Ecology

1.Cummings, M. E., Rosenthal, G. G. & Ryan, M. J. A private ultraviolet channel in visual communication. Proc. R. Soc. B-Biol. Sci. 270, 897–904. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2003.2334 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Tedore, C. & Nilsson, D. E. Avian UV vision enhances leaf surface contrasts in forest environments. Nat. Commun. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-08142-5 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
3.Qi, Y. D., Bai, S. J. & Heisler, G. M. Changes in ultraviolet-B and visible optical properties and absorbing pigment concentrations in pecan leaves during a growing season. Agric. For. Meteorol. 120, 229–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2003.08.018 (2003).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Mollon, J. D. “Tho’ she kneel’d in that place where they grew…” The uses and origins of primate colour vision. J. Exp. Biol. 146, 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.146.1.21 (1989).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
5.Osorio, D. & Vorobyev, M. Photoreceptor sectral sensitivities in terrestrial animals: Adaptations for luminance and colour vision. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 272, 1745–1752. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2005.3156 (2005).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Osorio, D. & Vorobyev, M. A review of the evolution of animal colour vision and visual communication signals. Vis. Res. 48, 2042–2051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2008.06.018 (2008).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
7.Bowmaker, J. K. & Dartnall, H. J. A. Visual pigments of rods and cones in a human retina. J. Physiol. Lond. 298, 501–511. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1980.sp013097 (1980).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
8.Bowmaker, J. K. & Hunt, D. M. Evolution of vertebrate visual pigments. Curr. Biol. 16, R484–R489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2006.06.016 (2006).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
9.van der Kooi, C. J., Stavenga, D. G., Arikawa, K., Belušič, G. & Kelber, A. Evolution of insect color vision: From spectral sensitivity to visual ecology. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 66, 435–461 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Briscoe, A. D. & Chittka, L. The evolution of color vision in insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 46, 471–510. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.46.1.471 (2001).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
11.Ogawa, Y., Kinoshita, M., Stavenga, D. G. & Arikawa, K. Sex-specific retinal pigmentation results in sexually dimorphic long-wavelength-sensitive photoreceptors in the eastern pale clouded yellow butterfly, Colias erate. J. Exp. Biol. 216, 1916–1923. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.083485 (2013).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
12.Kelber, A. Ovipositing butterflies use a red receptor to see green. J. Exp. Biol. 202, 2619–2630 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Osorio, D. & Vorobyev, M. Colour vision as an adaptation to frugivory in primates. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 263, 593–599. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1996.0089 (1996).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Zaccardi, G., Kelber, A., Sison-Mangus, M. P. & Briscoe, A. D. Color discrimination in the red range with only one long-wavelength sensitive opsin. J. Exp. Biol. 209, 1944–1955. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.02207 (2006).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
15.Wakakuwa, M., Stavenga, D. G., Kurasawa, M. & Arikawa, K. A unique visual pigment expressed in green, red and deep-red receptors in the eye of the small white butterfly, Pieris rapae crucivora. J. Exp. Biol. 207, 2803–2810. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.01078 (2004).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
16.Satoh, A. et al. Red-shift of spectral sensitivity due to screening pigment migration in the eyes of a moth, Adoxophyes orana. Zool. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40851-017-0075-6 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Pirih, P. et al. The giant butterfly-moth Paysandisia archon has spectrally rich apposition eyes with unique light-dependent photoreceptor dynamics. J. Comp. Physiol. A Neuroethol. Sens. Neural Behav. Physiol. 204, 639–651. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-018-1267-z (2018).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
18.Cronin, T. W., Jarvilehto, M., Weckstrom, M. & Lall, A. B. Tuning of photoreceptor spectral sensitivity in fireflies (Coleoptera: Lampyridae). J. Comp. Physiol. A Sens. Neural Behav. Physiol. 186, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003590050001 (2000).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Lall, A. B. et al. Vision in click beetles (Coleoptera: Elateridae): pigments and spectral correspondence between visual sensitivity and species bioluminescence emission. J. Comp. Physiol. A Neuroethol. Sens. Neural Behav. Physiol. 196, 629–638. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-010-0549-x (2010).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
20.Frentiu, F. D. et al. Adaptive evolution of color vision as seen through the eyes of butterflies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104, 8634–8640. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701447104 (2007).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
21.Liénard, M. A. et al. The evolution of red color vision is linked to coordinated rhodopsin tuning in lycaenid butterflies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2008986118 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
22.Saito, T. et al. Spectral tuning mediated by helix III in butterfly long wavelength-sensitive visual opsins revealed by heterologous action spectroscopy. Zool. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40851-019-0150-2 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Enright, J. M. et al. Cyp27c1 red-shifts the spectral sensitivity of photoreceptors by converting vitamin A1 into A2. Curr. Biol. 25, 3048–3057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.10.018 (2015).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
24.Martin, M., Le Galliard, J. F., Meylan, S. & Loew, E. R. The importance of ultraviolet and near-infrared sensitivity for visual discrimination in two species of lacertid lizards. J. Exp. Biol. 218, 458–465. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.115923 (2015).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
25.Ala-Laurila, P., Donner, K. & Koskelainen, A. Thermal activation and photoactivation of visual pigments. Biophys. J. 86, 3653–3662. https://doi.org/10.1529/biophysj.103.035626 (2004).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
26.Ala-Laurila, P., Pahlberg, J., Koskelainen, A. & Donner, K. On the relation between the photoactivation energy and the absorbance spectrum of visual pigments. Vis. Res. 44, 2153–2158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2004.03.031 (2004).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
27.Barlow, H. B. Purkinje shift and retinal noise. Nature 179, 255–256. https://doi.org/10.1038/179255b0 (1957).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
28.Koskelainen, A., Ala-Laurila, P., Fyhrquist, N. & Donner, K. Measurement of thermal contribution to photoreceptor sensitivity. Nature 403, 220–223. https://doi.org/10.1038/35003242 (2000).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
29.Luo, D. G., Yue, W. W. S., Ala-Laurila, P. & Yau, K. W. Activation of visual pigments by light and heat. Science 332, 1307–1312. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1200172 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
30.Rieke, F. & Baylor, D. A. Origin and functional impact of dark noise in retinal cones. Neuron 26, 181–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0896-6273(00)81148-4 (2000).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
31.Cronin, T. W., Johnsen, S., Marshall, N. J. & Warrant, E. J. Visual pigments and photoreceptors. In Visual Ecology, pp. 37–65: Princeton University Press.32.Kelber, A., Yovanovich, C. & Olsson, P. Thresholds and noise limitations of colour vision in dim light. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B-Biol. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0065 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Kemp, D. J. et al. An integrative framework for the appraisal of coloration in nature. Am. Nat. 185, 705–724. https://doi.org/10.1086/681021 (2015).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
34.Hawkeswood, T. Observations on some Buprestidae (Coleoptera) from the Blue Mountains, N.S.W.. Aust. Zool. 19, 257–275 (1978).
Google Scholar 
35.Hawkeswood, T. Observations on two sympatric species of Buprestidae (Coleoptera) from sand dunes on the north coast of New South Wales. Victorian Naturalist 98, 146–151 (1981).
Google Scholar 
36.Hawkeswood, T. Observations on some jewel beetles (Coleoptera Buprestidae) from the Armidale district, North-eastern New South Wales. Vic. Nat. 98, 152–155 (1981).
Google Scholar 
37.Poland, T. M., Chen, Y. G., Koch, J. & Pureswaran, D. Review of the emerald ash borer (Coleoptera: Buprestidae), life history, mating behaviours, host plant selection, and host resistance. Can. Entomol. 147, 252–262. https://doi.org/10.4039/tce.2015.4 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Bellamy, C. L., Williams, G., Hasenpusch, J. & Sundholm, A. A summary of the published data on host plants and morphology of immature stages of Australian jewel beetles (Coleoptera: Buprestidae), with additional new records. Insecta Mundi, 1–172 (2013).39.Domingue, M. J. et al. Field observations of visual attraction of three European oak buprestid beetles toward conspecific and heterospecific models. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 140, 112–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.2011.01139.x (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Domingue, M. J. et al. Differences in spectral selectivity between stages of visually guided mating approaches in a buprestid beetle. J. Exp. Biol. 219, 2837–2843 (2016).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
41.Pureswaran, D. S. & Poland, T. M. Effects of visual silhouette, leaf size and host species on feeding preference by adult emerald ash borer, Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire (Coleoptera: Buprestidae). Great Lakes Entomol. 42, 4 (2018).
Google Scholar 
42.Crook, D. J. et al. Laboratory and field response of the emerald ash borer (Coleoptera: Buprestidae), to selected regions of the electromagnetic spectrum. J. Econ. Entomol. 102, 2160–2169 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Lord, N. P. et al. A cure for the blues: Opsin duplication and subfunctionalization for short-wavelength sensitivity in jewel beetles (Coleoptera: Buprestidae). BMC Evol. Biol. 16, 107 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Meglič, A., Ilić, M., Quero, C., Arikawa, K. & Belušič, G. Two chiral types of randomly rotated ommatidia are distributed across the retina of the flathead oak borer Coraebus undatus (Coleoptera: Buprestidae). J. Exp. Biol. 223, jeb225920. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.225920 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
45.Chen, Y. G. & Poland, T. M. Biotic and abiotic factors affect green ash volatile production and emerald Ash borer adult feeding preference. Environ. Entomol. 38, 1756–1764. https://doi.org/10.1603/022.038.0629 (2009).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
46.Govardovskii, V. I., Fyhrquist, N., Reuter, T., Kuzmin, D. G. & Donner, K. In search of the visual pigment template. Vis. Neurosci. 17, 509–528. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0952523800174036 (2000).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
47.Dartnall, H. J. A. Visual pigment. Trans. Zool. Soc. Lond. 33, 147–152. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.1976.tb00047.x (1976).Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Arikawa, K., Scholten, D. G. W., Kinoshita, M. & Stavenga, D. G. Tuning of photoreceptor spectral sensitivities by red and yellow pigments in the butterfly Papilio xuthus. Zool. Sci. 16, 17–24. https://doi.org/10.2108/zsj.16.17 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Das, D., Wilkie, S. E., Hunt, D. M. & Bowmaker, J. K. Visual pigments and oil droplets in the retina of a passerine bird, the canary Serinus canaria: microspectrophotometry and opsin sequences. Vision. Res. 39, 2801–2815. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0042-6989(99)00023-1 (1999).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
50.Sison-Mangus, M. P., Bernard, G. D., Lampel, J. & Briscoe, A. D. Beauty in the eye of the beholder: The two blue opsins of lycaenid butterflies and the opsin gene-driven evolution of sexually dimorphic eyes. J. Exp. Biol. 209, 3079–3090. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.02360 (2006).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
51.Bernard, G. D. Red-absorbing visual pigment of butterflies. Science 203, 1125. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.203.4385.1125 (1979).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
52.Martínez-Harms, J. et al. Evidence of red sensitive photoreceptors in Pygopleurus israelitus (Glaphyridae: Coleoptera) and its implications for beetle pollination in the southeast Mediterranean. J. Comp. Physiol. A Neuroethol. Sens. Neural Behav. Physiol. 198, 451–463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-012-0722-5 (2012).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
53.Stavenga, D. G. & Arikawa, K. Photoreceptor spectral sensitivities of the Small White butterfly Pieris rapae crucivora interpreted with optical modeling. J. Comp. Physiol. A Neuroethol. Sens. Neural Behav. Physiol. 197, 373–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-010-0622-5 (2011).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
54.Vorobyev, M., Osorio, D., Bennett, A. T. D., Marshall, N. J. & Cuthill, I. C. Tetrachromacy, oil droplets and bird plumage colours. J. Comp. Physiol. A Neuroethol. Sens. Neural Behav. Physiol. 183, 621–633. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003590050286 (1998).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Vorobyev, M. & Osorio, D. Receptor noise as a determinant of colour thresholds. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 265, 351–358. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1998.0302 (1998).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Vorobyev, M., Brandt, R., Peitsch, D., Laughlin, S. B. & Menzel, R. Colour thresholds and receptor noise: Behaviour and physiology compared. Vis. Res. 41, 639–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0042-6989(00)00288-1 (2001).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
57.Maia, R., Gruson, H., Endler, J. A. & White, T. E. pavo 2: new tools for the spectral and spatial analysis of colour in R. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 10, 1097–1107 (2019).58.Matsushita, A., Awata, H., Wakakuwa, M., Takemura, S. Y. & Arikawa, K. Rhabdom evolution in butterflies: insights from the uniquely tiered and heterogeneous ommatidia of the Glacial Apollo butterfly, Parnassius glacialis. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 279, 3482–3490. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.0475 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
59.McCulloch, K. J. et al. Sexual dimorphism and retinal mosaic diversification following the evolution of a violet receptor in butterflies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 34, 2271–2284. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msx163 (2017).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
60.Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. M. & Walker, S. C. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
61.R: A Language and environment for statistical computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2018).62.van der Kooi, C. J., Elzenga, J. T. M., Staal, M. & Stavenga, D. G. How to colour a flower: On the optical principles of flower coloration. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 283, 20160429. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2016.0429 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Horler, D. N. H., Dockray, M. & Barber, J. The red edge of plant leaf reflectance. Int. J. Remote Sens. 4, 273–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431168308948546 (1983).Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Silberglied, R. E. Communication in the Ultraviolet. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 10, 373–398. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.10.110179.002105 (1979).Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Lind, O. Colour vision and background adaptation in a passerine bird, the zebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata). R. Soc. Open Sci. 3, 160383. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160383 (2016).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
66.Santiago, C. et al. Does conspicuousness scale linearly with colour distance? A test using reef fish. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 287, 20201456. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2020.1456 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Giurfa, M., Vorobyev, M., Brandt, R., Posner, B. & Menzel, R. Discrimination of coloured stimuli by honeybees: Alternative use of achromatic and chromatic signals. J. Comp. Physiol. A. 180, 235–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003590050044 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Garcia, J. E., Spaethe, J. & Dyer, A. G. The path to colour discrimination is S-shaped: Behaviour determines the interpretation of colour models. J. Comp. Physiol. A Neuroethol. Sens. Neural Behav. Physiol. 203, 983–997. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-017-1208-2 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
69.Hart, N. S., Bailes, H. J., Vorobyev, M., Marshall, N. J. & Collin, S. P. Visual ecology of the Australian lungfish (Neoceratodus forsteri). BMC Ecol. 8, 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6785-8-21 (2008).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
70.Vorobyev, M. Coloured oil droplets enhance colour discrimination. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 270, 1255–1261. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2003.2381 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Carleton, K. L. et al. Visual sensitivities tuned by heterochronic shifts in opsin gene expression. Bmc Biol. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7007-6-22 (2008).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
72.Seki, T. & Vogt, K. Evolutionary aspects of the diversity of visual pigment chromophores in the class Insecta. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. B Biochem. Mol. Biol. 119, 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0305-0491(97)00322-2 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
73.Stavenga, D. G., Smits, R. P. & Hoenders, B. J. Simple exponential functions describing the absorbance bands of visual pigment spectra. Vis. Res. 33, 1011–1017. https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(93)90237-q (1993).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
74.Kinoshita, M. & Arikawa, K. Color and polarization vision in foraging Papilio. J. Comp. Physiol. A Neuroethol. Sens. Neural Behav. Physiol. 200, 513–526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-014-0903-5 (2014).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
75.Vorobyev, M. & Menzel, R. Flower advertisement for insects: Bees, a case study. In Adaptive Mechanisms in the Ecology of Vision (eds S. N. Archer et al.) 537–553 (Springer Netherlands, 1999).76.Bernard, G. D. & Remington, C. L. Color vision in Lycaena butterflies: Spectral tuning of receptor arrays in relation to behavioral ecology. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 88, 2783–2787. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.88.7.2783 (1991).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
77.McCulloch, K. J., Osorio, D. & Briscoe, A. D. Sexual dimorphism in the compound eye of Heliconius erato: A nymphalid butterfly with at least five spectral classes of photoreceptor. J. Exp. Biol. 219, 2377–2387. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.136523 (2016).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar  More

