More stories

  • in

    Mapping silver eel migration routes in the North Sea

    Study areaThe North Sea is a continental sea connected to the Atlantic Ocean through the English Channel in the southwest and between northern Shetland along the 61° latitude parallel to Norway in the north (Fig. 1). It is bordered by Norway, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, France and the UK, and has a surface of 570,000 km2. The North Sea has an average depth of 95 m, yet maximum depths of ca. 700 m are found in the Norwegian Trench. The maximum tidal amplitude of the North Sea can reach up to 8 m, average winter sea surface temperatures are ca. 6 °C and average summer temperatures reach ca. 17°C33. The English Channel encompasses the marine strait between the UK and France. It covers 75,000 km2, has an average depth of 63 m, a maximum depth of 174 m and can reach a maximum tidal amplitude up to 12 m. The average winter and summer sea surface temperatures in the English Channel are ca. 5 and 20 °C, respectively54.TaggingIn total, 320 silver eels were tagged with pop-off archival tags (Table 1; Supplementary Table S2). In Belgium, 238 eels were caught and tagged at a drainage system upstream of the Yser Estuary (hereafter referred to as the Belgian eels) in 2018–2020 via nets that were attached to gravitational discharge sluice gates (coordinates: 51.127 N, 2.761 E) in October, November and December (n2018 = 102, n2019 = 60 and n2020 = 76). In Germany, 82 eels were tagged in 2011 and 2012. In early December 2011, seven eels were caught at Lake Plön (coordinates: 54.137 N, 10.334 E) with fyke nets. During September, October and November 2012, eels were caught in the Rivers Eider (n = 30; coordinates: 54.190 N, 9.093 E) and Havel (n = 45; coordinates: 52.419 N, 12.571 E) with fyke and stow nets, respectively.Upon capture, the eels were anaesthetized with 0.3 ml/L clove oil (Belgium), 0.4 ml/L ethylene glycol monophenyl ether (Germany 2011) or 120 mg/L MS-222 (Germany 2012), and various morphometric characteristics were measured to identify the life stage55: total length (to the nearest mm), weight (to the nearest g), horizontal and vertical eye diameter (to the nearest 0.01 mm in Belgium and to the nearest 0.1 mm in Germany) and pectoral fin length (to the nearest 0.01 mm and 0.1 mm in Belgium and Germany, respectively). Given that their total body length was  > 450 mm, all eels were considered female55. According to the morphometrics, five Belgian eels could be considered in the premigratory stage (FIII); however, based on visual inspection, they were considered silver eels (i.e. silver-coloured abdomen, dark grey on the dorsal side, jaw hinge not proceeding beyond the eye, enlarged eyes and dark coloured pectoral fins). The other 315 eels identified as silver eels based on both morphometry and visual inspection (201 FIV stage and 114 FV stage).Eels weighing ≥ 550 g were externally fitted with a G5 PDST (CEFAS Technology Ltd, UK), which log temperature and pressure (providing information on depth). They were attached applying the three-point Westerberg attachment method56. Two tag types were used: one with a separate tag and pop-off mechanism (Germany) and one where both mechanisms were integrated (Belgium). The flotation collar of the PDSTs was painted bright red, contained contact information and a cash reward to stimulate retrieval by the general public (e.g. beach combers and fishermen). The seven eels caught in 2011 in Germany (minimum 1220 g) were fitted with PSATs (X-Tag, Microwave Telemetry Inc., USA), also using the Westerberg-method56. Like the PDSTs, the PSATs record temperature and pressure. After release, they drift to the surface and transmit the data to the user via the ARGOS satellite system (www.argos-system.org). For the specifications of the different tags, we refer to Supplementary Table S3.Upon recovery from the anaesthetic, eels tagged with PDSTs were released close to their capture locations in the rivers Eider (coordinates 2011: 54.381 N, 9.009 E; coordinates 2012: 54.379 N, 9.013 E), Elbe (coordinates 1: 53.793 N, 9.402 E; coordinates 2: 53.569 N, 9.700 E; coordinates 3: 53.396 N, 10.171 E) and Yser (coordinates: 51.135 N, 2.757 E) (Table 1). The seven eels captured for PSAT tagging in 2011 were held for several weeks in the Thünen Institute of Fisheries Ecology, then tagged and released the same day; others were tagged in the field.PreprocessingOnce downloaded, the temperature and pressure data obtained from the PDSTs was subsampled to 1-min (Belgian eels) or 2-min (German eels) intervals to reduce the datasets and improve