both depended on the strength of the mutualistic interaction, where the initial rate of decay was faster at pH 7.5 than at 6.5 (Fig. 2a, b). Thus, as the strength of the interdependency increases, the decay in the ratio and the intermixing index slows. Second, at pH 6.5 we never observed the complete loss of the consumer from the expansion edge (i.e., neither the ratio of consumer-to-producer nor the intermixing index reached zero) (Fig. 2a, b), which is counter to our initial expectation (Fig. 1d).We further performed controls under continuous oxic and continuous anoxic conditions (Supplementary Fig. S5). The ratio of consumer-to-producer and the intermixing indices both significantly differed between continuous oxic and continuous anoxic conditions regardless of the pH (two-sample two-sided t-tests; p  More

Fire conditions and particulate and bioaerosol emissionsFire radiative power values estimated from satellite imagery ranged from 6 to 259 MW over three days of burning [19]. Smoke sampled above combusting vegetation contained high concentrations of PM10 (mean ± s.e. 928.4 ± 140.6 µg m−3; Fig. 1). Microbial cells are a component of total bioaerosols, and their abundance can correlate with PM in ambient conditions [24] as well as in wildland fire smoke [6]. However, we observed that only the concentration of viable cells (and not total cells) correlated with PM2.5 and PM10 values (r2 = 0.80, and 0.81, respectively; p  More

Various estimates for great crested newt pond occupancy rates have been published with most relating to site or regional scale assessments. A naïve occupancy rate of 0.13 has been identified for a data set from the northwest of England29, while estimates based on conventional occupancy16 modelling of 0.31 for southeast England and between 0.32 and 0.33 for mid Wales were presented by Sewell et al.13. The only other national data which the authors are aware of are within the Freshwater Habitat National PondNet Study, which estimates a naïve pond occupancy of between 13 and 18%30, and the Amphibian and Reptile Conservation Trust National Amphibian and Reptile Recording Scheme, which suggests a 12% occupancy rate for the UK31. Using data from nearly 5000 ponds sampled across England, here we provide a more extensive national-level analysis while accounting for imperfect detection in the eDNA sampling protocol. Assuming a threshold of just one positive qPCR replicate in a sample, the naïve occupancy estimate of 0.30 is similar to the localised regional estimates made by Sewell et al.13 using direct observation methods. The posterior mean estimates of 0.198 for occupancy are comparable to most other estimates for great crested newt pond occupancy in the UK, but lower than the naïve estimate. The lower modelled estimates of occupancy than the naïve estimate suggest that false positives should not be ignored and need to be accounted for statistically using methodologies such as the eDNAShinyApp package used here23,24,27.The goodness of fit analysis was based on the MCMC output for each site and observed covariate levels in the data set. Some lack of fit was observed, with a predicted peak in amplification at 10 qPCR replicates but an observed peak at 12 qPCR replicates. There are several potential causes for this. For example, variation between laboratories could not be accounted for as these metadata were not made available. The assumption that error rates are the same across all laboratories may therefore not apply and could contribute to poorer model fit. Secondly, we did not consider error rates as functions of covariates, and this may also have contributed to a poorer fit.Stage 1 error was found to be smaller than Stage 2 error for both false positive and false negative error. However, Stage 2 error operates on individual qPCR replicates and not at the site level. If there was no error at Stage 2, we would observe either zero qPCR replicates amplifying or all qPCR replicates amplifying (i.e. 12 in the case of the data presented here). The majority of samples showed zero qPCR amplification (3429 samples), and this was strongly linked to absence of newts. For sites with amplification, we observed a greater number of samples amplifying between 1 and 11 qPCR replicates (1074 samples) than we did amplifying with all 12 qPCR replicates (422 samples). The qPCR replicates that do not amplify in samples containing target DNA are erroneous, even if other replicates within that sample do amplify and contribute to this high Stage 2 false negative error in the model output. Data simulated from the fitted model show that the frequency of samples that contain DNA at Stage 2 amplifying in less than five of the 12 qPCR replicates is very low (Fig. 2b). Given that all replicates need to be erroneous to alter the naïve assignment of a sample containing DNA to negative, Stage 2 false negatives at this sampling level are unlikely. However, this does not rule out Stage 1 false negative error which we estimate to be 5.2% (with wide credible intervals between 0.1% and 25.1%).Higher levels of Stage 2 replication remove lab-based false negative error. If eDNA is present within a sample and a high number of replicates are used, it is highly unlikely that all qPCR replicates will be erroneously negative, even when the false negative rate at the replicate level is high. Conversely, high levels of Stage 2 replication increase the likelihood of false positive error occurring32. Stage 2 false positive results are of greater consequence than the 2% the model output would suggest. Unlike false negative error where all Stage 2 replicates need to be erroneous to change the naïve assignment of occupancy of a sample, when a threshold of one amplifying replicate is applied, only a single replicate needs to be an erroneous to generate a false positive. With 12 qPCR replicates at Stage 2 and a 2% false positive error per replicate, a sample with no DNA present has a 24% chance of producing at least one amplification. Assuming this error is randomly distributed through samples with no DNA present and qPCR replicates, it is more likely that samples with small numbers of replicates amplifying would be erroneous than where large numbers of replicates amplify. This was confirmed in the goodness of fit analysis with the distribution of Stage 2 false positive replicates making up all samples amplifying with one or two positive qPCR replicates, while negligible false positive amplification was seen with four amplifying replicates or above (Fig. 2a). With only a single sample at Stage 1, false positive error is limited to the 1.5% per sample, as per the ({theta }_{10}) value in the occupancy model output.We would recommend that, where possible, results from individual sites are interpreted as a probability of site occupancy, based on modelled outputs such as those produced by the eDNAShinyApp R package23,27. The precision of these models is dependent on sample size. Where sample size is large, a reduced bias and narrower credible interval range is observed24. However, using occupancy modelling, Buxton et al.24 demonstrated that studies that contain only a small number of sites are unlikely to produce accurate and precise estimates. As a result, such assessments will need to continue to rely on a threshold value of amplifying qPCR replicates to define site occupancy. A naïve amplification threshold for assigning occupancy of one positive qPCR replicate is unwise and should be increased to reduce Stage 2 false positive error. Indeed, a threshold of three positive qPCR replicates would reduce false positive error, without increasing false negative error. Alternatively, redistributing the replication between Stage 1 and Stage 224, would also reduce the credible interval width and generate a more precise posterior mean estimate at Stage 1, in turn reducing the uncertainty around the occupancy estimate. A redistribution of replication leading to two samples collected from each site, both analysed using up to six