Ecology

1.Kawecki, T. J. & Ebert, D. Conceptual issues in local adaptation. Ecol. Lett. 7, 1225–1241 (2004).
Google Scholar 
2.Fisher, T. W. et al. Handbook of Biological Control: Principles and Applications of Biological Control (Academic Press, London, 1999).
Google Scholar 
3.Dyck, V. A., Hendrichs, J. & Robinson, A. S. Sterile insect technique: Principles and practice in area-wide integrated pest management. In Sterile Insect Technique: Principles and Practice in Area-Wide Integrated Pest Management. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4051-2. (2005)4.Etges, W. J. & Noor, M. A. F. Genetics of Mate Choice: From Sexual Selection to Sexual Isolation. (Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002).5.Harbach, R. E. Review of the internal classification of the genus Anopheles (Diptera: Culicidae): The foundation for comparative systematics and phylogenetic research. Bull. Entomol. Res. 84, 331–342 (1994).
Google Scholar 
6.Rogers, D. J., Randolph, S. E., Snow, R. W. & Hay, S. I. Satellite imagery in the study and forecast of malaria. Nature 415, 710–715 (2002).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
7.Bayoh, M. N. N., Thomas, C. J. J. & Lindsay, S. W. W. Mapping distributions of chromosomal forms of Anopheles gambiae in West Africa using climate data. Med. Vet. Entomol. 15, 267–274 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
8.Namountougou, M. et al. Multiple insecticide resistance in Anopheles gambiae s. l. Populations from Burkina Faso. West Africa. PLoS One 7, e48412 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
9.Benedict, M. Q. & Robinson, A. S. The first releases of transgenic mosquitoes: An argument for the sterile insect technique. Trends Parasitol. 19, 349–355 (2003).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
10.Maïga, H. et al. Mating competitiveness of sterile male Anopheles coluzzii in large cages. Malar. J. 13, 460 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
11.Clements, A. N. The Biology of Mosquitoes. Sensory Reception and Behaviour Behaviour, Vol. 2. (Wallingford, 1999).12.Doug, P. et al. Genetic and environmental factors associated with laboratory rearing affect survival and assortative mating but not overall mating success in Anopheles gambiae Sensu Stricto. PLoS One 8, e82631 (2013).
Google Scholar 
13.Baeshen, R. et al. Differential effects of inbreeding and selection on male reproductive phenotype associated with the colonization and laboratory maintenance of Anopheles gambiae. Malar. J. 13, 19 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
14.Bargielowski, I., Kaufmann, C., Alphey, L., Reiter, P. & Koella, J. Flight performance and teneral energy reserves of two genetically-modified and one wild-type strain of the yellow fever mosquito Aedes aegypti. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis. 12, 1053–1058 (2012).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
15.Harris, A. F. et al. Field performance of engineered male mosquitoes. Nat. Biotechnol. 29, 1034–1037 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
16.Alphey, L. et al. Genetic control of Aedes mosquitoes. Pathogens and Global Health 107, 170–179 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
17.Lehmann, T. et al. Tracing the origin of the early wet-season Anopheles coluzzii in the Sahel. Evol. Appl. 10, 704–717 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
18.Huestis, D. L. et al. Windborne long-distance migration of malaria mosquitoes in the Sahel. Nature 574, 404–408 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
19.Wondji, C., Simard, F. & Fontenille, D. Evidence for genetic differentiation between the molecular forms M and S within the Forest chromosomal form of Anopheles gambiae in an area of sympatry. Insect Mol. Biol. 11, 11–19 (2002).
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
20.Simard, F., Nchoutpouen, E., Toto, J. C. & Fontenille, D. Geographic distribution and breeding site preference of Aedes albopictus and Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) in Cameroon, Central Africa. J. Med. Entomol. 42, 726–731 (2005).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
21.Roux, O., Diabaté, A. & Simard, F. Divergence in threat sensitivity among aquatic larvae of cryptic mosquito species. J. Anim. Ecol. 83, 702–711 (2014).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
22.Costantini, C. et al. Living at the edge: Biogeographic patterns of habitat segregation conform to speciation by niche expansion in Anopheles gambiae. BMC Ecol. 9 (2009).23.The Anopheles gambiae 1000 Genomes Consortium. Genetic diversity of the African malaria vector Anopheles gambiae. Nature 552, 96–100 (2017).PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
24.Oliva, C. F., Benedict, M. Q., Lempérière, G. & Gilles, J. Laboratory selection for an accelerated mosquito sexual development rate. Malar. J. 10, 135 (2011).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
25.Munhenga, G. et al. Evaluating the potential of the sterile insect technique for malaria control: Relative fitness and mating compatibility between laboratory colonized and a wild population of Anopheles arabiensis from the Kruger National Park, South Africa. Parasit. Vectors 4, 208 (2011).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
26.Lee, H. L. et al. Mating compatibility and competitiveness of transgenic and wild type Aedes aegypti (L.) under contained semi-field conditions. Transgenic Res. 22, 47–57 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
27.Damiens, D. et al. Cross-Mating compatibility and competitiveness among Aedes albopictus strains from distinct geographic origins-implications for future application of sit programs in the south west Indian ocean islands. PLoS One 11, e0163788 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
28.Zheng, X. et al. Incompatible and sterile insect techniques combined eliminate mosquitoes. Nature 572, 56–61 (2019).CAS 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
29.Aguilar, R. et al. Genome-wide analysis of transcriptomic divergence between laboratory colony and field Anopheles gambiae mosquitoes of the M and S molecular forms. Insect Mol. Biol. 19, 695–705 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
30.Sawadogo, P. S. et al. Swarming behaviour in natural populations of Anopheles gambiae and An. coluzzii: Review of 4 years survey in rural areas of sympatry, Burkina Faso (West Africa). Acta Trop. 130, 24–34 (2014).
Google Scholar 
31.Poda, S. B. et al. Sex aggregation and species segregation cues in swarming mosquitoes: Role of ground visual markers. Parasit. Vectors 12, 589 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
32.Ekechukwu, N. E. et al. Heterosis increases fertility, fecundity, and survival of laboratory-produced F1 hybrid males of the malaria mosquito Anopheles coluzzii. G3 Genes Genomes Genet. 5, 2693–2709 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
33.Ng’habi, K. R. et al. Colonization of malaria vectors under semi-field conditions as a strategy for maintaining genetic and phenotypic similarity with wild populations. Malar. J. 14, 10 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
34.Huho, B. J. et al. Nature beats nurture: A case study of the physiological fitness of free-living and laboratory-reared male Anopheles gambiae s.l. J. Exp. Biol. 210, 2939–2947 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
35.Ferguson, H. M., John, B., Ng, K. & Knols, B. G. J. Redressing the sex imbalance in knowledge of vector biology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20, 202–209 (2005).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
36.Hassan, M., El-Motasim, W. M., Ahmed, R. T. & El-Sayed, B. B. Prolonged colonisation, irradiation, and transportation do not impede mating vigour and competitiveness of male Anopheles arabiensis mosquitoes under semi-field conditions in Northern Sudan. Malar. World J. 1 (2010).37.Yamada, H., Vreysen, M. J. B., Gilles, J. R. L., Munhenga, G. & Damiens, D. D. The effects of genetic manipulation, dieldrin treatment and irradiation on the mating competitiveness of male Anopheles arabiensis in field cages. Malar. J. 13, 1–10 (2014).
Google Scholar 
38.Munhenga, G. et al. Mating competitiveness of sterile genetic sexing strain males (GAMA) under laboratory and semi-field conditions : Steps towards the use of the Sterile Insect Technique to control the major malaria vector Anopheles arabiensis in South Africa. Parasit. Vectors 9, 1–12 (2016).
Google Scholar 
39.Assogba, B. S. et al. Characterization of swarming and mating behaviour between Anopheles coluzzii and Anopheles melas in a sympatry area of Benin. Acta Trop. 132S, 1–11 (2013).
Google Scholar 
40.Charlwood, J. D. et al. The swarming and mating behaviour of Anopheles gambiae s.s. (Diptera: Culicidae) from São Tomé Island. J. Vector Ecol. 27, 178–183 (2002).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
41.Diabate, A. et al. Natural swarming behaviour of the molecular M form of Anopheles gambiae. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 97, 713–716 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
42.Manoukis, N. C. et al. Structure and dynamics of male swarms of Anopheles gambiae. J. Med. Entomol. 46, 227–235 (2009).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
43.Aldersley, A. et al. Too ‘sexy’ for the field? Paired measures of laboratory and semi-field performance highlight variability in the apparent mating fitness of Aedes aegypti transgenic strains. Parasit. Vectors 12, 357 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
44.Pantoja-Sánchez, H., Gomez, S., Velez, V., Avila, F. W. & Alfonso-Parra, C. Precopulatory acoustic interactions of the New World malaria vector Anopheles albimanus (Diptera: Culicidae). Parasit. Vectors 12, 386 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
45.Gibson, G., Warren, B. & Russell, I. J. Humming in tune: Sex and species recognition by mosquitoes on the wing. JARO 540, 527–540 (2010).
Google Scholar 
46.Pennetier, C., Warren, B., Dabiré, K. R., Russell, I. J. & Gibson, G. ‘Singing on the wing’ as a mechanism for species recognition in the malarial mosquito Anopheles gambiae. Curr. Biol. 20, 131–136 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
47.Caputo, B. et al. Comparative analysis of epicuticular lipid profiles of sympatric and allopatric field populations of Anopheles gambiae s.s. molecular forms and An. arabiensis from Burkina Faso (West Africa). Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 37, 389–398 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
48.Ferguson, H. M. & Read, A. F. Genetic and environmental determinants of malaria parasite virulence in mosquitoes. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 269, 1217–1224 (2002).CAS 

Google Scholar 
49.Niang, A. et al. Semi-field and indoor setups to study malaria mosquito swarming behavior. Parasit. Vectors 12, 446 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
50.Santolamazza, F. et al. Insertion polymorphisms of SINE200 retrotransposons within speciation islands of Anopheles gambiae molecular forms. Malar. J. 7, 163 (2008).
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
51.Vantaux, A. et al. Larval nutritional stress affects vector life history traits and human malaria transmission. Sci. Rep. 6, 36778 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
52.Crawley, M. J. The R Book. (Ltd, Sons, 2012). https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470515075.53.Hothorn, T., Bretz, F., Westfall, P. & Heiberger, R. M. Package ‘multcomp’ title simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biom. J. 50, 346–363 (2016).
Google Scholar  More

General characterization of seven newly isolated HMO-2011-type phagesIn this study, we used four Roseobacter strains (FZCC0040, FZCC0042, FZCC0012, and FZCC0089) and one SAR11 strain (HTCC1062) to isolate phages. FZCC0040 and FZCC0042 belong to the Roseobacter RCA lineage [22], FZCC0012 shares 99.8% 16S rRNA gene identity with Roseobacter strain HIMB11 [57], and FZCC0089 belongs to a newly identified Roseobacter lineage located close to HIMB11 and SAG-019 lineages (Supplementary Fig. 1).A total of seven phages were newly isolated and analyzed in this study (Table 1). The complete phage genomes range in size from 52.7 to 54.9 kb, harbor 62 to 84 open reading frames (ORFs), and feature a G + C content ranging from 33.8 to 48.6%. Compared to other HMO-2011-type phages, pelagiphage HTVC033P has a relatively lower G + C content of 33.8%, similar to the G + C content of its host HTCC1062 (29.0%) and of other described pelagiphages [21, 26,27,28]. The G + C content of other six roseophages ranges from 42.2 to 48.6%, which is also similar to the G + C content of the hosts they infect (44.8 to 54.1%).Despite their distinct host origins, these phage genomes show considerable similarity in terms of gene content and genome architecture (Fig. 1). They all display clear similarity with the previously reported SAR116 phage HMO-2011 [20] and HMO-2011-type RCA phages [22]. Overall, these phages share 19.2 to 79.1% of their genes with previously reported HMO-2011-type phages and all contain homologues of HMO-2011-type DNA replication and metabolism genes, structural genes, and DNA packaging genes. Moreover, their overall genome structure is conserved with that of HMO-2011-type phages. Considering these observations, we tentatively classified these seven phages into the HMO-2011-type group. Of the 11 currently known HMO-2011-type isolates, one infects the SAR116 strain IMCC1322, one infects the SAR11 strain HTCC1062, and the remaining nine all infect Roseobacter strains; this suggest that HMO-2011-type phages infect diverse bacterial hosts. HTVC033P is the first pelagiphage identified to belong to the HMO-2011-type viral group. Our study has also increased the number of known types of pelagiphages. To date, pelagiphages belonging to a total of nine distinct viral groups have been isolated and analyzed [21, 26,27,28].Fig. 1: Alignment and comparison of genomes of HMO-2011-type isolates and representative HMO-2011-type MVGs from major subgroups.HMO-2011-type phage isolates are shown in red. Phages isolated in this study are indicated with red asterisks. Predicted open reading frames (ORFs) are represented by arrows, with the left or right arrow points indicating the direction of their transcription. The numbers inside the arrows indicate ORF numbers. ORFs annotated with known functions are marked using distinct colors according to their functions. HMO-2011-type core genes are indicated with blue asterisks. The color of the shading connecting homologous genes indicates the level of amino acid identity between the genes. To clearly present the genomic comparison, several MVGs were rearranged to start from the same gene as in the HMO-2011-type phages. DNAP DNA polymerase, Endo endonuclease, RNR ribonucleoside-triphosphate reductase, PhoH phosphate starvation-inducible protein, MazG MazG nucleotide pyrophosphohydrolase domain protein, ThyX thymidylate synthase, GRX glutaredoxin, TerS terminase small subunit, TerL terminase large subunit.Full size imageIdentification and sequence analyses of HMO-2011-type MVGsTo identify HMO-2011-type MVGs, we performed a metagenomic mining and retrieved a total of 207 HMO-2011-type MVGs (≥50% genome completeness) from viromes in the worldwide ocean, from tropical to polar oceans (Supplementary Table 1). These MVGs range in size from 29.2 to 67.9 kb and their G + C content range from 31.3 to 52.4%. In addition, 45 HMO-2011-type MVGs were also identified from some non-marine habitats, suggesting that HMO-2011-type phages are widely distributed worldwide (Supplementary Table 1).Genomic analysis confirmed that all HMO-2011-type MVGs exhibit genomic synteny with HMO-2011-type phages (Fig. 1). Although some of these HMO-2011-type MVGs are highly similar to their cultivated relatives, most MVGs appear to have more genomic variations. To resolve the evolutionary relationship among the HMO-2011-type phages, a phylogenetic tree was constructed based on the concatenated sequences of five core genes. We found that HMO-2011-type phages are evolutionarily diverse and can be separated into at least 10 well-supported subgroups ( >2 members), with 140 MVGs clustering into previously identified HMO-2011-type groups (subgroups I and III in Fig. 2A) [22], and the remaining 67 MVGs forming new subgroups (Fig. 2A). Among these HMO-2011-type subgroups, three contain cultivated representatives (subgroups I, III, and IX). Subgroup I contains the greatest number of phages, including six cultivated representatives and 123 MVGs (Fig. 2A). The cultivated representatives in subgroup I include a phage that infect SAR116 strain and five phages that infect Roseobacter strains. Subgroup III contains four cultivated representatives that infect two Roseobacter strains, and 17 MVGs. Pelagiphage HTVC033P and nine MVGs form subgroup IX. Other subgroups have no cultivated representatives yet. The results of phylogenomic analysis showed that subgroups I to VI are closely related, whereas subgroups VII to X are located on a separate branch and are more distinct from the subgroups I to VI, which suggests that these subgroups are more evolutionarily distant. A phylogenomic-based approach with GL-UVAB workflow [53] was also performed to cluster these HMO-2011-type genomes, which showed similar grouping results (Supplementary Fig. 2).Fig. 2: Phylogenomic and shared-gene analyses of HMO-2011-type phages.A A maximum-likelihood tree was constructed using concatenated sequences of five hallmark genes. HMO-2011-type phages were grouped into 10 subgroups based on the phylogeny. Shading is used to indicate the subgroups. HMO-2011-type phage isolates are shown in red. Genomes containing an integrase gene are indicated by red triangles. The G + C content and completeness of the genomes are indicated. Scale bar indicates the number of amino acid substitutions per site. B Heatmap showing the percentage of shared genes between HMO-2011-type genomes. Phages in the same subgroup are boxed.Full size imageA previous study suggested the use of the percentage of shared proteins as a means of defining phage taxonomic ranks and proposed that phages with ≥20 and ≥40% orthologous proteins in common can be grouped at the taxonomic ranks of subfamily and genus, respectively [58]. Overall, most of the calculated percentages between HMO-2011-type genomes fall within the 20 to 100% range and most of the percentages between genomes within the same subgroup fall within the 40 to 100% range (Fig. 2B). Therefore, our results suggest that the HMO-2011-type is roughly a subfamily-level phage taxonomic group containing at least ten genus-level subgroups in the Podoviridae family.Conserved genomic structure and variation in HMO-2011-type phagesOf the 1235 orthologous protein groups (≥2 members) identified in HMO-2011-type genomes, only 254 proteins groups could be assigned putative biological functions (Supplementary Table 2). Comparative genomic analysis clearly revealed the conserved functional module structure of all HMO-2011-type genomes. All HMO-2011-type phage genomes can be roughly divided into the DNA metabolism and replication module, structural module and DNA packaging module (Fig. 1). Most of the homologous genes are scattered in similar loci of the HMO-2011-type genomes. Core genome analysis based on complete HMO-2011-type genomes revealed that HMO-2011-type genomes share a common set of ten core genes (Fig. 1). These core genes are mostly genes related to essential function in phage replication and development, including genes encoding DNA helicase, DNA primase, DNA polymerase (DNAP), portal protein, capsid protein, and terminase small and large subunits (TerL and TerS) as well as several genes with no known function, suggesting that phages in this group employ similar overall infection and propagation processes (Fig. 1).Most members in subgroups I and III and one member in subgroup II possess a tyrosine integrase gene (int) located upstream of the DNA replication and metabolism module, whereas all subgroup IV to X genomes contain no identifiable lysogeny-related genes. This result suggests that members of subgroups IV to X might be obligate lytic phages. Integrase genes typically occur in the genomes of temperate phages and are responsible for site-specific recombination between phage and host bacterial genomes [59, 60]. In subgroup III, RCA phage CRP-3 has been experimentally demonstrated to be capable of integrating into the host genome [22]. Thus, certain int-containing HMO-2011-type phages are also likely to be temperate phages.In the DNA metabolism and replication modules, genes encoding DNA primase, DNA helicase, DNAP, ribonucleotide reductase (RNR), and endonuclease can be identified; and DNA helicase, DNA primase, and DNAP are core to all HMO-2011-type phages. All reported HMO-2011-type phages contain an atypical DNAP, in which a partial DnaJ central domain is located between the exonuclease domain and the DNA polymerase domain [20, 22]. The Escherichia coli DnaJ protein, a co-chaperone [61], has been shown to be involved in diverse functions [62] and to be critical for the replication of phage Lambda [63,64,65]. The sequence analysis revealed that DNAP sequences of these seven new HMO-2011-type phages and 207 MVGs also present this unusual domain structure and contain two repeats of the CXXCXGXG motifs involved in zinc binding [66] in the partial DnaJ domain (Supplementary Fig. 3). RNR gene is frequently detected in subgroups I, II, III, IV, V, and X genomes but not in the other subgroup genomes. RNRs, which are widely distributed in diverse phage genomes, are involved in catalyzing the reduction of ribonucleotides to deoxyribonucleotides, and thus play a crucial role in providing deoxyribonucleoside triphosphates for phage DNA biosynthesis and repair [67,68,69]. RNR genes clustered with the RNR gene in phage HMO-2011 were previously reported to dominate the class II viral RNRs in examined marine viromes [69]. In the remaining two modules, genes involved in phage structure (e.g., genes encoding capsid and portal proteins), packaging of DNA (TerL and TerS genes), and cell lysis were detected. The proteins encoded by these genes play key roles in phage morphogenesis and virion release.Examination of the distribution of the orthologous groups among the subgroups revealed clear pan-genome differences in various subgroups (Fig. 3). Most subgroups harbor subgroup-specific genes not identified in other subgroups, although  no function has yet been assigned to most of these genes. Notably, the phages in subgroups VII, VIII, and IX possess genomic features that differentiate them from phages in other subgroups, specifically with regard to the G + C content and gene content. The members of these three subgroups are closely related to each other in the phylogenetic tree and harbor several subgroup-specific genes. The G + C content of the phage genomes in these subgroups ranges from 31.9 to 35.4%, significantly smaller than other subgroups but similar to the G + C content of SAR11 bacteria and other known pelagiphages. HTVC033P is the only cultivated representative of subgroup IX. The aforementioned results suggest that the phages in subgroup VII, VIII, and IX might have related bacterial hosts and are highly likely to be pelagiphages. The host prediction using RaFAH tool also assigned Pelagibacter as their potential hosts (Supplementary Table 1). Subgroup X is located near these three subgroups in the phylogenetic tree, and the G + C content of the phages in this subgroup ranges from 34.4 to 39.0%. The host prediction assigned Roseobacter as their potential hosts. The hosts of this subgroup still remain to be experimentally investigated.Fig. 3: Distribution and functional classification of orthologous protein groups across HMO-2011-type genomes.Only orthogroups containing >10 members or showing subgroup-specific features are shown. Subgroup-specific genes are boxed in red. Genes that are absent in a specific subgroup are boxed in orange.Full size imageMetabolic capabilities of HMO-2011-type phagesAll HMO-2011-type phage genomes harbor several host-derived auxiliary metabolic genes (AMGs) potentially involved in diverse metabolic processes. Some AMGs in HMO-2011-type phages have been discussed previously [20, 22].Subgroups VII, VIII, IX, and X possess distinct AMGs as compared with the other subgroups. For example, the genes encoding FAD-dependent thymidylate synthase (ThyX, PF02511) and MazG pyrophosphohydrolase domains are absent in all subgroups VII, VIII, IX, and X genomes but frequently detected in other subgroup genomes. ThyX protein is essential for the conversion of dUMP to dTMP mediated by an FAD coenzyme and is therefore a key enzyme involved in DNA synthesis [70, 71]. The thyX gene is commonly found in microbial genomes and phage genomes. Phage-encoded ThyX has been suggested to compensate for the loss of host-encoded ThyA and thus play crucial roles in phage nucleic acid synthesis and metabolism during infection [72]. Except in the case of subgroups VII, VIII, IX, and X genomes, the mazG gene, which encodes a nucleoside triphosphate pyrophosphohydrolase is sporadically distributed in HMO-2011-type genomes. MazG protein is predicted to be a regulator of nutrient stress and programmed cell death [73] and has been hypothesized to promote phage survival by keeping the host alive during phage propagation [74]. The Escherichia coli MazG can interfere with the function of the MazEF toxin–antitoxin system by decreasing the cellular level of (p)ppGpp [73]. However, a recent study showed that a cyanophage MazG has no binding or hydrolysis activity against alarmone (p)ppGpp but has high hydrolytic activity toward dGTP and dCTP, and it was speculated to play a role in hydrolyzing high G + C host genome for phage replication [75]. Whether the MazG proteins encoded by HMO-2011-type phages play a similar role in phage propagation remained to be investigated.Five MVGs in subgroup I contain a gene encoding a DraG-like family ADP-ribosyl hydrolase (ARH). In cellular ADP-ribosylation systems, ARH catalyzes the cleavage of the ADP-ribose moiety, and thereby counteract the effects of ADP-ribosyl transferases [76]. It has been reported that ARH in Rhodospirillum rubrum regulates the nitrogen fixation [77]. However, the function of this phage-encoded ARH in the phage propagation process remains unclear.We also observed that several MVGs possess genes involved in iron–sulfur (Fe–S) cluster biosynthesis, including an Fe–S cluster assembly scaffold gene (iscU) that involved in Fe–S cluster assembly and transfer [78] and an Fe–S cluster insertion protein gene (erpA). Fe–S cluster participates in a wide variety of cellular biological processes [79]. The discovery of these genes suggests that these phages may play important roles in Fe–S cluster biogenesis and function.The gene encoding sodium-dependent phosphate transport protein (PF02690) has been identified in eight subgroup I genomes. The Na/Pi cotransporter family protein is responsible for high-affinity, sodium-dependent Pi uptake, and thus the protein plays a critical role in maintaining phosphate homeostasis [80]. This gene might function in the transport of phosphate into cells during phage infection. The presence of Na/Pi cotransporter genes suggests that some HMO-2011-type phages may have the potential to regulate host phosphate uptake in phosphate-limited ocean environments in order to benefit phage replication and propagation.Identification and phylogenetic analysis of HMO-2011-type DNAPsThe genetic diversity and geographically distribution of HMO-2011-type phages in marine environments was further inferred from DNAP gene analyses. A total of 2433 HMO-2011-type DNAP sequences with sequence sizes ranging from 540 to 779 amino acids were identified and subjected to phylogenetic analysis (Supplementary Table 3).Among the identified HMO-2011-type DNAPs, 2030 sequences were retrieved from the GOV 2.0 Tara expedition upper-ocean viral populations (0–1000 m), from tropical to polar regions. HMO-2011-type DNAP genes were identified from all analyzed upper-ocean viromes, suggesting the global prevalence of HMO-2011-type phages in upper oceans.A previous study revealed that marine viromes contain various types of tailed phage genomes that encode a family A DNAP gene [81]. To estimate the importance of HMO-2011-type phages, we calculated the proportion of HMO-2011-type DNAPs based on the number of HMO-2011-type DNAP sequences and the total number of family A DNAP sequences ( >470 aa) in each GOV 2.0 viral population dataset. This analysis revealed that HMO-2011-type DNAPs accounted for up to 19.7% of all family A DNAPs in each GOV 2.0 dataset (Supplementary Table 4). We found that the HMO-2011-type DNAP sequences appear to be more dominant in epipelagic viromes than in mesopelagic viromes (p  More