1.Hughes TP, Kerry J, Álvarez-Noriega M, Álvarez-Romero J, Anderson K, Baird A, et al. Global warming and recurrent mass bleaching of corals. Nature. 2017;543:373–7.CAS 

Google Scholar 
2.Hoegh-Guldberg O. Climate change, coral bleaching and the future of the world’s coral reefs. Mar Freshw Res. 1999;50:839–66.
Google Scholar 
3.Patten NL, Harrison PL, Mitchell JG. Prevalence of virus-like particles within a staghorn scleractinian coral (Acropora muricata) from the Great Barrier Reef. Coral Reefs. 2008;27:569–80.
Google Scholar 
4.Leruste A, Bouvier T, Bettarel Y. Enumerating viruses in coral mucus. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2012;78:6377–9.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
5.Nguyen-kim H, Bouvier T, Bouvier C, Bui VN, Le-lan H, Bettarel Y. Viral and bacterial epibionts in thermally-stressed corals. J Mar Sci Eng. 2015;3:1272–86.
Google Scholar 
6.Vega Thurber R, Payet JP, Thurber AR, Correa AMS. Virus–host interactions and their roles in coral reef health and disease. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2017;15:205–16.
Google Scholar 
7.Sweet M, Bythell J. The role of viruses in coral health and disease. J Invertebr Pathol. 2017;147:136–44.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
8.Wilson WH, Francis I, Ryan K, Davy SK. Temperature induction of viruses in symbiotic dinoflagellates. Aquat Micro Ecol. 2001;25:99–102.
Google Scholar 
9.Lohr J, Munn CB, Wilson WH. Characterization of a latent virus-like infection of symbiotic zooxanthellae. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007;73:2976–81.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
10.Lawrence SA, Wilson WH, Davy JE, Davy SK. Latent virus-like infections are present in a diverse range of Symbiodinium spp. (Dinophyta). J Phycol. 2014;50:984–97.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
11.Messyasz A, Rosales SM, Mueller RS, Sawyer T, Correa AMS, Thurber AR, et al. Coral bleaching phenotypes associated with differential abundances of nucleocytoplasmic large DNA viruses. Front Mar Sci. 2020;7:555474.
Google Scholar 
12.Marhaver KL, Edwards RA, Rohwer F. Viral communities associated with healthy and bleaching corals. Environ Microbiol. 2008;10:2277–86.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
13.Correa AMS, Ainsworth TD, Rosales SM, Thurber AR, Butler CR, Vega Thurber RL. Viral outbreak in corals associated with an in situ bleaching event: atypical herpes-like viruses and a new megavirus infecting Symbiodinium. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:127.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
14.Bettarel Y, Thuy NT, Huy TQ, Hoang PK, Bouvier T. Observation of virus-like particles in thin sections of the bleaching scleractinian coral Acropora cytherea. J Mar Biol Assoc U K. 2013;93:909–12.
Google Scholar 
15.Lesser MP, Bythell JC, Gates RD, Johnstone RW, Hoegh-Guldberg O. Are infectious diseases really killing corals? Alternative interpretations of the experimental and ecological data. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol. 2007;346:36–44.
Google Scholar 
16.Soffer N, Brandt ME, Correa AMS, Smith TB, Thurber RV. Potential role of viruses in white plague coral disease. ISME J. 2014;8:271–83.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
17.Lawrence SA, Davy JE, Aeby GS, Wilson WH, Davy SK. Quantification of virus-like particles suggests viral infection in corals affected by Porites tissue loss. Coral Reefs. 2014;33:687–91.
Google Scholar 
18.Lawrence SA, Davy JE, Wilson WH, Hoegh-Guldberg O, Davy SK. Porites white patch syndrome: associated viruses and disease physiology. Coral Reefs. 2015;34:249–57.
Google Scholar 
19.Pollock FJ, M. Wood-Charlson E, Van Oppen MJH, Bourne DG, Willis BL, Weynberg KD. Abundance and morphology of virus-like particles associated with the coral Acropora hyacinthus differ between healthy and white syndrome-infected states. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2014;510:39–43.
Google Scholar 
20.Vega Thurber RL, Correa AMS. Viruses of reef-building scleractinian corals. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol. 2011;408:102–13.
Google Scholar 
21.Weynberg KD, Voolstra CR, Neave MJ, Buerger P, Van Oppen MJH. From cholera to corals: viruses as drivers of virulence in a major coral bacterial pathogen. Sci Rep. 2015;5:17889.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
22.Quistad SD, Grasis JA, Barr JJ, Rohwer FL. Viruses and the origin of microbiome selection and immunity. ISME J. 2017;11:835–40.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
23.Oppen MJHV, Leong J, Gates RD. Coral-virus interactions: a double-edged sword? SYMBIOSIS. 2009;47:1–8.
Google Scholar 
24.Correa AMS, Howard-Varona C, Coy SR, Buchan A, Sullvian MB, Weitz JS. The virus-microbe infection continuum: revisiting the viral rules of life. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2021;19:501–13.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
25.Correa AMS, Welsh RM, Vega Thurber RL. Unique nucleocytoplasmic dsDNA and +ssRNA viruses are associated with the dinoflagellate endosymbionts of corals. ISME J. 2013;7:13–27.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
26.Lawrence SA, Floge SA, Davy JE, Davy SK, Wilson WH. Exploratory analysis of Symbiodinium transcriptomes reveals potential latent infection by large dsDNA viruses. Environ Microbiol. 2017;19:3909–19.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
27.Levin RA, Voolstra CR, Weynberg KD, Van Oppen M. Evidence for a role of viruses in the thermal sensitivity of coral photosymbionts. ISME J. 2017;11:808–12.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
28.Knowles B, Bonachela JA, Behrenfeld MJ, Bondoc KG, Cael BB, Carlson CA, et al. Temperate infection in a virus–host system previously known for virulent dynamics. Nat Commun. 2020;11:1–13.
Google Scholar 
29.Montalvo-Proaño J, Buerger P, Weynberg KD, Van Oppen MJH. A PCR-based assay targeting the major capsid protein gene of a dinorna-like ssRNA virus that infects coral photosymbionts. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:1665.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
30.Tomaru Y, Katanozaka N, Nishida K, Shirai Y, Tarutani K, Yamaguchi M, et al. Isolation and characterization of two distinct types of HcRNAV, a single-stranded RNA virus infecting the bivalve-killing microalga Heterocapsa circularisquama. Aquat Micro Ecol. 2004;34:207–18.
Google Scholar 
31.Miller JL, Chen S, Nagasaki K, Roseman A, Wepf R, Sewell T, et al. Three-dimensional reconstruction of Heterocapsa circularisquama RNA virus by electron cryo-microscopy. J Gen Virol. 2011;92:1960–70.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
32.Shi M, Lin XD, Tian J-H, Chen L-J, Chen X, Li C-IU, et al. Redefining the invertebrate RNA virosphere. Nature. 2016;540:539–43.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
33.Domingo E, Sheldon J, Perales C. Viral quasispecies evolution. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2012;76:159–216.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
34.Sanjuán R, Domingo-Calap P. Mechanisms of viral mutation. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2016;73:4433–48.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
35.Vlok M, Lang AS, Suttle CA. Marine RNA virus quasispecies are distributed throughout the oceans. mSphere. 2019;4:1–18.
Google Scholar 
36.Domingo E, Martinez-salas E, Sobrino F, de la Torre JC, Portela A, Ortin J, et al. The quasispecies (extremely heterogeneous) nature of viral RNA genome populations: biological relevance—a review. Gene. 1985;40:1–8.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
37.Vignuzzi M, Stone JK, Arnold JJ, Cameron CE, Andino R. Quasispecies diversity determines pathogenesis through cooperative interactions in a viral population. Nature. 2006;439:344–8.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
38.Holland J, Spindler K, Horodyski F, Grabau E, Nichol S, VandePol S. Rapid evolution of RNA genomes. Science. 1982;215:1577–85.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
39.Gélin P, Postaire B, Fauvelot C, Magalon H. Molecular phylogenetics and evolution reevaluating species number, distribution and endemism of the coral genus Pocillopora Lamarck, 1816 using species delimitation methods and microsatellites. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2017;109:430–46.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
40.Pratchett MS, McCowan D, Maynard JA, Heron SF. Changes in bleaching susceptibility among corals subject to ocean warming and recurrent bleaching in Moorea, French Polynesia. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:1–10.
Google Scholar 
41.Donovan MK, Adam TC, Shantz AA, Speare KE, Munsterman KS, Rice MM, et al. Nitrogen pollution interacts with heat stress to increase coral bleaching across the seascape. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2020;117:5351–7.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
42.Siebeck UE, Marshall NJ, Kluter A, Hoegh-Guldberg O. Monitoring coral bleaching using a colour reference card. Coral Reefs. 2006;25:453–60.
Google Scholar 
43.Winters G, Holzman R, Blekhman A, Beer S, Loya Y. Photographic assessment of coral chlorophyll contents: Implications for ecophysiological studies and coral monitoring. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol. 2009;380:25–35.CAS 