geolocation calculation time; this discrepancy is due to the minimum logging rate of the tags (Supplementary Table S3). Linear regression was applied to correct for pressure sensor drift over time. Indeed, pressure values increased over time even if the tag was kept at atmospheric pressure level. The regression was applied between 15 min before release and the moment the tag popped off and reached the surface, since the tag was then considered at sea level and hence to be under zero pressure.The PSAT data were retrieved through the ARGOS satellite system as a subset with 15-min intervals and converted to values of pressure and temperature. Contemporaneous values of temperature and depth were not always transmitted due to the transmission method. As a consequence of the tag release programming, the transmission of the first position for one of the tags was only received five days after the tag reached the sea surface.GeolocationThe daily movements of each electronically tagged European eel were reconstructed using an adapted version of the tidal geolocation model of Pedersen et al.57. The geolocation model uses a novel Fokker–Planck based method to combine the tidal location method of Metcalfe and Arnold58 with a hidden Markov model (HMM), such that an individual’s daily location d is modelled conditionally on its previous location (d − 1), its inferred behavioural state ds, where behaviour is defined by a single diffusivity parameter (i.e. the maximum amount of movement permitted in a given day), and the observations made between d and d − 1. In this case, observations consisted of the recorded depth (m; D1, …, Dn) and temperature (°C; T1, …, Tn), where n is the number of measurements made per day (the HMM down-samples to 10-min intervals, hence 144 measurements per day), and any hydrostatic (tidal) data which are derived from the sinusoidal pressure cycle recorded in the depth data when a fish is at rest on the seafloor. In addition to bathymetry and tidal amplitude with phase, the model was developed to include sea surface temperature (SST), which can provide additional validation when fish are swimming at or near the surface (i.e. depth ≤ 20 m)59,60, and temperature at depth, which can provide additional validation when fish remain at depths well below the sea surface61,62.The model was run in three different configurations for each recovered dataset: (i) using the tidal location model only (as for Pedersen et al.57), hereafter termed TLM geolocation; (ii) using the TLM plus sea surface temperature (as for Wright et al.60), hereafter termed SST geolocation, and (iii) using temperature at the surface and sub-surface, hereafter termed 3D geolocation (Supplemental Fig. S3). The final trajectory output for the PDST Belgian eels and PSAT German eels was obtained via 3D geolocation, while SST geolocation was used for the PDST German eels. The reason for this discrepancy is that the German PDST eels stayed closer to the coast and in shallower water. Consequently, the 3D geolocation results were more prone to error due to coastal influences on water temperature. As a result, we used the SST geolocation method for these datasets to obtain more reliable results.Data for the model were derived from publicly available resources. Gridded global bathymetry data were obtained from the general bathymetric chart of the oceans (Gebco; British Oceanographic Data Centre, Liverpool, United Kingdom, 2009). Tidal constituents were obtained from the Oregon State University Tidal Prediction model, as described in Egbert and Erofeeva63. Sea surface temperature data were sourced from OSTIA64, while temperature at depth data were sourced from the operational Mercator global ocean analysis and forecast system65. These datasets were downloaded from the Copernicus Marine Environmental Model Service (CMEMS: documented here http://resources.marine.copernicus.eu/documents/PUM/CMEMS-GLO-PUM-001-024.pdf). Data were sourced so as to fit the spatial scale of the model (30°N to 80°N and from 110°W to 60°E) and coarsened to reduce model run-time by modifying the spatial grid to a 1/10th of a degree resolution. The output of the model is a nonparametric probability distribution of the geographical position from which a most probable location, for each day at liberty, and a most probable movement path can be estimated.Prior to running the model, a number of constraints and input parameters were defined to ensure that the model ran effectively. The recapture information was either set as (a) the latitude and longitude where the tag was recaptured, with a high confidence ( 200 m) and hence