qPCR replicates, as opposed to one sample analysed using twelve qPCR replicates, has been suggested24.Equal weighting of the ten covariates used in the traditional great crested newt HSI assessment25 may be ecologically unrealistic29. This is supported by the observations here, with only some of the HSI covariates identified as important for occupancy. The model applied by the eDNAShinyApp package23,27 successfully identified several covariates known to influence great crested newt occupancy, that are included within the HSI assessment25. These included occurrence of fish, water quality, shade, pond density, macrophyte cover, frequency of drying and geographic area; although our analysis was based on Easting and Northing, rather than the broad-scale suitability map used in deriving the original HSI25. However, several traditionally used HSI variables emerged as unimportant, i.e., waterfowl, terrestrial habitat quality, and area of pond; while ground frost, rainfall, surface wind and land cover type, are not included within the HSI assessment but were important.The importance and influence of the HSI suitability indices of fish, shade, pond density, water quality, macrophyte cover, and frequency of drying on pond occupancy were all as expected with wide literature support25,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48. The negative pond occupancy response to climatic covariates of ground frost and high precipitation are supported in relation to annual survival47. ‘It is worth noting that the PIP value for wind speed was only just over the threshold for inclusion as important. Although ponds are shallow with limited stratification possible, wind speed has been shown to influence the distribution of eDNA in deeper waterbodies49,50. Estimating the presence of fish in a pond by direct observation for the traditional HSI may be problematical, and metabarcoding approaches to eDNA surveys which offer information on presence of other species would improve the accuracy of covariates, such as fish presence40. Indeed, assigning “Possible” fish presence within the HSI when scoring a pond accounted for the same percentage (33.1%) of both positive and negative eDNA samples. This suggests that when surveyors are not confident of fish presence, they are using this category in equal proportions for both occupied and unoccupied ponds. Landcover and bedrock were also important for pond level occupancy. This is expected given the importance of terrestrial habitat, and water retention to the species (Figs. S1, S3)35,51. However, with very unbalanced sample sizes between the categories (Figs. S2, S4), and influence of nearby land cover types uncaptured by the data, this variable is difficult to interpret, and we suggest further examination. Nevertheless, the positive associations with woodland and grassland reflect established knowledge of habitat preferences36. Equally, as freshwater predominantly relates to rivers and lakes rather than ponds in the landcover dataset used, negative relationships reflect the lower suitability of these habitats36.Several covariates, however, did not exhibit the expected response for pond occupancy. Terrestrial habitat was not found to be important despite the species being only semi-aquatic, and previous studies emphasising the importance of this variable36. This may be a result of the original Oldham et al.25 terrestrial habitat assessment being simplified into four subjective categories in the ARG UK26 protocol: this may not be nuanced enough to differentiate terrestrial habitat usage using statistical modelling. Waterfowl were not identified by the model as important predictors of great crested newt pond occupancy, where they have been elsewhere29,41, with one study suggesting a positive relationship between waterfowl species richness and great crested newt occupancy40. The lack of importance demonstrated in this data set may indicate that other covariates outweigh waterfowl in terms of occupancy importance, or they may only become important predictors of occupancy at very high waterfowl densities rarely observed in this data set. Similarly, pond area was not found to be an important predictor of pond occupancy. There was no difference in the mean area for occupied or unoccupied ponds; however, no occupied ponds were found above 10,000 m2. We would anticipate that both very small and very large ponds to be unsuitable for great crested newts25,52.Northing but not Easting was found to be an important predictor of pond occupancy. A distribution gradient with latitude is a common feature of biodiversity generally, and in the UK great crested newts are much more patchily distributed in Scotland than in England53,54. Pond occupancy estimates varied by year, with a greater occupancy in 2018 than the other years considered. This is likely linked to climatic conditions and may relate to the timings of ponds drying in relation to eDNA sample collection. This may therefore be an artefact of unoccupied ponds being more likely to dry early in the season and therefore being excluded from occupancy estimates for dry years, or local migration to less suitable habitat if core ponds start to dry, however long term analysis of individuals within a metapopulation shows little support for this47. As a result, in very dry years, we would expect an increase in pond occupancy to be observed in the data. Although average early spring rainfall for England in 2018 was higher than in either 2017 or 2019, rainfall during the main eDNA survey window of May and June was considerably less in 2018 than in the other two years (Fig. S5). Similar variation in year on year occupancy rate has been observed elsewhere30.As with all sampling methods, imperfect detection is a general feature of eDNA surveys. When high levels of qPCR replicates are used, false negative error is predominantly due to failure to collect DNA in a sample rather than failure to detect DNA within the lab. False positive error can occur at both stages and is exaggerated at Stage 2 by high levels of replication; Stage 2 false positive error is most likely in samples with a low proportion of replicates amplifying. We recommend using statistical models to estimate the occupancy of individual sites, taking into consideration sampling error. Failing that, a naïve occupancy threshold of two or three amplifying qPCR replicates, adjusting for total levels of replication, should be applied before assigning a site as occupied or not.With specific reference to great crested newts, we estimate approximately 20% of ponds through their natural range within England are occupied. We estimate that eDNA sampling failed to collect DNA from approximately 5% of sites where it was present. However, if eDNA is collected it is highly unlikely to be missed during the laboratory phase using the present protocol. We estimate that eDNA is erroneously collected in approximately 1.5% of water samples causing Stage 1 false positive results. However, false positives at the laboratory phase were found to be 2% per qPCR replicate; it is likely that this error would account for the majority of samples amplifying with one or two qPCR replicates, as a result these need to be treated with caution. To maximise accuracy, we recommend redistributing replication between the two stages, as is recommended elsewhere, and that thresholds to define a replicate as positive are further examined24,55. It is important to recognise that visual surveys also experience imperfect detection13, with observation errors likely to be similar to or greater than the error experienced using eDNA methods, particularly if the recommendations presented here are put in place to minimise laboratory stage false positive error. The benefits associated with eDNA over traditional methods allowing rapid collection of large scale distribution data are invaluable and should not be devalued in relation to traditional methods15. Although not identified within the models as important predictors, waterfowl, terrestrial habitat, and pond area may remain important habitat features for great crested newts. These covariates may be less important than the other HSI covariates, may not be measured in a sufficiently nuanced way to enable their importance to be identified, or may have influence on a local but not national scale29,40. However, equal weighing of the ten HSI variables is an oversimplification with the effect of some variables, for example pond area, overinflated within the HSI analysis, whereas others are undervalued, for example fish intensity. It is important to measure HSI covariates accurately and consistently to allow them to be utilised in statistical analysis such as this, and a review of the covariates and weighting is warranted now large occupancy data sets are becoming available. More