Google Scholar 
44.Turnham KE, Wham DC, Sampayo E, LaJeunesse TC. Mutualistic microalgae co-diversify with reef corals that acquire symbionts during egg development. ISME J. 2021;15:3271–85.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
45.Pinzón JH, Lajeunesse TC. Species delimitation of common reef corals in the genus Pocillopora using nucleotide sequence phylogenies, population genetics and symbiosis ecology. Mol Ecol. 2011;20:311–25.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
46.Flot JF, Tillier S. The mitochondrial genome of Pocillopora (Cnidaria: Scleractinia) contains two variable regions: the putative D-loop and a novel ORF of unknown function. Gene. 2007;401:80–87.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
47.Pinzón JH, Sampayo E, Cox E, Chauka LJ, Chen CA, Voolstra CR, et al. Blind to morphology: genetics identifies several widespread ecologically common species and few endemics among Indo-Pacific cauliflower corals (Pocillopora, Scleractinia). J Biogeogr. 2013;40:1595–608.
Google Scholar 
48.Johnston EC, Forsman ZH, Flot JF, Schmidt-Roach S, Pinzón JH, Knapp ISS, et al. A genomic glance through the fog of plasticity and diversification in Pocillopora. Sci Rep. 2017;7:5991.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
49.Wham DC, Carmichael M, LaJeunesse TC. Microsatellite loci for Symbiodinium goreaui and other Clade C Symbiodinium. Coservation Genet Resour. 2014;6:127–9.
Google Scholar 
50.Bay LK, Ulstrup KE, Nielsen HB, Jarmer H, Goffard N, Willis BL, et al. Microarray analysis reveals transcriptional plasticity in the reef building coral Acropora millepora. Mol Ecol. 2009;18:3062–75.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
51.Veglia AJ, Vicéns RER, Grupstra CGB, Howe-Kerr LI, Correa AMS. vAMPirus: an automated, comprehensive virus amplicon sequencing analysis program. 2021: available at https://zenodo.org/record/4549851 (accessed February 17, 2021).52.Edgar RC. UNOISE2: improved error-correction for Illumina 16S and ITS amplicon sequencing. bioRxiv 2016;81257: available at https://doi.org/10.1101/081257.53.Rognes T, Flouri T, Nichols B, Quince C, Mahé F. VSEARCH: a versatile open source tool for metagenomics. PeerJ. 2016;2016:1–22.
Google Scholar 
54.Edgar RC. MUSCLE: a multiple sequence alignment method with reduced time and space complexity. BMC Bioinforma. 2004;5:1–19.
Google Scholar 
55.Buchfink B, Xie C, Huson DH. Fast and sensitive protein alignment using DIAMOND. Nat Methods. 2014;12:59–60.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
56.Darriba D, Posada D, Kozlov AM, Stamatakis A, Morel B, Flouri T. ModelTest-NG: a new and scalable tool for the selection of DNA and protein evolutionary models. Mol Biol Evol. 2020;37:291–4.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
57.Oksanen J, Blanchet G, Friendly M, Kindt R, Legendre P, McGlinn D, et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.4-6. R Package Version 25-6 2019.58.Anderson MJ, Walsh DCI. PERMANOVA, ANOSIM, and the Mantel test in the face of heterogeneous dispersions: what null hypothesis are you testing? Ecol Monogr. 2013;83:557–74.
Google Scholar 
59.Bates DM, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S. lme4: Mixed-effects modeling with R. R Package Version 11-7 HttpCRANR-Proj 2014.60.Love MI, Huber W, Anders S. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biol. 2014;15:550–550.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
61.Bankevich A, Nurk S, Antipov D, Gurevich AA, Dvorkin M, Kulikov AS, et al. SPAdes: a new genome assembly algorithm and its applications to single-cell sequencing. J Comput Biol. 2012;19:455–77.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
62.Goodacre N, Aljanahi A, Nandakumar S, Mikailov M, Khan AS. A reference viral database (RVDB) to enhance bioinformatics analysis of high-throughput sequencing for novel virus detection. mSphere. 2018;3:e00069–18.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
63.Rädecker N, Pogoreutz C, Gegner HM, Cárdenas A, Roth F. Heat stress destabilizes symbiotic nutrient cycling in corals. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2021;118:e2022653118.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
64.Biebricher CK, Eigen M. What Is a Quasispecies? In: Domingo E (ed). Quasispecies: concept and implications for virology. 2006. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 1–31.65.Gelbart M, Harari S, Ben-ari Y, Kustin T, Wolf D, Mandelboim M, et al. Drivers of within-host genetic diversity in acute infections of viruses. PLoS Pathog. 2020;16:e1009029.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

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

Google Scholar 
67.Mann NH, Cook A, Millard A, Bailey S, Clokie M. Bacterial photosynthesis genes in a virus. Nature. 2003;424:741.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
68.Marquez LM, Redman RS, Rodriguez RJ, Roossinck MJ. A virus in a fungus in a plant: three-way symbiosis required for thermal tolerance. Science. 2007;315:513–5.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
69.Holmes EC. The RNA virus quasispecies: fact or fiction? J Mol Biol. 2010;400:271–3.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
70.Pybus OG, Rambaut A, Belshaw R, Freckleton RP, Drummond AJ, Holmes EC. Phylogenetic evidence for deleterious mutation load in RNA viruses and its contribution to viral evolution. Mol Biol Evol. 2007;24:845–52.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
71.Holmes EC. Patterns of intra- and interhost nonsynonymous variation reveal strong purifying selection in dengue virus. J Virol. 2003;77:11296–8.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
72.Edwards CTT, Holmes EC, Pybus OG, Wilson DJ, Viscidi RP, Abrams EJ, et al. Evolution of the human immunodeficiency virus envelope gene is dominated by purifying selection. Genetics. 2006;174:1441–53.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
73.Roux S, Hawley AK, Beltran MT, Scofield M, Schwientek P, Stepanauskas R, et al. Ecology and evolution of viruses infecting uncultivated SUP05 bacteria as revealed by single-cell- and meta-genomics. eLIFE. 2014;3:e03125.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
74.Labonté JM, Swan BK, Poulos B, Luo H, Koren S, Hallam SJ, et al. Single-cell genomics-based analysis of virus-host interactions in marine surface bacterioplankton. ISME J. 2015;9:2386–99.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
75.Munson-mcgee JH, Peng S, Dewerff S, Stepanauskas R, Whitaker RJ, Weitz JS, et al. A virus or more in (nearly) every cell: ubiquitous networks of virus–host interactions in extreme environments. ISME J. 2018;12:1706–14.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
76.Díaz-Muñoz SL. Viral coinfection is shaped by host ecology and virus-virus interactions across diverse microbial taxa and environments. Virus Evol. 2017;3:1–14.
Google Scholar 
77.Wang L, Wu S, Liu T, Sun J, Chi S, Liu C, et al. Endogenous viral elements in algal genomes. Acta Oceano Sin. 2014;33:102–7.CAS 

Google Scholar 
78.Moniruzzaman M, Weinheimer AR, Martinez-Gutierrez CA, Aylward FO. Widespread endogenization of giant viruses shapes genomes of green algae. Nature. 2020;588:141–5.CAS 
PubMed 

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

Google Scholar 
80.Holmes EC. The evolution of endogenous viral elements. Cell Host Microbe. 2011;10:368–77.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
81.Ripp S, Miller RV. The role of pseudolysogeny in bacteriophage-host interactions in a natural freshwater environment. Microbiology. 1997;143:2065–70.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
82.Onodera S, Olkkonen VM, Gottlieb P, Strassman J, Qiao XY, Bamford DH, et al. Construction of a transducing virus from double-stranded RNA bacteriophage phi6: establishment of carrier states in host cells. J Virol. 1992;66:190–6.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
83.de la Higuera I, Kasun GW, Torrance EL, Pratt AA, Maluenda A, Colombet J, et al. Unveiling crucivirus diversity by mining metagenomic data. mBio. 2020;11:e01410–20.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
84.Ku C, Sheyn U, Sebé-Pedrós A, Ben-Dor S, Schatz D, Tanay A, et al. A single-cell view on alga-virus interactions reveals sequential transcriptional programs and infection states. Sci Adv. 2020;6:eaba4137.85.Deng L, Ignacio-espinoza JC, Gregory AC, Poulos BT, Weitz JS, Hugenholtz P, et al. Viral tagging reveals discrete populations in Synechococcus viral genome sequence space. Nature. 2014;513:242–6.CAS 

Google Scholar 
86.Jonge PAD, Costa AR, Franklin L, Brouns SJJ, Jonge PAD, Meijenfeldt FABV, et al. Adsorption sequencing as a rapid method to link environmental bacteriophages to hosts. ISCIENCE. 2020;23:101439.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
87.Jiang SC, Paul JH. Seasonal and diel abundance of viruses and occurrence of lysogeny/bacteriocinogeny in the marine environment. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 1994;104:163–72.
Google Scholar 
88.Brum JR, Hurwitz BL, Schofield O, Ducklow HW, Sullivan MB. Seasonal time bombs: dominant temperate viruses affect Southern Ocean microbial dynamics. ISME J. 2016;10:437–49.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
89.Winter C, Bouvier T, Weinbauer MG, Thingstad TF. Trade-offs between competition and defense specialists among unicellular planktonic organisms: the “killing the winner” hypothesis revisited. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2010;74:42–57.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
90.Thingstad TF, Våge S, Storesund JE, Sandaa R, Giske J. A theoretical analysis of how strain-specific viruses can control microbial species diversity. PNAS. 2014;111:7813–8.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
91.Thingstad TF. Elements of a theory for the mechanisms controlling abundance, diversity, and biogeochemical role of lytic bacterial viruses in aquatic systems. Limnol Oceanogr. 2000;45:1320–8.
Google Scholar 
92.Tomaru Y, Hata N, Masuda T, Tsuji M, Igata K, Masuda Y, et al. Ecological dynamics of the bivalve-killing dinoflagellate Heterocapsa circularisquama and its infectious viruses in different locations of western Japan. Environ Microbiol. 2007;9:1376–83.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
93.Sadeghi M, Tomaru Y, Ahola T. RNA viruses in aquatic unicellular eukaryotes. Viruses 2021.94.Randall RE, Griffin DE. Within host RNA virus persistence: mechanisms and consequences. Curr Opin Virol. 2017;23:35–42.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
95.Roossinck MJ. Lifestyles of plant viruses. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2010;365:1899–905.
Google Scholar 
96.Honjo MN, Emura N, Kawagoe T, Sugisaka J, Kamitani M, Nagano AJ, et al. Seasonality of interactions between a plant virus and its host during persistent infection in a natural environment. ISME J. 2020;14:506–18.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
97.Kim Y, Kim YJ, Paek K-H. Temperature-specific vsiRNA confers RNAi-mediated viral resistance at elevated temperature in Capsicum annuum. J Exp Bot. 2020;72:1432–48.
Google Scholar 
98.Jones RAC. Chapter three – future scenarios for plant virus pathogens as climate change progresses. In: Kielian M, Maramorosch K, Mettenleiter TC (eds).2016. Academic Press, pp 87–147.99.Brüwer JD, Agrawal S, Liew YJ, Aranda M, Voolstra CR. Association of coral algal symbionts with a diverse viral community responsive to heat shock. BMC Microbiol. 2017;17:1–11.
Google Scholar 
100.Cevallos RC, Sarnow P. Temperature protects insect cells from infection by cricket paralysis virus. J Virol. 2010;84:1652–5.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
101.Edgar RS, Lielausis I. Temperature-sensitive mutants of bacteriophage T4D: their isolation and genetic characterization. Genetics. 1964;49:649–62.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
102.Vega Thurber RL, Barott KL, Hall D, Liu H, Rodriguez-Mueller B, Desnues C, et al. Metagenomic analysis indicates that stressors induce production of herpes-like viruses in the coral Porites compressa. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2008;105:18413–8.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
103.Seifert M, van Nies P, Papini FS, Arnold JJ, Poranen MM, Cameron CE, et al. Temperature controlled high-throughput magnetic tweezers show striking difference in activation energies of replicating viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerases. Nucleic Acids Res. 2020;48:5591–602.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
104.Wooldridge SA. Differential thermal bleaching susceptibilities amongst coral taxa: re-posing the role of the host. Coral Reefs. 2014;33:15–27.
Google Scholar 
105.Hédouin L, Rouzé H, Berthe C, Perez-Rosales G, Martinez E, Chancerelle Y, et al. Contrasting patterns of mortality in Polynesian coral reefs following the third global coral bleaching event in 2016. Coral Reefs. 2020;39:939–52.
Google Scholar 
106.Tonk L, Sampayo EM, Weeks S, Magno-Canto M, Hoegh-Guldberg O. Host-Specific interactions with environmental factors shape the distribution of Symbiodinium across the Great Barrier Reef. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e68533–e68533.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
107.Serrano X, Baums IB, O’Reilly K, Smith TB, Jones RJ, Shearer TL, et al. Geographic differences in vertical connectivity in the Caribbean coral Montastraea cavernosa despite high levels of horizontal connectivity at shallow depths. Mol Ecol. 2014;23:4226–40.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar  More