1.Olefeldt, D. et al. Circumpolar distribution and carbon storage of thermokarst landscapes. Nat. Commun. 7, 13043 (2016).
Google Scholar 
2.Lindgren, A., Hugelius, G. & Kuhry, P. Extensive loss of past permafrost carbon but a net accumulation into present-day soils. Nature 560, 219–222 (2018).
Google Scholar 
3.Turetsky, M. R. et al. Carbon release through abrupt permafrost thaw. Nat. Geosci. 13, 138–143 (2020).
Google Scholar 
4.Walter Anthony, K. et al. Methane emissions proportional to permafrost carbon thawed in Arctic lakes since the 1950s. Nat. Geosci. 9, 679–682 (2016).
Google Scholar 
5.Schuur, E. A. G. et al. Climate change and the permafrost carbon feedback. Nature 520, 171–179 (2015).
Google Scholar 
6.Gasser, T. et al. Path-dependent reductions in CO2 emission budgets caused by permafrost carbon release. Nat. Geosci. 11, 830–835 (2018).
Google Scholar 
7.McGuire, A. D. et al. Dependence of the evolution of carbon dynamics in the northern permafrost region on the trajectory of climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 3882–3887 (2018).
Google Scholar 
8.Heffernan, L., Estop-Aragonés, C., Knorr, K. H., Talbot, J. & Olefeldt, D. Long-term impacts of permafrost thaw on carbon storage in peatlands: deep losses offset by surficial accumulation. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 125, e2019JG005501 (2020).
Google Scholar 
9.Chadburn, S. E. et al. An observation-based constraint on permafrost loss as a function of global warming. Nat. Clim. Chang. 7, 340–344 (2017).
Google Scholar 
10.Bartsch, A. et al. Can C-band synthetic aperture radar be used to estimate soil organic carbon storage in tundra? Biogeosciences 13, 5453–5470 (2016).
Google Scholar 
11.Obu, J. et al. Northern Hemisphere permafrost map based on TTOP modelling for 2000–2016 at 1 km2 scale. Earth Sci. Rev. 193, 299–316 (2019).
Google Scholar 
12.Commane, R. et al. Carbon dioxide sources from Alaska driven by increasing early winter respiration from Arctic tundra. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 5361–5366 (2017).
Google Scholar 
13.Natali, S. M. et al. Permafrost carbon feedbacks threaten global climate goals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2100163118 (2021).
Google Scholar 
14.Zona, D. et al. Cold season emissions dominate the Arctic tundra methane budget. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 40–45 (2016).
Google Scholar 
15.Comyn-Platt, E. et al. Carbon budgets for 1.5 and 2°C targets lowered by natural wetland and permafrost feedbacks. Nat. Geosci. 11, 568–573 (2018).
Google Scholar 
16.Heslop, J. K. K. et al. A synthesis of methane dynamics in thermokarst lake environments. Earth Sci. Rev. 210, 103365 (2020).
Google Scholar 
17.Keuper, F. et al. Carbon loss from northern circumpolar permafrost soils amplified by rhizosphere priming. Nat. Geosci. 13, 560–565 (2020).
Google Scholar 
18.Nitze, I., Grosse, G., Jones, B. M., Romanovsky, V. E. & Boike, J. Remote sensing quantifies widespread abundance of permafrost region disturbances across the Arctic and Subarctic. Nat. Commun. 9, 5423 (2018).
Google Scholar 
19.Lara, M. J. et al. Local-scale Arctic tundra heterogeneity affects regional-scale carbon dynamics. Nat. Commun. 11, 4925 (2020).
Google Scholar 
20.Walker, X. J. et al. Increasing wildfires threaten historic carbon sink of boreal forest soils. Nature 572, 520–523 (2019).
Google Scholar 
21.Rey, D. M. et al. Wildfire-initiated talik development exceeds current thaw projections: observations and models from Alaska’s continuous permafrost zone. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47, e2020GL087565 (2020).
Google Scholar 
22.Kim, J. S., Kug, J. S., Jeong, S. J., Park, H. & Schaepman-Strub, G. Extensive fires in southeastern Siberian permafrost linked to preceding Arctic Oscillation. Sci. Adv. 6, eaax3308 (2020).
Google Scholar 
23.Vonk, J. E., Tank, S. E. & Walvoord, M. A. Integrating hydrology and biogeochemistry across frozen landscapes. Nat. Commun. 10, 5377 (2019).
Google Scholar 
24.Saunois, M. et al. The global methane budget 2000–2017. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 12, 1561–1623 (2020).
Google Scholar 
25.Williams, J. W., Ordonez, A. & Svenning, J. C. A unifying framework for studying and managing climate-driven rates of ecological change. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 17–26 (2021).
Google Scholar 
26.Schwab, M. S. et al. An abrupt aging of dissolved organic carbon in large Arctic rivers. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47, e2020GL088823 (2020).
Google Scholar 
27.Walter Anthony, K. M. et al. Decadal-scale hotspot methane ebullition within lakes following abrupt permafrost thaw. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 35010 (2021).
Google Scholar 
28.Goldstein, A. et al. Protecting irrecoverable carbon in Earth’s ecosystems. Nat. Clim. Chang. 10, 287–295 (2020).
Google Scholar 
29.Turner, M. G. et al. Climate change, ecosystems and abrupt change: science priorities. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 375, 20190105 (2020).
Google Scholar 
30.Fountain, A. G. et al. The disappearing cryosphere: impacts and ecosystem responses to rapid cryosphere loss. Bioscience 62, 405–415 (2012).
Google Scholar 
31.Gruber, S. Derivation and analysis of a high-resolution estimate of global permafrost zonation. Cryosphere 6, 221–233 (2012).
Google Scholar 
32.Zou, D. et al. A new map of permafrost distribution on the Tibetan Plateau. Cryosphere 11, 2527–2542 (2012).
Google Scholar 
33.Sayedi, S. S. et al. Subsea permafrost carbon stocks and climate change sensitivity estimated by expert assessment. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 124075 (2020).
Google Scholar 
34.Smith, S. L., O’Neill, H. B., Isaksen, K., Noetzli, J. & Romanovsky, V. E. The changing thermal state of permafrost. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-021-00240-1 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Strauss, J. et al. Deep Yedoma permafrost: a synthesis of depositional characteristics and carbon vulnerability. Earth Sci. Rev. 172, 75–86 (2017).
Google Scholar 
36.Strauss, J. et al. The deep permafrost carbon pool of the Yedoma region in Siberia and Alaska. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40, 6165–6170 (2013).
Google Scholar 
37.Elder, C. D. et al. Greenhouse gas emissions from diverse Arctic Alaskan lakes are dominated by young carbon. Nat. Clim. Chang. 8, 166–171 (2018).
Google Scholar 
38.Martens, J. et al. Remobilization of old permafrost carbon to Chukchi Sea sediments during the end of the last deglaciation. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 33, 2–14 (2019).
Google Scholar 
39.Vonk, J. E. et al. Reviews and syntheses: effects of permafrost thaw on Arctic aquatic ecosystems. Biogeosciences 12, 7129–7167 (2015).
Google Scholar 
40.Turetsky, M. R. et al. Permafrost collapse is accelerating carbon release. Nature 569, 32–24 (2019).
Google Scholar 
41.Wild, B. et al. Rivers across the Siberian Arctic unearth the patterns of carbon release from thawing permafrost. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 10280–10285 (2019).
Google Scholar 
42.Mishra, U. et al. Spatial heterogeneity and environmental predictors of permafrost region soil organic carbon stocks. Sci. Adv. 7, 5236–5260 (2021).
Google Scholar 
43.Treat, C. C. et al. Tundra landscape heterogeneity, not interannual variability, controls the decadal regional carbon balance in the Western Russian Arctic. Global Chang. Biol. 24, 5188–5204 (2018).
Google Scholar 
44.Siewert, M. B., Lantuit, H., Richter, A. & Hugelius, G. Permafrost causes unique fine-scale spatial variability across tundra soils. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 35, e2020GB006659 (2021).
Google Scholar 
45.Niittynen, P. et al. Fine-scale tundra vegetation patterns are strongly related to winter thermal conditions. Nat. Clim. Chang. 10, 1143–1148 (2020).
Google Scholar 
46.Hope, C. & Schaefer, K. Economic impacts of carbon dioxide and methane released from thawing permafrost. Nat. Clim. Chang. 6, 56–59 (2016).
Google Scholar 
47.Farquharson, L. M. et al. Climate change drives widespread and rapid thermokarst development in very cold permafrost in the Canadian High Arctic. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 6681–6689 (2019).
Google Scholar 
48.Biskaborn, B. K. et al. Permafrost is warming at a global scale. Nat. Commun. 10, 264 (2019).
Google Scholar 
49.Hood, E., Battin, T. J., Fellman, J., O’Neel, S. & Spencer, R. G. M. Storage and release of organic carbon from glaciers and ice sheets. Nat. Geosci. 8, 91–96 (2015).
Google Scholar 
50.Tanski, G. et al. Rapid CO2 release from eroding permafrost in seawater. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 11244–11252 (2019).
Google Scholar 
51.Liljedahl, A. K., Gädeke, A., O’Neel, S., Gatesman, T. A. & Douglas, T. A. Glacierized headwater streams as aquifer recharge corridors, subarctic Alaska. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 6876–6885 (2017).
Google Scholar 
52.Yumashev, D. et al. Climate policy implications of nonlinear decline of Arctic land permafrost and other cryosphere elements. Nat. Commun. 10, 1900 (2019).
Google Scholar 
53.Woodcroft, B. J. et al. Genome-centric view of carbon processing in thawing permafrost. Nature 560, 49–54 (2018).
Google Scholar 
54.Nauta, A. L. et al. Permafrost collapse after shrub removal shifts tundra ecosystem to a methane source. Nat. Clim. Chang. 5, 67–70 (2015).
Google Scholar 
55.Anthony, K. W. et al. 21st-century modeled permafrost carbon emissions accelerated by abrupt thaw beneath lakes. Nat. Commun. 9, 3262 (2018).
Google Scholar 
56.Hugelius, G. et al. Large stocks of peatland carbon and nitrogen are vulnerable to permafrost thaw. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 201916387 (2020).
Google Scholar 
57.Christensen, T. R., Arora, V. K., Gauss, M., Höglund-Isaksson, L. & Parmentier, F. J. W. Tracing the climate signal: mitigation of anthropogenic methane emissions can outweigh a large Arctic natural emission increase. Sci. Rep. 9, 1146 (2019).
Google Scholar 
58.United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Total aggregate greenhouse gas emissions of individual nations, annex 1. World Resources Institute https://www.wri.org/resources/data-sets/climate-watch-cait-unfccc-annex-i-ghg-emissions-data (2008).59.Lewkowicz, A. G. & Way, R. G. Extremes of summer climate trigger thousands of thermokarst landslides in a High Arctic environment. Nat. Commun. 10, 1329 (2019).
Google Scholar 
60.Knoblauch, C., Beer, C., Liebner, S., Grigoriev, M. N. & Pfeiffer, E. M. Methane production as key to the greenhouse gas budget of thawing permafrost. Nat. Clim. Chang. 8, 309–312 (2018).
Google Scholar 
61.Jones, B. M. et al. Lake and drained lake basin systems in lowland permafrost regions. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-021-00238-9 (2022).62.Matthews, E., Johnson, M. S., Genovese, V., Du, J. & Bastviken, D. Methane emission from high latitude lakes: methane-centric lake classification and satellite-driven annual cycle of emissions. Sci. Rep. 10, 12465 (2020).
Google Scholar 
63.Lamontagne-Hallé, P., McKenzie, J. M., Kurylyk, B. L. & Zipper, S. C. Changing groundwater discharge dynamics in permafrost regions. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 084017 (2018).
Google Scholar 
64.Nitzbon, J. et al. Fast response of cold ice-rich permafrost in northeast Siberia to a warming climate. Nat. Commun. 11, 2201 (2020).
Google Scholar 
65.Jeong, S. J. et al. Accelerating rates of Arctic carbon cycling revealed by long-term atmospheric CO2 measurements. Sci. Adv. 4, eaao1167 (2018).
Google Scholar 
66.Disher, B. S., Connon, R. F., Haynes, K. M., Hopkinson, C. & Quinton, W. L. The hydrology of treed wetlands in thawing discontinuous permafrost regions. Ecohydrology 14, e2296 (2021).
Google Scholar 
67.Parazoo, N. C. et al. Detecting regional patterns of changing CO2 flux in Alaska. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 7733–7738 (2016).
Google Scholar 
68.Silva, J. L. A., Souza, A. F., Caliman, A., Voigt, E. L. & Lichston, J. E. Weak whole-plant trait coordination in a seasonally dry South American stressful environment. Ecol. Evol. 8, 4–12 (2018).
Google Scholar 
69.Ward, C. P. & Cory, R. M. Chemical composition of dissolved organic matter draining permafrost soils. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 167, 63–79 (2015).
Google Scholar 
70.Johnston, E. R. et al. Responses of tundra soil microbial communities to half a decade of experimental warming at two critical depths. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 15096–15105 (2019).
Google Scholar 
71.Stein, L. Y. The long-term relationship between microbial metabolism and greenhouse gases. Trends Microbiol. 28, 500–511 (2020).
Google Scholar 
72.Feng, J. et al. Warming-induced permafrost thaw exacerbates tundra soil carbon decomposition mediated by microbial community. Microbiome 8, 3 (2020).
Google Scholar 
73.Estop-Aragonés, C. et al. Assessing the potential for mobilization of old soil carbon after permafrost thaw: a synthesis of 14C measurements from the northern permafrost region. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 34, e2020GB006672 (2020).
Google Scholar 
74.Wik, M., Varner, R. K., Anthony, K. W., MacIntyre, S. & Bastviken, D. Climate-sensitive northern lakes and ponds are critical components of methane release. Nat. Geosci. 9, 99–105 (2016).
Google Scholar 
75.Schaefer, K., Lantuit, H., Romanovsky, V. E., Schuur, E. A. G. & Witt, R. The impact of the permafrost carbon feedback on global climate. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 085003 (2014).
Google Scholar 
76.Xue, K. et al. Tundra soil carbon is vulnerable to rapid microbial decomposition under climate warming. Nat. Clim. Chang. 6, 595–600 (2016).
Google Scholar 
77.Bay, S. K. et al. Trace gas oxidizers are widespread and active members of soil microbial communities. Nat. Microbiol. 6, 246–256 (2021).
Google Scholar 
78.Singleton, C. M. et al. Methanotrophy across a natural permafrost thaw environment. ISME J. 12, 2544–2558 (2018).
Google Scholar 
79.Kwon, M. J. et al. Plants, microorganisms, and soil temperatures contribute to a decrease in methane fluxes on a drained Arctic floodplain. Glob. Chang. Biol. 23, 2396–2412 (2017).
Google Scholar 
80.Jin, X.-Y. et al. Impacts of climate-induced permafrost degradation on vegetation: a review. Adv. Clim. Chang. Res. 12, 29–47 (2020).
Google Scholar 
81.Song, X. et al. Soil moisture as a key factor in carbon release from thawing permafrost in a boreal forest. Geoderma 357, 113975 (2020).
Google Scholar 
82.Zhu, Y. et al. Disproportionate increase in freshwater methane emissions induced by experimental warming. Nat. Clim. Chang. 10, 685–690 (2020).
Google Scholar 
83.Watts, J. D., Kimball, J. S., Bartsch, A. & McDonald, K. C. Surface water inundation in the boreal-Arctic: potential impacts on regional methane emissions. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 075001 (2014).
Google Scholar 
84.Thompson, R. L. et al. Methane fluxes in the high northern latitudes for 2005–2013 estimated using a Bayesian atmospheric inversion. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 17, 3553–3572 (2017).
Google Scholar 
85.Oh, Y. et al. Reduced net methane emissions due to microbial methane oxidation in a warmer Arctic. Nat. Clim. Chang. 10, 317–321 (2020).
Google Scholar 
86.Street, L. E. et al. Plant carbon allocation drives turnover of old soil organic matter in permafrost tundra soils. Glob. Chang. Biol. 26, 4559–4571 (2020).
Google Scholar 
87.Natali, S. M. et al. Large loss of CO2 in winter observed across the northern permafrost region. Nat. Clim. Chang. 9, 852–857 (2019).
Google Scholar 
88.Hu, Y., Fernandez-Anez, N., Smith, T. E. L. & Rein, G. Review of emissions from smouldering peat fires and their contribution to regional haze episodes. Int. J. Wildland Fire 27, 293–312 (2018).
Google Scholar 
89.Abbott, B. W. et al. Biomass offsets little or none of permafrost carbon release from soils, streams, and wildfire: an expert assessment. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 034014 (2016).
Google Scholar 
90.Mack, M. C. et al. Carbon loss from boreal forest wildfires offset by increased dominance of deciduous trees. Science 372, 280–283 (2021).
Google Scholar 
91.Holloway, J. E. et al. Impact of wildfire on permafrost landscapes: a review of recent advances and future prospects. Permafr. Periglac. Process. 31, 371–382 (2020).
Google Scholar 
92.McCarty, J. L., Smith, T. E. L. & Turetsky, M. R. Arctic fires re-emerging. Nat. Geosci. 13, 658–660 (2020).
Google Scholar 
93.Scholten, R. C., Jandt, R., Miller, E. A., Rogers, B. M. & Veraverbeke, S. Overwintering fires in boreal forests. Nature 593, 399–404 (2021).
Google Scholar 
94.Koven, C. D. et al. A simplified, data-constrained approach to estimate the permafrost carbon-climate feedback. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 373, 20140423 (2015).
Google Scholar 
95.MacDougall, A. H. & Knutti, R. Projecting the release of carbon from permafrost soils using a perturbed parameter ensemble modelling approach. Biogeosciences 13, 2123–2136 (2016).
Google Scholar 
96.Cooper, M. D. A. et al. Limited contribution of permafrost carbon to methane release from thawing peatlands. Nat. Clim. Chang. 7, 507–511 (2017).
Google Scholar 
97.Andresen, C. G. et al. Soil moisture and hydrology projections of the permafrost region–a model intercomparison. Cryosphere 14, 445–459 (2020).
Google Scholar 
98.Bartsch, A., Pointner, G., Ingeman-Nielsen, T. & Lu, W. Towards circumpolar mapping of Arctic settlements and infrastructure based on Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2. Remote Sens. 12, 2368 (2020).
Google Scholar 
99.Swingedouw, D. et al. Early warning from space for a few key tipping points in physical, biological, and social-ecological systems. Surv. Geophys. 41, 1237–1284 (2020).
Google Scholar 
100.Elder, C. D. et al. Airborne mapping reveals emergent power law of Arctic methane emissions. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47, e2019GL085707 (2020).
Google Scholar 
101.Byrne, B. et al. Improved constraints on northern extratropical CO2 fluxes obtained by combining surface-based and space-based atmospheric CO2 measurements. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 125, e2019JD032029 (2020).
Google Scholar 
102.Karlson, M. et al. Delineating northern peatlands using Sentinel-1 time series and terrain indices from local and regional digital elevation models. Remote Sens. Environ. 231, 111252 (2019).
Google Scholar 
103.Cusworth, D. H. et al. Synthesis of methane observations across scales: strategies for deploying a multitiered observing network. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47, e2020GL087869 (2020).
Google Scholar 
104.Bale, N. J. et al. Fatty acid and hopanoid adaption to cold in the methanotroph methylovulum psychrotolerans. Front. Microbiol. 10, 589 (2019).
Google Scholar 
105.Mackelprang, R. et al. Microbial survival strategies in ancient permafrost: insights from metagenomics. ISME J. 11, 2305–2318 (2017).
Google Scholar 
106.Siliakus, M. F., van der Oost, J. & Kengen, S. W. M. Adaptations of archaeal and bacterial membranes to variations in temperature, pH and pressure. Extremophiles 21, 651–670 (2017).
Google Scholar 
107.Johnson, S. S. et al. Ancient bacteria show evidence of DNA repair. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 14401–14405 (2007).
Google Scholar 
108.Hueffer, K., Drown, D., Romanovsky, V. & Hennessy, T. Factors contributing to anthrax outbreaks in the circumpolar north. Ecohealth 17, 174–180 (2020).
Google Scholar 
109.Miner, K. R. et al. Emergent biogeochemical risks from Arctic permafrost degradation. Nat. Clim. Chang. 11, 809–819 (2021).
Google Scholar 
110.Perron, G. G. et al. Functional characterization of bacteria isolated from ancient Arctic soil exposes diverse resistance mechanisms to modern antibiotics. PLoS ONE 10, e0069533 (2015).
Google Scholar 
111.MacKelprang, R. et al. Metagenomic analysis of a permafrost microbial community reveals a rapid response to thaw. Nature 480, 368–371 (2011).
Google Scholar 
112.Burkert, A., Douglas, T. A., Waldrop, M. P. & Mackelprang, R. Changes in the active, dead, and dormant microbial community structure across a pleistocene permafrost chronosequence. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 85, e02646-18 (2019).
Google Scholar 
113.Jansson, J. K. & Hofmockel, K. S. Soil microbiomes and climate change. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 18, 35–46 (2020).
Google Scholar 
114.Hultman, J. et al. Multi-omics of permafrost, active layer and thermokarst bog soil microbiomes. Nature 521, 208–212 (2015).
Google Scholar 
115.Schadel, C. et al. Potential carbon emissions dominated by carbon dioxide from thawed permafrost soils. Nat. Clim. Chang. 6, 950–953 (2016).
Google Scholar 
116.Lee, H. et al. A spatially explicit analysis to extrapolate carbon fluxes in upland tundra where permafrost is thawing. Glob. Chang. Biol. 17, 1379–1393 (2011).
Google Scholar 
117.Euskirchen, E. S., Edgar, C. W., Turetsky, M. R., Waldrop, M. P. & Harden, J. W. Differential response of carbon fluxes to climate in three peatland ecosystems that vary in the presence and stability of permafrost. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 119, 1576–1595 (2014).
Google Scholar 
118.Euskirchen, E. S., Bret-Harte, M. S., Shaver, G. R., Edgar, C. W. & Romanovsky, V. E. Long-term release of carbon dioxide from arctic tundra ecosystems in Alaska. Ecosystems 20, 960–974 (2017).
Google Scholar 
119.Karlsson, J. et al. Carbon emission from Western Siberian inland waters. Nat. Commun. 12, 825 (2021).
Google Scholar 
120.Schuur, E. A. G. et al. Tundra underlain by thawing permafrost persistently emits carbon to the atmosphere over 15 years of measurements. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 126, e2020JG006044 (2021).
Google Scholar 
121.Oechel, W. C. et al. Acclimation of ecosystem CO2 exchange in the Alaskan Arctic in response to decadal climate warming. Nature 406, 978–981 (2000).
Google Scholar 
122.Heijmans, M. M. P. D. et al. Tundra vegetation change and impacts on permafrost. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-021-00233-0 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
123.Kanevskiy, M. et al. Patterns and rates of riverbank erosion involving ice-rich permafrost (yedoma) in northern Alaska. Geomorphology 253, 370–384 (2016).
Google Scholar 
124.Pastorello, G. et al. The FLUXNET2015 dataset and the ONEFlux processing pipeline for eddy covariance data. Sci. Data 7, 225 (2020).
Google Scholar 
125.Schimel, D. & Schneider, F. D. Flux towers in the sky: global ecology from space. New Phytol. 224, 570–584 (2019).
Google Scholar 
126.Humphrey, V. et al. Soil moisture–atmosphere feedback dominates land carbon uptake variability. Nature 592, 65–69 (2021).
Google Scholar 
127.Jammet, M. et al. Year-round CH4 and CO2 flux dynamics in two contrasting freshwater ecosystems of the subarctic. Biogeosciences 14, 5189–5216 (2017).
Google Scholar 
128.Kohnert, K., Serafimovich, A., Metzger, S., Hartmann, J. & Sachs, T. Strong geologic methane emissions from discontinuous terrestrial permafrost in the Mackenzie Delta, Canada. Sci. Rep. 7, 5828 (2017).
Google Scholar 
129.Sayres, D. S. et al. Arctic regional methane fluxes by ecotope as derived using eddy covariance from a low-flying aircraft. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 17, 8619–8633 (2017).
Google Scholar 
130.Ueyama, M. et al. Upscaling terrestrial carbon dioxide fluxes in Alaska with satellite remote sensing and support vector regression. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 118, 1266–1281 (2013).
Google Scholar 
131.Davidson, S. J. et al. Upscaling CH4 fluxes using high-resolution imagery in Arctic tundra ecosystems. Remote Sens. 9, 1227 (2017).
Google Scholar 
132.Peltola, O. et al. Monthly gridded data product of northern wetland methane emissions based on upscaling eddy covariance observations. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 11, 1263–1289 (2019).
Google Scholar 
133.Chang, R. Y. W. et al. Methane emissions from Alaska in 2012 from CARVE airborne observations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 16694–16699 (2014).
Google Scholar 
134.Saeki, T. et al. Carbon flux estimation for Siberia by inverse modeling constrained by aircraft and tower CO2 measurements. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 118, 1100–1122 (2013).
Google Scholar 
135.Kim, J. et al. Impact of Siberian observations on the optimization of surface CO2 flux. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 17, 2881–2899 (2017).
Google Scholar 
136.O’Shea, S. J. et al. Methane and carbon dioxide fluxes and their regional scalability for the European Arctic wetlands during the MAMM project in summer 2012. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 14, 13159–13174 (2014).
Google Scholar 
137.Gottwald, M. & Bovensmann, H. SCIAMACHY — Exploring the Changing Earth’s Atmosphere (Springer, 2011).138.Siewert, M. B. High-resolution digital mapping of soil organic carbon in permafrost terrain using machine learning: a case study in a sub-Arctic peatland environment. Biogeosciences 15, 1663–1682 (2018).
Google Scholar 
139.Arndt, K. A. et al. Arctic greening associated with lengthening growing seasons in Northern Alaska. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 125018 (2019).
Google Scholar 
140.Widhalm, B., Bartsch, A. & Heim, B. A novel approach for the characterization of tundra wetland regions with C-band SAR satellite data. Int. J. Remote Sens. 36, 5537–5556 (2015).
Google Scholar 
141.Varon, D. J. et al. High-frequency monitoring of anomalous methane point sources with multispectral Sentinel-2 satellite observations. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 14, 2771–2785 (2021).
Google Scholar 
142.Bartsch, A., Hofler, A., Kroisleitner, C. & Trofaier, A. M. Land cover mapping in northern high latitude permafrost regions with satellite data: achievements and remaining challenges. Remote Sens. 8, 979 (2016).
Google Scholar 
143.Flato, G. et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Ch. 9 (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).144.Kivimäki, E. et al. Evaluation and analysis of the seasonal cycle and variability of the trend from GOSAT methane retrievals. Remote Sens. 11, 882 (2019).
Google Scholar 
145.Lindqvist, H. et al. Does GOSAT capture the true seasonal cycle of carbon dioxide? Atmos. Chem. Phys. 15, 13023–13040 (2015).
Google Scholar 
146.Chadburn, S. et al. Carbon stocks and fluxes in the high latitudes: using site-level data to evaluate Earth system models. Biogeosciences 14, 5143–5169 (2017).
Google Scholar 
147.Graven, H. D. et al. Enhanced seasonal exchange of CO2 by northern ecosystems since 1960. Science 341, 1085–1089 (2013).
Google Scholar 
148.Aas, K. S. et al. Thaw processes in ice-rich permafrost landscapes represented with laterally coupled tiles in a land surface model. Cryosphere 13, 591–609 (2019).
Google Scholar 
149.Westermann, S. et al. Transient modeling of the ground thermal conditions using satellite data in the Lena River delta, Siberia. Cryosphere 11, 1441–1463 (2017).
Google Scholar 
150.Houweling, S. et al. An intercomparison of inverse models for estimating sources and sinks of CO2 using GOSAT measurements. J. Geophys. Res. 120, 5253–5266 (2015).
Google Scholar 
151.Houweling, S. et al. Global inverse modeling of CH4 sources and sinks: an overview of methods. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 17, 235–256 (2017).
Google Scholar 
152.Tsuruta, A. et al. Global methane emission estimates for 2000–2012 from CarbonTracker Europe-CH4 v1.0. Geosci. Model Dev. 10, 1261–1289 (2017).
Google Scholar 
153.Virkkala, A. M., Abdi, A. M., Luoto, M. & Metcalfe, D. B. Identifying multidisciplinary research gaps across Arctic terrestrial gradients. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 124061 (2019).
Google Scholar 
154.Hakkarainen, J., Ialongo, I., Maksyutov, S. & Crisp, D. Analysis of four years of global XCO2 anomalies as seen by Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2. Remote Sens. 11, 850 (2019).
Google Scholar 
155.Fisher, J. B. et al. Missing pieces to modeling the Arctic-Boreal puzzle. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 020202 (2018).
Google Scholar 
156.McGuire, A. D. et al. An assessment of the carbon balance of Arctic tundra: comparisons among observations, process models, and atmospheric inversions. Biogeosciences 9, 3185–3204 (2012).
Google Scholar 
157.Lenton, T. M. & Williams, H. T. P. On the origin of planetary-scale tipping points. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 380–382 (2013).
Google Scholar 
158.Lenton, T. M. Arctic climate tipping points. Ambio 41, 10–22 (2012).
Google Scholar 
159.Lenton, T. M. et al. Climate tipping points — too risky to bet against. Nature 575, 592–595 (2019).
Google Scholar 
160.Fleisher, A. J., Long, D. A., Liu, Q., Gameson, L. & Hodges, J. T. Optical measurement of radiocarbon below unity fraction modern by linear absorption spectroscopy. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 8, 4550–4556 (2017).
Google Scholar 
161.Genoud, G. et al. Laser spectroscopy for monitoring of radiocarbon in atmospheric samples. Anal. Chem. 91, 12315–12320 (2019).
Google Scholar 
162.Levin, I. et al. Observations and modelling of the global distribution and long-term trend of atmospheric 14CO2. Tellus B Chem. Phys. Meteorol. 62, 26–46 (2010).
Google Scholar 
163.Voigt, C. et al. Warming of subarctic tundra increases emissions of all three important greenhouse gases — carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Glob. Chang. Biol. 23, 3121–3138 (2017).
Google Scholar 
164.Mu, C. C. et al. Permafrost collapse shifts alpine tundra to a carbon source but reduces N2O and CH4 release on the northern Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 8945–8952 (2017).
Google Scholar 
165.Krogh, S. A., Pomeroy, J. W. & Marsh, P. Diagnosis of the hydrology of a small Arctic basin at the tundra-taiga transition using a physically based hydrological model. J. Hydrol. 550, 685–703 (2017).
Google Scholar 
166.Burke, E. J., Zhang, Y. & Krinner, G. Evaluating permafrost physics in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 6 (CMIP6) models and their sensitivity to climate change. Cryosphere 14, 3155–3174 (2020).
Google Scholar 
167.Treat, C. C., Bloom, A. A. & Marushchak, M. E. Nongrowing season methane emissions — a significant component of annual emissions across northern ecosystems. Glob. Chang. Biol. 24, 3331–3343 (2018).
Google Scholar 
168.Kelley, J. J., Weaver, D. F. & Smith, B. P. The variation of carbon dioxide under the snow in the Arctic. Ecology 49, 358–361 (1968).
Google Scholar 
169.Du, J. et al. Assessing global surface water inundation dynamics using combined satellite information from SMAP, AMSR2 and Landsat. Remote Sens. Environ. 213, 1–17 (2018).
Google Scholar 
170.Webb, E. E. et al. Increased wintertime CO2 loss as a result of sustained tundra warming. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 121, 249–265 (2016).
Google Scholar 
171.Grosse, G., Goetz, S., McGuire, A. D., Romanovsky, V. E. & Schuur, E. A. G. Changing permafrost in a warming world and feedbacks to the Earth system. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 040201 (2016).
Google Scholar 
172.Kleinen, T. & Brovkin, V. Pathway-dependent fate of permafrost region carbon. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 094001 (2018).
Google Scholar 
173.Anthony, K. M. W. et al. A shift of thermokarst lakes from carbon sources to sinks during the Holocene epoch. Nature 511, 452–456 (2014).
Google Scholar 
174.Crichton, K. A., Bouttes, N., Roche, D. M., Chappellaz, J. & Krinner, G. Permafrost carbon as a missing link to explain CO2 changes during the last deglaciation. Nat. Geosci. 9, 683–686 (2016).
Google Scholar 
175.Tesi, T. et al. Massive remobilization of permafrost carbon during post-glacial warming. Nat. Commun. 7, 13653 (2016).
Google Scholar 
176.McClain, M. E. et al. Biogeochemical hot spots and hot moments at the interface of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Ecosystems 6, 301–312 (2003).
Google Scholar 
177.Bernhardt, E. S. et al. Control points in ecosystems: moving beyond the hot spot hot moment concept. Ecosystems 20, 665–682 (2016).
Google Scholar 
178.Kuze, A. et al. Update on GOSAT TANSO-FTS performance, operations, and data products after more than 6 years in space. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 9, 2445–2461 (2016).
Google Scholar 
179.Eldering, A. et al. The Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 early science investigations of regional carbon dioxide fluxes. Science 358, eaam5745 (2017).
Google Scholar 
180.Yang, D. et al. First global carbon dioxide maps produced from TanSat measurements. Adv. Atmos. Sci. 35, 621–623 (2018).
Google Scholar 
181.Glumb, R., Davis, G. & Lietzke, C. in IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium 1238–1240 (IEEE, 2014).182.Lorente, A. et al. Methane retrieved from TROPOMI: improvement of the data product and validation of the first 2 years of measurements. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 14, 665–684 (2021).
Google Scholar 
183.Ehret, G. et al. MERLIN: a French–German space lidar mission dedicated to atmospheric methane. Remote Sens. 9, 1052 (2017).
Google Scholar 
184.Bousquet, P. et al. Error budget of the MEthane Remote LIdar missioN and its impact on the uncertainties of the global methane budget. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 123, 11,766–11,785 (2018).
Google Scholar 
185.Bezy, J.-L. et al. in IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium 8400–8403 (IEEE, 2019).186.Ingmann, P. et al. Requirements for the GMES atmosphere service and ESA’s implementation concept: Sentinels-4/-5 and -5p. Remote Sens. Environ. 120, 58–69 (2012).
Google Scholar 
187.Nassar, R. et al. The atmospheric imaging mission for northern regions: AIM-North. Can. J. Remote Sens. 45, 423–442 (2019).
Google Scholar 
188.Polonsky, I. N., O’Brien, D. M., Kumer, J. B., O’Dell, C. W. & the geoCARB Team. Performance of a geostationary mission, geoCARB, to measure CO2, CH4 and CO column-averaged concentrations. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 7, 959–981 (2014).
Google Scholar 
189.Chahine, M. T. et al. Improving weather forecasting and providing new data on greenhouse gases. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 87, 911–926 (2006).
Google Scholar 
190.Clerbaux, C. et al. Monitoring of atmospheric composition using the thermal infrared IASI/MetOp sounder. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 9, 6041–6054 (2009).
Google Scholar 
191.Han, Y. et al. Suomi NPP CrIS measurements, sensor data record algorithm, calibration and validation activities, and record data quality. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 118, 734–12,748 (2013).
Google Scholar 
192.Zou, C. Z. et al. The reprocessed Suomi NPP satellite observations. Remote Sens. 12, 2891 (2020).
Google Scholar 
193.Obu, J. et al. ESA Permafrost Climate Change Initiative (Permafrost_CCI): permafrost climate research data package v1 (CEDA, 2020).194.Voigt, C. et al. Nitrous oxide emissions from permafrost-affected soils. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 1, 420–434 (2020).
Google Scholar 
195.Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Impacts of a Warming Arctic: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2004). More