Acute cold shock causes drastic phenotypic alterationsThe duration of cold exposure for young adult hermaphrodite C. elegans at 2 °C is negatively correlated to post-shock survival rates15. Wild-type hermaphrodite worms exposed to a 4-h cold shock (CS) do not initially display high mortality rates (Fig. 1a); this allows observation of a range of phenotypic transitions as they recover from the limited-duration cold stress at their preferred temperature of 20℃. One of the most striking phenotypes exhibited in post-cold shock (post-CS) animals during the recovery period is a dramatic decrease in pigmentation in the normally highly pigmented intestine, so that the body becomes almost entirely clear (Fig. 1b, c)15. This is often accompanied by motor and reproductive disruptions such as mobility loss, withering of the gonad arms, decreased number of internal embryos, and the eventual death of about 30% of the population (Fig. 1a–d)15. It should be noted that these phenotypic responses do not appear to be due to any relative heat shock following the transition from 2 to 20 °C as the expression of GFP-tagged HSP-4 (heat shock protein) is not induced following cold shock (Fig. 1e). Neither is the reduced pigmentation following cold shock due to a period of starvation presumably experienced by the worms while they are at 2 °C. At this extreme cold temperature, the worms enter a “chill coma” in which pharyngeal pumping and virtually all other movement ceases15,16; however, a total absence of food for a similar time period does not induce a comparable clearing phenotype (Supplemental Fig. S1). Interestingly, some CS wild-type animals regain pigmentation after clearing; these worms do not die and display a general reversal of the other negative impacts of cold shock (Fig. 1b)15. We sought to better understand the factors regulating the post-CS recovery program in wild-type worms, focusing particularly on the functional role of pigmentation loss and the genetic components involved in producing it.Figure 1Cold-shocked worms show decrease in survival and characteristic phenotypic alterations. N2 young adult hermaphrodites were shifted from 20 to 2 °C for a 4 h cold shock (CS) and thereafter recovered at 20 °C for 96 h with assessment of (a) survival and (b) phenotypic alterations (n = 177). Death and immobility were assayed by nose tap; worms were considered to be immobile if the tap elicited slight movement in the head region but no other body movement, and dead worms were completely unresponsive (Chi-squared Test for Homogeneity: P  More

Study site and experimental designThe study site, experimental design, and annual sampling protocol have been described in previous publications15,22,47 but a summary will be provided here. The experiment was conducted in a remote study site approximately 20 km northeast of Kangerlussuaq, Greenland, at 67.11° N latitude and 50.34° W longitude, approximately 160 km inland from Baffin Bay. Annual growing season (May through July) mean temperature and total precipitation at the study site during the duration of this experiment (2002–2017) were 8.62 ± 0.20 °C and 43 ± 6.78 mm, respectively47. The surrounding area has functioned as an important caribou (Rangifer tarandus) migration corridor, calving ground, and Indigenous Peoples hunting site for at least approximately 4000 years48, and was designated as a UNESCO World Heritage Site, Aasivissuit—Nipisat, by the United Nations in 2018. Caribou are present in greatest numbers seasonally, with most of the animals that use the site migrating into it during late winter and early spring and migrating out of it in mid to late summer; some male caribou remain at the site through winter. Muskoxen (Ovibos moschatus) are present at the site year-round. Arctic hares (Lepus arcticus) and rock ptarmigan (Lagopus muta) occupy the site in low numbers. In contrast to other locations in the Arctic where they are important herbivores, this site does not harbor voles or lemmings.In June 2002 we erected six exclosures constructed of woven wire fencing material supported by steel t-posts; each exclosure was circular and measured 800 m2. Adjacent to each exclosure, and separated from it by approximately 20–50 m, we located a comparable control site. Exclosure sites and adjacent control sites covered a range of elevations from approximately 275–300 m above sea level. In early May 2003, prior to onset of the plant growing season, we installed passive, open-topped warming chambers constructed of UV neutral glazing material on three plots inside and three plots outside of one exclosure site and three plots inside and four plots outside of a second exclosure site. In early May 2004, we added three warming chambers inside and three warming chambers outside one of the sites equipped in 2003, and we installed an additional three warming chambers on plots inside and three warming chambers on plots outside of a third exclosure site, thus resulting in a total of 12 warmed plots distributed among three exclosure sites and 13 warmed plots distributed among three control (grazed) sites. An ambient (control) plot was located near, but not closer than 2 m to, each warmed plot, thus resulting in 25 warmed plots and 25 ambient plots distributed among three exclosures and adjacent grazed sites. No plot was located closer than 2 m to the edge of any exclosure. Warming chambers were constructed according to the International Tundra Experiment (ITEX) protocol49, were 1.5 m in basal diameter, and encompassed 1.77 m2. Warming chambers were installed in early May each year, anchored to plots using metal garden stakes, and removed annually at the time of vegetation sampling, which was intended to coincide with peak aboveground abundance at mid to late July in most years (except in 2006, when sampling was conducted in mid-June, and in 2003 and 2011 when sampling was conducted in mid-August)47. Warming chambers significantly elevated near surface temperature by approximately 1.5–3.0 °C, and resulted in a non-significant reduction of soil moisture22,50.Vegetation samplingVegetation sampling was conducted non-destructively using a square Plexiglas tabletop point frame on adjustable aluminum legs. The point frame measured 0.25 m2 and was centered within each plot for sampling. The corners of each plot were equipped with hollow aluminum tubes sunk into the soil surface at the cardinal directions, and the legs of the point frame were inserted into these tubes to ensure consistent orientation and location of the frame during sampling. Once the frame was positioned, a steel welding pin was lowered through each of 20 randomly located holes in the point frame tabletop, and each encounter by the tip of the pin with vegetation was recorded until the pin struck soil, litter, or rock. In 2003 and 2004, vegetation was recorded at the species level for deciduous shrubs (Betula nana and Salix glauca) and at the functional group level for graminoids (including grasses, rushes, and sedges of the genera Calamagrostis sp., Poa sp., Festuca sp., Hierochloë sp., Trisetum spicatum, Luzula sp., Carex sp., and Kobresia sp.), forbs, mosses, lichens, and fungi. Beginning in 2005, vegetation