1.McKenney EA, Koelle K, Dunn RR, Yoder AD. The ecosystem services of animal microbiomes. Mol Ecol. 2018;27:2164–72.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
2.Miller ET, Svanbäck R, Bohannan BJM. Microbiomes as metacommunities: understanding host-associated microbes through metacommunity ecology. Trends Ecol Evol. 2018;33:926–35.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
3.Johnson AJ, Vangay P, Al-Ghalith GA, Hillmann BM, Ward TL, Shields-Cutler RR, et al. Daily sampling reveals personalized diet-microbiome associations in humans. Cell Host Microbe. 2019;25:789–802.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
4.Björk JR, Dasari M, Grieneisen L, Archie EA. Primate microbiomes over time: Longitudinal answers to standing questions in microbiome research. Am J Primatol. 2019;81:1–23.
Google Scholar 
5.Sun B, Wang X, Bernstein S, Huffman MA, Xia DP, Gu Z, et al. Marked variation between winter and spring gut microbiota in free-ranging Tibetan Macaques (Macaca thibetana). Sci Rep. 2016;6:1–8.
Google Scholar 
6.Wu Q, Wang X, Ding Y, Hu Y, Nie Y, Wei W, et al. Seasonal variation in nutrient utilization shapes gut microbiome structure and function in wild giant pandas. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2017;284:20170955.7.Maurice CF, Knowles SCL, Ladau J, Pollard KS, Fenton A, Pedersen AB, et al. Marked seasonal variation in the wild mouse gut microbiota. ISME J. 2015;9:2423–34.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
8.Amato KR, Leigh SR, Kent A, Mackie RI, Yeoman CJ, Stumpf RM, et al. The gut microbiota appears to compensate for seasonal diet variation in the wild black howler monkey (Alouatta pigra). Microb Ecol. 2014;69:434–43.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
9.Orkin JD, Campos FA, Myers MS, Cheves Hernandez SE, Guadamuz A, Melin AD. Seasonality of the gut microbiota of free-ranging white-faced capuchins in a tropical dry forest. ISME J. 2019;13:183–96. 22.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
10.Springer A, Fichtel C, Al-Ghalith GA, Koch F, Amato KR, Clayton JB, et al. Patterns of seasonality and group membership characterize the gut microbiota in a longitudinal study of wild Verreaux’s sifakas (Propithecus verreauxi). Ecol Evol. 2017;7:5732–45.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
11.Jagsi R, Jiang J, Momoh AO, Alderman A, Giordano SH, Buchholz TA, et al. Seasonal cycling in the gut microbiome of the Hadza Hunter-Gatherers of Tanzania. Science. 2017;357:802–6.
Google Scholar 
12.Hicks AL, Lee KJ, Couto-Rodriguez M, Patel J, Sinha R, Guo C, et al. Gut microbiomes of wild great apes fluctuate seasonally in response to diet. Nat Commun. 2018;9:1786.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
13.Baniel A, Amato KR, Beehner JC, Bergman TJ, Mercer A, Perlman RF, et al. Seasonal shifts in the gut microbiome indicate plastic responses to diet in wild geladas. Microbiome. 2021;9:1–20.
Google Scholar 
14.Ren T, Grieneisen LE, Alberts SC, Archie EA, Wu M. Development, diet and dynamism: longitudinal and cross-sectional predictors of gut microbial communities in wild baboons. Environ Microbiol. 2016;18:1312–25.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
15.Větrovský T, Baldrian P. The variability of the 16S rRNA gene in bacterial genomes and its consequences for bacterial community analyses. PLoS One. 2013;8:e57923.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
16.De Vrieze J, Pinto AJ, Sloan WT, Ijaz UZ. The active microbial community more accurately reflects the anaerobic digestion process: 16S rRNA (gene) sequencing as a predictive tool. Microbiome. 2018;6:63.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
17.Kappeler PM, Fichtel C. A 15-year perspective on the social organization and life history of sifaka in Kirindy Forest. In: Long-term field studies of primates. Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2012. p. 101–21.18.Peckre LR, Defolie C, Kappeler PM, Fichtel C. Potential self-medication using millipede secretions in red-fronted lemurs: combining anointment and ingestion for a joint action against gastrointestinal parasites? Primates. 2018;59:483–94.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
19.Ostner J. Social thermoregulation in redfronted lemurs (Eulemur fulvus rufus). Folia Primatol. 2002;73:175–80.
Google Scholar 
20.Amoroso CR, Kappeler PM, Fichtel C, Nunn CL. Water availability impacts habitat use by red-fronted lemurs (Eulemur rufifrons): An experimental and observational study. Int J Primatol. 2020;41:61–80.
Google Scholar 
21.Koch F, Ganzhorn JU, Rothman JM, Chapman CA, Fichtel C. Sex and seasonal differences in diet and nutrient intake in Verreaux’s sifakas (Propithecus verreauxi). Am J Primatol. 2017;79:1–10.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
22.Clough D. Gastro-intestinal parasites of red-fronted lemurs in Kirindy Forest, western Madagascar. J Parasitol. 2010;96:245–51.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
23.Gogarten JF, Calvignac-Spencer S, Nunn CL, Ulrich M, Saiepour N, Nielsen HV, et al. Metabarcoding of eukaryotic parasite communities describes diverse parasite assemblages spanning the primate phylogeny. Mol Ecol Resour. 2020;20:204–15.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
24.Lai GC, Tan TG, Pavelka N. The mammalian mycobiome: A complex system in a dynamic relationship with the host. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Syst Biol Med. 2019;11:e1438.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
25.Mann AE, Mazel F, Lemay MA, Morien E, Billy V, Kowalewski M, et al. Biodiversity of protists and nematodes in the wild nonhuman primate gut. ISME J. 2020;14:609–22.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
26.Grieneisen LE, Livermore J, Alberts S, Tung J, Archie EA. Group living and male dispersal predict the core gut microbiome in wild baboons. Integr Comp Biol. 2017;57:770–85.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
27.Klindworth A, Pruesse E, Schweer T, Peplies J, Quast C, Horn M, et al. Evaluation of general 16S ribosomal RNA gene PCR primers for classical and next-generation sequencing-based diversity studies. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41:1–11.
Google Scholar 
28.Toju H, Tanabe AS, Yamamoto S, Sato H. High-coverage ITS primers for the DNA-based identification of ascomycetes and basidiomycetes in environmental samples. PLoS One. 2012;7:e40863.29.Porat I, Vishnivetskaya TA, Mosher JJ, Brandt CC, Yang ZK, Brooks SC, et al. Characterization of archaeal community in contaminated and uncontaminated surface stream sediments. Microb Ecol. 2010;60:784–95.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
30.Gantner S, Andersson AF, Alonso-Sáez L, Bertilsson S. Novel primers for 16S rRNA-based archaeal community analyses in environmental samples. J Microbiol Methods. 2011;84:12–8.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
31.Stoeck T, Bass D, Nebel M, Christen R, Jones MDM, Breiner H-W, et al. Multiple marker parallel tag environmental DNA sequencing reveals a highly complex eukaryotic community in marine anoxic water. Mol Ecol. 2010;19:21–31.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
32.Bahram M, Anslan S, Hildebrand F, Bork P, Tedersoo L. Newly designed 16S rRNA metabarcoding primers amplify diverse and novel archaeal taxa from the environment. Environ Microbiol Rep. 2019;11:487–94.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
33.Berkelmann D, Schneider D, Hennings N, Meryandini A, Daniel R. Soil bacterial community structures in relation to different oil palm management practices. Sci Data. 2020;7:1–7.
Google Scholar 
34.Chen S, Zhou Y, Chen Y, Gu J. Fastp: An ultra-fast all-in-one FASTQ preprocessor. Bioinformatics. 2018;34:i884–90.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
35.Zhang J, Kobert K, Flouri T, Stamatakis A. PEAR: A fast and accurate Illumina paired-end read mergeR. Bioinformatics. 2014;30:614–20.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
36.Martin M. Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet J. 2011;17:10–2.
Google Scholar 
37.Rognes T, Flouri T, Nichols B, Quince C, Mahé F. VSEARCH: A versatile open source tool for metagenomics. PeerJ. 2016;2016:1–22.
Google Scholar 
38.Edgar RC UNOISE2: improved error-correction for Illumina 16S and ITS amplicon sequencing. bioRxiv. 2016;081257.39.Edgar RC UCHIME2: improved chimera prediction for amplicon sequencing. bioRxiv. 2016;074252.40.Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ. Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol. 1990;215:403–10.CAS 

Google Scholar 
41.Quast C, Pruesse E, Yilmaz P, Gerken J, Schweer T, Yarza P, et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: Improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41:590–6.
Google Scholar 
42.Guillou L, Bachar D, Audic S, Bass D, Berney C, Bittner L, et al. The protist ribosomal reference database (PR2): A catalog of unicellular eukaryote small sub-unit rRNA sequences with curated taxonomy. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41:597–604.
Google Scholar 
43.Nilsson RH, Larsson KH, Taylor AFS, Bengtsson-Palme J, Jeppesen TS, Schigel D, et al. The UNITE database for molecular identification of fungi: Handling dark taxa and parallel taxonomic classifications. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47:D259–64.CAS 

