Ecology

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

Experimental animalsGymnocypris przewalskii used in this study were obtained from the Rescue Center for Naked Carp of Lake Qinghai in Xining. Only healthy fish without visible body damage were used. Wet mass and body length were recorded before the fish were sampled. All fish were collected under permits issued by local and national authorities, and experimental procedures were in accordance with national animal care regulations. Experimental waters were prepared daily, and water qualities were measured before each experiment. The water temperature and salinity were measured using an YSI6600 multiprobe sensor (YSI Incorporated, Ohio, USA), and the carbonate alkalinity was determined by titration39. All fish (average body weight: 33.21 ± 2.74 g; average body length:14.81 ± 0.35 cm) were held in an indoor RAS system at a density of approximately 6.5 kg m−3. The holding and experimental water were filtered tap water (Canature/AC/KDF150-1–300) (salinity 0.16, pH 7.56, carbonate alkalinity 2.7 mmol L−1, temperature 17.1 ± 0.61 °C). Fish were fed daily with commercial feed. Fish husbandry and experimental procedures were approved by the Second Scientific Research Ethics Committee of East China Sea Fisheries Research Institute.Experimental designFish were placed on a 14:10-h light:dark (5:00–19:00 with light intensity of 600–1000 lx; 19:00–5:00 with light intensity of 0 lx) photoperiod aquaculture system. To examine the effect of rhythm on osmoregulation and acid–base balance, this study measured four endpoints: drinking rate, self-feeding intake, mRNA expression and the single cell expression level of osmoregulation and acid–base regulation relevant proteins. Fish held in filtered tap water were transferred directly to saline-alkaline lake water with salinities of 15 (L15, salinity 14.83, pH 8.65, carbonate alkalinity 30.54 mmol L−1) and 17 (L17, salinity 16.80, pH 9.02, carbonate alkalinity 34.61 mmol L−1), which was prepared by adding the same ratio of NaCl, MgCl2.6H2O, Na2SO4, CaCl2, KCl, NaHCO3 and Na2CO3 as in Qinghai Lake. The experimental period was 4–5 days.Drinking rate during high saline-alkaline transferFish were placed on a 14:10-h light:dark (5:00–19:00 with light intensity of 600–1000 lx;19:00–5:00 with light intensity of 0 lx) photoperiod aquaculture system. In this experiment, feeding was stopped 48 h prior to the experiments. Fresh water fish were transferred directly to L15 and L17 PEG-4000 free water for up to 4 days. For drinking rate analysis, new tanks were prepared which contained 50L saline-alkaline lake water with salinity 15 or 17 and with PEG-4000 (final concentration was 1.00 g L−1) during the day (10:00–16:00) and night (4:00–22:00) on the fourth day respectively. Nine fish per treatment were individually transferred from PEG-4000 free water to each tank which contained 1.00 g L−1 PEG-4000 at 10:00 or 4:00. Water samples were collected at 15 min after the fish were transferred to each treatment group for the determination of PEG-4000 concentration. The fish were terminally anesthetized with MS-222 (0.40 g L−1) after 6 h. The intestines were then quickly dissected out from nine individual fish per treatment group and the intestinal fluid were collected and stored at 4 °C. All fish were weighed before sampling.Self-feeding intake during high saline-alkaline transferFish were placed on a 14:10-h light:dark (5:00–19:00 with light intensity of 600–1000 lx;19:00–5:00 with light intensity of 0 lx) photoperiod aquaculture system. In this experiment, fish were kept in freshwater (FW) or acclimated to L15 for more than 15 days before the experiment started. Six RAS glass tanks (95 cm × 60 cm × 60 cm), which belong to two circulatory systems (3 tanks for FW and 3 for L15), were used for self-feeding experiment. Each tank had 15 individuals.Before the experiment, fish were trained by a custom-made self-feeding system (Fig. S2). Trained fish triggered the self-feeder when they want to feed. In the self-feeding system, the photoelectric sensor converts the change of optical signal into the change of electrical signal, and the feeder release feed by recognizing level fluctuation.During the formal experiment, we collected feed data at 5:00 and 19:00, which were the time points of the light and dark transition. Feed intakes of naked carp were calculated by weighing the feed quantities at two time points. The experiment lasted 5 days.mRNA expression of osmoregulation and acid–base regulation relevant proteins during high saline-alkaline transferFish were placed on a 14:10-h light:dark (5:00–19:00 with light intensity of 600–1000 lx;19:00–5:00 with light intensity of 0 lx) photoperiod aquaculture system. In this experiment, feeding was stopped 48 h prior to the experiments. Fresh water fish were transferred directly to L17 for up to 4 days. There were 24 fish per tank in triplicate. At the fourth day, six fish per tank were individually removed and terminally anesthetized with MS-222 (0.40 g L−1) at 4:00, 10:00, 16:00 and 22:00, respectively. The mid-intestine was quickly dissected out from six individual fish at each time point. Mid-intestine tissues for mRNA expression analyses were immediately snap-frozen in liquid N2, and stored at − 80 °C until analysis.Single cell positive rate of osmoregulation and acid–base regulation relevant proteinsFish were placed on a 14:10-h light:dark (5:00–19:00 with light intensity of 600–1000 lx;19:00–5:00 with light intensity of 0 lx) photoperiod aquaculture system. In this experiment, feeding was stopped 48 h prior to the experiments. To analyze the single cell positive rate of acid–base relevant proteins, a separate experiment was conducted. Fresh water fish were transferred directly to L17 for up to 4 days. There were 3 tanks (6 fish per tank) in this experimental group. At the fourth day, three fish per tank were individually removed and terminally anesthetized with MS-222 (0.40 g L−1) at 16:00 and 22:00, respectively. The mid-intestine was quickly dissected out from nine individual fish and