was recorded at the species level for forbs, in addition to deciduous shrubs, and at the genus level for lichens (Peltigera sp.), fungi [Calvatia sp.; most likely C. cretacea51], and mosses (Aulacomnium sp.). Graminoids were not resolved to the genus or species levels due to concerns about consistent identification. All taxa were identified in the field by the authors on the basis of visual inspection of live individuals in consultation with reference guides52,53,54,55. In adherence with the Guidelines for Professional Ethics established by the Botanical Society of America, sampling and identification were done non-destructively, and no voucher specimens were collected.Commonness estimationEcologically meaningful estimation of commonness is inherently relative; a taxon is only common or rare in relation to other taxa5. While there exist a considerable array of quantitative indices of commonness56, we opted for one that integrates abundance and occurrence by assigning equal weight to each. Using annual abundance sums obtained during point frame sampling, we calculated commonness for each taxon as the product of its proportional abundance across all plots within each treatment and its proportional occurrence across all plots within each treatment. Hence, the commonness (C) of an individual taxon, i, in a given year, t, can be expressed as the product of its proportional abundance (A) and proportional occurrence (O) in that year:$$C_{it} = A_{it} *O_{it}$$
(1)
in which proportional abundance of taxon i in year t is the sum of point frame pin intercepts, h, for that taxon in that year across all plots sampled that year divided by the total number of point frame pin intercepts, H, of live vegetation biomass recorded across all plots sampled that year:$$A_{it} = h_{it} /H_{t}$$
(2)
and in which proportional occurrence of taxon i in year t is the sum of the number of plots, p, on which point frame pin intercepts of taxon i were recorded in year t divided by the total number of plots, P, sampled in year t:$$O_{it} = p_{it} /P_{t}$$
(3)
This index was used to estimate taxon-specific commonness within each experimental treatment combination (i.e., exclosed ambient, exclosed warmed, grazed ambient, and grazed warmed treatments), as well as across the entire site (sitewide commonness) for derivation of baseline commonness. To derive baseline commonness for subsequent analysis of its contribution to taxon-specific trends in commonness over the course of the experiment, we used sitewide commonness of each taxon in the year 2006. As described above, greater taxonomic resolution beyond functional group was not widely applied in our sampling until the third year of the experiment, 2005. However, we decided against using 2005 as a baseline for commonness at the site because it also happened to be the final year of a two-year outbreak of caterpillar larvae of a noctuid moth, Eurois occulta, that reduced aboveground abundance of nearly all taxa on our plots22,57. Except for the fungus C. cretacea, all taxa, whether recorded by pin intercepts during point-frame sampling or not, were observed on at least one plot under each of the four experimental treatment combinations. The rarest forb in this study, Pyrola grandiflora, was observed on a single plot under each of the exclosed ambient, exclosed warmed, and grazed warmed treatments, and on two plots under the grazed warmed treatment, but was not recorded during point frame sampling of exclosed ambient or grazed ambient plots. Hence, any conclusions about the effects of warming on this species must be limited. Similarly, the lichen Peltigera sp., which was also very rare in this study, was recorded during point frame sampling on plots under each treatment combination, but was not detected by sampling on exclosed warmed plots after 2005 even though it was observed on one exclosed warmed plot after that. This might be considered corroboration of the negative effect on this genus of warming under herbivore exclusion reported in the Results, but caution may also be warranted. The fungus C. cretacea first appeared under the grazed ambient treatment in 2008 and then under the exclosed ambient treatment in 2012, but was not recorded under the grazed warmed or exclosed warmed treatments. This might in and of itself suggest a negative effect of warming on the establishment or occurrence of this species, or fungi in general, and might be consistent with limiting effects of reduced moisture availability under warming. However, we urge caution with this interpretation because fungi may not form fruiting bodies every growing season, and such fruiting bodies may emerge aboveground in different locations from one growing season to the next, thereby potentially confounding repeated detection by sampling methods such as ours.Analysis of experimental treatment effects on plant functional group abundanceWe used a Gaussian generalized linear model (GLM) with an identity link function to analyze variation in functional group abundance among experimental treatment combinations. This GLM included total annual abundance, for the period 2003–2017, of deciduous shrubs (comprising summed abundances of Betula nana and Salix glauca leaf and stem point frame pin intercepts), graminoids (comprising all grass, rush, and sedge tissue point frame pin intercepts), forbs, mosses, lichens, or fungi, in separate models with the two experimental treatments (warming and herbivore exclusion) and their interaction as factors, year as a factor, and day of year of sampling as a continuous covariate. Significance of individual treatment effects of warming and herbivore exclusion, as well as their interaction, was determined based on Wald Chi-square statistics and associated two-tailed P-values (with significance indicated at P ≤ 0.05).Analysis of experimental treatment effects on commonnessAnalyses of commonness data were performed at higher taxonomic resolution than were analyses of abundance data, and so were limited to analysis of data from the last 12 years of the experiment, 2006–2017. Using Eq. (1), commonness was estimated for 14 taxa, including two species of deciduous shrubs, Betula nana and Salix glauca; graminoids, comprising at least eight non-distinguished genera of grasses, rushes, and sedges listed above in the sub-section Vegetation sampling; eight species of forbs, including Equisetum arvense, Stellaria longipes, Cerastium alpinum, Bistorta vivipara, Draba nivalis, Campanula gieseckiana, Viola canina, and Pyrola grandiflora; one genus of moss, Aulacomnium sp.; one genus of fungus, Calvatia sp.; and one genus of lichen, Peltigera sp.We first investigated general characteristics of and treatment effects on commonness across the study site. We examined the skewness of commonness to determine whether the distribution of the 14 focal taxa was significantly right-skewed, indicating greater numbers of rare than of common taxa2. We obtained an estimate of skewness and its standard error across pooled data for the period 2003–2017, derived a 95% confidence interval, and compared it to zero. Next, we examined experimental treatment effects on sitewide commonness. To do this, we used a Gaussian GLM with identity link function to analyze pooled commonness of all taxa for the period 2006–2017, with commonness as the dependent variable and the two experimental treatments and their interaction as factors, year as a factor, taxon as a factor, and day of year of sampling as a covariate. We determined significance of individual treatment effects and their interaction by examining Wald Chi-square statistics, with significance indicated if the two-tailed P ≤ 0.05. We then tested for experimental treatment effects on individual taxa using the same analytical approach, but with taxon-specific commonness as the dependent variable, and treatment and year as factors, with day of year of sampling as a covariate.Analysis of trends in commonness and skewness of commonness over the last 12 years of the