Google Scholar 
44.Yarza P, Yilmaz P, Pruesse E, Glöckner FO, Ludwig W, Schleifer KH, et al. Uniting the classification of cultured and uncultured bacteria and archaea using 16S rRNA gene sequences. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2014;12:635–45.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
45.Louca S, Parfrey LW, Doebeli M. Decoupling function and taxonomy in the global ocean microbiome. Science. 2016;353:1272–7.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
46.Team Rc. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2020. Available from: https://www.r-project.org.47.Team Rs. RStudio: Integrated Development for R. Boston, MA: RStudio; 2019.48.Andersen KS, Kirkegaard RH, Albertsen M ampvis2: an R package to analyse and visualise 16S rRNA amplicon data. bioRxiv. 2018;10–1.49.Paradis E, Claude J, Strimmer K. APE: Analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Bioinformatics. 2004;20:289–90.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
50.Wickham H, Rstudio. stringr: Simple, consistent wrappers for common string operations. 2019. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/package=stringr.51.Wickham H. Reshaping data with the reshape package. J Stat Softw. 2007;21:1–20.
Google Scholar 
52.Dowle M, Srinivasan A, Gorecki J, Chirico M, Stetsenko P, Short T, et al. data.table: Extension of “data.frame”. 2019. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/package=data.table.53.Wickham H, Averick M, Bryan J, Chang W, McGowan L, François R, et al. Welcome to the Tidyverse. J Open Source Softw. 2019;4:1686.
Google Scholar 
54.Wickham H ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. New York: Spinger-Verlag New York; 2016.55.Chen L, Reeve J, Zhang L, Huang S, Wang X, Chen J. GMPR: A robust normalization method for zero-inflated count data with application to microbiome sequencing data. PeerJ. 2018;2018:1–20.
Google Scholar 
56.Katoh K, Standley DM. MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: Improvements in performance and usability. Mol Biol Evol. 2013;30:772–80.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
57.Price MN, Dehal PS, Arkin AP. FastTree 2—Approximately maximum-likelihood trees for large alignments. PLoS One. 2010;5:e9490.58.Rambaut A. FigTree—tree figure drawing tool. Institute of Evolutionary Biology, University of Edinburg; 2020. Available from: http://tree.bio.ed.ac.uk/software/figtree.59.Kembel SW, Cowan PD, Helmus MR, Cornwell WK, Morlon H, Ackerly DD, et al. Picante: R tools for integrating phylogenies and ecology. Bioinformatics. 2010;26:1463–4.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
60.Marzano V, Mancinelli L, Bracaglia G, Del Chierico F, Vernocchi P, Di Girolamo F, et al. “Omic” investigations of protozoa and worms for a deeper understanding of the human gut “parasitome.”. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017;11:e0005916.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
61.Mandal S, Van Treuren W, White RA, Eggesbø M, Knight R, Peddada SD. Analysis of composition of microbiomes: a novel method for studying microbial composition. Microb Ecol Heal Dis. 2015;26:27663.62.Hothorn T, Hornik K exactRankTests: exact distributions for rank and permutation tests. 2019. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/package=exactRankTests.63.Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, Core Team R nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. 2020. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/package=nlme.64.van den Boogaart G, Tolosana R compositions: an R package for compositional data analysis. 2020. Available from: http://www.stat.boogaart.de/compositions/.65.Wickham H, Francois R, Core Team R, Rstudio, Jylänki J, Jorgensen M readr: Read rectangular text data. 2018. Available from: http://readr.tidyverse.org.66.Oksanen J, Blanchet G, Friendly M, Kindt R, Legendre P, McGlinn D, et al. vegan: Community ecology package. 2019. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/package=vegan.67.Lozupone C, Lladser ME, Knights D, Stombaugh J, Knight R. UniFrac: An effective distance metric for microbial community comparison. ISME J. 2011;5:169–72.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
68.Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker BM, Walker SC. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw. 2015;67:1–48.
Google Scholar 
69.Reitmeier S, Hitch TCA, Treichel N, Fikas N, Hausmann B, Ramer-Tait AE, et al. Handling of spurious sequences affects the outcome of high-throughput 16S rRNA gene amplicon profiling. ISME COMMUN. 2021;1:31.
Google Scholar 
70.Sweeny AR, Lemon H, Ibrahim A, Nussey DH, Free A, McNally L. A mixed model approach for estimating drivers of microbiota community composition and differential taxonomic abundance (preprint). bioRxiv. 2020; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.24.395715.71.Barr DJ, Levy R, Scheepers C, Tily HJ. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. J Mem Lang. 2013;68:255–78.
Google Scholar 
72.Matuschek H, Kliegl R, Vasishth S, Baayen H, Bates D. Balancing type I error and power in linear mixed models. J Mem Lang. 2017;94:305–15.
Google Scholar 
73.Fox J, Weisberg S. An R companion to applied regression. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publishing; 2019.74.Bolker BM. Ecological models and data in R. New Jersey, USA: Princeton University Press; 2008.75.Adams DC, Anthony CD. Using randomization techniques to analyse behavioural data. Anim Behav. 1996;51:733–8.
Google Scholar 
76.Baayen RH. Analyzing linguistic data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2008.77.Bartón K MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference. 2020. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/package=MuMIn.78.Lüdecke D. sjPlot: Data Visualization for Statistics in Social Science. 2021. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/package=sjPlot.79.Edgar RC. MUSCLE: Multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32:1792–7.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
80.Kumar S, Stecher G, Li M, Knyaz C, Tamura K. MEGA X: Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis across computing platforms. Mol Biol Evol. 2018;35:1547–9.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
81.NCBI Resource Coordinators. Database resources of the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018;46:D8–13.
Google Scholar 
82.Nilsson RH, Anslan S, Bahram M, Wurzbacher C, Baldrian P, Tedersoo L. Mycobiome diversity: high-throughput sequencing and identification of fungi. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2019;17:95–109. 15.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
83.Koskinen K, Pausan MR, Perras AK, Beck M, Bang C, Mora M, et al. First insights into the diverse human archaeome: specific detection of archaea in the gastrointestinal tract, lung, and nose and on skin. MBio. 2017;8:1–17.
Google Scholar 
84.Raymann K, Moeller AH, Goodman AL, Ochman H. Unexplored archaeal diversity in the great ape gut microbiome. mSphere. 2017;2:1–12.
Google Scholar 
85.Ley RE. Prevotella in the gut: choose carefully. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;13:69–70.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
86.Manara S, Asnicar F, Beghini F, Bazzani D, Cumbo F, Zolfo M, et al. Microbial genomes from non-human primate gut metagenomes expand the primate-associated bacterial tree of life with over 1000 novel species. Genome Biol. 2019;20:299.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
87.Umanets A, de Winter I, IJdema F, Ramiro-Garcia J, van Hooft P, Heitkönig IMA, et al. Occupancy strongly influences faecal microbial composition of wild lemurs. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2018;94:1–13.
Google Scholar 
88.Greene LK, Clayton JB, Rothman RS, Semel BP, Semel MA, Gillespie TR, et al. Local habitat, not phylogenetic relatedness, predicts gut microbiota better within folivorous than frugivorous lemur lineages. Biol Lett. 2019;15:5–11.
Google Scholar 
89.Daniel H, Gholami AM, Berry D, Desmarchelier C, Hahne H, Loh G, et al. High-fat diet alters gut microbiota physiology in mice. ISME J. 2014;8:295–308.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
90.Hiippala K, Kainulainen V, Kalliomäki M, Arkkila P, Satokari R. Mucosal prevalence and interactions with the epithelium indicate commensalism of Sutterella spp. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:1–13.
Google Scholar 
91.Heintz-Buschart A, Wilmes P. Human gut microbiome: Function matters. Trends Microbiol. 2018;26:563–74.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
92.Ricaboni D, Mailhe M, Cadoret F, Vitton V, Fournier PE, Raoult D. ‘Colidextribacter massiliensis’ gen. nov., sp. nov., isolated from human right colon. New Microbes New Infect. 2017;17:27–9.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
93.Qin P, Zou Y, Dai Y, Luo G, Zhang X, Xiao L. Characterization a novel butyric acid-producing bacterium Collinsella aerofaciens subsp. shenzhenensis subsp. nov. Microorganisms. 2019;7:78.94.Sizova MV, Muller PA, Stancyk D, Panikov NS, Mandalakis M, Hazen A, et al. Oribacterium parvum sp. nov. and Oribacterium asaccharolyticum sp. nov., obligately anaerobic bacteria from the human oral cavity, and emended description of the genus Oribacterium. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2014;64:2642–9.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
95.Amato KR, Garber PA. Nutrition and foraging strategies of the black howler monkey (Alouatta pigra) in Palenque National Park, Mexico. Am J Primatol. 2014;76:774–87.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
96.White TCR. The significance of unripe seeds and animal tissues in the protein nutrition of herbivores. Biol Rev. 2011;86:217–24.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
97.Ortmann S, Bradley BJ, Stolter C, Ganzhorn JU. Estimating the quality and composition of wild animal diets—a critical survey of methods. In: Hohmann G, Robbins M, Boesch C, editors. Feeding ecology in apes and other primates ecological, physical, and behavioral aspects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2006. p. 395–418.98.Hippe H, Hagelstein A, Kramer I, Swiderski J, Stackebrandt E. Phylogenetic analysis of Formivibrio citricus, Propionivibrio dicarboxylicus, Anaerobiospirillum thomasii, Succinirnonas amylolytica and Succinivibrio dextrinosolvens and proposal of Succinivibrionaceae fam. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 1999;49:779–82.
Google Scholar 
99.Privé F, Kaderbhai NN, Girdwood S, Worgan HJ, Pinloche E, Scollan ND, et al. Identification and characterization of three novel lipases belonging to families II and V from Anaerovibrio lipolyticus 5ST. PLoS One. 2013;8:e69076.100.Flaiz M, Baur T, Brahner S, Poehlein A, Daniel R, Bengelsdorf FR. Caproicibacter fermentans gen. nov., sp. nov., a new caproate-producing bacterium and emended description of the genus Caproiciproducens. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2020;70:4269–79.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
101.Watanabe Y, Nagai F, Morotomi M. Characterization of Phascolarctobacterium succinatutens sp. Nov., an asaccharolytic, succinate-utilizing bacterium isolated from human feces. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2012;78:511–8.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
102.Clough D, Heistermann M, Kappeler PM. Host intrinsic determinants and potential consequences of parasite infection in free-ranging red-fronted lemurs (Eulemur fulvus rufus). Am J Phys Anthropol. 2010;142:441–52.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
103.Sarkar A, Harty S, Johnson KVA, Moeller AH, Archie EA, Schell LD, et al. Microbial transmission in animal social networks and the social microbiome. Nat Ecol Evol. 2020;4:1020–35.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
104.van Vliet DM, Lin Y, Bale NJ, Koenen M, Villanueva L, Stams AJM, et al. Pontiella desulfatans gen. nov., sp. nov., and Pontiella sulfatireligans sp. nov., two marine anaerobes of the Pontiellaceae fam. nov. producing sulfated glycosaminoglycan-like exopolymers. Microorganisms. 2020;8:920. 18.PubMed Central 

Google Scholar  More

Nature Video
19 January 2022

Tiny feather wing beetle reveals new way to fly

How a novel flying technique copes with the weird physics of miniature flight

Adam Levy

Adam Levy

View author publications

You can also search for this author in PubMed
 Google Scholar

Twitter

Facebook

Email

Flying is a tricky business, but when you are less than a millimetre long, things get even tougher. At such tiny scales the physics of flight changes, and yet insects have evolved strategies to fly in miniature. In this Nature video, we zoom in on new research which is revealing the never-before-seen flight tactics of a species of feather wing beetle.Research Article: Novel flight style and light wings boost flight performance of tiny beetles

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-00144-0

Related Articles

The mystery of mosquito flight

Birds gliding through bubbles reveal aerodynamic trick

High-jumping beetle inspires agile robots

Subjects

Ecology

Evolution

Engineering

Latest on:

Ecology

Biodiversity faces its make-or-break year, and research will be key
Editorial 19 JAN 22

Portugal leads with Europe’s largest marine reserve
Correspondence 18 JAN 22

Wind power versus wildlife: root mitigation in evidence
Correspondence 11 JAN 22

Evolution

Novel flight style and light wings boost flight performance of tiny beetles
Article 19 JAN 22

Thwarted vaccines, strange metals — the week in infographics
News 18 JAN 22

How rich countries skew the fossil record
News 13 JAN 22

Engineering

Robots rise to meet the challenge of caring for old people
Outlook 19 JAN 22

Novel flight style and light wings boost flight performance of tiny beetles
Article 19 JAN 22

A crossbar array of magnetoresistive memory devices for in-memory computing
Article 12 JAN 22

Jobs

Enrollment is open for the International PhD Program in Biology, Shenzhen University School of Medicine

Shenzhen University Health Science Center
Shenzhen, China

Research Associate (Postdoc) on software testing

Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust (SnT), University of Luxembourg
Luxembourg, Luxembourg

Research Associate (PostDoc) in Software Engineering On Software Testing and Automated Debugging

Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust (SnT), University of Luxembourg
Luxembourg, Luxembourg