immediately prepared for single-cell suspensions.Analytical techniquesDrinking rate analysisThe measurement of drinking rate was performed according to the study of Buxton et al.40. After weighing the collected intestinal fluid, it was centrifuged at 13,000g for 1 min, and 50 μL of the supernatant was taken, added dropwise to 350 μL of 72% pre-cooled (4 °C) acetone, and vortexed to mix. Samples were then centrifuged at 2000g for 10 min at 4 °C, the supernatant filtered with 0.45 μm filter paper, followed by addition of 100 μL of filtrate to 175 μL 25 mg L−1 gum arabic and vortexed to mix. Finally, 200 μL of TCA-CaCl2 (trichloroacetic acid-calcium chloride, 30% and 5% by mass) was added to the mixture and the reaction allowed to proceed at room temperature for 20 min. An Epoch microplate (Bio Tek) spectrophotometry unit was used to measure the absorbance at 650 nm. The remaining solution was weighed again after drying at 60 °C for 48 h, and the volume of intestinal fluid was determined (quantity of collected intestinal fluid-mass after drying). The same method as above was used to process the standard solution. Solute concentrations for standard curve were prepared as 0.00 g L−1, 0.10 g L−1, 0.20 g L−1, 0.40 g L−1, 0.60 g/L−1, 0.80 g L–1, 1 g L−1, and 2 g L−1 PEG-4000. The PEG-4000 concentration of intestinal fluid was calculated based on the standard curve. Drinking rate (μLg-1h-1) = 1000 × (CI × VI)/(CW × W × t), where CI is the concentration of PEG-4000 in the intestinal fluid (gL-1), VI is the volume of intestinal fluid (mL), CW is the concentration of PEG-4000 in experimental water (gL-1),W is the body weight of the fish (g), t is the duration of the experiment (h).Molecular biologyThe known sequences of the NKA-α gene of naked carp were compared with the corresponding genes of other species in GenBank, and highly conserved regions were selected for primer design (Table 1). The reference gene EF1α was used according to Yao et al.3. Previously published primers were used for SLC26A6 and SLC4A4 genes6. After extracting total RNA with Trizol (Invitrogen), the integrity of RNA was detected by 1% agarose gel electrophoresis, and the concentration and purity of total RNA were determined by a Bio Tek Epoch microplate spectrophotometer. The Rever Tra Ace-α (TOYOBO) kit was used to reverse transcribe mRNA to cDNA. Fluorescence quantitative PCR analysis was performed using a QuantStudio™ Real-Time PCR (Thermo life) with the SYBR Premix Ex TaqIII (TaKaRa) kit: total reaction volume of 10 μL, including 5 μL SYBR Premix Ex Taq, 2 μL upstream primers, 2 μL downstream Primers, and 1 μL cDNA template. The amplification procedure was as follows: 95 °C 30 s, 1 cycle; 95 °C 5 s, 60 °C 20 s, 40 cycles. Three replicates were included for each sample, with EF1α as the internal reference gene. The relative expression of each gene was calculated using the 2−ΔΔCt method41. Melting curve analysis was performed following each reaction to confirm that there was only a single product and no primer-dimer artifacts. In addition, representative samples were electrophoresed to verify that only a single product was present. Negative control reactions were performed for representative samples using RNA that had not been reverse transcribed to control for the possible presence of genomic DNA contamination. No-template control reactions were also performed to verify the absence of contaminating DNA or primer-dimer amplification in the reactions.Table 1 Nucleotide sequences of the primers used for amplification.Full size tableSingle cell staining analysisThe naked carp mid-intestine was isolated and transferred to HBSS on ice. The mid-intestine was washed by HBSS (Corning, 21-022-CV) and transferred to pre-warmed digestion medium containing 0.2 mg·mL−1 Collagenase I (Gibco, 17100-017), 0.06 mg mL−1 Collagenase II (Gibco, 17101-015) and 0.2 mg mL−1 Collagenase IV (Gibco, 17104-019), which was shaken vigorously for 30 s and further incubated at 37 °C for about 30 min in incubator with gentle shaking every 5 min to release cells. Cells were then collected by centrifuging at 300 × g for 5 min, and resuspended in D-PBS (BBI, E607009-0500). Then taken an appropriate amount of single cell suspension and dropped it on poly-L-lysine-coated slides where the experimental area was drawn with a hydrophobic marker to allow the single cells to settle freely. When the cell sedimentation density was moderate, aspirated the excess cell suspension, slides were fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde fix solution (BBI, E672002-0500) for 10 min, and blocked with 3% BSA (Sigma, B2064) for 1 h, three washes in D-PBS. Subsequently, slides were incubated in NKA-α or SLC26A6 (antibody dilution ratio was 1:100) for overnight at 4 °C. The NKA-α antibody was a commercial polyclonal rabbit Na+/K+-ATPase α antibody (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, sc-28800). The SLC26A6 antibody was a commercial polyclonal rabbit SLC26A6 antibody (Abcam, ab-172684). After the incubation, three washes in D-PBS. The secondary antibodies consisted of Alexa flour 568 goat anti-rabbit IgG (Thermo Fisher Scientific, A11036) (antibody dilution ratio was 1:400). Slides were incubated in room temperature for 1 h, followed by three washes in D-PBS. Finally, incubate with Hochest for 30 min. Cells were then photographed with a fluorescence microscope. For every fish, positive protein expression was counted using at least three pictures. Image J was used to analyze the fluorescence intensity and record the positivity rate.Statistical analysisThe data was expressed as mean ± standard error (SE). Two-way ANOVA and One-way ANOVA with LSD multiple comparison were employed to compare drinking rate, food intake and relative gene expression among different treatments and time courses respectively. Differences in single cell positive rate between 16:00 and 22:00 in L17 were evaluated by chi-square test. Assumptions for all parametric models (normality and equal residuals) were assessed via diagnostic plots. Means were considered significantly different when P  More