CORRESPONDENCE
11 January 2022

Wind power versus wildlife: root mitigation in evidence

Tim Schmoll

0
&

Frank M. Schurr

1

Tim Schmoll

Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.

View author publications

You can also search for this author in PubMed
 Google Scholar

Frank M. Schurr

University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany.

View author publications

You can also search for this author in PubMed
 Google Scholar

Twitter

Facebook

Email

Germany’s new government plans to dramatically expand the production of onshore wind power. It intends to deploy “innovative technical mitigation measures such as anti-collision systems” for turbines to avoid large-scale killing of birds and bats and undermining conservation goals. We argue that it should also use this roll-out to systematically evaluate such systems.

Access options

Access through your institution

Change institution

Buy or subscribe

/* style specs start */
style{display:none!important}.LiveAreaSection-193358632 *{align-content:stretch;align-items:stretch;align-self:auto;animation-delay:0s;animation-direction:normal;animation-duration:0s;animation-fill-mode:none;animation-iteration-count:1;animation-name:none;animation-play-state:running;animation-timing-function:ease;azimuth:center;backface-visibility:visible;background-attachment:scroll;background-blend-mode:normal;background-clip:borderBox;background-color:transparent;background-image:none;background-origin:paddingBox;background-position:0 0;background-repeat:repeat;background-size:auto auto;block-size:auto;border-block-end-color:currentcolor;border-block-end-style:none;border-block-end-width:medium;border-block-start-color:currentcolor;border-block-start-style:none;border-block-start-width:medium;border-bottom-color:currentcolor;border-bottom-left-radius:0;border-bottom-right-radius:0;border-bottom-style:none;border-bottom-width:medium;border-collapse:separate;border-image-outset:0s;border-image-repeat:stretch;border-image-slice:100%;border-image-source:none;border-image-width:1;border-inline-end-color:currentcolor;border-inline-end-style:none;border-inline-end-width:medium;border-inline-start-color:currentcolor;border-inline-start-style:none;border-inline-start-width:medium;border-left-color:currentcolor;border-left-style:none;border-left-width:medium;border-right-color:currentcolor;border-right-style:none;border-right-width:medium;border-spacing:0;border-top-color:currentcolor;border-top-left-radius:0;border-top-right-radius:0;border-top-style:none;border-top-width:medium;bottom:auto;box-decoration-break:slice;box-shadow:none;box-sizing:border-box;break-after:auto;break-before:auto;break-inside:auto;caption-side:top;caret-color:auto;clear:none;clip:auto;clip-path:none;color:initial;column-count:auto;column-fill:balance;column-gap:normal;column-rule-color:currentcolor;column-rule-style:none;column-rule-width:medium;column-span:none;column-width:auto;content:normal;counter-increment:none;counter-reset:none;cursor:auto;display:inline;empty-cells:show;filter:none;flex-basis:auto;flex-direction:row;flex-grow:0;flex-shrink:1;flex-wrap:nowrap;float:none;font-family:initial;font-feature-settings:normal;font-kerning:auto;font-language-override:normal;font-size:medium;font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal;font-style:normal;font-synthesis:weight style;font-variant:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-position:normal;font-weight:400;grid-auto-columns:auto;grid-auto-flow:row;grid-auto-rows:auto;grid-column-end:auto;grid-column-gap:0;grid-column-start:auto;grid-row-end:auto;grid-row-gap:0;grid-row-start:auto;grid-template-areas:none;grid-template-columns:none;grid-template-rows:none;height:auto;hyphens:manual;image-orientation:0deg;image-rendering:auto;image-resolution:1dppx;ime-mode:auto;inline-size:auto;isolation:auto;justify-content:flexStart;left:auto;letter-spacing:normal;line-break:auto;line-height:normal;list-style-image:none;list-style-position:outside;list-style-type:disc;margin-block-end:0;margin-block-start:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-inline-end:0;margin-inline-start:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;margin-top:0;mask-clip:borderBox;mask-composite:add;mask-image:none;mask-mode:matchSource;mask-origin:borderBox;mask-position:0% 0%;mask-repeat:repeat;mask-size:auto;mask-type:luminance;max-height:none;max-width:none;min-block-size:0;min-height:0;min-inline-size:0;min-width:0;mix-blend-mode:normal;object-fit:fill;object-position:50% 50%;offset-block-end:auto;offset-block-start:auto;offset-inline-end:auto;offset-inline-start:auto;opacity:1;order:0;orphans:2;outline-color:initial;outline-offset:0;outline-style:none;outline-width:medium;overflow:visible;overflow-wrap:normal;overflow-x:visible;overflow-y:visible;padding-block-end:0;padding-block-start:0;padding-bottom:0;padding-inline-end:0;padding-inline-start:0;padding-left:0;padding-right:0;padding-top:0;page-break-after:auto;page-break-before:auto;page-break-inside:auto;perspective:none;perspective-origin:50% 50%;pointer-events:auto;position:static;quotes:initial;resize:none;right:auto;ruby-align:spaceAround;ruby-merge:separate;ruby-position:over;scroll-behavior:auto;scroll-snap-coordinate:none;scroll-snap-destination:0 0;scroll-snap-points-x:none;scroll-snap-points-y:none;scroll-snap-type:none;shape-image-threshold:0;shape-margin:0;shape-outside:none;tab-size:8;table-layout:auto;text-align:initial;text-align-last:auto;text-combine-upright:none;text-decoration-color:currentcolor;text-decoration-line:none;text-decoration-style:solid;text-emphasis-color:currentcolor;text-emphasis-position:over right;text-emphasis-style:none;text-indent:0;text-justify:auto;text-orientation:mixed;text-overflow:clip;text-rendering:auto;text-shadow:none;text-transform:none;text-underline-position:auto;top:auto;touch-action:auto;transform:none;transform-box:borderBox;transform-origin:50% 50% 0;transform-style:flat;transition-delay:0s;transition-duration:0s;transition-property:all;transition-timing-function:ease;vertical-align:baseline;visibility:visible;white-space:normal;widows:2;width:auto;will-change:auto;word-break:normal;word-spacing:normal;word-wrap:normal;writing-mode:horizontalTb;z-index:auto;-webkit-appearance:none;-moz-appearance:none;-ms-appearance:none;appearance:none;margin:0}.LiveAreaSection-193358632{width:100%}.LiveAreaSection-193358632 .login-option-buybox{display:block;width:100%;font-size:17px;line-height:30px;color:#222;padding-top:30px;font-family:Harding,Palatino,serif}.LiveAreaSection-193358632 .additional-access-options{display:block;font-weight:700;font-size:17px;line-height:30px;color:#222;font-family:Harding,Palatino,serif}.LiveAreaSection-193358632 .additional-login >li:not(:first-child)::before{transform:translateY(-50%);content:”;height:1rem;position:absolute;top:50%;left:0;border-left:2px solid #999}.LiveAreaSection-193358632 .additional-login >li:not(:first-child){padding-left:10px}.LiveAreaSection-193358632 .additional-login >li{display:inline-block;position:relative;vertical-align:middle;padding-right:10px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;flex:1;flex-direction:row-reverse;margin:-30px -15px 0}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .box-inner{width:100%;height:100%}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .readcube-buybox{background-color:#f3f3f3;flex-shrink:1;flex-grow:1;flex-basis:255px;background-clip:content-box;padding:0 15px;margin-top:30px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .subscribe-buybox{background-color:#f3f3f3;flex-shrink:1;flex-grow:4;flex-basis:300px;background-clip:content-box;padding:0 15px;margin-top:30px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .subscribe-buybox-nature-plus{background-color:#f3f3f3;flex-shrink:1;flex-grow:4;flex-basis:100%;background-clip:content-box;padding:0 15px;margin-top:30px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .title-readcube{display:block;margin:0;margin-right:20%;margin-left:20%;font-size:24px;line-height:32px;color:#222;padding-top:30px;text-align:center;font-family:Harding,Palatino,serif}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .title-buybox{display:block;margin:0;margin-right:29%;margin-left:29%;font-size:24px;line-height:32px;color:#222;padding-top:30px;text-align:center;font-family:Harding,Palatino,serif}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .title-asia-buybox{display:block;margin:0;margin-right:5%;margin-left:5%;font-size:24px;line-height:32px;color:#222;padding-top:30px;text-align:center;font-family:Harding,Palatino,serif}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .asia-link{color:#069;cursor:pointer;text-decoration:none;font-size:1.05em;font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,”Segoe UI”,Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,”Helvetica Neue”,sans-serif;line-height:1.05em6}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .access-readcube{display:block;margin:0;margin-right:10%;margin-left:10%;font-size:14px;color:#222;padding-top:10px;text-align:center;font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,”Segoe UI”,Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,”Helvetica Neue”,sans-serif;line-height:20px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .access-asia-buybox{display:block;margin:0;margin-right:5%;margin-left:5%;font-size:14px;color:#222;padding-top:10px;text-align:center;font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,”Segoe UI”,Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,”Helvetica Neue”,sans-serif;line-height:20px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .access-buybox{display:block;margin:0;margin-right:30%;margin-left:30%;font-size:14px;color:#222;opacity:.8px;padding-top:10px;text-align:center;font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,”Segoe UI”,Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,”Helvetica Neue”,sans-serif;line-height:20px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .usps-buybox{display:block;margin:0;margin-right:30%;margin-left:30%;font-size:14px;color:#222;opacity:.8px;text-align:center;font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,”Segoe UI”,Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,”Helvetica Neue”,sans-serif;line-height:20px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .price-buybox{display:block;font-size:30px;color:#222;font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,”Segoe UI”,Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,”Helvetica Neue”,sans-serif;padding-top:30px;text-align:center}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .price-from{font-size:14px;padding-right:10px;color:#222;font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,”Segoe UI”,Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,”Helvetica Neue”,sans-serif;line-height:20px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .issue-buybox{display:block;font-size:13px;text-align:center;color:#222;font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,”Segoe UI”,Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,”Helvetica Neue”,sans-serif;line-height:19px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .no-price-buybox{display:block;font-size:13px;line-height:18px;text-align:center;padding-right:10%;padding-left:10%;padding-bottom:20px;padding-top:30px;color:#222;font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,”Segoe UI”,Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,”Helvetica Neue”,sans-serif}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .vat-buybox{display:block;margin-top:5px;margin-right:20%;margin-left:20%;font-size:11px;color:#222;padding-top:10px;padding-bottom:15px;text-align:center;font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,”Segoe UI”,Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,”Helvetica Neue”,sans-serif;line-height:17px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .button-container{display:flex;padding-right:20px;padding-left:20px;justify-content:center}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .button-container >*{flex:1px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .button-container >a:hover,.Button-505204839:hover,.Button-1078489254:hover,.Button-2808614501:hover{text-decoration:none}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .readcube-button{background:#fff;margin-top:30px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .button-asia{background:#069;border:1px solid #069;border-radius:0;cursor:pointer;display:block;padding:9px;outline:0;text-align:center;text-decoration:none;min-width:80px;margin-top:75px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .button-label-asia,.ButtonLabel-3869432492,.ButtonLabel-3296148077,.ButtonLabel-1566022830{display:block;color:#fff;font-size:17px;line-height:20px;font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,”Segoe UI”,Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,”Helvetica Neue”,sans-serif;text-align:center;text-decoration:none;cursor:pointer}.Button-505204839,.Button-1078489254,.Button-2808614501{background:#069;border:1px solid #069;border-radius:0;cursor:pointer;display:block;padding:9px;outline:0;text-align:center;text-decoration:none;min-width:80px;max-width:320px;margin-top:10px}.Button-505204839 .readcube-label,.Button-1078489254 .readcube-label,.Button-2808614501 .readcube-label{color:#069}
/* style specs end */Subscribe to nature+Get immediate online access to the entire Nature family of 50+ journals$29.99monthlySubscribeSubscribe to JournalGet full journal access for 1 year$199.00only $3.90 per issueSubscribeAll prices are NET prices. VAT will be added later in the checkout.Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.Buy articleGet time limited or full article access on ReadCube.$32.00BuyAll prices are NET prices.

Additional access options:

Log in

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Nature 601, 191 (2022)
doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-00012-x

Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests.

Related Articles

See more letters to the editor

Subjects

Renewable energy

Biodiversity

Latest on:

Renewable energy

COVID’s career impact and embryo secrets — the week in infographics
News 19 NOV 21

The start-ups chasing clean, carbon-free fusion energy
News Feature 17 NOV 21

Scientists cheer India’s ambitious carbon-zero climate pledge
News 05 NOV 21

Biodiversity

Two million species catalogued by 500 experts
Correspondence 11 JAN 22

The UN must get on with appointing its new science board
Editorial 08 DEC 21

Link knowledge and action networks to tackle disasters
Correspondence 16 NOV 21

Jobs

Senior Medical Director, Global Medical Affairs Alzheimer’s Disease, Global Medical Evidence Generation

Eisai Inc.
Nutley, NJ, United States

W1 Professor (Tenure Track) of Molecular Plant Biologyr

University of Tübingen (Uni Tübingen)
Tübingen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany

Early Career Fellowship Programme 2021

Human Technopole
Milano, Italy

A tenure-track position in the field of ecology/evolutionary biology/conservation biology

Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (BGU)
Midrashet Ben-Gurion, Israel More

Abdel-Ghani AH, Parzies HK, Omary A, Geiger HH (2004) Estimating the outcrossing rate of barley landraces and wild barley populations collected from ecologically different regions of Jordan Theor Appl Genet 109(3):588–595PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Akerman A, Bürger R (2014) The consequences of gene flow for local adaptation and differentiation: a two-locus two-deme model J Math Biol 68(5):1135–1198PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Al-Asadi H, Petkova D, Stephens M, Novembre J (2019) Estimating recent migration and population-size surfaces PLoS Genet 15(1):e1007908PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Baker HG (1967) Support for Baker’s law-as a rule Evolution 21(4):853–856PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Baker K, Baker K, Bayer M, Cook N, Dreißig S, Dhillon T, Russell J, Hedley PE, Morris J, Ramsay L, Colas I et al. (2014) The low-recombining pericentromeric region of barley restricts gene diversity and evolution but not gene expression Plant J 79(6):981–992CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Battey C, Ralph PL, Kern AD (2020) Space is the place: effects of continuous spatial structure on analysis of population genetic data Genetics 215(1):193–214CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Baum M, Grando S, Backes G, Jahoor A, Sabbagh A, Ceccarelli S (2003) QTLs for agronomic traits in the mediterranean environment identified in recombinant inbred lines of the cross’ Arta’ × H. spontaneum 41-1 Theor Appl Genet 107(7):1215–1225CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bedada G, Westerbergh A, Nevo E, Korol A, Schmid KJ (2014) DNA sequence variation of wild barley Hordeum spontaneum (L.) across environmental gradients in Israel Heredity 112(6):646–655CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Berner D, Roesti M (2017) Genomics of adaptive divergence with chromosome-scale heterogeneity in crossover rate Mol Ecol 26(22):6351–6369CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bhatia G, Patterson N, Sankararaman S, Price AL (2013) Estimating and interpreting FST: the impact of rare variants Genome Res 23(9):1514–1521CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bohra A, Kilian B, Kilian B, Sivasankar S, Caccamo M, Mba, C, McCouch SR, Varshney RK (2021) Reap the crop wild relatives for breeding future crops. Trends Biotechnol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2021.08.009Bradburd GS, Coop GM, Ralph PL (2018) Inferring continuous and discrete population genetic structure across space. Genetics 210(1):33–52PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bürger R, Akerman A (2011) The effects of linkage and gene flow on local adaptation: a two-locus continent–island model. Theor Popul Biol 80(4):272–288PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Cabreros I, Storey JD (2019) A likelihood-free estimator of population structure bridging admixture models and principal components analysis. Genetics 212(4):1009–1029PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Caldwell KS, Russell J, Langridge P, Powell W (2006) Extreme population-dependent linkage disequilibrium detected in an inbreeding plant species, Hordeum vulgare. Genetics 172(1):557–567CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Capblancq T, Luu K, Blum MG, Bazin E (2018) Evaluation of redundancy analysis to identify signatures of local adaptation. Mol Ecol Resour 18(6):1223–1233CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Caye K, Jumentier B, Lepeule J, François O (2019) LFMM 2: fast and accurate inference of gene-environment associations in genome-wide studies. Mol Biol Evol 36(4):852–860CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Contreras-Moreira B, Serrano-Notivoli R, Mohammed NE, Cantalapiedra CP, Beguería S, Casas AM, Igartua E (2019) Genetic association with high-resolution climate data reveals selection footprints in the genomes of barley landraces across the Iberian Peninsula. Mol Ecol 28(8):1994–2012PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Dawson IK, Russell J, Powell W, Steffenson B, Thomas WTB, Waugh R (2015) Barley: a translational model for adaptation to climate change. New Phytol 206(3):913–931PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Dray S, Legendre P, Peres-Neto PR (2006) Spatial modelling: a comprehensive framework for principal coordinate analysis of neighbour matrices (pcnm). Ecol Model 196(3-4):483–493
Google Scholar 
Dray S, Bauman D, Blanchet G, Borcard D, Clappe S, Guenard G, Jombart T, Larocque G, Legendre P, Madi N, Wagner HH (2019) adespatial: multivariate multiscale spatial analysis. R package version 0.3-7. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=adespatialElshire RJ, Glaubitz JC, Sun Q, Poland JA, Kawamoto K, Buckler ES, Mitchell SE (2011) A robust, simple genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) approach for high diversity species. PLoS ONE 6(5):e19379CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Excoffier L, Hofer T, Foll M (2009) Detecting loci under selection in a hierarchically structured population. Heredity 103(4):285–298CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Fang Z, Gonzales AM, Clegg MT, Smith KP, Muehlbauer GJ, Steffenson BJ, Morrell PL (2014) Two genomic regions contribute disproportionately to geographic differentiation in wild barley. G34(7):1193–1203PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Fick SE, Hijmans RJ (2017) Worldclim 2: new 1-km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. Int J Climatol 37(12):4302–4315
Google Scholar 
Forester BR, Lasky JR, Wagner HH, Urban DL (2018) Comparing methods for detecting multilocus adaptation with multivariate genotype–environment associations. Mol Ecol 27(9):2215–2233CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Forester BR, Jones MR, Joost S, Landguth EL, Lasky JR (2016) Detecting spatial genetic signatures of local adaptation in heterogeneous landscapes. Mol Ecol 25(1):104–120CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Galkin E, Dalal A, Evenko A, Fridman E, Kan I, Wallach R, Moshelion M (2018) Risk-management strategies and transpiration rates of wild barley in uncertain environments. Physiol Plant 164(4):412–428CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gautier M (2015) Genome-wide scan for adaptive divergence and association with population-specific covariates. Genetics 201(4):1555–1579CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Gibson MJ, Moyle LC (2020) Regional differences in the abiotic environment contribute to genomic divergence within a wild tomato species. Mol Ecol 29(12):2204–2217CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Günther T, Coop G (2013) Robust identification of local adaptation from allele frequencies. Genetics 195(1):205–220PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Gutaker RM, Groen SC, Bellis ES, Choi JY, Pires IS, Bocinsky RK, Slayton ER, Wilkins O, Castillo CC, Negrão S et al. (2020) Genomic history and ecology of the geographic spread of rice. Nat Plants 6(5):492–502PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hämälä T, Savolainen O (2019) Genomic patterns of local adaptation under gene flow in arabidopsis lyrata. Mol Biol Evol 36(11):2557–2571
Google Scholar 
Harlan JR, Zohary D (1966) Distribution of wild wheats and barley. Science 153(3740):1074–1080CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hartfield M, Bataillon T, Glémin S (2017) The evolutionary interplay between adaptation and self-fertilization. Trends Genet 33(6):420–431CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hendrick MF, Finseth FR, Mathiasson ME, Palmer KA, Broder EM, Breigenzer P, Fishman L (2016) The genetics of extreme microgeographic adaptation: an integrated approach identifies a major gene underlying leaf trichome divergence in yellowstone mimulus guttatus. Mol Ecol 25(22):5647–5662CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hengl T, Mendes de Jesus J, Heuvelink GBM, Ruiperez Gonzalez M, Kilibarda M, Blagotić A, Shangguan W, Wright MN, Geng X, Bauer-Marschallinger B et al. (2017) Soilgrids250m: Global gridded soil information based on machine learning. PLoS ONE 12(2):e0169748PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Herzig P, Herzig P, Maurer A, Draba V, Sharma R, Draicchio F, Bull H, Milne L, Thomas WTB, Flavell AJ, Pillen K (2018) Contrasting genetic regulation of plant development in wild barley grown in two European environments revealed by nested association mapping. J Exp Bot 69(7):1517–1531CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hill W, Weir B (1988) Variances and covariances of squared linkage disequilibria in finite populations. Theor Popul Biol 33(1):54–78CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hodgins KA, Yeaman S (2019) Mating system impacts the genetic architecture of adaptation to heterogeneous environments. New Phytol 224(3):1201–1214PubMed 