experimentWe next investigated whether common and rare taxa displayed different trends in commonness over the course of the last 12 years of the experiment. This was motivated by a presupposition that warming and/or herbivore exclusion might have differentially altered commonness of common vs. rare species. We first examined linear trends in sitewide commonness of all 14 taxa pooled across experimental treatments by testing for significance of linear regressions of taxon-specific commonness vs. year for the period 2006–2017. We then conducted the same analysis for each taxon individually under each experimental treatment combination to determine whether our experimental manipulations contributed to trends differentially in common vs. rare taxa. We then investigated whether the distribution of commonness across the 14 focal taxa displayed directional change over the course of the final 12 years of the experiment, and whether it might have done so differently in relation to experimental treatment combinations. To do this, we tested for significance of linear regressions of treatment-specific skewness of commonness vs. year for the period 2006–2017. Finally, we examined whether trends in commonness were related to baseline commonness for the 13 taxa resolved to the genus or species level, excluding graminoids because this group comprised multiple unresolved genera. This analysis was motivated by interest in determining whether taxa that were common at the beginning of the experiment tended to become more common and taxa that were rare at the beginning of the experiment tended to become rarer, thus indicating that degree of commonness itself might be an important driver of changes in commonness over the course of a multi-annual experiment such as ours. To do this, we fit a non-linear regression model using a von Bertalanffy equation to quantify the relationship between taxon-specific commonness trend (standardized coefficient from the regression of commonness vs. year, ranging between − 1 and 1) and baseline commonness by treatment. This equation took the form:$$Y = 1 – left( {1 – a} right)e^{ – bX}$$
(4)
In which Y = taxon- and treatment-specific commonness trend, estimated in this case using the standardized coefficient from a linear regression of commonness of taxon i under a given experimental treatment combination vs. year; a = the Y-intercept; b = the slope; and X = baseline commonness of taxon i under the same treatment combination in 2006. Significance of regressions for each treatment was determined by calculating an F-statistic using corrected model sums of squares, error sums of squares, model degrees of freedom, and error degrees of freedom. Non-linear regression models were considered significant if the F-associated P ≤ 0.05. More

1.Hoffmann, A. A. & Willi, Y. Detecting genetic responses to environmental change. Nat. Rev. Genet. 9, 421–432 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
2.Endler, J. A. Geographic Variation, Speciation and Clines (Princeton, 1977).
Google Scholar 
3.Huey, R. B. Rapid evolution of a geographic cline in size in an introduced fly. Science. 287, 308–309 (2000).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
4.Bridle, J. R. & Vines, T. H. Limits to evolution at range margins: when and why does adaptation fail?. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 140–147 (2007).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
5.Holt, R. D. & Gomulkiewik, R. How does immigration influence local adaptation? A reexamination of a familiar paradim. Am. Nat. 149, 563–572 (1997).
Google Scholar 
6.Ronce, O. & Kirkpatrick, M. When sources become sinks: Migrational meltdown in heterogeneous habitats. Evolution 55, 1520–1531 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
7.Bridle, J. R., Gavaz, S. & Kennington, W. J. Testing limits to adaptation along altitudinal gradients in rainforest Drosophila. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 276, 1507–1515 (2009).
Google Scholar 
8.Bridle, J. R., Polechová, J., Kawata, M. & Butlin, R. K. Why is adaptation prevented at ecological margins? New insights from individual-based simulations. Ecol. Lett. 13, 485–494 (2010).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
9.Holt, R. D. & Keitt, T. H. Alternative causes for range limits: A metapopulation perspective. Ecol. Lett. 3, 41–47 (2000).
Google Scholar 
10.Takahashi, Y. et al. Lack of genetic variation prevents adaptation at the geographic range margin in a damselfly. Mol. Ecol. 25, 4450–4460 (2016).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
11.Arnaud-Haond, S. et al. Genetic structure at range edge: Low diversity and high inbreeding in Southeast Asian mangrove (Avicennia marina) populations. Mol. Ecol. 15, 3515–3525 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
12.Pujol, B. & Pannell, J. R. Reduced responses to selection after species range expansion. Science 321, 96 (2008).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
13.Cahill, A. E. & Levinton, J. S. Genetic differentiation and reduced genetic diversity at the northern range edge of two species with different dispersal modes. Mol. Ecol. 25, 515–526 (2016).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
14.Bachmann, J. C., van Rensburg, A. J., Cortazar-Chinarro, M., Laurila, A. & Van Buskirk, J. Gene flow limits adaptation along steep environmental gradients. Am. Nat. 195, E67–E86 (2020).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
15.Polechová, J. & Barton, N. H. Limits to adaptation along environmental gradients. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 112, 6401–6406 (2015).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
16.Sexton, J. P., Strauss, S. Y. & Rice, K. J. Gene flow increases fitness at the warm edge of a species’ range. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 108, 11704–11709 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
17.Angert, A. L., Bontrager, M. G. & Aringgren, J. What do we really know about adaptation at range edges?. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 51, 341–361 (2020).
Google Scholar 
18.Ciborowski, J. J. H. Downstream and lateral transport of nymphs of two mayfly species (Ephemeroptera). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 40, 2025–2029 (1983).
Google Scholar 
19.Bilton, D. T., Freeland, J. R. & Okamura, B. Dispersal in freshwater invertebrates. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 32, 159–181 (2001).
Google Scholar 
20.Markwith, S. H. & Scanlon, M. J. Multiscale analysis of Hymenocallis coronaria (Amaryllidaceae) genetic diversity, genetic structure, and gene movement under the influence of unidirectional stream flow. Am. J. Bot. 94, 151–160 (2007).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
21.Congdon, B. C. Unidirectional gene flow and maintenance of genetic diversity in mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki (Teleostei: Poeciliidae). Copeia 1995, 162 (1995).
Google Scholar 
22.Schaefer, J. Riffles as barriers to interpool movement by three cyprinids (Notropis boops, Campostoma anomalum and Cyprinella venusta). Freshw. Biol. 46, 379–388 (2001).
Google Scholar 
23.Moore, J. S., Gow, J. L., Taylor, E. B. & Hendry, A. P. Quantifying the constraining influence of gene flow on adaptive divergence in the lake-stream threespine stickleback system. Evolution 61, 2015–2026 (2007).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
24.Urabe, M. Diel change of activity and movement on natural river beds in Semisuleospira reiniana. VENUS 57, 17–27 (1998).
Google Scholar 
25.Hastie, L. C., Boon, P. J., Young, M. R. & Way, S. The effects of a major flood on an endangered freshwater mussel population. Biol. Conserv. 98, 107–115 (2001).
Google Scholar 
26.Alp, M., Keller, I., Westram, A. M. & Robinson, C. T. How river structure and biological traits influence gene flow: A population genetic study of two stream invertebrates with differing dispersal abilities. Freshw. Biol. 57, 969–981 (2012).