Phylogenetic relations and systematics of AllactaginaeIntergeneric relationsOur data produced a robust phylogeny for Allactaginae above species level and thereby firmly proved that Allactaga s.l. (as recognised by Holden and Musser17) is paraphyletic to both Pygeretmus and Allactodipus. Both of the latter taxa are morphologically distinct from Allactaga by a number of unique apomorphies: a unique molar pattern and glans penis morphology in Allactodipus as well as high-crowned terraced molars, reduction of the premolar, and particular glans penis morphology in Pygeretmus. At the same time, the morphology of all other five-toed jerboas is relatively monotonous with variation only in terms of body size, relative molar crown height, size of auditory bullae, m1 morphotype frequency, and the rate of M3 reduction1,45. Such level of differences never allowed recognition of more than one genus.Thus, allactagines represent a case when descendant lineages with derived morphology are nested within a group with overall conserved morphology. This can be compared to paraphyly of white-toothed shrews Crocidura relative to Diplomesodon46, rorquals (Balaenoptera) relative to humpback whales (Megaptera)47, or tits (Parus s.l.) relative to morphologically aberrant ground tit (Pseudopodoces humilis)48. In such cases, the taxonomy should be changed in accordance with the monophyly principle, which is achieved by combining genera (as done in whales) or splitting the genus in question into new taxa (as done in tits). Unfortunately, any decision in this context is arbitrary as it is based on subjective weighting of morphological differences. For Allactaginae, the splitting approach was implemented18, which resulted in the elevation of Scarturus and Orientallactaga to the generic rank2, despite the fact that a synapomorphy-based morphological diagnosis of Scarturus can hardly be formulated.As an alternative to the morphology-based approach, temporal banding—a method which uses node age as a measure of rank49—was suggested as a standardised method for taxonomic ranking. In the present study, the age of divergence of major Allactaginae lineages was dated to the Pliocene. However, in other groups of Myodonta, Pliocene divergences were found both among genera (as in voles50 or hamsters51) and among congeneric species (as in Sicista52). Thus, the ambiguity remains unresolved; we see no better option than to retain the generic classification established by Michaux & Shenbrot2 (Table S10). However, it should be noted that the inferred age of divergence between S. tetradactylus + S. hotsoni and the VECE clades (3.9–4.1 Mya) is comparable or even larger than the divergence time of Allactodipus from Allactaga. If the temporal criterion (sensu Avise, Johns49) is accepted, one should consider elevating the VECE clade at least to subgeneric rank, with Scarturus proper including only two species. The diagnosis of the new taxon should be polythetic (medium to small jerboas with five-toes, bullae not enlarged, glans penis with longitudinal fold, molar low-to medium crowned, M3 not reduced). Although the name Paralactaga is traditionally used as a subgeneric for the S. euphraticus group and therefore may have been applied to the whole VECE clade, we believe that this is incorrect. The type species of Paralactaga—P. anderssoni Young, 1927—was described from the Late Miocene of China, which is inconsistent with the estimated time of origin of the VECE clade. Apparently all similarities between S. euphraticus group and Paralactaga proper are because of plesiomorphy. Therefore, we suggest that Paralactaga should be attributed to fossil taxa only.Species groups within ScarturusIn the present study, we analysed in detail the phylogenetic reconstructions and divergence times estimations for the species and species groups of the genus Scarturus. Our study is the first to examine the phylogenetic position of the enigmatic taxon described from Afghanistan and which is currently termed Scarturus williamsi caprimulga. The mitochondrial data provided clear evidence that this taxon is not closely related to any member of the S. euphraticus species group including S. williamsi. Instead, it belongs to a separate divergent lineage of Scarturus, which should be considered a separate species, Scarturus caprimulga. It also includes the jerboa from Kopet Dag provisionally classified by Hamidi et al25 as Paralactaga cf. williamsi. The mitochondrial difference between specimens from Afghanistan and those from Kopet Dag suggested a potential subspecies rank of the latter form, which is provisionally referred to as S. aff. caprimulga. More research on the distribution and genetic structure of this species is needed for further clarification. Our study has added more representative genetic data on the poorly known S. vinogradovi and confirmed it as a separate divergent branch within Scarturus s.l. and likely a distant sister group of S. caprimulga.Previous phylogenetic reconstructions of the S. euphraticus species group based on mtDNA data recovered a divergent branch within S. euphraticus53, which was subsequently classified as S. aulacotis2. With further addition of comprehensive nuclear data, the full species rank of this taxon is now completely supported. The relationships among the three species in the S. euphraticus group correspond to a hard trichotomy dated to the late Early Pleistocene.Nuclear data strongly support deep structuring within the S. elater species group, as previously demonstrated using mtDNA19,22,54, and confirmed the species status of S. indicus and S. heptneri. The divergence between S. elater and S. indicus estimated based on the nuclear loci was dated to approximately 1.5 Mya, which was slightly older than the 1.26 Mya inferred from mtDNA by Bannikova et al.22. Both S. indicus and S. elater included allopatric lineages that have separated 600–800 kya (i.e. dzungariae and strandi within elater, and aralychensis within indicus). Their formal taxonomic rank appears controversial: the level of divergence apparently conforms to species rank, whereas genetic data indicates potential gene flow between them. Thus, the mtDNA haplotypes of Scarturus specimens from the Zaisan depression (S. e. zaisanicus) form a subclade within S. elater s.str., whereas nuclear data suggest that S. e. zaisanicus is relatively close to S. e. dzungariae. This pattern suggests that the Zaisan population, while being a derivative of the Dzungar form, experienced mtDNA capture as a result of a past hybridisation event with S. elater. Gene flow between S. strandi and S. elater proper was indicated by the occurrence of elater mtDNA haplotypes in certain populations of strandi from north-western Kyzylkum22. All these taxa require additional research to produce a more accurate evaluation of gene flow intensity. Nevertheless, we suggest that dzungariae, strandi, and aralychensis should be considered semispecies or species in statu nascendi. Taxonomically, we regard them as parts of elater and indicus superspecies and refer to them as S. (elater) dzungariae, S. (elater) strandi, and S. (indicus) aralychensis, respectively.Phylogenetic relations within OrientallactagaWithin Orientallactaga, O. bullata and O. balikunica were supported as sister taxa based on nuclear data, which is consistent with their common morphology (enlarged bullae). However, mtDNA suggested that O. bullata is a sister taxon to O. sibirica, and the reason for this discrepancy is unclear, with ancient mtDNA introgression being the most obvious explanation. The crown age of Orientallactaga was dated to the early Early Pleistocene (Gelasian). Neither O. bullata nor O. balikunica show substantial intraspecific variation.In contrast, O. sibirica consists of several genetic lineages, which partly correspond to recognised subspecies. The mtDNA data tentatively supported subdivision of O. sibirica into western and eastern groups separated by the Tianshan–Altay zoogeographic boundary. The structure of variation in the eastern portion of the range (Mongolia, China) is well-studied23; however, the genetic data on the western portion are still fragmentary. Available mtDNA data provisionally support recognition of western subspecies such as O. s. ognevi (north-eastern to central Kazakhstan), O. s. dementjevi (Issyk-Kul region), and O. s. altorum (central Tianshan). The latter two forms are distributed in high-altitude areas of Tianshan, thus indicating that, in contrast to most other jerboa species, mountain areas might serve as foci of diversification in O. sibirica.The westernmost part of the range (western Kazakhstan, Qyzylkum) was assumed to be inhabited by a single O. s. suschkini subspecies after morphological revision1. However, three divergent mtDNA lineages were