Google Scholar 
House GL, Hahn MW (2018) Evaluating methods to visualize patterns of genetic differentiation on a landscape. Mol Ecol Resour 18(3):448–460PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hübner S, Korol AB, Schmid KJ (2015) Rna-seq analysis identifies genes associated with differential reproductive success under drought-stress in accessions of wild barley hordeum spontaneum. BMC Plant Biol15(1):1–14
Google Scholar 
Hübner S, Bdolach E, Ein-Gedy S, Schmid KJ, Korol A, Fridman E (2013) Phenotypic landscapes: phenological patterns in wild and cultivated barley. J Evol Biol 26(1):163–174PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hübner S, Günther T, Flavell A, Fridman E, Graner A, Korol A, Schmid KJ (2012) Islands and streams: clusters and gene flow in wild barley populations from the Levant. Mol Ecol 21(5):1115–1129PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hübner S, Höffken M, Oren E, Haseneyer G, Stein N, Graner A, Schmid K, Fridman E (2009) Strong correlation of wild barley (Hordeum spontaneum) population structure with temperature and precipitation variation. Mol Ecol 18(7):1523–1536PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Jakob SS, Rödder D, Engler JO, Shaaf S, Özkan H, Blattner FR, Kilian B (2014) Evolutionary history of wild barley (Hordeum vulgare subsp. spontaneum) analyzed using multilocus sequence data and paleodistribution modeling. Genome Biol Evol 6(3):685–702CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Jayakodi M, Padmarasu S, Haberer G, Bonthala VS, Gundlach H, Monat C, Lux T, Kamal N, Lang D, Himmelbach A, Ens J, Zhang X-Q, Angessa TT, Zhou G, Tan C, Hill C, Wang P, Schreiber M, Boston LB, Plott C, Jenkins J, Guo Y, Fiebig A, Budak H, Xu D, Zhang J, Wang C, Grimwood J, Schmutz J, Guo G, Zhang G, Mochida K, Hirayama T, Sato K, Chalmers KJ, Langridge P, Waugh R, Pozniak CJ, Scholz U, Mayer KFX, Spannagl M, Li C, Mascher M, Stein N (2020) The barley pan-genome reveals the hidden legacy of mutation breeding Nature 588:284–289. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2947-8CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kawecki TJ, Ebert D (2004) Conceptual issues in local adaptation. Ecol Lett 7(12):1225–1241
Google Scholar 
Kilian B, Özkan H, Kohl J, von Haeseler A, Barale F, Deusch O, Brandolini A, Yucel C, Martin W, Salamini F (2006) Haplotype structure at seven barley genes: relevance to gene pool bottlenecks, phylogeny of ear type and site of barley domestication. Mol Genet Genom 276(3):230–241CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lasky JR, Des Marais DL, McKAY JK, Richards JH, Juenger TE, Keitt TH (2012) Characterizing genomic variation of arabidopsis thaliana: the roles of geography and climate. Mol Ecol 21(22):5512–5529PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lasky JR, Upadhyaya HD, Ramu P, Deshpande S, Hash CT, Bonnette J, Juenger TE, Hyma K, Acharya C, Mitchell SE et al. (2015) Genome-environment associations in sorghum landraces predict adaptive traits. Sci Adv 1(6):e1400218PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Lawson DJ, Van Dorp L, Falush D (2018) A tutorial on how not to over-interpret STRUCTURE and ADMIXTURE bar plots. Nat Commun 9(1):1–11CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lee C-R, Mitchell-Olds T (2011) Quantifying effects of environmental and geographical factors on patterns of genetic differentiation. Mol Ecol 20(22):4631–4642PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Leek JT (2011) Asymptotic conditional singular value decomposition for high-dimensional genomic data. Biometrics 67(2):344–352PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Legendre P, Legendre L (2012) Canonical analysis. In: Numerical ecology, 3rd English edn, chap. 11. Elsevier Science BV, The Netherlands, pp 625–710López-Goldar X, Agrawal AA (2021) Ecological interactions, environmental gradients, and gene flow in local adaptation Trends Plant Sci 26(8):796–809PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lotterhos KE, Whitlock MC (2015) The relative power of genome scans to detect local adaptation depends on sampling design and statistical method. Mol Ecol 24(5):1031–1046PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lundgren E, Ralph PL (2019) Are populations like a circuit? Comparing isolation by resistance to a new coalescent-based method. Mol Ecol Resour 19(6):1388–1406PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Makowski D, Ben-Shachar M, Lüdecke D (2019) bayestestR: describing effects and their uncertainty, existence and significance within the Bayesian framework. J Open Source Softw 4(40):1541
Google Scholar 
Mascher M, Gundlach H, Himmelbach A, Beier S, Twardziok SO, Wicker T, Radchuk V, Dockter C, Hedley PE, Russell J et al. (2017) A chromosome conformation capture ordered sequence of the barley genome. Nature 544(7651):427–433CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Mascher M (2019) Pseudomolecules and annotation of the second version of the reference genome sequence assembly of barley cv. morex [morex v2]. https://doi.ipk-gatersleben.de:443/DOI/83e8e186-dc4b-47f7-a820-28ad37cb176b/d1067eba-1d08-42e2-85ec-66bfd5112cd8/2McVean G (2009) A genealogical interpretation of principal components analysis. PLoS Genet 5(10):e1000686Mee JA, Yeaman S (2019) Unpacking conditional neutrality: genomic signatures of selection on conditionally beneficial and conditionally deleterious mutations. Am Nat 194(4):529–540PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Milner SG, Jost M, Taketa S, Mazón ER, Himmelbach A, Oppermann M, Weise S, Knüpffer H, Basterrechea M, König P et al. (2019) Genebank genomics highlights the diversity of a global barley collection. Nat Genet 51(2):319–326CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Morrell PL, Toleno DM, Lundy KE, Clegg MT (2005) Low levels of linkage disequilibrium in wild barley (Hordeum vulgare ssp. spontaneum) despite high rates of self-fertilization. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102(7):2442–2447CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Navarro JAR, Willcox M, Burgueño J, Romay C, Swarts K, Trachsel S, Preciado E, Terron A, Delgado HV, Vidal V et al. (2017) A study of allelic diversity underlying flowering-time adaptation in maize landraces. Nat Genet 49(3):476
Google Scholar 
Nevo E, Zohary D, Brown A, Haber M (1979) Genetic diversity and environmental associations of wild barley, Hordeum spontaneum, in Israel. Evolution 33(3):815–833CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Nevo E, Beharav A, Meyer RC, Hackett CA, Forster BP, Russell JR, Powell W (2005) Genomic microsatellite adaptive divergence of wild barley by microclimatic stress in ‘Evolution Canyon’, Israel. Biol J Linn Soc84(2):205–224
Google Scholar 
Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Friendly M, Kindt R, Legendre P, McGlinn D, Minchin PR, O’Hara RB, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Stevens MHH, Szoecs E, Wagner H (2019) vegan: community ecology package. R package version 2.5-6. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=veganPankin A, Altmüller J, Becker C, von Korff M (2018) Targeted resequencing reveals genomic signatures of barley domestication. New Phytol 218(3):1247–1259CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Pekel J-F, Cottam A, Gorelick N, Belward AS (2016) High-resolution mapping of global surface water and its long-term changes. Nature 540(7633):418–422CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pembleton L, Cogan N, Forster J (2013) StAMPP: an R package for calculation of genetic differentiation and structure of mixed-ploidy level populations Mol Ecol Res 13:946–952. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12129CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Peterman WE (2018) Resistancega: an r package for the optimization of resistance surfaces using genetic algorithms. Methods Ecol Evol 9(6):1638–1647
Google Scholar 
Petkova D, Novembre J, Stephens M (2016) Visualizing spatial population structure with estimated effective migration surfaces. Nat Genet 48(1):94CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pham A-T, Maurer A, Pillen K, Brien C, Dowling K, Berger B, Eglinton JK, March TJ (2019) Genome-wide association of barley plant growth under drought stress using a nested association mapping population. BMC Plant Biol 19(1):134PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Poland JA, Brown PJ, Sorrells ME, Jannink J-L (2012) Development of high-density genetic maps for barley and wheat using a novel two-enzyme genotyping-by-sequencing approach. PLoS ONE 7(2):e32253CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Pyhäjärvi T, Hufford MB, Mezmouk S, Ross-Ibarra J (2013) Complex patterns of local adaptation in teosinte. Genome Biol Evol 5(9):1594–1609PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Rellstab C, Gugerli F, Eckert AJ, Hancock AM, Holderegger R (2015) A practical guide to environmental association analysis in landscape genomics. Mol Ecol 24(17):4348–4370PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Renaut S, Grassa CJ, Yeaman S, Moyers BT, Lai Z, Kane NC, Bowers JE, Burke JM, Rieseberg LH (2013) Genomic islands of divergence are not affected by geography of speciation in sunflowers. Nat Commun 4(1):1–8
Google Scholar 
Russell J, Mascher M, Dawson IK, Kyriakidis S, Calixto C, Freund F, Bayer M, Milne I, Marshall-Griffiths T, Heinen S et al. (2016) Exome sequencing of geographically diverse barley landraces and wild relatives gives insights into environmental adaptation. Nat Genet 48(9):1024CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Samuk K, Samuk K, Owens GL, Delmore KE, Miller SE, Rennison DJ, Schluter D (2017) Gene flow and selection interact to promote adaptive divergence in regions of low recombination. Mol Ecol 26(17):4378–4390PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Sato K, Mascher M, Himmelbach A, Haberer G, Spannagl M, Stein N (2021) Chromosome-scale assembly of wild barley accession ‘OUH602’. G3 11(10):jkab244PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Schmid K, Kilian B. Russell J (2018) Barley domestication, adaptation and population genomics. In: The Barley Genome, Springer International Publishing: Cham, pp 317–336Szkiba D, Kapun M, von Haeseler A, Gallach M (2014) SNP2GO: functional analysis of genome-wide association studies. Genetics 197(1):285–289PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Terrazas RA, Balbirnie-Cumming K, Morris J, Hedley PE, Russell J, Paterson E, Baggs EM, Fridman E, Bulgarelli D (2020) A footprint of plant eco-geographic adaptation on the composition of the barley rhizosphere bacterial microbiota. Sci Rep 10(1):1–13
Google Scholar 
Tiffin P, Ross-Ibarra J (2014) Advances and limits of using population genetics to understand local adaptation. Trends Ecol Evol 29(12):673–680PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Tsuda Y, Chen J, Stocks M, Källman T, Sønstebø JH, Parducci L, Semerikov V, Sperisen C, Politov D, Ronkainen T et al. (2016) The extent and meaning of hybridization and introgression between siberian spruce (picea obovata) and norway spruce (picea abies): cryptic refugia as stepping stones to the west? Mol Ecol 25(12):2773–2789CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Turner-Hissong SD, Mabry ME, Beissinger TM, Ross-Ibarra J, Pires JC (2020) Evolutionary insights into plant breeding Curr Opin Plant Biol 54:93–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2020.03.003CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
de Villemereuil P, Frichot É, Bazin É, François O, Gaggiotti OE (2014) Genome scan methods against more complex models: when and how much should we trust them? Mol Ecol 23(8):2006–2019PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Volis S (2011) Adaptive genetic differentiation in a predominantly self-pollinating species analyzed by transplanting into natural environment, crossbreeding and QST-FST test. New Phytol 192(1):237–248CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Volis S, Mendlinger S, Ward D (2002a) Differentiation in populations of Hordeum spontaneum along a gradient of environmental productivity and predictability: life history and local adaptation. Biol J Linn Soc 77(4):479–490
Google Scholar 
Volis S, Mendlinger S, Ward D (2002b) Adaptive traits of wild barley plants of Mediterranean and desert origin. Oecologia 133(2):131–138PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Volis S, Zaretsky M, Shulgina I (2010) Fine-scale spatial genetic structure in a predominantly selfing plant: role of seed and pollen dispersal. Heredity 105(4):384–393CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Volis S, Shulgina I, Ward D, Mendlinger S (2003) Regional subdivision in wild barley allozyme variation: adaptive or neutral? J Hered 94(4):341–351CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Volis S, Verhoeven K, Mendlinger S, Ward D (2004) Phenotypic selection and regulation of reproduction in different environments in wild barley. J Evol Biol 17(5):1121–1131CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Volis S, Yakubov B, Shulgina I, Ward D, Mendlinger S (2005) Distinguishing adaptive from nonadaptive genetic differentiation: comparison of q st and f st at two spatial scales. Heredity 95(6):466–475CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Volis S, Yakubov B, Shulgina I, Ward D, Zur V, Mendlinger S (2001) Tests for adaptive RAPD variation in population genetic structure of wild barley, Hordeum spontaneum Koch. Biol J Linn Soc 74(3):289–303
Google Scholar 
Wang X, Chen Z-H, Yang C, Zhang X, Jin G, Chen G, Wang Y, Holford P, Nevo E, Zhang G et al. (2018) Genomic adaptation to drought in wild barley is driven by edaphic natural selection at the Tabigha Evolution Slope. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 115(20):5223–5228CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wiegmann M, Wiegmann M, Maurer A, Pham A, March TJ, Al-Abdallat A, Thomas WTB, Bull HJ, Shahid M, Eglinton J, Baum M, Flavell AJ, Tester M, Pillen K (2019) Barley yield formation under abiotic stress depends on the interplay between flowering time genes and environmental cues Sci Rep 9(1):6397. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-42673-1CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Yeaman S, Whitlock MC (2011) The genetic architecture of adaptation under migration–selection balance. Evolution 65(7):1897–1911PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Zheng X, Levine D, Shen J, Gogarten S, Laurie C, Weir B (2012) A high-performance computing toolset for relatedness and principal component analysis of snp data Bioinformatics 28(24):3326–3328. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bts606CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar  More

1.Ley, R. E. et al. Evolution of mammals and their gut microbes. Science 320, 1647–1651. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1155725 (2008).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
2.Hale, V. L. et al. Diet versus phylogeny: a comparison of gut microbiota in captive colobine monkey species. Microb. Ecol. 75, 515–527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-017-1041-8 (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
3.Pickard, J. M., Zeng, M. Y., Caruso, R. & Núñez, G. Gut microbiota: role in pathogen colonization, immune responses, and inflammatory disease. Immunol. Rev. 279, 70–89 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
4.Ley, R. E., Peterson, D. A. & Gordon, J. I. Ecological and evolutionary forces shaping microbial diversity in the human intestine. Cell 124, 837–848 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
5.Pascoe, E. L., Hauffe, H. C., Marchesi, J. R. & Perkins, S. E. Network analysis of gut microbiota literature: an overview of the research landscape in non-human animal studies. ISME J. 11, 2644–2651. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2017.133 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
6.Hauffe, H. C. & Barelli, C. Conserve the germs: the gut microbiota and adaptive potential. Conserv. Genet. 20, 19–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-019-01150-y (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Ellegaard, K. M. & Engel, P. Beyond 16S rRNA Community profiling: intra-species diversity in the gut microbiota. Front. Microbiol. 7, doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.01475 (2016).8.Sugden, S., Sanderson, D., Ford, K., Stein, L. Y. & St. Clair, C. C. An altered microbiome in urban coyotes mediates relationships between anthropogenic diet and poor health. Sci. Rep. 10, 22207, doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-78891-1 (2020).9.Góngora, E., Elliott, K. H. & Whyte, L. Gut microbiome is affected by inter-sexual and inter-seasonal variation in diet for thick-billed murres (Uria lomvia). Sci. Rep. 11, 1200. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-80557-x (2021).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
10.Muegge, B. D. et al. Diet drives convergence in gut microbiome functions across mammalian phylogeny and within humans. Science 332, 970. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1198719 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
11.Bik, E. M. et al. Marine mammals harbor unique microbiotas shaped by and yet distinct from the sea. Nature Commun 7, 10516 (2016).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
12.McKenzie, V. J. et al. The effects of captivity on the mammalian gut microbiome. Integr. Comp. Biol. 57, 690–704 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
13.Des Roches, S. et al. The ecological importance of intraspecific variation. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 57–64, doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0402-5 (2018).14.Des Roches, S., Pendleton, L. H., Shapiro, B. & Palkovacs, E. P. Conserving intraspecific variation for nature’s contributions to people. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 574–582, doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01403-5 (2021).15.Wasimuddin, et al. Gut microbiomes of free-ranging and captive Namibian cheetahs: diversity, putative functions and occurrence of potential pathogens. Mol. Ecol. 26, 5515–5527. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.14278 (2017).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
16.Alfano, N. et al. Variation in koala microbiomes within and between individuals: effect of body region and captivity status. Sci. Rep. 5, 10189. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep10189 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
17.Schwab, C., Cristescu, B., Northrup, J. M., Stenhouse, G. B. & Gänzle, M. Diet and environment shape fecal bacterial microbiota composition and enteric pathogen load of grizzly bears. Plos One 6, e27905 (2011).18.Sommer, F. et al. The gut microbiota modulates energy metabolism in the hibernating brown bear Ursus arctos. Cell Rep 14, 1655–1661 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
19.Durner, G., Laidre, K. & York, G. Polar Bears: Proceedings of the 18th Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group, 7–11 June 2016, Anchorage, Alaska. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN. xxx+ 207pp (2018).20.Amstrup, S. C., Marcot, B. G. & Douglas, D. C. in Arctic sea ice decline: Observations, projections, mechanisms, and implications Geophysics monograph series (eds E.T. DeWeaver, C.M. Bitz, & L.-B. Tremblay) 213–268 (AGU, 2008).21.Thiemann, G. W., Iverson, S. J. & Stirling, I. Polar bear diets and arctic marine food webs: Insights from fatty acid analysis. Ecol. Monogr 78, 591–613 (2008).
Google Scholar 
22.McKinney, M. A. et al. Regional contamination versus regional dietary differences: Understanding geographic variation in brominated and chlorinated contaminant levels in polar bears. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 896–902 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
23.Laidre, K. L. et al. Arctic marine mammal population status, sea ice habitat loss, and conservation recommendations for the 21st century. Conserv. Biol. 29, 724–737 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
24.Stern, H. L. & Laidre, K. L. Sea-ice indicators of polar bear habitat. Cryosphere 10, 2027–2041. https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-10-2027-2016 (2016).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Atwood, T. C. et al. Rapid environmental change drives increased land use by an Arctic marine predator. PLoS ONE 11, e0155932 (2016).26.Rode, K. D., Robbins, C. T., Nelson, L. & Amstrup, S. C. Can polar bears use terrestrial foods to offset lost ice-based hunting opportunities?. Front. Ecol. Environ. 13, 138–145 (2015).
Google Scholar 
27.Herreman, J. K. & Peacock, E. Polar bear use of a persistent food subsidy: insights from non-invasive genetic sampling in Alaska. Ursus 24, 148–163 (2013).
Google Scholar 
28.Glad, T. et al. Bacterial diversity in faeces from polar bear (Ursus maritimus) in Arctic Svalbard. BMC Microbiol. 10, doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2180-10-10 (2010).29.Watson, S. E. et al. Global change-driven use of onshore habitat impacts polar bear faecal microbiota. ISME J. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-019-0480-2 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
30.McKinney, M. A. et al. Global change effects on the long-term feeding ecology and contaminant exposures of East Greenland polar bears. Glob. Change Biol. 19, 2360–2372. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12241 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Ilinskaya, O. N., Ulyanova, V. V., Yarullina, D. R. & Gataullin, I. G. Secretome of Intestinal Bacilli: A Natural Guard against Pathologies. Front. Microbiol. 8, doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.01666 (2017).32.Cho, G.-S. et al. Quantification of Slackia and Eggerthella spp. in Human Feces and Adhesion of Representatives Strains to Caco-2 Cells. Front. Microbiol. 7, doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.00658 (2016).33.Astbury, S. et al. Lower gut microbiome diversity and higher abundance of proinflammatory genus Collinsella are associated with biopsy-proven nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Gut Microbes 11, 569–580. https://doi.org/10.1080/19490976.2019.1681861 (2020).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
34.Gomez-Arango, L. F. et al. Low dietary fiber intake increases Collinsella abundance in the gut microbiota of overweight and obese pregnant women. Gut Microbes 9, 189–201 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
35.Jeong, Y. et al. Gut microbial composition and function are altered in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. J. Clin. Med. 8, 693 (2019).CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
36.Liu, X. et al. Blautia-a new functional genus with potential probiotic properties?. Gut microbes 13, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/19490976.2021.1875796 (2021).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
37.Claus, S. P. et al. Colonization-induced host-gut microbial metabolic interaction. MBio 2, e00271-e210 (2011).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
38.Martínez, I. et al. Diet-induced metabolic improvements in a hamster model of hypercholesterolemia are strongly linked to alterations of the gut microbiota. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 75, 4175–4184 (2009).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
39.Sergeant, M. J. et al. Extensive microbial and functional diversity within the chicken cecal microbiome. PLoS One 9, e91941 (2014).40.Zhang, X. et al. Human gut microbiota changes reveal the progression of glucose intolerance. PLoS One 8, e71108 (2013).41.Shetty, S. A., Marathe, N. P., Lanjekar, V., Ranade, D. & Shouche, Y. S. Comparative genome analysis of Megasphaera sp. reveals niche specialization and its potential role in the human gut. PLoS One 8, e79353 (2013).42.Jiang, X.-L., Su, Y. & Zhu, W.-Y. Fermentation characteristics of Megasphaera elsdenii J6 derived from pig feces on different lactate isomers. J. Integr. Agric. 15, 1575–1583. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(15)61236-9 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Hobson, K. A. & Stirling, I. Low variation in blood delta C-13 among Hudson Bay polar bears: implications for metabolism and tracing terrestrial foraging. Mar. Mammal Sci 13, 359–367 (1997).
Google Scholar 
44.Hobson, K. A., Stirling, I. & Andriashek, D. S. Isotopic homogeneity of breath CO2 from fasting and berry-eating polar bears: implications for tracing reliance on terrestrial foods in a changing Arctic. Can. J. Zool 87, 50–55 (2009).CAS 

Google Scholar 
45.Sakamoto, M. & Ohkuma, M. Reclassification of Xylanibacter oryzae Ueki et al. 2006 as Prevotella oryzae comb. nov., with an emended description of the genus Prevotella. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 62, 2637–2642 (2012).46.Ley, R. E. Obesity and the human microbiome. Curr. Opin. Gastroenterol. 26, 5–11 (2010).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
47.Rajilić-Stojanović, M. et al. Global and deep molecular analysis of microbiota signatures in fecal samples from patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Gastroenterology 141, 1792–1801 (2011).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
48.Larsen, N. et al. Gut microbiota in human adults with type 2 diabetes differs from non-diabetic adults. PLoS One 5, e9085 (2010).49.Le Chatelier, E. et al. Richness of human gut microbiome correlates with metabolic markers. Nature 500, 541–546 (2013).
Google Scholar 
50.Rajilić-Stojanović, M. & de Vos, W. M. The first 1000 cultured species of the human gastrointestinal microbiota. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 38, 996–1047. https://doi.org/10.1111/1574-6976.12075 (2014).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
51.do Nascimento Silva, A., de Avila, E. D., Nakano, V. & Avila-Campos, M. J. Pathogenicity and genetic profile of oral Porphyromonas species from canine periodontitis. Arch. Oral Biol. 83, 20–24 (2017).52.Acuña-Amador, L. & Barloy-Hubler, F. Porphyromonas spp. have an extensive host range in ill and healthy individuals and an unexpected environmental distribution: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Anaerobe 66, 102280, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anaerobe.2020.102280 (2020).53.Solé, C. et al. Alterations in gut microbiome in cirrhosis as assessed by quantitative metagenomics: relationship with acute-on-chronic liver failure and prognosis. Gastroenterology 160, 206–218. e213 (2021).54.Osman, M. A. et al. Parvimonas micra, Peptostreptococcus stomatis, Fusobacterium nucleatum and Akkermansia muciniphila as a four-bacteria biomarker panel of colorectal cancer. Sci. Rep. 11, 2925. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-82465-0 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
55.Murphy, E. C. & Frick, I.-M. Gram-positive anaerobic cocci – commensals and opportunistic pathogens. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 37, 520–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/1574-6976.12005 (2013).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
56.Vitali, B., Abruzzo, A. & Mastromarino, P. in The Microbiota in Gastrointestinal Pathophysiology (eds Martin H. Floch, Yehuda Ringel, & W. Allan Walker) 399–407 (Academic Press, 2017).57.Costello, E. K., Stagaman, K., Dethlefsen, L., Bohannan, B. J. & Relman, D. A. The application of ecological theory toward an understanding of the human microbiome. Science 336, 1255–1262 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
58.Kapourchali, F. R. & Cresci, G. A. M. Early-life gut microbiome—the importance of maternal and infant factors in its establishment. Nutr. Clin. Pract. 35, 386–405. https://doi.org/10.1002/ncp.10490 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
59.Guo, G. et al. The Gut Microbial Community Structure of the North American River Otter (Lontra canadensis) in the Alberta Oil Sands Region in Canada: relationship with local environmental variables and metal body burden. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.4876 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
60.Haworth, S. E., White, K. S., Côté, S. D. & Shafer, A. B. A. Space, time and captivity: quantifying the factors influencing the fecal microbiome of an alpine ungulate. FEMS microbiology ecology 95, doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiz095 (2019).61.McKinney, M. A., Atwood, T. C., Iverson, S. J. & Peacock, E. Temporal complexity of southern Beaufort Sea polar bear diets during a period of increasing land use. Ecosphere 8, e01633. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1633 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Atwood, T. C. et al. Rapid environmental change drives increased land use by an arctic marine predator. PLoS ONE 11, e0155932–e0155932. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155932 (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
63.Laidre, K. L., Stirling, I., Estes, J. A., Kochnev, A. & Roberts, J. Historical and potential future importance of large whales as food for polar bears. Front. Ecol. Environ. 16, 515–524. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1963 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Bromaghin, J. F. et al. Polar bear population dynamics in the southern Beaufort Sea during a period of sea ice decline. Ecol. Appl. 25, 634–651. https://doi.org/10.1890/14-1129.1 (2015).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
65.Atwood, T. C. et al. Environmental and behavioral changes may influence the exposure of an Arctic apex predator to pathogens and contaminants. Sci. Rep. 7, doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-13496-9 (2017).66.Bowen, W. D. & Iverson, S. J. Methods of estimating marine mammal diets: a review of validation experiments and sources of bias and uncertainty. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 29, 719–754. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2012.00604.x (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Sonsthagen, S. A. et al. DNA metabarcoding of feces to infer summer diet of Pacific walruses. Mar. Mamm. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1111/mms.12717 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Michaux, J., Dyck, M., Boag, P., Lougheed, S. & Van Coeverden de Groot, P. New insights on polar bear (Ursus maritimus) diet from faeces based on next-generation sequencing technologies. ARCTIC 74, 87–99, doi:https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic72239 (2021).69.Bourque, J., Atwood, T. C., Divoky, G. J., Stewart, C. & McKinney, M. A. Fatty acid-based diet estimates suggest ringed seal remain the main prey of southern Beaufort Sea polar bears despite recent use of onshore food resources. Ecol. Evol. 10, 2093–2103. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6043 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
70.Dominianni, C. et al. Sex, Body Mass Index, and Dietary Fiber Intake Influence the Human Gut Microbiome. PLoS One 10, doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0124599 (2015).71.Bennett, G. et al. Host age, social group, and habitat type influence the gut microbiota of wild ring-tailed lemurs (Lemur catta). Am. J. Primatol. 78, 883–892. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.22555 (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
72.Peng, C. et al. Sex-specific association between the gut microbiome and high-fat diet-induced metabolic disorders in mice. Biol. Sex Differ. 11, 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13293-020-0281-3 (2020).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
73.Markle, J. G. et al. Sex differences in the gut microbiome drive hormone-dependent regulation of autoimmunity. Science 339, 1084–1088 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
74.Kaliannan, K. et al. Estrogen-mediated gut microbiome alterations influence sexual dimorphism in metabolic syndrome in mice. Microbiome 6, 205. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-018-0587-0 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
75.Park, M. J. et al. Reproductive senescence and ischemic stroke remodel the gut microbiome and modulate the effects of estrogen treatment in female rats. Transl. Stroke Res., 1–19 (2019).76.Thiemann, G. W., Budge, S. M., Iverson, S. J. & Stirling, I. Unusual fatty acid biomarkers reveal age- and sex-specific foraging in polar bears (Ursus maritimus). Can. J. Zool. 85, 505–517. https://doi.org/10.1139/Z07-028 (2007).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
77.Stirling, I. & Derocher, A. E. Effects of climate warming on polar bears: a review of the evidence. Glob. Change Biol. 18, 2694–2706. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02753.x (2012).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
78.Miller, S., Wilder, J. & Wilson, R. R. Polar bear–grizzly bear interactions during the autumn open-water period in Alaska. J. Mammal. 96, 1317–1325 (2015).
Google Scholar 
79.Mshelia, E. S. et al. The association between gut microbiome, sex, age and body condition scores of horses in Maiduguri and its environs. Microb. Pathog. 118, 81–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micpath.2018.03.018 (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
80.Falony, G. et al. Population-level analysis of gut microbiome variation. Science 352, 560. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad3503 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
81.Walters, W. A., Xu, Z. & Knight, R. Meta-analyses of human gut microbes associated with obesity and IBD. FEBS Lett. 588, 4223–4233 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
82.Feng, P. et al. A review on gut remediation of selected environmental contaminants: possible roles of probiotics and gut microbiota. Nutrients 11, 22 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
83.Vasemägi, A., Visse, M. & Kisand, V. Effect of environmental factors and an emerging parasitic disease on gut microbiome of wild salmonid fish. MSphere 2 (2017).84.Kreisinger, J., Bastien, G. r., Hauffe, H. C., Marchesi, J. & Perkins, S. E. Interactions between multiple helminths and the gut microbiota in wild rodents. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 370, doi:https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0295 (2015).85.Faust, K. & Raes, J. Microbial interactions: from networks to models. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 10, 538–550 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
86.Baldo, L. et al. Convergence of gut microbiotas in the adaptive radiations of African cichlid fishes. ISME J. 11, 1975–1987 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
87.Yan, D. et al. Effects of Chronic Stress on the Fecal Microbiome of Malayan Pangolins (Manis javanica) Rescued from the Illegal Wildlife Trade. Curr. Microbiol. 78, 1017–1025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00284-021-02357-4 (2021).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
88.Schirmer, M. et al. Linking the human gut microbiome to inflammatory cytokine production capacity. Cell 167, 1125-1136.e1128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2016.10.020 (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
89.Mallott, E. K., Borries, C., Koenig, A., Amato, K. R. & Lu, A. Reproductive hormones mediate changes in the gut microbiome during pregnancy and lactation in Phayre’s leaf monkeys. Sci. Rep. 10, 9961. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-66865-2 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
90.Burokas, A., Moloney, R. D., Dinan, T. G. & Cryan, J. F. Microbiota regulation of the mammalian gut–brain axis. Adv. Appl. Microbiol. 91, 1–62 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
91.Bercik, P. et al. Chronic gastrointestinal inflammation induces anxiety-like behavior and alters central nervous system biochemistry in mice. Gastroenterology 139, 2102–2112 (2010).92.Walter, J. M., Bagi, A. & Pampanin, D. M. Insights into the potential of the Atlantic cod gut microbiome as biomarker of oil contamination in the marine environment. Microorganisms 7, 209 (2019).CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
93.Xia, J. et al. Effects of short term lead exposure on gut microbiota and hepatic metabolism in adult zebrafish. Comput. Biochem. Physiol. C: Toxicol. Pharmacol. 209, 1–8 (2018).CAS 