Doctoral (PhD) student position in mitochondrial metabolism

Karolinska Institutet, doctoral positions
Solna, Sweden More

1.Ebrahim, S. H., Ahmed, Q. A., Gozzer, E., Schlagenhauf, P. & Memish, Z. A. Covid-19 and community mitigation strategies in a pandemic. BMJ 368, m1066. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m1066 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
2.Ebrahim, S. H. et al. All hands on deck: A synchronized whole-of-world approach for COVID-19 mitigation. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 98, 208–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.06.049 (2020).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
3.Kantner, M. & Koprucki, T. Beyond just “flattening the curve”: Optimal control of epidemics with purely non-pharmaceutical interventions. J. Math. Ind. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13362-020-00091-3 (2020).MathSciNet 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
4.Kupferschmidt, K. The lockdowns worked-but what comes next?. Science 368, 218–219. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.368.6488.218 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
5.Byambasuren, O. et al. Estimating the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infections: Systematic review. medRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.13.20153163 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Fontanet, A. & Cauchemez, S. COVID-19 herd immunity: Where are we?. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 20, 583–584. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41577-020-00451-5 (2020).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
7.Chowdhury, R. et al. Dynamic interventions to control COVID-19 pandemic: A multivariate prediction modelling study comparing 16 worldwide countries. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 35, 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-020-00649-w (2020).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
8.Giordano, G. et al. Modelling the COVID-19 epidemic and implementation of population-wide interventions in Italy. Nat. Med. 26, 855–860. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0883-7 (2020).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
9.Kissler, S. M., Tedijanto, C., Goldstein, E., Grad, Y. H. & Lipsitch, M. Projecting the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 through the postpandemic period. Science 368, 860. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb5793 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
10.Prem, K. et al. The effect of control strategies to reduce social mixing on outcomes of the COVID-19 epidemic in Wuhan, China: A modelling study. Lancet Public Health 5, e261–e270. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30073-6 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
11.Leung, K., Wu, J. T., Liu, D. & Leung, G. M. First-wave COVID-19 transmissibility and severity in China outside Hubei after control measures, and second-wave scenario planning: A modelling impact assessment. Lancet 395, 1382–1393. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30746-7 (2020).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
12.Peng, L., Yang, W., Zhang, D., Zhuge, C. & Hong, L. Epidemic analysis of COVID-19 in China by dynamical modeling. medRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.16.20023465 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
13.Read, J. M., Bridgen, J. R. E., Cummings, D. A. T., Ho, A. & Jewell, C. P. Novel coronavirus 2019-nCoV: Early estimation of epidemiological parameters and epidemic predictions. medRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.01.23.20018549 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
14.Roda, W. C., Varughese, M. B., Han, D. & Li, M. Y. Why is it difficult to accurately predict the COVID-19 epidemic?. Infect. Dis. Model 5, 271–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idm.2020.03.001 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
15.Wu, J. T., Leung, K. & Leung, G. M. Nowcasting and forecasting the potential domestic and international spread of the 2019-nCoV outbreak originating in Wuhan, China: A modelling study. Lancet 395, 689–697. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30260-9 (2020).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
16.Perc, M., Gorišek Miksić, N., Slavinec, M. & Stožer, A. Forecasting COVID-19. Front. Phys. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2020.00127 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Er, S., Yang, S. & Zhao, T. COUnty aggRegation mixup AuGmEntation (COURAGE) COVID-19 prediction. Sci. Rep. 11, 14262. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-93545-6 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
18.Hunter, E., Mac Namee, B. & Kelleher, J. An open-data-driven agent-based model to simulate infectious disease outbreaks. PLoS One. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208775 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
19.Venkatramanan, S. et al. Using data-driven agent-based models for forecasting emerging infectious diseases. Epidemics 22, 43–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epidem.2017.02.010 (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
20.Brett, T. S. & Rohani, P. Transmission dynamics reveal the impracticality of COVID-19 herd immunity strategies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2008087117 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
21.Britton, T., Ball, F. & Trapman, P. A mathematical model reveals the influence of population heterogeneity on herd immunity to SARS-CoV-2. Science 369, 846–849. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abc6810 (2020).ADS 
MathSciNet 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
22.Beven, K. Environmental Modelling: An Uncertain Future? (CRC Press, 2010).
Google Scholar 
23.Dietze, M. C. Prediction in ecology: A first-principles framework. Ecol. Appl. 27, 2048–2060. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1589 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
24.Dietze, M. C. et al. Iterative near-term ecological forecasting: Needs, opportunities, and challenges. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 115, 1424. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1710231115 (2018).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
25.Keenan, T. F., Carbone, M. S., Reichstein, M. & Richardson, A. D. The model-data fusion pitfall: Assuming certainty in an uncertain world. Oecologia 167, 587–597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-011-2106-x (2011).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
26.Niu, S. et al. The role of data assimilation in predictive ecology. Ecosphere 5, art65. https://doi.org/10.1890/ES13-00273.1 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.White, E. P. et al. Developing an automated iterative near-term forecasting system for an ecological study. Methods Ecol. Evol. 10, 332–344. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13104 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Luo, Y. et al. Ecological forecasting and data assimilation in a data-rich era. Ecol. Appl. 21, 1429–1442. https://doi.org/10.1890/09-1275.1 (2011).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
29.White, B. G. et al. Short-term forecast validation of six models. Weather Forecast. 14, 84–108. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(1999)014%3C0084:STFVOS%3E2.0.CO;2 (1999).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Calvetti, D., Hoover, A. P., Rose, J. & Somersalo, E. Metapopulation network models for understanding, predicting, and managing the coronavirus disease COVID-19. Front. Phys. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2020.00261 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.O’Sullivan, D., Gahegan, M., Exeter, D. J. & Adams, B. Spatially explicit models for exploring COVID-19 lockdown strategies. T Gis 24, 967–1000. https://doi.org/10.1111/tgis.12660 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.James, N., Menzies, M. & Bondell, H. Understanding spatial propagation using metric geometry with application to the spread of COVID-19 in the United States. EPL (Europhys. Lett.) 135, 48004. https://doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/ac2752 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Li, D. et al. Identifying US County-level characteristics associated with high COVID-19 burden. BMC Public Health 21, 1007. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11060-9 (2021).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
34.Bisset, K. R. et al. INDEMICS: An interactive high-performance computing framework for data-intensive epidemic modeling. ACM Trans. Model Comput. Simul. https://doi.org/10.1145/2501602 (2014).MathSciNet 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
35.Chao, D. L., Halloran, M. E., Obenchain, V. J. & Longini, I. M. Jr. FluTE, a publicly available stochastic influenza epidemic simulation model. PLoS Comput. Biol. 6, e1000656. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000656 (2010).ADS 
MathSciNet 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
36.Marathe, M. V. & Ramakrishnan, N. Recent advances in computational epidemiology. IEEE Intell. Syst. 28, 96–101. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2013.114 (2013).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
37.Dowd, M. A sequential Monte Carlo approach for marine ecological prediction. Environmetrics 17, 435–455. https://doi.org/10.1002/env.780 (2006).MathSciNet 
Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Gu, F. On-demand data assimilation of large-scale spatial temporal systems using sequential Monte Carlo methods. Simul. Model. Pract. Theory 85, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simpat.2018.03.007 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Michael, E. et al. Continental-scale, data-driven predictive assessment of eliminating the vector-borne disease, lymphatic filariasis, in sub-Saharan Africa by 2020. BMC Med. 15, 176. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-0933-2 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
40.Poole, D. & Raftery, A. E. Inference for deterministic simulation models: The Bayesian melding approach. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 95, 1244–1255. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2000.10474324 (2000).MathSciNet 
Article 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
41.Singh, B. K. & Michael, E. Bayesian calibration of simulation models for supporting management of the elimination of the macroparasitic disease, Lymphatic Filariasis. Parasites Vectors 8, 522. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-015-1132-7 (2015).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
42.Sisson, S. A., Fan, Y. & Tanaka, M. M. Sequential Monte Carlo without likelihoods. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104, 1760. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0607208104 (2007).ADS 
MathSciNet 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
43.Spear, R. C., Hubbard, A., Liang, S. & Seto, E. Disease transmission models for public health decision making: Toward an approach for designing intervention strategies for Schistosomiasis japonica. Environ. Health Perspect. 110, 907–915. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.02110907 (2002).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
44.Taylor, S. D. & White, E. P. Automated data-intensive forecasting of plant phenology throughout the United States. Ecol. Appl. 30, e02025. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2025 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
45.Beaulieu-Jones, B. K. & Greene, C. S. Reproducibility of computational workflows is automated using continuous analysis. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 342–346. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3780 (2017).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
46.Delgoshaei, P., Austin, M. A. & Pertzborn, A. J. A semantic framework for modeling and simulation of cyber-physical systems. Int. J. Adv. Sys. Measure. 7, 223–237 (2014).
Google Scholar 
47.Dong, E., Du, H. & Gardner, L. An interactive web-based dashboard to track COVID-19 in real time. Lancet Infect. Dis. 20, 533–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30120-1 (2020).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
48.Henkel, R., Wolkenhauer, O. & Waltemath, D. Combining computational models, semantic annotations and simulation experiments in a graph database. Database https://doi.org/10.1093/database/bau130 (2015).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
49.Merkel, D. Docker: Lightweight linux containers for consistent development and deployment. Linux J. 2014, 2 (2014).
Google Scholar 
50.Nakamura, K., Higuchi, T. & Hirose, N. Sequential data assimilation: Information fusion of a numerical simulation and large scale observation data. J. UCS 12, 608–626. https://doi.org/10.3217/jucs-012-06-0608 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Stodden, V. & Miguez, S. Best practices for computational science: Software infrastructure and environments for reproducible and extensible research. J. Open Res. Softw. https://doi.org/10.5334/jors.ay (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Unacast. Social distancing scoreboard. https://www.unacast.com/covid19/social-distancing-scoreboard (2020).53.Willem, L. et al. SOCRATES: An online tool leveraging a social contact data sharing initiative to assess mitigation strategies for COVID-19. BMC Res. Notes 13, 293. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-020-05136-9 (2020).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
54.Iboi, E. A., Ngonghala, C. N. & Gumel, A. B. Will an imperfect vaccine curtail the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S.?. Infect. Dis. Model 5, 510–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idm.2020.07.006 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
55.Badr, H. S. et al. Association between mobility patterns and COVID-19 transmission in the USA: A mathematical modelling study. Lancet Infect. Dis. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30553-3 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
56.Contreras, S., Villavicencio, H. A., Medina-Ortiz, D., Biron-Lattes, J. P. & Olivera-Nappa, A. A multi-group SEIRA model for the spread of COVID-19 among heterogeneous populations. Chaos Solitons Fractals 136, 109925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2020.109925 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
57.Mossong, J. et al. Social contacts and mixing patterns relevant to the spread of infectious diseases. PLoS Med. 5, e74. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050074 (2008).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
58.Chen, R. Markov Chain Monte Carlo Vol. Volume 7 Lecture Notes Series, Institute for Mathematical Sciences, National University of Singapore 147–182 (Co-Published with Singapore University Press, 2005).59.Doucet, A., Godsill, S. & Andrieu, C. On sequential Monte Carlo sampling methods for Bayesian filtering. Stat. Comput. 10, 197–208. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008935410038 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Fearnhead, P. & Kunsch, H. R. Particle filters and data assimilation. Annu. Rev. Stat. Appl. 5, 421–449. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-statistics-031017-100232 (2018).MathSciNet 
Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Gu, F., Butt, M., Ai, C., Shen, X. & Xiao, J. Proceedings of the Conference on Summer Computer Simulation 1–10 (Society for Computer Simulation International, 2015).62.Florida Agency for Health Care Administration. https://ahca.myflorida.com/ (2020).63.Polonsky, J. A. et al. Outbreak analytics: A developing data science for informing the response to emerging pathogens. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2018.0276 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Gambhir, M. et al. Geographic and ecologic heterogeneity in elimination thresholds for the major vector-borne helminthic disease, lymphatic filariasis. BMC Biol. 8, 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7007-8-22 (2010).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
65.Spear, R. C. & Hubbard, A. Modelling Parasite Transmission and Control 99–111 (Springer, 2010).66.James, N. & Menzies, M. COVID-19 in the United States: Trajectories and second surge behavior. Chaos Interdiscip. J. Nonlinear Sci. 30, 091102. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0024204 (2020).MathSciNet 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Chang, S. et al. Mobility network models of COVID-19 explain inequities and inform reopening. Nature 589, 82–87. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2923-3 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
68.James, N. & Menzies, M. Efficiency of communities and financial markets during the 2020 pandemic. Chaos Interdiscip. J. Nonlinear Sci. 31, 083116. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0054493 (2021).MathSciNet 
Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Yilmazkuday, H. Stay-at-home works to fight against COVID-19: International evidence from Google mobility data. J. Hum. Behav. Soc. Environ. 31, 210–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2020.1845903 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Brienen, N. C., Timen, A., Wallinga, J., Van Steenbergen, J. E. & Teunis, P. F. The effect of mask use on the spread of influenza during a pandemic. Risk Anal. 30, 1210–1218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01428.x (2010).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar  More