recovered based on the preliminary analysis of mtDNA data retrieved from museum specimens from the area, which suggests that the diversity of western populations is likely underestimated and in need of further examination.The crown age of O. sibirica was estimated at 500–600 kya, which was substantially younger than 2.2–3.2 Mya as inferred by Cheng et al.23; this discrepancy, however, can be explained by mtDNA saturation effects and usage of inaccurate secondary calibrations in their study.Variation within Allactaga and PygeretmusConsidering the phylogenetic position of Pygeretmus, our data firmly corroborated its separate phylogenetic position and rejected any affinity with Orientallactaga bullata as reconstructed by Wu et al.55. The latter result should be attributed to identification error. In our study, all three species of Pygeretmus were analysed to confirm phylogenetic proximity of P. shitkovi and P. platyurus relative to P. pumilio. Thus, the subgeneric status of Alactagulus containing the latter species was not contradicted; however, the split age between Pygeretmus s.str. and Alactagulus is relatively young, dated as Pliocene/Pleistocene boundary, indicating that morphological and life history traits of the former (e.g. slower locomotion) have evolved rather recently.A further taxon demonstrating a complex structure is Allactaga major. Our mtDNA data indicated that A. major consisted of several genetic lineages partly corresponding to morphological subspecies (A. m. spiculum, A. m. djetysuensis). A high level of divergence was observed between specimens from the northern Caucasus and Kazakhstan. A specimen of morphologically distinct A. m. spiculum (north-eastern Kazakhstan, western Siberia) was placed as a sister species to all other A. major with a divergence level compatible with species status.Several other species included unexpected genetic lineages that were apparently divergent at subspecies level (e.g. a southern Uzbekistan lineage of A. severtzovi and an Ili lineage of P. shitkovi). However, the resolving power of the employed set of 15 nuclear genes is insufficient for clarifying relationships within species. Therefore, these cases should be studied using larger samples and further nuclear loci.Divergence time estimates within AllactaginaeOur estimated divergence times were generally more recent than those produced by most previous studies. The root node of crown Allactaginae was dated to 7.7 (5.4–9.9) Mya by Wu et al.55, 8.1 (4.2–12.7) Mya by Zhang et al.56, or 8.87 (8.3–9.85) Mya by Pisano et al.4. The results by Wu et al.55 may be affected by a node density effect as their re-analysis with reduced taxon sampling of Allactaginae and Dipodinae produced younger dating at 5.8 (3.1–8.6) Mya. The latter two studies used only one to four nuclear loci and calibrated their analysis using non-Dipodidae calibration points. In both cases, the Early Miocene age of Sicista primus was used to calibrate crown Sicista, which lacks proper justification and may result in upward bias, as argued by Rusin et al.57.The earliest Allactaginae appeared in the Early Miocene and, in the Middle Miocene, the members of the primitive genus Protalactaga Young, 1927 became a common element of the Asian fauna3. During the Late Miocene, the diversity of allactagines persisted, and new genera emerged including Paralactaga Young, 1927 which is morphologically similar to Allactaga and is often considered its subgenus3,45. However, as can be derived from our results, all but one of the Middle and Late Miocene lineages went extinct without leaving any recent descendants, and all current diversity is a product of the Pliocene–Pleistocene evolution. This diversification pattern is unlike that observed in a different jerboa subfamily, Dipodinae, which includes lineages that had diverged in the Middle and early Late Miocene (Paradipus and Dipus, respectively)4,58.As estimated here, the onset of radiation among crown Allactaginae occurred in the latest Messinian and thus was nearly coincident with the Messinian crisis. However, it remains unclear how (or whether at all) climatic perturbations at the Miocene /Pliocene boundary affected the evolution of Allactaginae. The results of the diversification analysis suggested that, throughout the Pliocene and Pleistocene, the rate and mode of speciation in five-toed jerboas remained constant, indicating high tolerance of this group towards the climatic changes of this period.The minimum age of split observed between sympatric species was approximately 1 Mya as demonstrated by heptneri versus elater s.str. (and strandi). This was the estimate for the minimum time necessary for formation of effective reproductive barriers in allactagines (post- or pre-zygotic). Other phylogenetically close sympatric species pairs were S. elater/S. indicus (1.5 My), O. bullata/O. balikunica (1.5 My), and A. major/A. severtzovi (2.0 My).Geography of speciationOf 17 analysed episodes of speciation in Pliocene–Pleistocene, the patterns of range fragmentation in 10 episodes matched well to the classical vicariance scenario and those of six episodes matched to the founder-event speciation scenario; in one episode, both scenarios were equally probable. As the location of arising isolation barriers within the ancestor range seemed incidental, only in three cases the ancestors’ range was subdivided into two parts which were more or less equal in size: first, into East and West Central Asia; second, into Turan and Iran; third, into Anatolia with trans-Caucasus and northern Zagros and Levant with northern Mesopotamia and southern Zagros. In all other cases, the ancestors’ range was subdivided into the main part and relatively small peripheral isolates. As can be expected from the modern patterns of species diversity of Allactaginae, the discovered speciation events were unequally distributed: one episode in North Africa, one in the eastern part of Central Asia, three in the Middle East, four in the Iranian highland, four in Turan, and five in Kazakhstan. In most cases, range fragmentation coincided with extreme climate conditions within the analysed time periods: warmest and wettest (decrease of the area of arid lands: nodes 2–3, 5, 10, 12, and 14–15) or coldest and driest (closing narrow mountain passages due to mountain glaciation: nodes 4, 6–9, 13, and 16–18). In one case (node 11), fragmentation of the range coincided with moderate climate conditions.Successful modelling of fragmentation of geographic ranges as a base of speciation events seemed to agree with the hypothesis of Peterson et al.15, which states that ecological niches evolve little at or around the time of speciation events, whereas niche differences accumulate later. This hypothesis was supported by Peterson’s analysis59 of data published between 1999 and 2008 which demonstrated that niche conservatism was found in more than 70% of comparisons within species and between sister species, but in less than 50% of comparisons among closely-related (but not sister) species and across monophyletic lineages of species. Moreover, analysis of habitat niche evolution of arvicoline rodents16 demonstrated that closely related species with allopatric or parapatric distribution demonstrated small niche differences, whereas they were larger in species with sympatric distribution. This is a clear indication that interspecific competition forces natural selection to increase niche differences resulting in species co-occurrence. It was demonstrated that niche divergence/conservatism can be differently expressed between different niche/resource axes60. In voles, which have a highly specialised folivorous diet, habitat segregation seems to be the only type of niche differentiation. Closely related Allactaginae species are similar in diet and typically occur in allopatric or parapatric distribution patterns1, which may indicate their niche conservatism. The only exception to a pattern where species with similar diets show widely overlapping geographic distributions are Scatrurus elater and S. heptneri (these two species are similar in both, macro- and micro-habitat niches, and it is unclear which mechanisms allow them to co-occur22). Distantly related sympatric species typically show similarities regarding macro-habitat niches but marked differences in terms of micro-habitat niches (Allactaga major and Orientallactaga sibirica; O. sibirica and O. bullata; O. sibirica and O. balikunica; Pygerethmus pumilio and P. platyurus; P. pumilio and P. shitkovi; personal observations) and diet (Allactaga and Allactodipus; Allactaga and Scarturus; Allactaga and Pygeretmus; Orientallactaga and Pygeretmus; Scarturus and Pygeretmus1,61). Thus, macro-habitat niche conservatism may be expected even in sympatric species. More