Google Scholar 
94.Breton, J. et al. Ecotoxicology inside the gut: impact of heavy metals on the mouse microbiome. BMC Pharmacol. Toxicol. 14, 1–11 (2013).
Google Scholar 
95.Schliebe, S. et al. Effects of sea ice extent and food availability on spatial and temporal distribution of polar bears during the fall open-water period in the Southern Beaufort Sea. Polar Biol. 31, 999–1010 (2008).
Google Scholar 
96.Bahrndorff, S., Alemu, T., Alemneh, T. & Lund Nielsen, J. The microbiome of animals: implications for conservation biology. Int J Genomics 2016, 5304028–5304028, doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/5304028 (2016).97.McKenney, E., Koelle, K., Dunn, R. & Yoder, A. The ecosystem services of animal microbiomes. Mol. Ecol. 27, 2164–2172 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
98.Calvert, W. & Ramsay, M. A. Evaluation of age determination of polar bears by counts of cementum growth layer groups. Ursus 10, 449–453 (1998).
Google Scholar 
99.Iverson, S. J., Field, C., Bowen, W. D. & Blanchard, W. Quantitative fatty acid signature analysis: a new method of estimating predator diets. Ecol. Monogr 74, 211–235 (2004).
Google Scholar 
100.Galicia, M. P., Thiemann, G. W., Dyck, M. G. & Ferguson, S. H. Characterization of polar bear (Ursus maritimus) diets in the Canadian High Arctic. Polar Biol. 38, 1983–1992 (2015).
Google Scholar 
101.Bourque, J. et al. Feeding habits of a new Arctic predator: Insight from full-depth blubber fatty acid signatures of Greenland, Faroe Islands, Denmark, and managed-care killer whales Orcinus orca. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 603, 1–12 (2018).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
102.Budge, S. M., Iverson, S. J. & Koopman, H. N. Studying trophic ecology in marine ecosystems using fatty acids: a primer on analysis and interpretation. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 22, 759–801 (2006).
Google Scholar 
103.Aitchison, J. The statistical analysis of compositional data. J. R. Stat. Soc.: Ser. B (Methodol.) 44, 139–160 (1982).MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
104.R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2019).105.Callahan, B. J. et al. DADA2: High-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat. Methods 13, 581–583. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3869 (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
106.Davis, N. M., Proctor, D. M., Holmes, S. P., Relman, D. A. & Callahan, B. J. Simple statistical identification and removal of contaminant sequences in marker-gene and metagenomics data. Microbiome 6, 1–14 (2018).
Google Scholar 
107.Chong, J., Liu, P., Zhou, G. & Xia, J. Using MicrobiomeAnalyst for comprehensive statistical, functional, and meta-analysis of microbiome data. Nat. Protoc. 15, 799–821. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41596-019-0264-1 (2020).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
108.McMurdie, P., Holmes, S., Kindt, R., Legendre, P. & O’Hara, R. P. an R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. Watson M, editor. PLoS One [Internet]. Public Library of Science (2013).109.McMurdie, P. J. & Holmes, S. Waste Not, Want Not: Why Rarefying Microbiome Data Is Inadmissible. PLoS Comput. Biol. 10, e1003531. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003531 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
110.Oksanen, J. et al. The vegan package. Commun. Ecol. Package 10, 719 (2007).
Google Scholar 
111.Anderson, M. J. Distance-based tests for homogeneity of multivariate dispersions. Biometrics 62, 245–253 (2006).MathSciNet 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
112.Lin, H. & Peddada, S. D. Analysis of compositions of microbiomes with bias correction. Nat. Commun. 11, 3514. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17041-7 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
113.Rode, K. D. et al. Identifying reliable indicators of fitness in polar bears. PLoS ONE 15, e0237444. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237444 (2020).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
114.Burnham, K. P., Anderson, D. R. & Huyvaert, K. P. AIC model selection and multimodel inference in behavioral ecology: some background, observations, and comparisons. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 65, 23–35 (2011).
Google Scholar  More