did not exhibit diel vertical migrations, the input estimates of longitude were based on a simple linear interpolation from release to estimated pop-up. However, for eels that did reach oceanic depths, the time of local noon was estimated (based on the timing of significant diel vertical migrations, as for Righton et al.16), and used to estimate longitude. Geolocation was conducted with MATLAB software66.Migration routesOnly datasets containing ≥ 100 km of net tracking distance were included for further analysis, leading to 54 datasets from the 96 retrieved tags and 320 tagged eels. The net tracking distance was identified as the distance along the reconstructed trajectory between the release of the tagged eel and the pop-off event. When an eel was ingested by a predator, leading to the tag tracking the predator rather than the eel, the data were excluded from the day the eel was predated. The 100 km cut-off point was arbitrarily chosen to select migration paths of sufficient length for further analysis (e.g. migration direction); tracks had a minimum deployment duration of 4 days.Migration speedTo exclude a size-effect, we first applied an independent two-sample t-test to confirm eel sizes (i.e. weight) did not differ between Belgian and German eels. The assumptions of normality (Shapiro–Wilk test), homogeneity of variances (F-test) and independence were met (weight measurements are individual-specific and therefore independent).Next, an independent two-sample t-test was conducted to test if the total migration speeds (i.e. the ground speed along the reconstructed trajectory between the release of the tagged eel and the pop-off or predation event) differed between Belgian and German eels. The assumptions were tested and met as described above.Finally, we tested if the daily migration speed (i.e. the ground speed along the reconstructed trajectory per day) differed according to the eel’s position (i.e. modelled latitude and longitude) via a linear mixed effects model. The tag IDs were implemented as a random effect to account for autocorrelation. Since the two-sample t-test showed a significant difference between Belgian and German total migration speeds, we performed a separate analysis on eels from both countries. Assumptions of normality, homogeneity of variances and independence were tested and met.The migration speed analyses were conducted in R (version 3.6.3)67. The packages ‘lme4’ and ‘nlme’ were used to conduct the linear mixed effects model.Ethical statementEels were tagged using approved protocols by trained and individually licensed scientists working under national project authority in accordance with institutional and national guides for the care and use of laboratory animals. These guidelines are consistent with Institutional Review Board/Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee guidelines. Tagging in Belgium was carried out in accordance with the Belgian national and regional regulations for animal welfare and treatment (Permit ID: EC INBO-011). Tagging in Germany followed German legislation concerning care and use of laboratory animals, and ethical permission for the experiments was given by the Ministry of Energy, Agriculture, the Environment, and Rural Areas of the federal state Schleswig–Holstein (reference numbers V312-72241.123-34 (90-8/11) and V311-7224.123.3 (93-6/12) for tagging in 2011 and 2012 respectively). More

  • in

    The legacy of the extinct Neotropical megafauna on plants and biomes

    Plant defence traitsWe compiled species level data for five plant traits: wood density (WD), leaf and stem spinescence, latex production, and leaf size, for tropical and extra-tropical South and Central American woody species (i.e., the Neotropical biogeographic realm). WD was obtained for 2577 species from ref. 44. We only used wood density data from Zanne et al.44, because this study used WD measured in stems, whereas most other studies with available data used WD measured in branches. Leaf size data were obtained for 2660 woody species from Wright et al.37. We did not include leaf size from herbaceous species because herbaceous and woody species are influence by different megafauna guilds, suggesting distinct mechanisms, and because this dataset37 only included data for 253 Neotropical herbaceous species. The presence or absence of stem (and/or branch) spines (mostly thorns, but also prickles) were obtained from Dantas and Pausas45 for Neotropical savanna and forest species (1004 species) and complemented with other literature sources for other ecoregions (listed in the supplementary materials) using the names of