This study describes the virological and pathological findings of Common buzzards infected with the 2020–2021 HPAI H5N8 virus. These analyses showed that the main lesions were HPAI virus-associated inflammation and necrosis in multiple tissues including brain and heart, confirming HPAI as cause of death or severe disease.The Common buzzard presents with several characteristic traits that make it a valuable bioindicator of HPAIV presence in wildlife. It is a medium-sized raptor, present almost throughout Europe. In the Netherlands, its population has been stable since 1970 with an estimated maximum winter population of 30,000–50,000 individuals16. The Common buzzard is mainly a resident bird, which generally inhabits woodlands but is adaptable to wetlands16,17. Its feeding behavior as an opportunistic predator and scavenger has the potential to expose it to HPAIV-infected prey. Given these predisposing biological traits, it is not unexpected that Common buzzards accounted for the highest number of HPAI virus detections in raptors during the 2020–2021 epizootic.Previous studies showed that HPAI viruses in raptors are highly neurotropic and cause severe neurological disease8,10,15,18,19. This study also supports those findings, as the most consistent lesion in Common buzzards was viral encephalitis, with confirmed presence of viral antigen in affected neurons. In addition to the nervous system, all the tissues tested of the Common buzzards were positive for virus based on RT-PCR and showed infection-related, histological lesions, indicating that HPAI H5N8 virus infection in the Common buzzard causes systemic disease.This study showed that HPAI H5N8 virus is also highly cardiotropic, as the myocardium of the Common buzzards contained the highest amount of virus based on RT-PCR (Table 1), and virus-associated, severe histological lesions in 63% (7/11) birds. In addition, 54% (6/11) of the Common buzzards showed virus-associated lesions in the liver and spleen.The Common buzzard is considered to be infected via the oral route by ingesting HPAIV-infected preys. Transmission of HPAIV from ingesting infected chicken meat has been experimentally confirmed in raptors20. Interestingly, the proventriculus of two birds in our study showed necrotic lesions with viral antigen. This finding further supports the oral route of infection, although we cannot exclude the possibility that the proventriculus was infected via the hematogenous route. It also provides new records of HPAIV enterotropism in wild birds. The adaptation to the intestinal tract is a mechanism recently reported for HPAI H5N8 virus, that may allow a more efficient fecal–oral transmission in wild birds5.Real time PCR (RT-PCR) is the preferred test for HPAI virus detection for active and passive bird surveillance9. In this study, cloacal and pharyngeal swabs had comparable RNA-levels, and both were adequate for the detection of the virus. The tissue analysis by RT-PCR showed that heart, brain, and air sac had highest viral RNA concentrations compared to other organs. Although not confirmed by a quantitative real time PCR, the results obtained by RT-PCR are well supported by histopathology and immunohistochemistry. Our advice for diagnostic pathologists is to collect at least a miniset of samples including brain, heart, liver and spleen, as these tissues are relatively easily sampled and were positive by both RT-PCR and for virus-antigen-associated lesions. For virus diagnosis of Common buzzards found dead (but without the interest or possibility to perform pathological examination), it is enough to collect pharyngeal and cloacal swabs, because they were positive by RT-PCR with Ct values that were comparable to those in most tissues (with exception of heart, that had higher Ct values).We did not detect antibodies against avian influenza virus NP in the sera of the Common buzzards in this study. Most of the birds (8/11) were juveniles in their first year of life, and likely they did not have protective antibodies from previous infections, as this was the first time in their lives that they experienced a HPAI epizootic. The absence of antibodies indicates also that the Common buzzards died acutely soon after infection, similarly to experimentally infected raptors that did not seroconvert before early death19. All the birds in our study were females. Females are larger than males (adult female weigh about 15% more than adult males), thus it is possible that female raptors are easier to find during surveillance or that there are sex-associated differences in feeding patterns.This study showed that HPAIV infection in Common buzzards produced severe systemic disease, and subsequent acute death based on the stage of the pathological changes and absence of serum antibodies. Cloacal and pharyngeal swabs were comparable in detecting the infection. Many organs contained viral RNA; with heart, brain and air sac containing the highest amount of viral RNA. The proventriculus of two birds showed virus-associated lesions, implying a possible adaptation of the virus to the gastro-intestinal tract. More

1.Stork, N. E. How many species of insects and other terrestrial arthropods are there on Earth? Annu. Rev. Entomol. 63, 31–45 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
2.Seibold, S. et al. Arthropod decline in grasslands and forests is associated with landscape-level drivers. Nature 574, 671–674 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
3.Wagner, D. L., Fox, R., Salcido, D. M. & Dyer, L. A. A window to the world of global insect declines: Moth biodiversity trends are complex and heterogeneous. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2002549117, 1–8 (2021).
Google Scholar 
4.Kulakowski, D. et al. A walk on the wild side: Disturbance dynamics and the conservation and management of European mountain forest ecosystems. Ecol. Manag. 388, 120–131 (2017).
Google Scholar 
5.Allen, C. D., Breshears, D. D. & McDowell, N. G. On underestimation of global vulnerability to tree mortality and forest die-off from hotter drought in the Anthropocene. Ecosphere 6, 129, 1–55 (2015).
Google Scholar 
6.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, 1–8 (2020).
Google Scholar 
7.Brodribb, T. J., Powers, J., Cochard, H. & Choat, B. Hanging by a thread? Forests and drought. Science 368, 261–266 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
8.Samaniego, L. et al. Anthropogenic warming exacerbates European soil moisture droughts. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 421–426 (2018).
Google Scholar 
9.Sallé, A. et al. Forest decline differentially affects trophic guilds of canopy-dwelling beetles. Ann. For. Sci. 77, 86 (2020).
Google Scholar 
10.Beudert, B. et al. Bark beetles increase biodiversity while maintaining drinking water quality. Conserv. Lett. 8, 272–281 (2015).
Google Scholar 
11.Evans, P. M. et al. Testing the relative sensitivity of 102 ecological variables as indicators of woodland condition in the New Forest, UK. Ecol. Indic. 107, 105575, 1–12 (2019).
Google Scholar 
12.Seidl, R. et al. Forest disturbances under climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 395–402 (2017).
Google Scholar 
13.Thorn, S. et al. Impacts of salvage logging on biodiversity: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Ecol. 55, 279–289 (2018).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
14.Thom, D. & Seidl, R. Natural disturbance impacts on ecosystem services and biodiversity in temperate and boreal forests. Biol. Rev. 91, 760–781 (2016).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
15.Moretti, M., Obrist, M. K. & Duelli, P. Arthropod biodiversity after forest fires: winners and losers in the winter fire regime of the southern Alps. Ecography 27, 173–186 (2004).
Google Scholar 
16.Dainese, M. et al. A global synthesis reveals biodiversity-mediated benefits for crop production. Sci. Adv. 5, eaax0121, 1–13 (2019).
Google Scholar 
17.Larsen, S., Chase, J. M., Durance, I. & Ormerod, S. J. Lifting the veil: Richness measurements fail to detect systematic biodiversity change over three decades. Ecology 99, 1316–1326 (2018).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
18.Cardoso, P. The seven impediments in invertebrate conservation and how to overcome them. Biol. Conserv. 144, 2647–2655 (2011).
Google Scholar 
19.Morinière, J. et al. A DNA barcode library for 5,200 German flies and midges (Insecta: Diptera) and its implications for metabarcoding‐based biomonitoring. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 19, 900–928 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
20.Hebert, P. D. N., Cywinska, A., Ball, S. L. & deWaard, J. R. Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Proc. Biol. Sci. 270, 313–321 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
21.Ratnasingham, S. & Hebert, P. D. N. A DNA-based registry for all animal species: The Barcode Index Number (BIN) system. PLoS ONE 8, e66213, 1–16 (2013).
Google Scholar 
22.Wang, C. et al. The ecological impact of pest-induced tree dieback on insect biodiversity in Yunnan pine plantations, China. Ecol. Manag. 491, 119173, 1–11 (2021).
Google Scholar 
23.Roland, J. & Taylor, P. D. Insect parasitoid species respond to forest structure at different spatial scales. Nature 386, 710–713 (1997).CAS 

Google Scholar 
24.Nguyen, L.-T.-H. et al. Bottom-up effect of water stress on the aphid parasitoid Aphidius ervi. Entomol. Gen. 38, 15–27 (2018).
Google Scholar 
25.Lebourgeois, F., Rathgeber, C. B. K. & Ulrich, E. Sensitivity of French temperate coniferous forests to climate variability and extreme events (Abies alba, Picea abies and Pinus sylvestris). J. Veg. Sci. 21, 364–376 (2010).
Google Scholar 
26.Camarero, J. J., Bigler, C., Linares, J. C. & Gil-Pelegrín, E. Synergistic effects of past historical logging and drought on the decline of Pyrenean silver fir forests. Ecol. Manag. 262, 759–769 (2011).
Google Scholar 
27.Ratnasingham, S. & Hebert, P. D. N. BOLD: The Barcode of Life Data system. Mol. Ecol. Notes 7, 355–364 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
28.Hui, C. & McGeoch, M. A. Zeta diversity as a concept and metric that unifies incidence-based biodiversity patterns. Am. Nat. 184, 684–694 (2014).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
29.McGeoch, M. A. et al. Measuring continuous compositional change using decline and decay in zeta diversity. Ecology 100, e02832, 1–18 (2019).
Google Scholar 
30.Latombe, G., McGeoch, M., Nipperess, D. & Hui, C. zetadiv: Functions to compute compositional turnover using zeta diversity (version 1.2.0) [software] https://github.com/GLatombe/zetadiv (2020).31.Brown, A. M. et al. The fourth-corner solution—using predictive models to understand how species traits interact with the environment. Methods Ecol. Evol. 5, 344–352 (2014).
Google Scholar 
32.Hartop, E., Srivathsan, A., Ronquist, F. & Meier, R. Large-scale Integrative Taxonomy (LIT): resolving the data conundrum for dark taxa. Preprint at BioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.04.13.439467 (2021).33.Kortmann, M. et al. Ecology versus society: impacts of bark beetle infestations on biodiversity and restorativeness in protected areas of Central Europe. Biol. Conserv. 254, 10893, 1–9 (2021).
Google Scholar 
34.Thorn, S. et al. Rare species, functional groups, and evolutionary lineages drive successional trajectories in disturbed forests. Ecology 101, e02949, 1–8 (2020).
Google Scholar 
35.Müller, J., Noss, R. F., Bussler, H. & Brandl, R. Learning from a “benign neglect strategy” in a national park: response of saproxylic beetles to dead wood accumulation. Biol. Conserv. 143, 2559–2569 (2010).
Google Scholar 
36.Cours, J. et al. Contrasting responses of habitat conditions and insect biodiversity to pest- or climate-induced dieback in coniferous mountain forests. Ecol. Manag. 482, 11881, 1–14 (2021).
Google Scholar 
37.Herrault, P.-A. et al. Combined effects of area, connectivity, history and structural heterogeneity of woodlands on the species richness of hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae). Landsc. Ecol. 31, 877–893 (2016).
Google Scholar 
38.Leather, S. R. “Ecological Armageddon”—more evidence for the drastic decline in insect numbers. Ann. Appl. Biol. 172, 1–3 (2018).
Google Scholar 
39.Fleishman, E., Noss, R. & Noon, B. Utility and limitations of species richness metrics for conservation planning. Ecol. Indic. 6, 543–553 (2006).
Google Scholar 
40.Borges, P. A. V., Rigal, F., Ros-Prieto, A. & Cardoso, P. Increase of insular exotic arthropod diversity is a fundamental dimension of the current biodiversity crisis. Insect Conserv. Divers. 13, 508–518 (2020).
Google Scholar 
41.Ienco, A., Dapporto, L., Greco, S., Infusino, M. & Scalercio, S. β-diversity partitioning of moth communities within and between different forest types. Sci. Nat. 107, 8, 1–11 (2020).
Google Scholar 
42.Thorn, S. et al. The living dead: acknowledging life after tree death to stop forest degradation. Front. Ecol. Environ. 18, 505–512 (2020).
Google Scholar 
43.Arnan, X., Bosch, J., Comas, L., Gracia, M. & Retana, J. Habitat determinants of abundance, structure and composition of flying Hymenoptera communities in mountain old-growth forests. Insect Conserv. Divers. 4, 200–211 (2011).
Google Scholar 
44.Säterberg, T., Jonsson, T., Yearsley, J., Berg, S. & Ebenman, B. A potential role for rare species in ecosystem dynamics. Sci. Rep. 9, 11107, 1–12 (2019).
Google Scholar 
45.Jain, M. et al. The importance of rare species: a trait-based assessment of rare species contributions to functional diversity and possible ecosystem function in tall-grass prairies. Ecol. Evol. 4, 104–112 (2014).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
46.Soliveres, S. et al. Locally rare species influence grassland ecosystem multifunctionality. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 371, 20150269, 1–10 (2016).
Google Scholar 
47.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 
48.Larrieu, L. et al. Tree related microhabitats in temperate and Mediterranean European forests: a hierarchical typology for inventory standardization. Ecol. Indic. 84, 194–207 (2018).
Google Scholar 
49.Seibold, S. et al. Microclimate and habitat heterogeneity as the major drivers of beetle diversity in dead wood. J. Appl. Ecol. 53, 934–943 (2016).
Google Scholar 
50.Ji, Y. et al. SPIKEPIPE: a metagenomic pipeline for the accurate quantification of eukaryotic species occurrences and intraspecific abundance change using DNA barcodes or mitogenomes. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 20, 256–267 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
51.Sire, L. et al. The challenge of DNA barcoding saproxylic beetles in natural history collections—exploring the potential of parallel multiplex sequencing with Illumina MiSeq. Front. Ecol. Evol. 7, 495, 1–12 (2019).
Google Scholar 
52.Morinière, J. et al. Species identification in Malaise trap samples by DNA barcoding based on NGS technologies and a scoring matrix. PLoS ONE 11, e0155497, 1–14 (2016).
Google Scholar 
53.Ashfaq, M. et al. Insect diversity in the Saharo-Arabian region: revealing a little-studied fauna by DNA barcoding. PLoS ONE 13, e0199965, 1–16 (2018).
Google Scholar 
54.Karlsson, D., Hartop, E., Forshage, M., Jaschhof, M. & Ronquist, F. The Swedish Malaise trap project: a 15 year retrospective on a countrywide insect inventory. Biodivers. Data J. 8, e47255, 1–35 (2020).
Google Scholar 
55.Russo, L., Stehouwer, R., Heberling, J. M. & Shea, K. The composite insect trap: an innovative combination trap for biologically diverse sampling. PLoS ONE 6, e21079, 1–7 (2011).
Google Scholar 
56.Lambert, J., Drenou, C., Denux, J.-P., Balent, G. & Cheret, V. Monitoring forest decline through remote sensing time series analysis. GIScience Remote Sens 50, 437–457 (2013).
Google Scholar 
57.Lemmon, P. E. A spherical densiometer for estimating forest overstory density. For. Sci. 2, 314–320 (1956).
Google Scholar 
58.Larrieu, L. & Gonin, P. L’indice de biodiversité potentielle (ibp): une méthode simple et rapide pour évaluer la biodiversité potentielle des peuplements forestiers. Rev. For. Fr. 6, 727–748 (2008).
Google Scholar 
59.Larsson, T.-B. in Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management at the Forest Management Unit Level (eds. Franc, A., Laroussinie, O. & Karjalainen, T.) Vol. 38, 75–81 (European Forest Institute Proceeding, 2001).60.Gosselin, F. & Larrieu, L. Developing and using statistical tools to estimate observer effect for ordered class data: the case of the IBP (Index of Biodiversity Potential). Ecol. Indic. 110, 105884, 1–10 (2020).
Google Scholar 
61.Elbrecht, V., Peinert, B. & Leese, F. Sorting things out: Assessing effects of unequal specimen biomass on DNA metabarcoding. Ecol. Evol. 7, 6918–6926 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
62.Leray, M., Haenel, Q. & Bourlat, S. J. in Marine Genomics (ed. Bourlat, S. J.) Vol. 1452, 209–218 (Springer New York, 2016).63.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, 1–14 (2013).
Google Scholar 
64.Geller, J., Meyer, C., Parker, M. & Hawk, H. Redesign of PCR primers for mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I for marine invertebrates and application in all-taxa biotic surveys. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 13, 851–861 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
65.Fadrosh, D. W. et al. An improved dual-indexing approach for multiplexed 16S rRNA gene sequencing on the Illumina MiSeq platform. Microbiome 2, 6, 1–7 (2014).
Google Scholar 
66.Illumina. Illumina two-channel SBS sequencing technology. Pub. No. 770-2013-054. https://www.well.ox.ac.uk/ogc/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/techspotlight_two-channel_sbs.pdf (2016).67.Knittel, T. & Picard, D. PCR with degenerate primers 9 containing deoxyinosine fails with PFU DNA polumerase. Genome Res. 2, 346–347 (1993).CAS 