Google Scholar 
27.Terui, A. et al. Asymmetric dispersal structures a riverine metapopulation of the freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera laevis. Ecol. Evol. 4, 3004–3014 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
28.Holomuzki, J. R. & Biggs, B. J. F. Distributional responses to flow disturbance by a stream-dwelling snail. Oikos 87, 36 (1999).
Google Scholar 
29.Urabe, M. Phenotypic modulation by the substratum of shell sculpture in Semisulcospira reiniana (Prosobranchia: Pleuroceridae). J. Molluscan Stud. 66, 53–60 (2000).
Google Scholar 
30.Gu, Q. H., Husemann, M., Ding, B., Luo, Z. & Xiong, B. X. Population genetic structure of Bellamya aeruginosa (Mollusca: Gastropoda: Viviparidae) in China: Weak divergence across large geographic distances. Ecol. Evol. 5, 4906–4919 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
31.Davis, C. D., Epps, C. W., Flitcroft, R. L. & Banks, M. A. Refining and defining riverscape genetics: How rivers influence population genetic structure. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 5(2), e1269 (2018).
Google Scholar 
32.De Wit, P. & Palumbi, S. R. Transcriptome-wide polymorphisms of red abalone (Haliotis rufescens) reveal patterns of gene flow and local adaptation. Mol. Ecol. 22, 2884–2897 (2013).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
33.Sun, Y.-B. et al. Species groups distributed across elevational gradients reveal convergent and continuous genetic adaptation to high elevations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 115, 201813593 (2018).
Google Scholar 
34.Willoughby, J. R., Harder, A. M., Tennessen, J. A., Scribner, K. T. & Christie, M. R. Rapid genetic adaptation to a novel environment despite a genome-wide reduction in genetic diversity. Mol. Ecol. 27, 4041–4051 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
35.De Wit, P. et al. The simple fool’s guide to population genomics via RNA-Seq: An introduction to high-throughput sequencing data analysis. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 12, 1058–1067 (2012).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
36.Yokomizo, T. & Takahashi, Y. Changes in transcriptomic response to salinity stress induce the brackish water adaptation in a freshwater snail. Sci. Rep. 10, 1–9 (2020).
Google Scholar 
37.Kottler, E. J., Dickman, E. E., Sexton, J. P., Emery, N. C., & Franks, S. J. Draining the swamping hypothesis: Little evidence that gene flow reduces fitness at range edges. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1–12 (2021).38.Moore, J. S. & Hendry, A. P. Can gene flow have negative demographic consequences? Mixed evidence from stream threespine stickleback. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 364, 1533–1542 (2009).
Google Scholar 
39.Ingvarsson, P. K. Restoration of genetic variation lost – The genetic rescue hypothesis. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16, 62–63 (2001).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
40.Shimada, K. & Urabe, M. Drift and upstream movement of Semisulcospira libertina (Caenogastropoda: Pleuroceridae) in a natural stream. Vinus 63, 49–59 (2004).
Google Scholar 
41.Nyitray, L., Goodwin, E. B. & Szent-Gyorgyi, A. G. Complete primary structure of a scallop striated muscle myosin heavy chain: Sequence comparison with other heavy chains reveals regions that might be critical for regulation. J. Biol. Chem. 266, 18469–18476 (1991).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
42.Ponder, W. F., Lindberg, D. R. & Ponder, J. M. Shell, Body, and Muscles (CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, 2019).
Google Scholar 
43.Lesoway, M. P., Abouheif, E. & Collin, R. Comparative transcriptomics of alternative developmental phenotypes in a marine gastropod. J. Exp. Zool. Part B Mol. Dev. Evol. 326, 151–167 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
44.Sexton, J. P., McIntyre, P. J., Angert, A. L. & Rice, K. J. Evolution and ecology of species range limits. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 40, 415–436 (2009).
Google Scholar 
45.Berger, V. J. & Kharazova, A. D. Mechanisms of salinity adaptations in marine molluscs. Hydrobiologia 355, 115–126 (1997).CAS 

Google Scholar 
46.Rivera-Ingraham, G. A. & Lignot, J. H. Osmoregulation, bioenergetics and oxidative stress in coastal marine invertebrates: Raising the questions for future research. J. Exp. Biol. 220, 1749–1760 (2017).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
47.Jo, P. G., Choi, Y. K., An, K. W. & Choi, C. Y. Osmoregulation and mRNA expression of a heat shock protein 68 and glucose-regulated protein 78 in the Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas in response to salinity changes. J. Aquac. 20, 205–211 (2007).CAS 

Google Scholar 
48.Eierman, L. E. & Hare, M. P. Transcriptomic analysis of candidate osmoregulatory genes in the eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica. BMC Genomics 15, 1–15 (2014).
Google Scholar 
49.X. Zhao, H. Yu, L. Kong, Q. Li, Transcriptomic responses to salinity stress in the pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas. PLoS ONE 7 (2012).50.Zhang, Y. et al. Proteomic basis of stress responses in the gills of the pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas. J. Proteome Res. 14, 304–317 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
51.Veiga, M. P. T., Gutierre, S. M. M., Castellano, G. C. & Freire, C. A. Tolerance of high and low salinity in the intertidal gastropod Stramonita brasiliensis (Muricidae): Behaviour and maintenance of tissue water content. J. Molluscan Stud. 82, 154–160 (2016).
Google Scholar 
52.Muraeva, O. A., Maltseva, A. L., Mikhailova, N. A. & Granovitch, A. I. Mechanisms of adaption to salinity stress in marine gastropods Littorina saxatilis: a proteomic analysis. Cell Tissue Biol. 10, 160–169 (2016).
Google Scholar 
53.Muraeva, O., Maltseva, A., Varfolomeeva, M., Mikhailova, N. & Granovitch, A. Mild osmotic stress in intertidal gastropods Littorina saxatilis and Littorina obtusata (Mollusca: Caenogastropoda): A proteomic analysis. Biol. Commun. 62, 202–213 (2017).