1.Meredith, M. et al. in IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate Ch. 3 (eds Pörtner, H.-O. et al.) (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2019).2.Blok, D. et al. Shrub expansion may reduce summer permafrost thaw in Siberian tundra. Glob. Change Biol. 16, 1296–1305 (2010). A field study in which dwarf-shrub canopies were removed experimentally, resulting in increased thaw depths, thereby, underscoring the protective role of vegetation cover on permafrost.
Google Scholar 
3.van Huissteden, J. Thawing Permafrost: Permafrost Carbon in a Warming Arctic (Springer, 2020).4.Jorgenson, M. et al. Resilience and vulnerability of permafrost to climate change. Can. J. For. Res. 40, 1219–1236 (2010).
Google Scholar 
5.Kropp, H. et al. Shallow soils are warmer under trees and tall shrubs across Arctic and Boreal ecosystems. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 015001 (2020).
Google Scholar 
6.Myers-Smith, I. H. & Hik, D. S. Shrub canopies influence soil temperatures but not nutrient dynamics: an experimental test of tundra snow–shrub interactions. Ecol. Evol. 3, 3683–3700 (2013).
Google Scholar 
7.Sturm, M. et al. Snow–shrub interactions in Arctic tundra: a hypothesis with climatic implications. J. Clim. 14, 336–344 (2001).
Google Scholar 
8.Sturm, M. et al. Winter biological processes could help convert arctic tundra to shrubland. BioScience 55, 17–26 (2005).
Google Scholar 
9.Chapin, F. S. et al. Role of land-surface changes in Arctic summer warming. Science 310, 657–660 (2005).
Google Scholar 
10.Loranty, M. M. et al. Reviews and syntheses: Changing ecosystem influences on soil thermal regimes in northern high-latitude permafrost regions. Biogeosciences 15, 5287–5313 (2018). Review article showing how Arctic ecosystem processes can influence soil thermal dynamics in permafrost soil.
Google Scholar 
11.Shur, Y. L. & Jorgenson, M. T. Patterns of permafrost formation and degradation in relation to climate and ecosystems. Permafr. Periglac. Process. 18, 7–19 (2007).
Google Scholar 
12.Chadburn, S. E. et al. An observation-based constraint on permafrost loss as a function of global warming. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 340–344 (2017).
Google Scholar 
13.Smith, S. L., O’Neill, H. B., Isaksen, K., Noetzli, J. & Romanovsky, V. E. The changing thermal state of permafrost. Nat. Rev. Earth. Environ. 3 https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-021-00240-1 (2022).14.Ksenofontov, S., Backhaus, N. & Schaepman-Strub, G. ‘There are new species’: indigenous knowledge of biodiversity change in Arctic Yakutia. Polar Geogr. 42, 34–57 (2019).
Google Scholar 
15.Schuur, E. A. et al. Vulnerability of permafrost carbon to climate change: implications for the global carbon cycle. BioScience 58, 701–714 (2008).
Google Scholar 
16.Kokelj, S. V. & Jorgenson, M. Advances in thermokarst research. Permafr. Periglac. Process. 24, 108–119 (2013).
Google Scholar 
17.Keuper, F. et al. A frozen feast: thawing permafrost increases plant-available nitrogen in subarctic peatlands. Glob. Change Biol. 18, 1998–2007 (2012).
Google Scholar 
18.Salmon, V. G. et al. Nitrogen availability increases in a tundra ecosystem during five years of experimental permafrost thaw. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 1927–1941 (2016).
Google Scholar 
19.Blume-Werry, G., Milbau, A., Teuber, L. M., Johansson, M. & Dorrepaal, E. Dwelling in the deep–strongly increased root growth and rooting depth enhance plant interactions with thawing permafrost soil. New Phytol. 223, 1328–1339 (2019).
Google Scholar 
20.Wang, P. et al. Above- and below-ground responses of four tundra plant functional types to deep soil heating and surface soil fertilization. J. Ecol. 105, 947–957 (2017).
Google Scholar 
21.Nauta, A. L. et al. Permafrost collapse after shrub removal shifts tundra ecosystem to a methane source. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 67–70 (2015).
Google Scholar 
22.Osterkamp, T. et al. Physical and ecological changes associated with warming permafrost and thermokarst in interior Alaska. Permafr. Periglac. Process. 20, 235–256 (2009).
Google Scholar 
23.Schuur, E. A. et al. Climate change and the permafrost carbon feedback. Nature 520, 171–179 (2015).
Google Scholar 
24.Koven, C. D. et al. Permafrost carbon-climate feedbacks accelerate global warming. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 14769–14774 (2011).
Google Scholar 
25.Abbott, B. W. & Jones, J. B. Permafrost collapse alters soil carbon stocks, respiration, CH4, and N2O in upland tundra. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 4570–4587 (2015).
Google Scholar 
26.Voigt, C. et al. Warming of subarctic tundra increases emissions of all three important greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 3121–3138 (2017).
Google Scholar 
27.Lenton, T. M. et al. Climate tipping points – too risky to bet against. Nature 575, 592–595 (2019).
Google Scholar 
28.Miner, K. R. Permafrost carbon emissions in a changing Arctic. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-021-00230-3 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Peterson, K. & Billings, W. Tundra vegetational patterns and succession in relation to microtopography near Atkasook, Alaska. Arct. Alp. Res. 12, 473–482 (1980).
Google Scholar 
30.Bliss, L. in North American Terrestrial Vegetation (eds Barbour, M. G. & Billings W. D.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1988).31.Walker, D. A. et al. The circumpolar Arctic vegetation map. J. Veg. Sci. 16, 267–282 (2005).
Google Scholar 
32.Frost, G. V., Epstein, H. E. & Walker, D. A. Regional and landscape-scale variability of Landsat-observed vegetation dynamics in northwest Siberian tundra. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 025004 (2014).
Google Scholar 
33.Walker, D. A. et al. Environment, vegetation and greenness (NDVI) along the North America and Eurasia Arctic transects. Environ. Res. Lett. 7, 015504 (2012).
Google Scholar 
34.Raynolds, M. K. et al. A raster version of the Circumpolar Arctic Vegetation Map (CAVM). Remote Sens. Environ. 232, 111297 (2019).
Google Scholar 
35.Chernov, Y. I. & Matveyeva, N. in Polar Alpine Tundra (ed. Wielgolaski, F. E.) 361–507 (Elsevier, 1997).36.Elvebakk, A. in The Species Concept in the High North: A Panarctic Flora Initiative (eds Nordal, I. & Razzhivin, V. Y.) 81–112 (The Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters, 1999).37.Yurtsev, B. A. Floristic division of the Arctic. J. Veg. Sci. 5, 765–776 (1994).
Google Scholar 
38.Elmendorf, S. C. et al. Plot-scale evidence of tundra vegetation change and links to recent summer warming. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 453–457 (2012). A meta-analysis of field-observed vegetation changes from 46 polar sites indicating widespread increases of shrub vegetation and increased plant size.
Google Scholar 
39.Iversen, C. M. et al. The unseen iceberg: plant roots in arctic tundra. New Phytol. 205, 34–58 (2015).
Google Scholar 
40.Hobbie, J. E. & Hobbie, E. A. 15N in symbiotic fungi and plants estimates nitrogen and carbon flux rates in Arctic tundra. Ecology 87, 816–822 (2006).
Google Scholar 
41.Nielsen, U. N. & Wall, D. H. The future of soil invertebrate communities in polar regions: different climate change responses in the Arctic and Antarctic? Ecol. Lett. 16, 409–419 (2013).
Google Scholar 
42.Clemmensen, K. E. et al. A tipping point in carbon storage when forest expands into tundra is related to mycorrhizal recycling of nitrogen. Ecol. Lett. 24, 1193–1204 (2021).
Google Scholar 
43.Minke, M., Donner, N., Karpov, N., de Klerk, P. & Joosten, H. Patterns in vegetation composition, surface height and thaw depth in polygon mires in the Yakutian Arctic (NE Siberia): a microtopographical characterisation of the active layer. Permafr. Periglac. Process. 20, 357–368 (2009).
Google Scholar 
44.Liljedahl, A. K. et al. Pan-Arctic ice-wedge degradation in warming permafrost and its influence on tundra hydrology. Nat. Geosci. 9, 312–318 (2016).
Google Scholar 
45.Grunberg, I., Wilcox, E. J., Zwieback, S., Marsh, P. & Boike, J. Linking tundra vegetation, snow, soil temperature, and permafrost. Biogeosciences 17, 4261–4279 (2020). A field study reporting that large variations in soil temperatures and thaw depths can be explained by vegetation-mediated differences in snow height.
Google Scholar 
46.Magnússon, R. I. et al. Rapid vegetation succession and coupled permafrost dynamics in Arctic thaw ponds in the Siberian lowland tundra. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 125, e2019JG005618 (2020).
Google Scholar 
47.Jorgenson, M. et al. Role of ground ice dynamics and ecological feedbacks in recent ice wedge degradation and stabilization. J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf. 120, 2280–2297 (2015). Outlines the role of ground ice and vegetation succession in thermokarst terrain, including first estimates of recovery times.
Google Scholar 
48.Bjorkman, A. D. et al. Status and trends in Arctic vegetation: evidence from experimental warming and long-term monitoring. Ambio 49, 678–692 (2020). A meta-analysis of plant species responses to experimental climate warming across Arctic sites, finding that shrubs and graminoids generally responded positively to warming, whereas lichens and bryophytes responded more negatively.
Google Scholar 
49.Frost, G. V. et al. Arctic Report Card 2020: Tundra Greenness. https://doi.org/10.25923/46rm-0w23 (NOAA, 2020). Provides an annual update of Arctic NDVI, offering a long-standing record of Arctic greening and browning.50.Myers-Smith, I. H. et al. Complexity revealed in the greening of the Arctic. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 106–117 (2020). Review article outlining complexity in Arctic greening and browning dynamics. The temporal and spatial scale of spectral data and the role of non-vegetation-related processes and ground-truthing remains essential.
Google Scholar 
51.Berner, L. T. et al. Summer warming explains widespread but not uniform greening in the Arctic tundra biome. Nat. Commun. 11, 4621 (2020).
Google Scholar 
52.Sistla, S. A. et al. Long-term warming restructures Arctic tundra without changing net soil carbon storage. Nature 497, 615–618 (2013).
Google Scholar 
53.Bhatt, U. S. et al. Circumpolar Arctic Tundra vegetation change is linked to sea ice decline. Earth Interact. 14, 1–20 (2010).
Google Scholar 
54.Oechel, W. C. & Billings, W. in Arctic Ecosystems in a Changing Climate: an Ecophysiological Perspective (eds Chapin, F. S. III et al.) 139–168 (Academic Press, 1992).55.Shaver, G. R. et al. Species composition interacts with fertilizer to control long-term change in tundra productivity. Ecology 82, 3163–3181 (2001).
Google Scholar 
56.Bret-Harte, M. S., Shaver, G. R. & Chapin, F. S. III Primary and secondary stem growth in arctic shrubs: implications for community response to environmental change. J. Ecol. 90, 251–267 (2002).
Google Scholar 
57.Mack, M. C., Schuur, E. A. G., Bret-Harte, M. S., Shaver, G. R. & Chapin, F. S. Ecosystem carbon storage in arctic tundra reduced by long-term nutrient fertilization. Nature 431, 440–443 (2004).
Google Scholar 
58.Myers-Smith, I. H. et al. Climate sensitivity of shrub growth across the tundra biome. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 887–891 (2015).
Google Scholar 
59.McGuire, A. D. et al. Sensitivity of the carbon cycle in the Arctic to climate change. Ecol. Monogr. 79, 523–555 (2009).
Google Scholar 
60.van der Kolk, H.-J., Heijmans, M. M., van Huissteden, J., Pullens, J. W. & Berendse, F. Potential Arctic tundra vegetation shifts in response to changing temperature, precipitation and permafrost thaw. Biogeosciences 13, 6229–6245 (2016).
Google Scholar 
61.Myers-Smith, I. H. et al. Eighteen years of ecological monitoring reveals multiple lines of evidence for tundra vegetation change. Ecol. Monogr. 89, e01351 (2019).
Google Scholar 
62.Leffler, A. J., Klein, E. S., Oberbauer, S. F. & Welker, J. M. Coupled long-term summer warming and deeper snow alters species composition and stimulates gross primary productivity in tussock tundra. Oecologia 181, 287–297 (2016).
Google Scholar 
63.Euskirchen, E. et al. Importance of recent shifts in soil thermal dynamics on growing season length, productivity, and carbon sequestration in terrestrial high-latitude ecosystems. Glob. Change Biol. 12, 731–750 (2006).
Google Scholar 
64.McGuire, A. D. et al. Dependence of the evolution of carbon dynamics in the northern permafrost region on the trajectory of climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 3882–3887 (2018).
Google Scholar 
65.National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Understanding Northern Latitude Vegetation Greening and Browning: Proceedings of a Workshop (The National Academies Press, 2019).66.Phoenix, G. K. & Bjerke, J. W. Arctic browning: extreme events and trends reversing arctic greening. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 2960–2962 (2016).
Google Scholar 
67.Bokhorst, S. et al. Impacts of extreme winter warming in the sub-Arctic: growing season responses of dwarf shrub heathland. Glob. Change Biol. 14, 2603–2612 (2008).
Google Scholar 
68.Bret-Harte, M. S. et al. The response of Arctic vegetation and soils following an unusually severe tundra fire. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 368, 20120490 (2013).
Google Scholar 
69.Farquharson, L. M. et al. Climate change drives widespread and rapid thermokarst development in very cold permafrost in the Canadian High Arctic. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 6681–6689 (2019).
Google Scholar 
70.Turetsky et al. Permafrost collapse is accelerating carbon release. Nature 569, 32–34 (2019). Reveals that abrupt thaw of permafrost could double the estimated future release of greenhouse gases from permafrost soils compared with scenarios of gradual thaw.
Google Scholar 
71.Bokhorst, S. F., Bjerke, J. W., Tømmervik, H., Callaghan, T. V. & Phoenix, G. K. Winter warming events damage sub-Arctic vegetation: consistent evidence from an experimental manipulation and a natural event. J. Ecol. 97, 1408–1415 (2009).
Google Scholar 
72.Bjerke, J. W. et al. Record-low primary productivity and high plant damage in the Nordic Arctic Region in 2012 caused by multiple weather events and pest outbreaks. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 084006 (2014).
Google Scholar 
73.Treharne, R., Bjerke, J. W., Tømmervik, H., Stendardi, L. & Phoenix, G. K. Arctic browning: impacts of extreme climatic events on heathland ecosystem CO2 fluxes. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 489–503 (2019).
Google Scholar 
74.Olofsson, J., Tommervik, H. & Callaghan, T. V. Vole and lemming activity observed from space. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 880–883 (2012).
Google Scholar 
75.Lara, M. J., Nitze, I., Grosse, G., Martin, P. & McGuire, A. D. Reduced arctic tundra productivity linked with landform and climate change interactions. Sci. Rep. 8, 2345 (2018).
Google Scholar 
76.Verdonen, M., Berner, L. T., Forbes, B. C. & Kumpula, T. Periglacial vegetation dynamics in Arctic Russia: decadal analysis of tundra regeneration on landslides with time series satellite imagery. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 105020 (2020).
Google Scholar 
77.Assmann, J. J., Myers-Smith, I. H., Kerby, J. T., Cunliffe, A. M. & Daskalova, G. N. Drone data reveal heterogeneity in tundra greenness and phenology not captured by satellites. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 125002 (2020).
Google Scholar 
78.Raynolds, M. K. & Walker, D. A. Increased wetness confounds Landsat-derived NDVI trends in the central Alaska North Slope region, 1985–2011. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 085004 (2016).
Google Scholar 
79.Magnússon, R. Í. et al. Shrub decline and expansion of wetland vegetation revealed by very high resolution land cover change detection in the Siberian lowland tundra. Sci. Total Environ. 782, 146877 (2021).
Google Scholar 
80.Nitze, I. & Grosse, G. Detection of landscape dynamics in the Arctic Lena Delta with temporally dense Landsat time-series stacks. Remote Sens. Environ. 181, 27–41 (2016).
Google Scholar 
81.Chen, Y., Hu, F. S. & Lara, M. J. Divergent shrub-cover responses driven by climate, wildfire, and permafrost interactions in Arctic tundra ecosystems. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 652–663 (2021).
Google Scholar 
82.Huete, A. et al. Overview of the radiometric and biophysical performance of the MODIS vegetation indices. Remote Sens. Environ. 83, 195–213 (2002).
Google Scholar 
83.Siewert, M. B. & Olofsson, J. Scale-dependency of Arctic ecosystem properties revealed by UAV. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 094030 (2020).
Google Scholar 
84.Beamish, A. et al. Recent trends and remaining challenges for optical remote sensing of Arctic tundra vegetation: a review and outlook. Remote Sens. Environ. 246, 111872 (2020).
Google Scholar 
85.Blok, D. et al. The response of Arctic vegetation to the summer climate: relation between shrub cover, NDVI, surface albedo and temperature. Environ. Res. Lett. 6, 035502 (2011).
Google Scholar 
86.Boelman, N. T., Gough, L., McLaren, J. R. & Greaves, H. Does NDVI reflect variation in the structural attributes associated with increasing shrub dominance in arctic tundra? Environ. Res. Lett. 6, 035501 (2011).
Google Scholar 
87.Sturm, M., Racine, C. & Tape, K. Climate change – increasing shrub abundance in the Arctic. Nature 411, 546–547 (2001).
Google Scholar 
88.Tape, K., Sturm, M. & Racine, C. The evidence for shrub expansion in Northern Alaska and the Pan-Arctic. Glob. Change Biol. 12, 686–702 (2006).
Google Scholar 
89.Jorgenson, J. C., Raynolds, M. K., Reynolds, J. H. & Benson, A. M. Twenty-five year record of changes in plant cover on tundra of northeastern Alaska. Arct. Antarctic Alp. Res. 47, 785–806 (2015).
Google Scholar 
90.Jorgenson, J. C., Jorgenson, M. T., Boldenow, M. L. & Orndahl, K. M. Landscape change detected over a half century in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge using high-resolution aerial imagery. Remote Sens. 10, 1305 (2018).
Google Scholar 