Google Scholar 
68.Alberdi, A., Aizpurua, O., Gilbert, M. T. P. & Bohmann, K. Scrutinizing key steps for reliable metabarcoding of environmental samples. Methods Ecol. Evol. 9, 134–147 (2018).
Google Scholar 
69.Camacho, C. et al. BLAST+: architecture and applications. BMC Bioinforma. 10, 421, 1–10 (2009).
Google Scholar 
70.Schubert, M., Lindgreen, S. & Orlando, L. AdapterRemoval v2: rapid adapter trimming, identification, and read merging. BMC Res. Notes 9, 88, 1–7 (2016).
Google Scholar 
71.Joshi, N. A. & Fass, J. N. Sickle: a sliding-window, adaptive, quality-based trimming tool for FastQ files (version 1.33) [software]. https://github.com/najoshi/sickle (2011).72.Nurk, S. et al. in RECOMB 2013: Research in Computational Molecular Biology (eds. Deng, M., Jiang, R., Sun, F. & Zhang, X.) Vol. 7821, 158–170 (Springer International Publishing, 2013).73.Masella, A. P., Bartram, A. K., Truszkowski, J. M., Brown, D. G. & Neufeld, J. D. PANDAseq: paired-end assembler for Illumina sequences. BMC Bioinforma. 13, 31, 1–7 (2012).
Google Scholar 
74.Zepeda-Mendoza, M. L., Bohmann, K., Carmona Baez, A. & Gilbert, M. T. P. DAMe: a toolkit for the initial processing of datasets with PCR replicates of double-tagged amplicons for DNA metabarcoding analyses. BMC Res. Notes 9, 255, 1–13 (2016).
Google Scholar 
75.R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.R-project.org/ (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2017).76.Renkonen, O. Statistisch-ökologische Untersuchungen über die terrestische Käferwelt der finnischen Bruchmoore. Ann. Bot. Soc. Zool.-Bot. Fenn. Vanamo 6, 1–231 (1938).
Google Scholar 
77.Rognes, T., Flouri, T., Nichols, B., Quince, C. & Mahé, F. VSEARCH: a versatile open source tool for metagenomics. PeerJ 4, e2584, 1–22 (2016).
Google Scholar 
78.Hebert, P. D. N., Ratnasingham, S. & de Waard, J. R. Barcoding animal life: cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 divergences among closely related species. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 270, S96–S99 (2003).CAS 

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

Google Scholar 
80.Frøslev, T. G. et al. Algorithm for post-clustering curation of DNA amplicon data yields reliable biodiversity estimates. Nat. Commun. 8, 1188, 1–11 (2017).
Google Scholar 
81.Chamberlain, S. bold: Interface to BOLD systems API. (version 1.1.0) [software] https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=bold (2020).82.Godfray, C. H. J. Parasitoids: Behavioral and Evolutionary Ecology 472 pp (Princeton University Press, 1994).83.Bouget, C., Brustel, H. & Zagatti, P. The French Information System on Saproxylic BEetle Ecology (FRISBEE): an ecological and taxonomical database to help with the assessment of forest conservation status. Rev. D’Ecologie Terre Vie Société Natl. Prot. Nat. 63, 33–36 (2008).84.Schmidt-Kloiber, A. & Hering, D. An online tool that unifies, standardises and codifies more than 20,000 European freshwater organisms and their ecological preferences. Ecol. Indic. 53, 271–282 (2015).
Google Scholar 
85.Liu, M., Clarke, L. J., Baker, S. C., Jordan, G. J. & Burridge, C. P. A practical guide to DNA metabarcoding for entomological ecologists. Ecol. Entomol. 45, 373–385 (2020).
Google Scholar 
86.Hsieh, T. C., Ma, K. H. & Chao, iNEXT: iNterpolation and EXTrapolation for species diversity (version 2.0.20) [software] http://chao.stat.nthu.edu.tw/wordpress/software-download/ (2020).87.Oksanen, J. et al. vegan: Community ecology package (version 2.5-6) [software] https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan (2020).88.Fox, J. & Weisberg, S. An R Companion to Applied Regression (SAGE Publications, 2019).89.Wang, Y., Naumann, U., Eddelbuettel, D., Wilshire, J. & Warton, D. mvabund: Statistical methods for analysing multivariate abundance data (version 4.3.1) [software] https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=mvabund (2020).90.Popovic, G. C., Warton, D. I., Thomson, F. J., Hui, F. K. C. & Moles, A. T. Untangling direct species associations from indirect mediator species effects with graphical models. Methods Ecol. Evol. 10, 1571–1583 (2019).
Google Scholar 
91.De Cáceres, M., Legendre, P. & Moretti, M. Improving indicator species analysis by combining groups of sites. Oikos 119, 1674–1684 (2010).
Google Scholar 
92.Gaston, K. J. in Rarity Vol. 13, 1–21 (Springer, 1994).93.McMurdie, P. J. & Holmes, S. phyloseq: an R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PLoS ONE 8, e61217, 1–11 (2013).
Google Scholar 
94.Akaike, H. Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. in Second International Symposium on Information Theory 267–281 (1973).95.Ferrier, S., Manion, G., Elith, J. & Richardson, K. Using generalized dissimilarity modelling to analyse and predict patterns of beta diversity in regional biodiversity assessment. Divers. Distrib. 13, 252–264 (2007).
Google Scholar 
96.Sire, L. et al. Climate-induced forest dieback drives compositional changes in insect communities that are more pronounced for rare species. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5653307 (2021).97.Sire, L. et al. Supplementary Data—Climate-induced forest dieback drives compositional changes in insect communities that are more pronounced for rare species. figshare. Dataset https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.16975636.v1 (2021). More

Aarhus University, SORALO and KWT digitized bomas, fences and agriculture in a systematic manner using available satellite imagery (see methods). All digitization was re-checked by supervisors, to ensure that no data had been missed, and was adjusted following quality control where and when required. All data were then manually checked by conservation practitioners knowledgeable of the study area. Both the spatial resolution and temporal sampling of the data may present limitations to its accuracy and usage.Spatial resolutionFor both the KWT and SORALO datasets collected using Google Earth, we used the latest Google Earth imagery. Additionally, for KWT’s dataset, we also used the latest Bing maps imagery. However, the spatial resolution of this Google Earth and Bing maps data varies. Resolution can be as high as ~0.5 m, while a few remaining areas still rely on Landsat Imagery with a resolution of 30 m. However, the quality of the Google Earth and Bing maps imagery was generally high enough across the study area to accurately delineate bomas, fencelines and agricultural land. Figures 3 and 4 provide examples of areas that would be digitized, with the boundaries of the boma and fence lines clearly visible.The fencing data collected by Aarhus University used Landsat Imagery at 30 m resolution and smaller fences may be missing from the dataset as they are harder to distinguish. This is also true for wire fence (the predominant type of fencing around the Maasai Mara; Fig. 3C). Vegetation differences used to identify these fence lines may take some time to develop. Therefore, there may be an underestimate of the fences mapped, especially in those regions with high usage of wire fences.It must be noted that images from Google Earth have an overall positional root mean squared error of 39.7 m, which may impact the interpretation of this dataset23. We believe that these errors are acceptable for our first attempt at collecting landscape-scale data, and will be refined over time with improved imagery and ground-truthing. Landsat data has a root mean squared error usually below the size of a pixel, with 90% of pixels having less than 12 m deviation (1 https://www.usgs.gov/media/videos/landsat-collections-rmse).Temporal variationThe most likely discrepancies in data quality will arise from temporal variation in fencing placement, boma usage and placement, and agricultural change. Google Earth data were used for SORALO, using data available up to February 2020. Google Earth and Bing maps data were used for KWT, with data up to 2017. The weighted mean imagery date for SORALO (weighted by the area covered) was the 9th of September 2016 and ranged from 15th of December 2000 to 12th of February 2020 (Fig. 5). Where possible we have added a date-time stamp to the boma, agriculture and fencing dataset to best match the date the satellite imagery was acquired, or when it was collected on the ground. However, KWT and some SORALO data lack date attribute, the latter because no date stamp was found in Google Earth, and the former because no date was recorded for any data. The Aarhus University fencing data are from a Landsat Image from January 2016, and the MEP data are from on-the-ground collection. Our database is built so that as new or updated data become available, from both new satellite imagery and ground-based identification, the data layer can be adjusted (see below).Livestock enclosure validationWe used data on the location of SORALO livestock enclosures from the Magadi region24 (collected using handheld GPS devices), to estimate the accuracy of our data collection. The SORALO ground-truthed database contains 668 bomas, which have been occupied at least once during 2014–2017. In the same area, our boma points database contains 573 bomas (85%) of which 41.2% (n = 275) are within 100 m of ground-truthed points and 87.7% (n = 586) are within 500 m of the ground-truthed points. These ground-truthed points may have inaccuracies from their data collection. Also, many livestock enclosures distant from ground-truthed points are newer than the ground-truthing dataset.Agricultural land validationWe compared our agricultural data layer to a commonly used global open source data layer, the 2015 GFSAD30AFCE 30-m for Africa: Cropland Extent Product (www.croplands.org). Our layer agreed with the Cropland Extent Product across 856 km2 of cropland. However, our layer demarcated 455 km2 (34.4% of the total extent) more agricultural land than was found in the 30 m Cropland Extent Product, because many small areas of subsistence farming had not been detected by this global layer. Additionally, the Cropland Extent Product contained 468 km2 (35.3% of the Cropland Extent Product) of agricultural extent not captured in our layer. Much of this was on the periphery of large continuous agricultural areas and appears inaccurately mapped by the global product.Continual validation and improvement of databaseOngoing ground-truthing exercises by the Mara Elephant Project and other partners will improve the quality of the database over time, particularly the datasets on wire fencing in the Mara region. To do so the TerraChart app combined with a QuickCapture app (to validate fence lines and boma locations using aerial reconnaissance) are integrated into the ArcGIS online framework, and following validation both manually and using automated Python script, can be used to update the features collection database.Additionally, any data currently held in the private domain can be easily integrated into this database, and made available to the public domain with approval. Linking these features using a parent ID allows for not only the addition of new features, but improved spatial accuracy of old features, and temporal changes to features to be captured.This database will be continually improved over time. For example, current efforts from conservation partners in the region have resulted in large scale acquisition of high resolution, up-to-date, satellite imagery which will be further used to refine this database. More