Ecology

Department of Biology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, CanadaBrian Leung & Anna L. HargreavesBieler School of Environment, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, CanadaBrian LeungDepartment of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, CanadaDan A. GreenbergSchool of Biology and Ecology and Mitchell Center for Sustainability Solutions, University of Maine, Orono, ME, USABrian McGillCentre for Biological Diversity, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UKMaria DornelasIndicators and Assessments Unit, Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, London, UKRobin FreemanB.L. wrote the response. A.L.H. and D.A.G. helped with writing, editing and discussing ideas. B.M., M.D. and R.F. discussed ideas and did some editing. More

Cite this articleLeung, B., Hargreaves, A.L., Greenberg, D.A. et al. Reply to: Shifting baselines and biodiversity success stories.
Nature 601, E19 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03749-zDownload citationPublished: 26 January 2022Issue Date: 27 January 2022DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03749-zShare this articleAnyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:Get shareable linkSorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.Copy to clipboard
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative More

1.Leung, B. et al. Clustered versus catastrophic global vertebrate declines. Nature 588, 267–271 (2020).CAS 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
2.McRae, L., Deinet, S. & Freeman, R. The diversity-weighted Living Planet Index: controlling for taxonomic bias in a global biodiversity indicator. PLoS ONE 12, e0169156 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Koricheva, J. & Gurevitch, J. Uses and misuses of meta-analysis in plant ecology. J. Ecol. 102, 828–844 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Cardinale, B. J., Gonzalez, A., Allington, G. R. H. & Loreau, M. Is local biodiversity in decline or not? A summary of the debate over analysis of species richness time trends. Biol. Conserv. 219, 175–183 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Inger, R. et al. Common European birds are declining rapidly while less abundant species’ numbers are rising. Ecol. Lett. 18, 28–36 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Rosenberg, K. V. et al. Decline of the North American avifauna. Science 366, 120–124 (2019).CAS 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
7.Gonzalez, A. et al. Estimating local biodiversity change: a critique of papers claiming no net loss of local diversity. Ecology 97, 1949–1960 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Scholes, R. J. et al. Toward a global biodiversity observing system. Science 321, 1044–1045 (2008).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Google Scholar  More

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

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

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

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