1.Nehring, A. Über Tundren und Steppen der Jetzt- und Vorzeit, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung ihrer Fauna (F. Dummler, 1890).2.Chytrý, M. et al. A modern analogue of the Pleistocene steppe-tundra in southern Siberia. Boreas 48, 36–56 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Graham, R. Late Wisconsin mammalian faunas and environmental gradients of the eastern United States. Paleobiology 2, 343–350 (1976).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Webb, T. I. I. I. The appearance and disappearance of major vegetational assemblages: Long-term vegetational dynamics in eastern North America. Vegetatio 69, 177–187 (1987).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Frest, T. J. & Dickson, J. R. Land snails (Pleistocene-recent) of the Loess Hills: A preliminary survey. Proc. Iowa Acad. Sci. 93, 130–157 (1986).
Google Scholar 
6.Nekola, J. C. Paleorefugia and neorefugia: The influence of colonization history on community pattern and process. Ecology 80, 2459–2473 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Magri, D. et al. A new scenario for the Quaternary history of European beech populations: Palaeobotanical evidence and genetic consequences. New Phytol. 17, 199–221 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Soltis, D. E., Morris, A. B., McLachlan, J. S., Manos, P. S. & Soltis, P. S. Comparative phylogeography of unglaciated eastern North America. Mol. Ecol. 15, 4261–4293 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Graham, R. Quaternary mammal communities: Relevance of the individualistic response and non-analogue faunas. Paleontol. Soc. Papers 11, 141–158 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Davis, M. B. Climatic instability, time lags, and community disequilibrium. In Community Ecology (eds Diamond, J. & Case, T. J.) 269–284 (Harper & Row, 1984).11.Baker, R. G. et al. A full-glacial biota from southeastern Iowa USA. J. Quat. Sci. 1, 91–107 (1986).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Baker, R. G., Sullivan, A. E., Hallberg, G. R. & Horton, D. G. Vegetational changes in western Illinois during the onset of late Wisconsinan glaciation. Ecology 70, 1363–1376 (1989).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Baker, R. G. et al. Mid-Wisconsinan environments on the eastern Great Plains. Quat. Sci. Rev. 28, 873–889 (2009).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Scott, G. H. Uniformitarianism, the uniformity of nature, and paleoecology. N. Zeal. J. Geol. Geophys. 6, 510–527 (1963).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Horsák, M. et al. Snail faunas in the Southern Ural forests and their relations to vegetation: An analogue of the Early Holocene assemblages of Central Europe? J. Molluscan Stud. 76, 1–10 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Ložek, V. Quartärmollusken der Tschechoslowakei (Nakladatelství Československé akademie věd, 1964).17.Horsák, M. et al. European glacial relict snails and plants: environmental context of their modern refugial occurrence in southern Siberia. Boreas 44, 638–657 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Moine, O. Weichselian Upper Pleniglacial environmental variability in north-western Europe reconstructed from terrestrial mollusc faunas and its relationship with the presence/absence of human settlements. Quat. Int. 337, 90–113 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Hošek, J. et al. Middle Pleniglacial pedogenesis on the northwestern edge of the Carpathian Basin: A multidisciplinary investigation of the Bíňa pedo-sedimentary section SW Slovakia. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 487, 321–339 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Horsák, M., Škodová, J. & Cernohorsky, N. H. Ecological and historical determinants of Western Carpathian populations of Pupilla alpicola (Charpentier, 1837) in relation to its present range and conservation. J. Molluscan Stud. 77, 248–254 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Nekola, J. C., Coles, F. B. & Horsák, M. Species assignment in Pupilla (Gastropoda: Pulmonata: Pupillidae): Integration of DNA-sequence data and conchology. J. Molluscan Stud. 81, 196–216 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Horsák, M., Juřičková, L. & Picka, J. Měkkýši České a Slovenské republiky. Molluscs of the Czech and Slovak Republics (Kabourek, 2013).23.Welter-Schultes, F. W. European non-marine molluscs, a guide for species identification (Planet Poster Editions, 2012).24.von Proschwitz, T. Three land-snail species new to the Norwegian fauna: Pupilla pratensis (Clessin, 1871), Vertigo ultimathule von Proschwitz, 2007 and Balea sarsii Philippi, 1847 [= B. heydeni von Maltzan, 1881]. Fauna Norv. 30, 13–19 (2010).25.Kerney, M. P., Cameron, R. A. D. & Jungbluth, J. H. Die Landschnecken Nord- und Mitteleuropas (Parey Verlag, 1983).26.Horsáková, V., Nekola, J. C. & Horsák, M. When is a “cryptic” species not a cryptic species: A consideration from the Holarctic micro-landsnail genus Euconulus (Gastropoda: Stylommatophora). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 132, 307–320 (2019).Article 