91.Hobbie, J. E. et al. Ecosystem responses to climate change at a Low Arctic and a High Arctic long-term research site. Ambio 46, 160–173 (2017).
Google Scholar 
92.Virkkala, A.-M., Abdi, A. M., Luoto, M. & Metcalfe, D. B. Identifying multidisciplinary research gaps across Arctic terrestrial gradients. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 124061 (2019).
Google Scholar 
93.Ropars, P. & Boudreau, S. Shrub expansion at the forest-tundra ecotone: spatial heterogeneity linked to local topography. Environ. Res. Lett. 7, 015501 (2012).
Google Scholar 
94.Ropars, P., Levesque, E. & Boudreau, S. How do climate and topography influence the greening of the forest-tundra ecotone in northern Québec? A dendrochronological analysis of Betula glandulosa. J. Ecol. 103, 679–690 (2015).
Google Scholar 
95.Tremblay, B., Levesque, E. & Boudreau, S. Recent expansion of erect shrubs in the Low Arctic: evidence from Eastern Nunavik. Environ. Res. Lett. 7, 035501 (2012).
Google Scholar 
96.Boulanger-Lapointe, N., Levesque, E., Boudreau, S., Henry, G. H. R. & Schmidt, N. M. Population structure and dynamics of Arctic willow (Salix arctica) in the High Arctic. J. Biogeogr. 41, 1967–1978 (2014).
Google Scholar 
97.Frost, G. V., Epstein, H. E., Walker, D. A., Matyshak, G. & Ermokhina, K. Patterned-ground facilitates shrub expansion in Low Arctic tundra. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 015035 (2013).
Google Scholar 
98.Lantz, T. C., Kokelj, S. V., Gergel, S. E. & Henry, G. H. Relative impacts of disturbance and temperature: persistent changes in microenvironment and vegetation in retrogressive thaw slumps. Glob. Change Biol. 15, 1664–1675 (2009).
Google Scholar 
99.Huebner, D. C. & Bret-Harte, M. S. Microsite conditions in retrogressive thaw slumps may facilitate increased seedling recruitment in the Alaskan Low Arctic. Ecol. Evol. 9, 1880–1897 (2019).
Google Scholar 
100.Lantz, T. C., Marsh, P. & Kokelj, S. V. Recent shrub proliferation in the Mackenzie Delta uplands and microclimatic implications. Ecosystems 16, 47–59 (2013).
Google Scholar 
101.Hu, F. S. et al. Arctic tundra fires: natural variability and responses to climate change. Front. Ecol. Environ. 13, 369–377 (2015).
Google Scholar 
102.Harris, I., Osborn, T. J., Jones, P. & Lister, D. Version 4 of the CRU TS monthly high-resolution gridded multivariate climate dataset. Sci. Data 7, 109 (2020).
Google Scholar 
103.Didan, K. MYD13Q1 MODIS/Aqua vegetation indices 16-day L3 global 250 m SIN grid V006. NASA EOSDIS Land Processes DAAC https://doi.org/10.5067/MODIS/MYD13Q1.006 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
104.Didan, K. MOD13Q1 MODIS/Terra vegetation indices 16-day L3 global 250 m SIN grid V006. NASA EOSDIS Land Processes DAAC https://doi.org/10.5067/MODIS/MOD13Q1.006 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
105.Dorigo, W. et al. ESA CCI Soil Moisture for improved Earth system understanding: State-of-the art and future directions. Remote Sens. Environ. 203, 185–215 (2017).
Google Scholar 
106.Brown, J., Ferrians, O. Jr, Heginbottom, J. A. & Melnikov, E. Circum-Arctic Map of Permafrost and Ground-ice Conditions (US Geological Survey, 1997).107.Jones, G. A. & Henry, G. H. Primary plant succession on recently deglaciated terrain in the Canadian High Arctic. J. Biogeogr. 30, 277–296 (2003).
Google Scholar 
108.Cornelissen, J. H. C. et al. Global change and arctic ecosystems: is lichen decline a function of increases in vascular plant biomass? J. Ecol. 89, 984–994 (2001).
Google Scholar 
109.Aguirre, D., Benhumea, A. E. & McLaren, J. R. Shrub encroachment affects tundra ecosystem properties through their living canopy rather than increased litter inputs. Soil Biol. Biochem. 153, 108121 (2021).
Google Scholar 
110.Gornall, J. L., Jonsdottir, I. S., Woodin, S. J. & Van der Wal, R. Arctic mosses govern below-ground environment and ecosystem processes. Oecologia 153, 931–941 (2007).
Google Scholar 
111.Soudzilovskaia, N. A., Bodegom, P. M. & Cornelissen, J. H. Dominant bryophyte control over high-latitude soil temperature fluctuations predicted by heat transfer traits, field moisture regime and laws of thermal insulation. Funct. Ecol. 27, 1442–1454 (2013).
Google Scholar 
112.Blok, D. et al. The cooling capacity of mosses: controls on water and energy fluxes in a Siberian tundra site. Ecosystems 14, 1055–1065 (2011).
Google Scholar 
113.Belke-Brea, M., Domine, F., Barrere, M., Picard, G. & Arnaud, L. Impact of shrubs on winter surface albedo and snow specific surface area at a low Arctic site: In situ measurements and simulations. J. Clim. 33, 597–609 (2020).
Google Scholar 
114.Wilcox, E. J. et al. Tundra shrub expansion may amplify permafrost thaw by advancing snowmelt timing. Arct. Sci. 5, 202–217 (2019).
Google Scholar 
115.Frost, G. V., Epstein, H. E., Walker, D. A., Matyshak, G. & Ermokhina, K. Seasonal and long-term changes to active-layer temperatures after tall shrubland expansion and succession in Arctic tundra. Ecosystems 21, 507–520 (2018).
Google Scholar 
116.Wilson, M. A., Burn, C. & Humphreys, E. in Cold Regions Engineering 2019 (eds Bilodeau, J.-P., Nadeau, D. F., Fortier, D. & Conciatori, D.) 687–695 (American Society of Civil Engineers, 2019).117.Liljedahl, A. K., Timling, I., Frost, G. V. & Daanen, R. P. Arctic riparian shrub expansion indicates a shift from streams gaining water to those that lose flow. Commun. Earth Environ. 1, 50 (2020).
Google Scholar 
118.Paradis, M., Lévesque, E. & Boudreau, S. Greater effect of increasing shrub height on winter versus summer soil temperature. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 085005 (2016).
Google Scholar 
119.Beringer, J., Chapin, F. S., Thompson, C. C. & McGuire, A. D. Surface energy exchanges along a tundra-forest transition and feedbacks to climate. Agric. For. Meteorol. 131, 143–161 (2005).
Google Scholar 
120.Kemppinen, J. et al. Dwarf shrubs impact tundra soils: drier, colder, and less organic carbon. Ecosystems 24, 1378–1392 (2021). Quantifies the effects of shrub abundance on the soil thermal regime using a distinction between a rough, tall-shrub canopy and an aerodynamic, dwarf-shrub canopy.
Google Scholar 
121.Jorgenson, M. T., Ely, C. & Terenzi, J. in Shared Science Needs: Report from the Western Alaska Landscape Conservation Cooperative Science Workshop (eds Reynolds, J. H. & Wiggins, H. V.) 130–137 (2012).122.Sturm, M., Douglas, T., Racine, C. & Liston, G. E. Changing snow and shrub conditions affect albedo with global implications. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 110, G01004 (2005).
Google Scholar 
123.Zhang, T. Influence of the seasonal snow cover on the ground thermal regime: an overview. Rev. Geophys. 43, RG4002 (2005).
Google Scholar 
124.Domine, F., Barrere, M. & Morin, S. The growth of shrubs on high Arctic tundra at Bylot Island: impact on snow physical properties and permafrost thermal regime. Biogeosciences 13, 6471–6486 (2016).
Google Scholar 
125.Lawrence, D. M. & Swenson, S. C. Permafrost response to increasing Arctic shrub abundance depends on the relative influence of shrubs on local soil cooling versus large-scale climate warming. Environ. Res. Lett. 6, 045504 (2011).
Google Scholar 
126.Barrere, M., Domine, F., Belke-Brea, M. & Sarrazin, D. Snowmelt events in autumn can reduce or cancel the soil warming effect of snow–vegetation interactions in the Arctic. J. Clim. 31, 9507–9518 (2018).
Google Scholar 
127.Loranty, M. M., Goetz, S. J. & Beck, P. S. Tundra vegetation effects on pan-Arctic albedo. Environ. Res. Lett. 6, 024014 (2011).
Google Scholar 
128.Bonfils, C. et al. On the influence of shrub height and expansion on northern high latitude climate. Environ. Res. Lett. 7, 015503 (2012).
Google Scholar 
129.Williamson, S. N., Barrio, I. C., Hik, D. S. & Gamon, J. A. Phenology and species determine growing-season albedo increase at the altitudinal limit of shrub growth in the sub-Arctic. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 3621–3631 (2016).
Google Scholar 
130.Juszak, I., Eugster, W., Heijmans, M. & Schaepman-Strub, G. Contrasting radiation and soil heat fluxes in Arctic shrub and wet sedge tundra. Biogeosciences 13, 4049–4064 (2016).
Google Scholar 
131.Göckede, M. et al. Negative feedback processes following drainage slow down permafrost degradation. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 3254–3266 (2019).
Google Scholar 
132.Bonan, G. Ecological Climatology: Concepts and Applications (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2015).133.Eugster, W. et al. Land–atmosphere energy exchange in Arctic tundra and boreal forest: available data and feedbacks to climate. Glob. Change Biol. 6, 84–115 (2000).
Google Scholar 
134.Liljedahl, A. et al. Nonlinear controls on evapotranspiration in arctic coastal wetlands. Biogeosciences 8, 3375–3389 (2011).
Google Scholar 
135.Zwieback, S., Chang, Q., Marsh, P. & Berg, A. Shrub tundra ecohydrology: rainfall interception is a major component of the water balance. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 055005 (2019).
Google Scholar 
136.Subin, Z. M. et al. Effects of soil moisture on the responses of soil temperatures to climate change in cold regions. J. Clim. 26, 3139–3158 (2013).
Google Scholar 
137.Aalto, J., Scherrer, D., Lenoir, J., Guisan, A. & Luoto, M. Biogeophysical controls on soil-atmosphere thermal differences: implications on warming Arctic ecosystems. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 074003 (2018).
Google Scholar 
138.Asmus, A. L. et al. Shrub shading moderates the effects of weather on arthropod activity in arctic tundra. Ecol. Entomol. 43, 647–655 (2018).
Google Scholar 
139.Hinkel, K., Paetzold, F., Nelson, F. & Bockheim, J. Patterns of soil temperature and moisture in the active layer and upper permafrost at Barrow, Alaska: 1993–1999. Glob. Planet. Change 29, 293–309 (2001).
Google Scholar 
140.Douglas, T. A., Turetsky, M. R. & Koven, C. D. Increased rainfall stimulates permafrost thaw across a variety of Interior Alaskan boreal ecosystems. NPJ Clim. Atmos. Sci. 3, 28 (2020).
Google Scholar 
141.Neumann, R. B. et al. Warming effects of spring rainfall increase methane emissions from thawing permafrost. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 1393–1401 (2019).
Google Scholar 
142.Aartsma, P., Asplund, J., Odland, A., Reinhardt, S. & Renssen, H. Microclimatic comparison of lichen heaths and shrubs: shrubification generates atmospheric heating but subsurface cooling during the growing season. Biogeosciences 18, 1577–1599 (2021).
Google Scholar 
143.Fisher, J. P. et al. The influence of vegetation and soil characteristics on active-layer thickness of permafrost soils in boreal forest. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 3127–3140 (2016).
Google Scholar 
144.Van Cleve, K. et al. Taiga ecosystems in interior Alaska. BioScience 33, 39–44 (1983).
Google Scholar 
145.Kade, A., Romanovsky, V. & Walker, D. The n-factor of nonsorted circles along a climate gradient in Arctic Alaska. Permafr. Periglac. Process. 17, 279–289 (2006).
Google Scholar 
146.Atchley, A. L., Coon, E. T., Painter, S. L., Harp, D. R. & Wilson, C. J. Influences and interactions of inundation, peat, and snow on active layer thickness. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 5116–5123 (2016).
Google Scholar 
147.Klene, A. E., Nelson, F. E., Shiklomanov, N. I. & Hinkel, K. M. The n-factor in natural landscapes: variability of air and soil-surface temperatures, Kuparuk River Basin, Alaska, USA. Arct. Antarct. Alp. Res. 33, 140–148 (2001).
Google Scholar 
148.van Everdingen, R. O. Multi-Language Glossary of Permafrost and Related Ground-Ice Terms (National Snow and Ice Data Center/World Data Center for Glaciology, 2005).149.Iwahana, G. et al. Geocryological characteristics of the upper permafrost in a tundra-forest transition of the Indigirka River Valley, Russia. Polar Sci. 8, 96–113 (2014).
Google Scholar 
150.Lewkowicz, A. G. & Way, R. G. Extremes of summer climate trigger thousands of thermokarst landslides in a High Arctic environment. Nat. Commun. 10, 1329 (2019).
Google Scholar 
151.Kanevskiy, M. et al. Degradation and stabilization of ice wedges: implications for assessing risk of thermokarst in northern Alaska. Geomorphology 297, 20–42 (2017).
Google Scholar 
152.Olefeldt, D. et al. Circumpolar distribution and carbon storage of thermokarst landscapes. Nat. Commun. 7, 13043 (2016).
Google Scholar 
153.Jorgenson, M., Shur, Y. L. & Pullman, E. R. Abrupt increase in permafrost degradation in Arctic Alaska. Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L02503 (2006).
Google Scholar 
154.Stieglitz, M., Déry, S., Romanovsky, V. & Osterkamp, T. The role of snow cover in the warming of arctic permafrost. Geophys. Res. Lett. 30, 1721 (2003).
Google Scholar 
155.Anisimov, O. & Zimov, S. Thawing permafrost and methane emission in Siberia: Synthesis of observations, reanalysis, and predictive modeling. Ambio 50, 2050–2059 (2021).
Google Scholar 
156.Tei, S. et al. An extreme flood caused by a heavy snowfall over the Indigirka River basin in Northeastern Siberia. Hydrol. Process. 34, 522–537 (2020).
Google Scholar 
157.Jones, B. M. et al. Recent Arctic tundra fire initiates widespread thermokarst development. Sci. Rep. 5, 15865 (2015).
Google Scholar 
158.Fraser, R. H. et al. Climate sensitivity of high Arctic permafrost terrain demonstrated by widespread ice-wedge thermokarst on Banks Island. Remote Sens. 10, 954 (2018).
Google Scholar 
159.Kokelj, S. V., Lantz, T. C., Tunnicliffe, J., Segal, R. & Lacelle, D. Climate-driven thaw of permafrost preserved glacial landscapes, northwestern Canada. Geology 45, 371–374 (2017).
Google Scholar 
160.Raynolds, M. K. et al. Cumulative geoecological effects of 62 years of infrastructure and climate change in ice-rich permafrost landscapes, Prudhoe Bay Oilfield, Alaska. Glob. Change Biol. 20, 1211–1224 (2014).
Google Scholar 
161.Yang, M., Nelson, F. E., Shiklomanov, N. I., Guo, D. & Wan, G. Permafrost degradation and its environmental effects on the Tibetan Plateau: a review of recent research. Earth Sci. Rev. 103, 31–44 (2010).
Google Scholar 
162.Payette, S., Delwaide, A., Caccianiga, M. & Beauchemin, M. Accelerated thawing of subarctic peatland permafrost over the last 50 years. Geophys. Res. Lett. 31, L18208 (2004).
Google Scholar 
163.French, H. & Shur, Y. The principles of cryostratigraphy. Earth Sci. Rev. 101, 190–206 (2010).
Google Scholar 
164.Burn, C. R. & Friele, P. Geomorphology, vegetation succession, soil characteristics and permafrost in retrogressive thaw slumps near Mayo, Yukon Territory. Arctic 42, 31–40 (1989).
Google Scholar 
165.Walvoord, M. A. & Kurylyk, B. L. Hydrologic impacts of thawing permafrost — a review. Vadose Zone J. 15, vzj2016-01 (2016).
Google Scholar 
166.Zona, D. et al. Characterization of the carbon fluxes of a vegetated drained lake basin chronosequence on the Alaskan Arctic Coastal Plain. Glob. Change Biol. 16, 1870–1882 (2010).
Google Scholar 
167.Jorgenson, M. T. & Shur, Y. Evolution of lakes and basins in northern Alaska and discussion of the thaw lake cycle. J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf. 112, F02S17 (2007).
Google Scholar 
168.Cray, H. A. & Pollard, W. H. Vegetation recovery patterns following permafrost disturbance in a Low Arctic setting: case study of Herschel Island, Yukon, Canada. Arct. Antarct. Alp. Res. 47, 99–113 (2015).
Google Scholar 
169.Baltzer, J. L., Veness, T., Chasmer, L. E., Sniderhan, A. E. & Quinton, W. L. Forests on thawing permafrost: fragmentation, edge effects, and net forest loss. Glob. Change Biol. 20, 824–834 (2014).
Google Scholar 
170.Scheffer, M., Hirota, M., Holmgren, M., Van Nes, E. H. & Chapin, F. S. Thresholds for boreal biome transitions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 21384–21389 (2012).
Google Scholar 
171.Nitze, I., Grosse, G., Jones, B. M., Romanovsky, V. E. & Boike, J. Remote sensing quantifies widespread abundance of permafrost region disturbances across the Arctic and Subarctic. Nat. Commun. 9, 5423 (2018).
Google Scholar 
172.Elmendorf, S. C. et al. Global assessment of experimental climate warming on tundra vegetation: heterogeneity over space and time. Ecol. Lett. 15, 164–175 (2012).
Google Scholar 
173.Strauss, J. et al. Deep Yedoma permafrost: a synthesis of depositional characteristics and carbon vulnerability. Earth Sci. Rev. 172, 75–86 (2017).
Google Scholar 
174.Hjort, J. E. A. Impacts of permafrost degradation on infrastructure. Nat. Rev. Earth. Environ. 3 https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-021-00247-8 (2022).175.Kumpula, T., Pajunen, A., Kaarlejärvi, E., Forbes, B. C. & Stammler, F. Land use and land cover change in Arctic Russia: Ecological and social implications of industrial development. Glob. Environ. Change 21, 550–562 (2011).
Google Scholar 
176.Nitzbon, J. et al. Fast response of cold ice-rich permafrost in northeast Siberia to a warming climate. Nat. Commun. 11, 2201 (2020).
Google Scholar 
177.Lawrence, D. M., Koven, C. D., Swenson, S. C., Riley, W. J. & Slater, A. Permafrost thaw and resulting soil moisture changes regulate projected high-latitude CO2 and CH4 emissions. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 094011 (2015).
Google Scholar 
178.Bintanja, R. & Andry, O. Towards a rain-dominated Arctic. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 263–267 (2017).
Google Scholar 
179.Mekonnen, Z. A., Riley, W. J., Grant, R. F. & Romanovsky, V. E. Changes in precipitation and air temperature contribute comparably to permafrost degradation in a warmer climate. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 024008 (2021).
Google Scholar 
180.Mikhailov, I. Changes in the soil-plant cover of the high Arctic of Eastern Siberia. Eurasian Soil. Sci. 53, 715–723 (2020).
Google Scholar 
181.Frost, G. V. et al. Multi-decadal patterns of vegetation succession after tundra fire on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Alaska. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 025003 (2020).
Google Scholar 
182.Whitley, M. A. et al. Assessment of LiDAR and spectral techniques for high-resolution mapping of sporadic permafrost on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Alaska. Remote Sens. 10, 258 (2018).
Google Scholar  More