Google Scholar 
54.Maynard, A., Bible, J. M., Pespeni, M. H., Sanford, E. & Evans, T. G. Transcriptomic responses to extreme low salinity among locally adapted populations of Olympia oyster (Ostrea lurida). Mol. Ecol. 27, 4225–4240 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
55.Ma, E., Gu, X. Q., Wu, X., Xu, T. & Haddad, G. G. Mutation in pre-mRNA adenosine deaminase markedly attenuates neuronal tolerance to O2 deprivation in Drosophila melanogaster. J. Clin. Invest. 107, 685–693 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
56.Jepson, J. E. C. et al. Engineered alterations in RNA editing modulate complex behavior in Drosophila: Regulatory diversity of adenosine deaminase acting on RNA (ADAR) targets. J. Biol. Chem. 286, 8325–8337 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
57.Bolger, A. M., Lohse, M. & Usadel, B. Trimmomatic: A flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 30, 2114–2120 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
58.Haas, B. J. et al. De novo transcript sequence reconstruction from RNA-seq using the Trinity platform for reference generation and analysis. Nat. Protoc. 8, 1494–1512 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
59.Fu, L., Niu, B., Zhu, Z., Wu, S. & Li, W. CD-HIT: accelerated for clustering the next-generation sequencing data. Bioinformatics 28, 3150–3152 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
60.Kim, D. et al. TopHat2: accurate alignment of transcriptomes in the presence of insertions, deletions and gene fusions. Genome Biol. 14(4), 1–13 (2013).
Google Scholar 
61.Trapnell, C. et al. Transcript assembly and quantification by RNA-Seq reveals unannotated transcripts and isoform switching during cell differentiation. Nat. Biotechnol. 28, 511–515 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
62.Dobin, A. et al. STAR: ULTRAFAST universal RNA-seq aligner. Bioinformatics 29, 15–21 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
63.McKenna, A. et al. The genome analysis toolkit: a MapReduce framework for analyzing next-generation DNA sequencing data. Genome Rsearch 20, 1297–1303 (2010).CAS 

Google Scholar 
64.Danecek, P. et al. The variant call format and VCFtools. Bioinformatics 27, 2156–2158 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
65.Cingolani, P. et al. A program for annotating and predicting the effects of single nucleotide polymorphisms, SnpEff: SNPs in the genome of Drosophila melanogaster strain w1118; iso-2; iso-3. Fly (Austin) 6, 80–92 (2012).CAS 

Google Scholar 
66.Chang, C. C. et al. Second-generation PLINK: Rising to the challenge of larger and richer datasets. Gigascience 4, 1–16 (2015).
Google Scholar 
67.Excoffier, L. & Lischer, H. E. L. Arlequin suite ver 3.5: A new series of programs to perform population genetics analyses under Linux and Windows. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 10, 564–567 (2010).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
68.Wilson, G. A. & Rannala, B. Bayesian inference of recent migration rates using multilocus genotypes. Genetics 163, 1177–1191 (2003).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
69.Mussmann, S. M., Douglas, M. R., Chafin, T. K. & Douglas, M. E. BA3-SNPs: contemporary migration reconfigured in BayesAss for next-generation sequence data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 10, 1808–1813 (2019).
Google Scholar 
70.Frichot, E. & François, O. LEA: an R package for landscape and ecological association studies. Methods Ecol. Evol. 6, 925–929 (2015).
Google Scholar 
71.Frichot, E., Mathieu, F., Trouillon, T., Bouchard, G. & François, O. Fast and efficient estimation of individual ancestry coefficients. Genetics 196, 973–983 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
72.Foll, M. & Gaggiotti, O. A genome-scan method to identify selected loci appropriate for both dominant and codominant markers: A Bayesian perspective. Genetics 180, 977–993 (2008).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
73.Mi, H. et al. PANTHER version 16: a revised family classification, tree-based classification tool, enhancer regions and extensive API. Nucleic Acids Res. 49, D394–D403 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
74.Parrish, N., Hormozdiari, F., & Eskin, E. Assembly of non-unique insertion content using next-generation sequencing. BMC Bioinformatics. 12, S3 (2011).75.Langmead, B. & Salzberg, S. L. Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nat. Methods 9, 357–359 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
76.Robinson, M. D., McCarthy, D. J. & Smyth, G. K. edgeR: A Bioconductor package for differential expression analysis of digital gene expression data. Bioinformatics 26, 139–140 (2009).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
77.Sun, J., Nishiyama, T., Shimizu, K. & Kadota, K. TCC: An R package for comparing tag count data with robust normalization strategies. BMC Bioinformatics 14(1), 1–14 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar  More

1.Canadell, J. G. et al. Factoring out natural and indirect human effects on terrestrial carbon sources and sinks. Environ. Sci. Policy 10, 370–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2007.01.009 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Bradford, M. A., Fierer, N. & Reynolds, J. F. Soil carbon stocks in experimental mesocosms are dependent on the rate of labile carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus inputs to soils. Funct. Ecol. 22, 964–974. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2008.01404.x (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.He, S., Liang, Z., Han, R., Wang, Y. & Liu, G. Soil carbon dynamics during grass restoration on abandoned sloping cropland in the hilly area of the Loess Plateau China. Catena 137, 679–685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2015.01.027 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Schuman, G. E., Janzen, H. H. & Herrick, J. E. Soil carbon dynamics and potential carbon sequestration by rangelands. Environ. Pollut. 116, 391–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0269-7491(01)00215-9 (2002).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Duan, C. et al. Reveal the response of enzyme activities to heavy metals through in situ zymography. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 156, 106–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.03.015 (2018).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
6.Yang, J. et al. A proposal of “core enzyme” bioindicator in long-term Pb-Zn ore pollution areas based on topsoil property analysis. Environ. Pollut. 213, 760–769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.03.030 (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
7.Fierer, N. Embracing the unknown: Disentangling the complexities of the soil microbiome. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 15, 579–590. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro.2017.87 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Wan, Z. & Song, C. Advance on response of soil enzyme activity to ecological environment. Chin. J. Soil Sci. 40(4), 951–956 (2009).CAS 

Google Scholar 
9.Liu, G. et al. Soil enzymes as indicators of saline soil fertility under various soil amendments. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 237, 274–279 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Li, Z., Chaonian, F., Mengjie, L. & Huanchao, Z. Nutrient and biological characteristics of different salinized soils in coastal areas of northern Jiangsu Province. J. Anhui Agric. Univ. 46, 86–92 (2019).