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

Google Scholar 
28.Title, P. O. & Bemmels, J. B. ENVIREM: an expanded set of bioclimatic and topographic variables increases flexibility and improves performance of ecological niche modeling. Ecography 41, 291–307 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Phillips, S. J. & Dudík, M. Modeling of species distributions with Maxent: New extensions and a comprehensive evaluation. Ecography 31, 161–175 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Haase, M., Meng, S. & Horsák, M. Tracking parallel adaptation of shell morphology through geological times in the land snail genus Pupilla (Gastropoda: Stylommatophora: Pupillidae). Zool. J. Linnean. Soc. 191, 720–747 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Ložek, V. Molluscan fauna from the loess series of Bohemia and Moravia. Quat. Int. 76–77, 141–156 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Fordham, D. A. et al. PaleoView: A tool for generating continuous climate projections spanning the last 21 000 years at regional and global scales. Ecography 40, 1348–1358 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Mysterud, A. The concept of overgrazing and its role in management of large herbivores. Wildlife Biol. 12, 129–141 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Arnalds, Ó. The soils of Iceland. World Soils Book Series (Springer, 2015).35.Horsák, M. et al. Spring water table depth mediates within-site variation of soil temperature in groundwater-fed mires. Hydrol. Process. 35, e14293 (2021).36.Ložek, V. Zrcadlo minulosti. Česká a slovenská krajina v kvartéru (Dokořán, 2007).37.Ehlers, J., Gibbard, P. L. & Hughes, P. D., eds. Quaternary Glaciations—Extent and Chronology, Volume 15 (Elsevier, 2011). More

1.Bopp, L. et al. Multiple stressors of ocean ecosystems in the 21st century: projections with CMIP5 models. Biogeosciences 10, 6225–6245 (2013).ADS 

Google Scholar 
2.IPCC. AR5 Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2013).
Google Scholar 
3.IPCC. AR5 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2014 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014).
Google Scholar 
4.Caldeira, K. & Wickett, M. E. Antropogenic carbon and ocean pH: The coming centuries may see more ocean acidification than the past 300 million years. Nature 425, 365 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
5.Doney, S. C., Fabry, V. J., Feely, R. A. & Kleypas, J. A. Ocean acidification: The other CO2 problem. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 1, 169–192 (2009).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
6.Lowe, A. T., Bos, J. & Ruesink, J. Ecosystem metabolism drives pH variability and modulates long-term ocean acidification in the Northeast Pacific coastal ocean. Sci. Rep. 9, 963. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-37764-4 (2019).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
7.Justić, D., Rabalais, N. N. & Turner, R. E. Effects of climate change on hypoxia in coastal waters: A doubled CO2 scenario for the northern Gulf of Mexico. Limnol. Oceanogr. 41, 992–1003 (1996).ADS 