1.Qin, Y.-j. et al. Population structure of a global agricultural invasive pest, Bactrocera dorsalis (Diptera: Tephritidae). Evol. Appl. 11, 1990–2003 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
2.Christenson, L. D. & Foote, R. H. Biology of fruit flies. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 5, 171–192 (1960).
Google Scholar 
3.Clarke, A. R. et al. Invasive phytophagous pests arising through a recent tropical evolutionary radiation: the Bactrocera dorsalis complex of fruit flies. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 50, 293–319 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
4.Culliney, T. W. The aliens have landed: invasive species threaten Hawaii agriculture. Agric. Hawaii 3, 6–9 (2002).
Google Scholar 
5.Cantrell, B., Chadwick, B. & Cahill, A. Fruit Fly Fighters: Eradication of the Papaya Fruit Fly (CSIRO, Collingwood, 2002).6.Ekesi, S., De Meyer, M., Mohamed, S. A., Virgilio, M. & Borgemeister, C. Taxonomy, ecology, and management of native and exotic fruit fly species in Africa. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 61, 219–238 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
7.Duyck, P. F., David, P. & Quilici, S. A review of relationships between interspecific competition and invasions in fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae). Ecol. Entomol. 29, 511–520 (2004).
Google Scholar 
8.Liu, H., Zhang, C., Hou, B. H., Ou-Yang, G. C. & Ma, J. Interspecific competition between Ceratitis capitata and two Bactrocera spp. (Diptera: Tephritidae) evaluated via adult behavioral interference under laboratory conditions. J. Econ. Entomol. 110, 1145–1155 (2017).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
9.Li, F. et al. Insect genomes: progress and challenges. Insect Mol. Biol. 28, 739–758 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
10.Schutze, M. K. et al. Synonymization of key pest species within the Bactrocera dorsalis complex (Diptera: Tephritidae): taxonomic changes based on a review of 20 years of integrative morphological, molecular, cytogenetic, behavioural, and chemoecological data. Syst. Entomol. 40, 456–471 (2015).
Google Scholar 
11.Dudchenko, O. et al. De novo assembly of the Aedes aegypti genome using Hi-C yields chromosome-length scaffolds. Science 356, 92–95 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
12.Wu, N. et al. Fall webworm genomes yield insights into rapid adaptation of invasive species. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 105–115 (2019).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
13.Papanicolaou, A. et al. The whole genome sequence of the Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann), reveals insights into the biology and adaptive evolution of a highly invasive pest species. Genome Biol. 17, 192 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
14.Sim, S. B. & Geib, S. M. A chromosome-scale assembly of the Bactrocera cucurbitae genome provides insight to the genetic basis of white pupae. G3 (Bethesda) 7, 1927–1940 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
15.Parra, G., Bradnam, K. & Korf, I. CEGMA: a pipeline to accurately annotate core genes in eukaryotic genomes. Bioinformatics 23, 1061–1067 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
16.Simão, F. A., Waterhouse, R. M., Ioannidis, P., Kriventseva, E. V. & Zdobnov, E. M. BUSCO: assessing genome assembly and annotation completeness with single-copy orthologs. Bioinformatics 31, 3210–3212 (2015).
Google Scholar 
17.Ashburner, M. et al. Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. The Gene Ontology Consortium. Nat. Genet. 25, 25–29 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
18.Kanehisa, M., Goto, S., Sato, Y., Furumichi, M. & Tanabe, M. KEGG for integration and interpretation of large-scale molecular data sets. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, 109–114 (2012).
Google Scholar 
19.Ting, C. T. et al. Gene duplication and speciation in Drosophila: evidence from the Odysseus locus. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 101, 12232–12235 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
20.Yuan, Y. W. & Wessler, S. R. The catalytic domain of all eukaryotic cut-and-paste transposase superfamilies. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 7884–7889 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
21.Rappoport, N. & Linial, M. Trends in genome dynamics among major orders of insects revealed through variations in protein families. BMC Genomics 16, 583 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
22.Sackton, T. B. et al. Dynamic evolution of the innate immune system in Drosophila. Nat. Genet. 39, 1461–1468 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
23.Stephen, B. H. & David, L. H. Key evolutionary innovations and their ecological mechanisms. Hist. Biol. 10, 151–173 (1995).
Google Scholar 
24.Yu, G. C., Wang, L. G., Han, Y. Y. & He, Q. Y. clusterProfiler: an R package for comparing biological themes among gene clusters. OMICS 16, 284–287 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
25.Lindquist, S. The heat-shock response. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 55, 1151–1191 (1986).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
26.Parsell, D. A. & Lindquist, S. The function of heat-shock proteins in stress tolerance-degradation and reactivation of damaged proteins. Annu. Rev. Genet. 27, 437–496 (1993).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
27.Feder, M. E. & Hofmann, G. E. Heat-shock proteins, molecular chaperones, and the stress response. Annu. Rev. Physiol. 61, 243–282 (1999).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
28.Iwama, G. K., Thomas, P. T., Forsyth, R. H. B. & Vijayan, M. M. Heat shock protein expression in fish. Rev. Fish. Biol. Fish. 8, 35–56 (1998).
Google Scholar 
29.Azad, P., Ryu, J. & Haddad, G. G. Distinct role of Hsp70 in Drosophila hemocytes during severe hypoxia. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 51, 530–538 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
30.Zhao, P. et al. Genome-wide analysis of the potato hsp20 gene family: identification, genomic organization and expression profiles in response to heat stress. BMC Genomics 19, 61 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
31.Weinstein, D. J. et al. The genome of a subterrestrial nematode reveals adaptations to heat. Nat. Commun. 10, 5268 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
32.Gu, X. et al. A transcriptional and functional analysis of heat hardening in two invasive fruit fly species, Bactrocera dorsalis, and Bactrocera correcta. Evol. Appl. 12, 1147–1163 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
33.Sorensen, J. G., Dahlgaard, J. & Loeschcke, V. Genetic variation in thermal tolerance among natural populations of drosophila buzzatii: down regulation of hsp70 expression and variation in heat stress resistance traits. Funct. Ecol. 15, 289–296 (2001).
Google Scholar 
34.Terblanche, J. S. et al. Ecologically relevant measures of tolerance to potentially lethal temperatures. J. Exp. Biol. 214, 3713–3725 (2011).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
35.Raza, M. F. et al. Gut microbiota promotes host resistance to low-temperature stress by stimulating its arginine and proline metabolism pathway in adult Bactrocera dorsalis. PLoS Pathog. 16, e1008441 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
36.Trempolec, N., Dave-Coll, N. & Nebreda, A. R. Snapshot: p38 MAPK signaling. Cell 152, 656–656.e1 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
37.Tatar, M. et al. A mutant Drosophila insulin receptor homolog that extends life-span and impairs neuroendocrine function. Science 292, 107–110 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
38.Vrailas-Mortimer, A. et al. A muscle-specific p38 MAPK/Mef2/MnSOD pathway regulates stress, motor function, and life span in Drosophila. Dev. Cell 21, 783–795 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
39.Li, F. F., Xia, J., Li, J. M., Liu, J. M. & Wang, X. W. P38 MAPK is a component of the signal transduction pathway triggering cold stress response in the med cryptic species of Bemisia tabaci. J. Integr. Agr. 11, 303–311 (2012).CAS 

Google Scholar 
40.Xiao, X. P. et al. A Mesh-Duox pathway regulates homeostasis in the insect gut. Nat. Microbiol. 2, 17020 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
41.Wan, F. et al. A chromosome-level genome assembly of Cydia pomonella provides insights into chemical ecology and insecticide resistance. Nat. Commun. 10, 4237–4237 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
42.Drew, R. & Yuval, B. Fruit Flies (Tephritidae): Phylogeny and Evolution of Behavior (eds Aluja, M. & Norrbom, A.) 731−749 (CRC Press, 2000).43.Dahanukar, A., Hallem, E. A. & Carlson, J. R. Insect chemoreception. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 15, 423–430 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
44.Bargmann, C. I. Comparative chemosensation from receptors to ecology. Nature 444, 295 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
45.Benton, R. Multigene family evolution: perspectives from insect chemoreceptors. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 590–600 (2015).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
46.Miyazaki, H. et al. Functional characterization of olfactory receptors in the Oriental fruit fly Bactrocera dorsalis that respond to plant volatiles. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 101, 32–46 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
47.Ono, H. et al. Functional characterization of olfactory receptors in three Dacini fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) that respond to 1-nonanol analogs as components in the rectal glands. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. B: Biochem. Mol. Biol. 239, 110346 (2020).
Google Scholar 
48.Harris, R. M. & Hofmann, H. A. Seeing is believing: dynamic evolution of gene families. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 1252–1253 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
49.Nei, M., Niimura, Y. & Nozawa, M. The evolution of animal chemosensory receptor gene repertoires: roles of chance and necessity. Nat. Rev. Genet. 9, 951−963 (2008).50.Arguello, J. R. et al. Extensive local adaptation within the chemosensory system following Drosophila melanogaster’s global expansion. Nat. Commun. 7, 11855 (2016).
Google Scholar 
51.Li, S. et al. The genomic and functional landscapes of developmental plasticity in the American cockroach. Nat. Commun. 9, 1008 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
52.Vontas, J. et al. Insecticide resistance in Tephritid flies. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 100, 199–205 (2011).CAS 

Google Scholar 
53.Bergé, J. B., Feyereisen, R. & Amichot, M. Cytochrome P450 monooxygenases and insecticide resistance in insects. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 353, 1701–1705 (1998).
Google Scholar 
54.Scott, J. G. Cytochromes P450 and insecticide resistance. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 29, 757–777 (1999).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
55.Rane, R. V. et al. Detoxifying enzyme complements and host use phenotypes in 160 insect species. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 31, 131–138 (2019).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
56.Pendleton, M. et al. Assembly and diploid architecture of an individual human genome via single-molecule technologies. Nat. Methods 12, 780–786 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
57.Belton, J. M. et al. Hi-C: a comprehensive technique to capture the conformation of genomes. Methods 58, 268–276 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
58.Burton, J. N., Liachko, I., Dunham, M. J. & Shendure, J. Species-level deconvolution of metagenome assemblies with Hi-C-based contact probability maps. G3-Genes Genom. Genet. 4, 1339–1346 (2014).
Google Scholar 
59.Burton, J. N. et al. Chromosome-scale scaffolding of de novo genome assemblies based on chromatin interactions. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 1119–1125 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
60.Servant, N. et al. HiC-Pro: an optimized and flexible pipeline for Hi-C data processing. Genome Biol. 16, 1–11 (2015).
Google Scholar 
61.Koren, S. et al. Canu: scalable and accurate long-read assembly via adaptive k-mer weighting and repeat separation. Genome Res. 27, 722–736 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
62.Walker, B. J. et al. Pilon: an integrated tool for comprehensive microbial variant detection and genome assembly improvement. PLoS One 9, e112963 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
63.Chakraborty, M., Baldwin-Brown, J. G., Long, A. D. & Emerson, J. J. Contiguous and accurate de novo assembly of metazoan genomes with modest long read coverage. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, e147 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
64.Chin, C. S. et al. Phased diploid genome assembly with single-molecule real-time sequencing. Nat. Methods 13, 1050–1054 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
65.Xiao, C. L. et al. MECAT: fast mapping, error correction, and de novo assembly for single-molecule sequencing reads. Nat. Methods 14, 1072–1074 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
66.Li, H. & Durbin, R. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows−Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics 25, 1754–1760 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
67.Worley, K. C. et al. Improving genomes using long reads and PBJelly 2. In International Plant & Animal Genome Conference XXI (2014).68.Krzywinski, M. et al. Circos: An information aesthetic for comparative genomics. Genome Res. 19, 1639–1645 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
69.Burge, C. & Karlin, S. Prediction of complete gene structures in human genomic DNA. J. Mol. Biol. 268, 78–94 (1997).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
70.Stanke, M. & Waack, S. Gene prediction with a hidden Markov model and a new intron submodel. Bioinformatics 19, ii215–ii225 (2003).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
71.Korf, I. Gene finding in novel genomes. BMC Bioinform. 5, 59 (2004).
Google Scholar 
72.Majoros, W. H., Pertea, M. & Salzberg, S. L. TigrScan and GlimmerHMM: two open source ab initio eukaryotic gene-finders. Bioinformatics 20, 2878–2879 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
73.Blanco, E., Parra, G. & Guigó, R. Using geneid to identify genes. Curr. Protoc. Bioinform. 18, 4.3.1–4.3.28 (2007).
Google Scholar 
74.Keilwagen, J. et al. Using intron position conservation for homology-based gene prediction. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, e89–e89 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
75.Campbell, M. A., Haas, B. J., Hamilton, J. P., Mount, S. M. & Buell, C. R. Comprehensive analysis of alternative splicing in rice and comparative analyses with Arabidopsis. BMC Genomics 7, 327 (2006).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
76.Haas, B. J. et al. Automated eukaryotic gene structure annotation using EVidenceModeler and the Program to Assemble Spliced Alignments. Genome Biol. 9, R7 (2008).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
77.Lowe, T. M. & Eddy, S. R. tRNAscan-SE: a program for improved detection of transfer RNA genes in genomic sequence. Nucleic Acids Res. 25, 955–964 (1997).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
78.Griffiths-Jones, S. et al. Rfam: annotating non-coding RNAs in complete genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 33, D121–D124 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
79.Griffiths-Jones, S., Grocock, R. J., Van Dongen, S., Bateman, A. & Enright, A. J. miRBase: microRNA sequences, targets, and gene nomenclature. Nucleic Acids Res. 34, D140–D144 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
80.Nawrocki, E. P. & Eddy, S. R. Infernal 1.1: 100-fold faster RNA homology searches. Bioinformatics 29, 2933–2935 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
81.Edgar, R. C. & Myers, E. W. PILER: Identification and classification of genomic repeats. Bioinformatics 21, i152–i158 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
82.Price, A. L., Jones, N. C. & Pevzner, P. A. De novo identification of repeat families in large genomes. Bioinformatics 21, i351–i358 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
83.Xu, Z. & Wang, H. LTR_FINDER: an efficient tool for the prediction of full-length LTR retrotransposons. Nucleic Acids Res. 35, W265–W268 (2007).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
84.Han, Y. & Wessler, S. R. MITE-Hunter: a program for discovering miniature inverted-repeat transposable elements from genomic sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 38, e199 (2010).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
85.Jurka, J. et al. Repbase Update, a database of eukaryotic repetitive elements. Cytogenet Genome Res. 110, 462–467 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
86.Wicker, T. et al. A unified classification system for eukaryotic transposable elements. Nat. Rev. Genet. 8, 973–982 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
87.Tarailo-Graovac, M. & Chen, N. S. Using RepeatMasker to identify repetitive elements in genomic sequences. Curr. Protoc. Bioinform. 25, 4.10.1–4.10.14 (2009).
Google Scholar 
88.Wang, Y. et al. MCScanX: a toolkit for detection and evolutionary analysis of gene synteny and collinearity. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, e49 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
89.Birney, E., Clamp, M. & Durbin, R. GeneWise and Genomewise. Genome Res. 14, 988–995 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
90.She, R., Chu, J. S. C., Wang, K., Pei, J. & Chen, N. S. GenBlastA: enabling BLAST to identify homologous gene sequences. Genome Res. 19, 143–149 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
91.Altschul, S. F., Gish, W., Miller, W., Myers, E. W. & Lipman, D. J. Basic local alignment search tool. J. Mol. Biol. 215, 403–410 (1990).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
92.Kanehisa, M. & Goto, S. KEGG: Kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 28, 27–30 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
93.Tatusov, R. L. et al. The COG database: new developments in phylogenetic classification of proteins from complete genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 29, 22–28 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
94.Boeckmann, B. et al. The SWISS-PROT protein KnowledgeBase and its supplement TrEMBL in 2003. Nucleic Acids Res. 31, 365–370 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
95.Marchler-Bauer, A. et al. CDD: a Conserved Domain Database for the functional annotation of proteins. Nucleic Acids Res. 39, D225–D229 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
96.Conesa, A. et al. Blast2GO: a universal tool for annotation, visualization, and analysis in functional genomics research. Bioinformatics 21, 3674–3676 (2005).CAS 

Google Scholar 
97.Dimmer, E. C. et al. The UniProt-GO annotation database in 2011. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, D565–D570 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
98.Bairoch, A. PROSITE-a dictionary of sites and patterns in proteins. Nucleic Acids Res. 19, 2241–2245 (1991).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
99.Attwood, T. K. & Beck, M. E. Prints-a protein motif fingerprint database. Protein Eng. Des. Sel. 7, 841–848 (1994).CAS 

Google Scholar 
100.Zdobnov, E. M. & Apweiler, R. InterProScan-an integration platform for the signature-recognition methods in InterPro. Bioinformatics 17, 847–848 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
101.Gough, J. & Chothia, C. SUPERFAMILY: HMMs representing all proteins of known structure. SCOP sequence searches, alignments, and genome assignments. Nucleic Acids Res. 30, 268–272 (2002).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
102.Haft, D. H., Selengut, J. D. & White, O. The TIGRFAMs database of protein families. Nucleic Acids Res. 31, 371–373 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
103.Thomas, P. D. et al. PANTHER: a browsable database of gene products organized by biological function, using curated protein family and subfamily classification. Nucleic Acids Res. 31, 334–341 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
104.Letunic, I. et al. SMART 4.0: towards genomic data integration. Nucleic Acids Res. 32, D142–D144 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
105.Wu, C. H. et al. PIRSF: family classification system at the Protein Information Resource. Nucleic Acids Res. 32, D112–D114 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
106.Bru, C. et al. The ProDom database of protein domain families: more emphasis on 3D. Nucleic Acids Res. 33, D212–D215 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
107.Finn, R. D. et al. Pfam: clans, web tools, and services. Nucleic Acids Res. 34, D247–D251 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
108.Lima, T. et al. HAMAP: a database of completely sequenced microbial proteome sets and manually curated microbial protein families in UniProtKB/Swiss-Prot. Nucleic Acids Res. 37, D471–D478 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
109.Lees, J. et al. Gene3D: a domain-based resource for comparative genomics, functional annotation, and protein network analysis. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, D465–D471 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
110.Emms, D. M. & Kelly, S. OrthoFinder: phylogenetic orthology inference for comparative genomics. Genome Biol. 20, 238 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
111.Mi, H. Y., Muruganujan, A., Ebert, D., Huang, X. S. & Thomas, P. D. PANTHER version 14: more genomes, a new PANTHER GO-slim, and improvements in enrichment analysis tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, D419–D426 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
112.Nguyen, L. T., Schmidt, H. A., Von Haeseler, A. & Minh, B. Q. IQ-TREE: a fast and effective stochastic algorithm for estimating maximum-likelihood phylogenies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 32, 268–274 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
113.Puttick, M. N. MCMCtreeR: functions to prepare MCMCtree analyses and visualize posterior ages on trees. Bioinformatics 35, 5321–5322 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
114.Yang, Z. H. PAML: a program package for phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood. Bioinformatics 13, 555–556 (1997).CAS 

Google Scholar 
115.Han, M. V., Thomas, G. W. C., Lugo-Martinez, J. & Hahn, M. W. Estimating gene gain and loss rates in the presence of error in genome assembly and annotation using CAFE 3. Mol. Biol. Evol. 30, 1987–1997 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
116.Larkin, M. A. et al. ClustalW and ClustalX version 2. Bioinformatics 23, 2947–2948 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
117.Subramanian, B., Gao, S., Lercher, M. J., Hu, S. & Chen, W. H. Evolview v3: a webserver for visualization, annotation, and management of phylogenetic trees. Nucleic Acids Res 47, W270–W275 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

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

Google Scholar 
119.Kim, D., Landmead, B. & Salzberg, S. L. HISAT: a fast spliced aligner with low memory requirements. Nat. Methods 12, 357–360 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
120.Pertea, M. et al. StringTie enables improved reconstruction of a transcriptome from RNA-seq reads. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 290–295 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
121.Langmead, B. & Salzberg, S. L. Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nat. Methods 9, 357–359 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
122.Li, B. & Dewey, C. N. RSEM: accurate transcript quantification from RNA-Seq data with or without a reference genome. BMC Bioinform. 12, 323 (2011).CAS 

Google Scholar  More