Google Scholar 
11.Bueis, T., Turrion, M. B., Bravo, F., Pando, V. & Muscolo, A. Factors determining enzyme activities in soils under Pinus halepensis and Pinus sylvestris plantations in Spain: A basis for establishing sustainable forest management strategies. Ann. For. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-018-0720-z (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Sinsabaugh, R. L. et al. Stoichiometry of soil enzyme activity at global scale. Ecol. Lett. 11, 1252–1264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01245.x (2008).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
13.Marx, M. C., Kandeler, E., Wood, M., Wermbter, N. & Jarvis, S. C. Exploring the enzymatic landscape: Distribution and kinetics of hydrolytic enzymes in soil particle-size fractions. Soil Biol. Biochem. 37, 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2004.05.024 (2005).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Bais, et al. The role of root exudates in rhizosphere interations with plants and other organisms. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2006(57), 233–266 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Qu, Y. et al. Soil enzyme activity and microbial metabolic function diversity in soda saline–alkali rice paddy fields of northeast China. Sustainability 12, 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122310095 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Salinas-Garcia, J. R. et al. Tillage effects on microbial biomass and nutrient distribution in soils under rain-fed corn production in central-western Mexico. Soil Till. Res. 66, 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-1987(02)00022-3 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Roldán, A., Salinas-García, J. R., Alguacil, M. M. & Caravaca, F. Changes in soil enzyme activity, fertility, aggregation and C sequestration mediated by conservation tillage practices and water regime in a maize field. Appl. Soil Ecol. 30, 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2005.01.004 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Lenton, T. M. & Huntingford, C. Global terrestrial carbon storage and uncertainties in its temperature sensitivity examined with a simple model. Glob. Change Biol. 9, 1333–1352. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2003.00674.x (2003).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Rey, A., Petsikos, C., Jarvis, P. G. & Grace, J. Effect of temperature and moisture on rates of carbon mineralization in a Mediterranean oak forest soil under controlled and field conditions. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 56(5), 589–599 (2005).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Wang, X., Zhag, Y., Lv, J. & Fan, X. Effect of long term different fertilization on properties of soil organic matter and humic acids. Sci. Agric. Sinica 33, 78–84 (2000).
Google Scholar 
21.Wei, Y. et al. Updated information on soil salinity in a typical oasis agroecosystem and desert-oasis ecotone: Case study conducted along the Tarim River. China. Sci. Total Environ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135387 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Huang, L. H. et al. Impact of cultivation year, nitrogen fertilization rate and irrigation water quality on soil salinity and soil nitrogen in saline-sodic paddy fields in Northeast China. J. Agric. Sci. 154, 632–646. https://doi.org/10.1017/s002185961500057x (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Liu, Q., Cui, B. & Yang, Z. Dynamics of the soil water and solute in the sodic saline soil in the Songnen Plain China. Environ. Earth Sci. 59, 837–845. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-009-0079-4 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Lu, Y. & Xu, H. Distribution characteristic of soil organic carbon fraction in different types of wetland in Hongze Lake of China. Sci. World J. 2014, 487961. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/487961 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Nitsch, P., Kaupenjohann, M. & Wulf, M. Forest continuity, soil depth and tree species are important parameters for SOC stocks in an old forest (Templiner Buchheide, northeast Germany). Geoderma 310, 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.08.041 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Zhang, Z., Lu, X., Song, X., Guo, Y. & Xue, Z. Soil C, N and P stoichiometry of deyeuxia angustifolia and carex lasiocarpa wetlands in Sanjiang Plain, northeast China. J. Soil Sediment. 12, 1309–1315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-012-0551-8 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Bian, J., Tang, J., Zhang, L., Ma, H. & Zhao, J. Arsenic distribution and geological factors in the western Jilin province China. J. Geochem. Explor. 112, 347–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gexplo.2011.10.003 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Zheng, B. Technical Guide for Soil Analysis (China Agriculture Press, 2013).
Google Scholar 
29.Paul, E. A. The nature and dynamics of soil organic matter: Plant inputs, microbial transformations, and organic matter stabilization. Soil Biol. Biochem. 98, 109–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2016.04.001 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Solly, E. F., Schoning, I., Herold, N., Trumbore, S. E. & Schrumpf, M. No depth-dependence of fine root litter decomposition in temperate beech forest soils. Plant Soil 393, 273–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-015-2492-7 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Steinweg, J. M., Kostka, J. E., Hanson, P. J. & Schadt, C. W. Temperature sensitivity of extracellular enzymes differs with peat depth but not with season in an ombrotrophic bog. Soil Biol. Biochem. 125, 244–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.07.001 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Hartman, W. H., Richardson, C. J., Vilgalys, R. & Bruland, G. L. Environmental and anthropogenic controls over bacterial communities in wetland soils. P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105, 17842–17847. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0808254105 (2008).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Andersen, R., Chapman, S. J. & Artz, R. R. E. Microbial communities in natural and disturbed peatlands: A review. Soil Biol. Biochem. 57, 979–994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.10.003 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Huang, B., Wang, J., Jin, H. & Xu, S. Effects of long- term application fertilizer on carbon storage in calcareous meadow soil. J. Agro-Environ. Sci. 25, 161–164 (2006).CAS 

Google Scholar 
35.Bacmaga, M., Wyszkowska, J. & Kucharski, J. Bioaugmentation of soil contaminated with azoxystrobin. Water Air Soil Poll. 228, 9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-016-3200-9 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Miller, G., Suzuki, N., Ciftci-Yilmaz, S. & Mittler, R. Reactive oxygen species homeostasis and signalling during drought and salinity stresses. Plant Cell Environ. 33, 453–467 (2010).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
37.Pathak, H. & Rao, D. L. N. Carbon and nitrogen mineralization from added organic matter in saline and alkali soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 30, 695–702. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0038-0717(97)00208-3 (1998).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Xiao, Y. et al. Response of soil labile organic carbon fractions to forest conversions in subtropical China. Trop. Ecol. 57, 691–699 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
39.Broszat, M. et al. Wastewater irrigation increases the abundance of potentially harmful gammaproteobacteria in soils in Mezquital Valley. Mexico. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 80, 5282–5291 (2014).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
40.Liu, Y. et al. Alphaproteobacteria dominate active 2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid herbicide degraders in agricultural soil and drilosphere. Environ. Microbiol. 13, 991–1009 (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Baumann, K. et al. Soil microbial diversity affects soil organic matter decomposition in a silty grassland soil. Biogeochemistry 114, 201–212 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Philippot, L. et al. Loss in microbial diversity affects nitrogen cycling in soil. ISME J. 7, 1609–1619 (2013).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
43.Chambers, L. G., Guevara, R., Boyer, J. N., Troxler, T. G. & Davis, S. E. Effects of salinity and inundation on microbial community structure and fFunction in a mangrove peat soil. Wetlands 36, 361–371 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Wong, V. N. L., Greene, R. S. B., Dalal, R. C. & Murphy, B. W. Soil carbon dynamics in saline and sodic soils: A review. Soil Use Manage. 26, 2–11 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar  More