Google Scholar 
8.Behrenfeld, M. J. et al. Climate-driven trends in contemporary ocean productivity. Nature 444, 752–755 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
9.del Giorgio, P. A. & Duarte, C. M. Respiration in the open ocean. Nature 420, 379–384 (2002).PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
10.Vaquer-Sunyer, R. & Duarte, C. M. Experimental evaluation of the response of coastal Mediterranean planktonic and benthic metabolism to warming. Estuaries Coast. 36, 697–707 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
11.Fu, W., Randerson, J. T. & Moore, J. K. Climate change impacts on net primary production (NPP) and export production (EP) regulated by increasing stratification and phytoplankton community structure in the CMIP5 models. Biogeosciences 13, 5151–5170 (2016).ADS 

Google Scholar 
12.Gaarder, T. & Gran, H. H. Investigations of the production of plankton in the Oslo Fjord. Rapports Procès-Verbaux Réunions 42, 3–48 (1927).
Google Scholar 
13.Bender, M. et al. A comparison of four methods for determining planktonic community production. Limnol. Oceanogr. 32, 1085–1098 (1987).ADS 

Google Scholar 
14.Marra, J. Net and gross productivity: Weighing in with 14C. Aquat. Microb. Ecol. 56, 123–131 (2009).
Google Scholar 
15.Hitchcock, G. L., Kirkpatrick, G., Minnett, P. & Palubok, V. Net community production and dark community respiration in a Karenia brevis (Davis) bloom in West Florida coastal waters, USA. Harmful Algae 9, 351–358 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
16.Stephenson, T. A., Zoond, A. & Eyre, J. The liberation and utilisation of oxygen by the population of rock-pools. J. Exp. Biol. 11, 162–172 (1934).
Google Scholar 
17.Beyers, R. J. Relationship between temperature and the metabolism of experimental ecosystems. Science 136, 980–982 (1962).CAS 
PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
18.Duarte, C. M. & Regaudie-de-Gioux, A. Thresholds of gross primary production for the metabolic balance of marine planktonic communities. Limnol. Oceanogr. 54, 1015–1022 (2009).CAS 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
19.Noël, L.M.-L. et al. Assessment of a field incubation method estimating primary productivity in rockpool communities. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 88, 153–159 (2010).ADS 

Google Scholar 
20.Hall, C. A. S. & Moll, R. Methods of assessing aquatic primary productivity. In Primary Productivity of the Biosphere (eds Lieth, H. & Whittaker, R. H.) 19–53 (Springer, 1975).
Google Scholar 
21.Platt, T. et al. Biological production of the oceans: The case for a consensus. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 52, 77–88 (1989).ADS 

Google Scholar 
22.Odum, H. T. Primary production in flowing waters. Limnol. Oceanogr. 1, 102–117 (1956).ADS 

Google Scholar 
23.Odum, H. T. & Hoskin, C. M. Comparative studies on the metabolism of marine waters. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. 5, 16–46 (1958).
Google Scholar 
24.Johnson, K. M., Burney, C. M. & Sieburth, J. M. Enigmatic marine ecosystem metabolism measured by direct diel ΣCO2 and O2 flux in conjunction with DOC release and uptake. Mar. Biol. 65, 49–60 (1981).CAS 

Google Scholar 
25.Volaric, M. P., Berg, P. & Reidenbach, M. A. Drivers of oyster reef ecosystem metabolism measured across multiple timescales. Estuaries Coast. 43, 2034–2045 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
26.Collins, J. R. et al. An autonomous, in situ light-dark bottle device for determining community respiration and net community production. Limnol. Oceanogr. Method. 16, 323–338 (2018).
Google Scholar 
27.Steemann Nielsen, E. The use of radio-active carbon (C14) for measuring organic production in the sea. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 18, 117–140 (1952).
Google Scholar 
28.Peterson, B. J. Aquatic primary productivity and the 14C-CO2 method: A history of the productivity problem. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 11, 359–385 (1980).
Google Scholar 
29.Jackson, D. F. & McFadden, J. Phytoplankton photosynthesis in Sanctuary Lake, Pymatuning Reservoir. Ecology 35, 2–4 (1954).
Google Scholar 
30.Van de Bogert, M. C., Carpenter, S. R. & Pace, M. L. Assessing pelagic and benthic metabolism using free water measurements. Limnol. Oceanogr. Methods 5, 145–155 (2007).
Google Scholar 
31.Barone, B., Nicholson, D., Ferrón, S., Firing, E. & Karl, D. The estimation of gross oxygen production and community respiration from autonomous time-series measurements in the oligotrophic ocean. Limnol. Oceanogr. Methods 17, 650–664 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
32.Staehr, P. A. et al. Lake metabolism and the diel oxygen technique: State of the science. Limnol. Oceanogr. Methods 8, 628–644 (2010).CAS 

Google Scholar 
33.Nicholson, D. P., Wilson, S. T., Doney, S. C. & Karl, D. M. Quantifying subtropical North Pacific gyre mixed layer primary productivity from Seaglider observations of diel oxygen cycles. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 4032–4039 (2015).CAS 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
34.Mantikci, M., Hansen, J. L. S. & Markager, S. Photosynthesis enhanced dark respiration in three marine phytoplankton species. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 497, 188–196 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
35.Truchot, J.-P. & Duhamel-Jouve, A. Oxygen and carbon dioxide in the marine intertidal environment: Diurnal and tidal changes in rockpools. Resp. Physiol. 39, 241–254 (1980).CAS 

Google Scholar 
36.Delille, B., Borges, A. V. & Delille, D. Influence of giant kelp beds (Macrocystis pyrifera) on diel cycles of pCO2 and DIC in the Sub-Antarctic coastal area. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 81, 114–122 (2009).ADS 

Google Scholar 
37.Woolway, R. I. et al. Diel surface temperature range scales with lake size. PLoS ONE 11, e0152466. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152466 (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
38.Andersen, M. R., Kragh, T. & Sand-Jensen, K. Extreme diel dissolved oxygen and carbon cycles in shallow vegetated lakes. Proc. R. Soc. B 284, 20171427. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.1427 (2017).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
39.Nielsen, K. J. Bottom-up and top-down forces in tide pools: Test of a food chain model in an intertidal community. Ecol. Monogr. 71, 187–217 (2001).
Google Scholar 
40.Altieri, A. H., Trussell, G. C., Ewanchuk, P. J., Bernatchez, G. & Bracken, M. E. S. Consumers control diversity and functioning of a natural marine ecosystem. PLoS ONE 4, e5291. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005291 (2009).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
41.O’Connor, N. E., Bracken, M. E. S., Crowe, T. P. & Donohue, I. Nutrient enrichment alters the consequences of species loss. J. Ecol. 103, 862–870 (2015).
Google Scholar 
42.Rheuban, J. E., Berg, P. & McGlathery, K. J. Multiple timescale processes drive ecosystem metabolism in eelgrass (Zostera marina) meadows. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 507, 1–13 (2014).ADS 

Google Scholar 
43.Barrón, C. et al. High organic carbon export precludes eutrophication responses in experimental rocky shore communities. Ecosystems 6, 144–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-002-0402-3 (2003).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Kraufvelin, P., Lindholm, A., Pedersen, M. F., Kirkerud, L. A. & Bonsdorff, E. Biomass, diversity and production of rocky shore macroalgae at two nutrient enrichment and wave action levels. Mar. Biol. 157, 29–47 (2010).
Google Scholar 
45.Epping, E. H. G. & Jørgensen, B. B. Light-enhanced oxygen respiration in benthic phototrophic communities. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 139, 193–203 (1996).ADS 

Google Scholar 
46.Graham, J. M., Kranzfelder, J. A. & Auer, M. T. Light and temperature as factors regulating seasonal growth and distribution of Ulothrix zonata (Ulvophyceae). J. Phycol. 21, 228–234. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3646.1985.00228.x (1985).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Hotchkiss, E. R. & Hall, R. O. Jr. High rates of daytime respiration in three streams: Use of δ18OO2 and O2 to model diel ecosystem metabolism. Limnol. Oceanogr. 59, 798–810. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2014.59.3.0798 (2014).CAS 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
48.Song, C. et al. Continental-scale decrease in net primary productivity in streams due to climate warming. Nat. Geosci. 11, 415–420 (2018).CAS 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
49.Conley, D. J., Carstensen, J., Vaquer-Sunyer, R. & Duarte, C. M. Ecosystem thresholds with hypoxia. Hydrobiologia 629, 21–29 (2009).CAS 

Google Scholar 
50.Lefèvre, D., Bentley, T. L., Robinson, C., Blight, S. P. & Williams, P. J. L. The temperature response of gross and net community production and respiration in time-varying assemblages of temperate marine micro-plankton. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 184, 201–215 (1994).
Google Scholar 
51.López-Urrutia, Á., SanMartin, E., Harris, R. P. & Irigoien, X. Scaling the metabolic balance of the oceans. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 8739–8744 (2006).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
52.Grant, J. Sensitivity of benthic community respiration and primary production to changes in temperature and light. Mar. Biol. 90, 299–306 (1986).
Google Scholar 
53.Jankowski, K., Schindler, D. E. & Lisi, P. J. Temperature sensitivity of community respiration rates in streams is associated with watershed geomorphic features. Ecology 95, 2707–2714 (2014).
Google Scholar 
54.Yvon-Durocher, G., Jones, J. I., Trimmer, M., Woodward, G. & Montoya, J. M. Warming alters the metabolic balance of ecosystems. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 365, 2117–2126 (2010).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
55.Helmuth, B. et al. Climate change and latitudinal patterns of intertidal thermal stress. Science 298, 1015–1017 (2002).CAS 
PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
56.Tyler, R. M., Brady, D. C. & Targett, T. E. Temporal and spatial dynamics of diel-cycling hypoxia in estuarine tributaries. Estuaries Coast. 32, 123–145 (2009).CAS 

Google Scholar 
57.Howard, E. M. et al. Oxygen and triple oxygen isotope measurements provide different insights into gross oxygen production in a shallow salt marsh pond. Estuaries Coast. 43, 1908–1922 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
58.Luz, B. & Barkan, E. Assessment of oceanic productivity with the triple-isotope composition of dissolved oxygen. Science 288, 2028–2031 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
59.Winslow, L. A. et al. LakeMetabolizer: An R package for estimating lake metabolism from free-water oxygen using diverse statistical models. Inland Waters 6, 622–636 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
60.Sorte, C. J. B. & Bracken, M. E. S. Warming and elevated CO2 interact to drive rapid shifts in marine community production. PLoS ONE 10, e0145191. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0145191 (2015).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
61.Hinode, K. et al. The phenology of gross ecosystem production in a macroalga and seagrass canopy is driven by seasonal temperature. Phycol. Res. 68, 298–312 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
62.Bracken, M., Miller, L., Mastroni, S., Lira, S. & Sorte, C. Data from: Accounting for variation in temperature and oxygen availability when quantifying marine ecosystem metabolism. Dryad Dataset https://doi.org/10.7280/D1M39B (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Reiskind, J. B., Seamon, P. T. & Bowes, G. Alternative methods of photosynthetic carbon assimilation in marine macroalgae. Plant Physiol. 87, 686–692 (1988).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar  More