the species for which we had WD and Leaf Size data. Our final stem spines dataset included 2843 woody species. We also compiled data on the presence of latex in plant stems and leaves for all the species for which we had data on other traits (3160 species; references in the supplementary materials). Finally, we also compiled data on leaf spines. While we managed to find leaf spine data for a total of 2173 woody species, we found spinescence in leaves to be especially concentrated in the palm Family (Arecaceae; 198 out of 221 species with leaf spines). Moreover, out of the non-palm species, all but three species also presented stem spines, indicating that, for other taxa, leaf spines might be dependent on the presence of stem spines at the region (in palms, 51% have stem spines). Thus, we only used leaf spinescence data of palm species (694 species) from the global Palm Traits Database 1.046.For wood density and leaf size, we often had more than one trait value per species (1005 and 831 species with more than one trait value, respectively). Thus, we computed the species mean trait value. This rarely occurred for binary traits (spinescence and latex) and, when occurred, the maximum value was used (0 for absence and 1 for presence). This later decision was based in the assumption that omitting the presence of spines or latex is more likely than incorrectly reporting the presence when it is absent. Moreover, some of these traits can be plastic18.From species to ecoregionsWe searched for geographical distribution data (coordinates) from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) for all of the species in each species-trait dataset (Data available from GBIF using the following doi: WD: https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.3vua3x; Stem spines: https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.ar5ddj; Latex: https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.m8dzjd; Leaf spines: https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.vv8gw4; Leaf size: https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.k98nxc). For this search, we used tools provided by the “rgbif” package for R in which species names are updated to the most recent classification and the returned occurrences also include those associated with synonyms (i.e., the “backbone” method). We labelled the obtained geographical coordinates according to their ecoregion and biogeographical realm (following Dinerstein et al.47) and cropped out occurrences falling outside of the Neotropical realm. Since occurrence data was not available to all the species in our initial trait dataset, the number of species used to calculate ecoregion level means was reduced to 2110 species, for wood density, 2133, for leaf size, 2629, for stem spines, 2714, for latex, and 657, for leaf spines. A detailed evaluation of the representativity of this data in relation to ecoregion- and Neotropical- level patterns can be found in the Supplementary Methods. Based on the occurrence data and their ecoregion label, we built a species abundance (columns) by ecoregion (rows) matrix for each trait.We obtained ecoregion scale abundance-weighted means for continuous traits (WD and Leaf Size) by: (1) Multiplying species abundance in each grid cell of the ecoregion by the mean species value; (2) Summing up the row values; (3) dividing the resulting row sum by the total species abundance (row sum prior to trait multiplication), and (4) calculating the ecoregions’ means (across all of the grid cells). For Stem Spines and Latex (binary traits), we used a similar procedure, but the maximum (0 for absence and 1 for presence) value was used instead of the mean in step (1), and step (2) was directly used to calculate the number of presences (i.e., 1 s). Moreover, instead of the steps (3) and (4), we calculated the number of absences as the difference between the total abundance (row sums before trait multiplication) and the values obtained in step (2). This process resulted in weighted means for WD and stem spinescence for 173 ecoregions, and Leaf Size and Latex for 174, out of the 179 Neotropical ecoregions. For leaf spinescence, we used a similar approach, although, because of the fewer species, the abundance estimate from GBIF was less reliable. Thus, we transformed the ecoregion species abundance to presence/absence before multiplying the trait values (0/1 for absence/presence). We obtained leaf spinescence data for 159 out of the 179 Neotropical ecoregions. The species- and ecoregion- level data is provided in the Supplementary Data and in ref. 47.Historical megafauna distributionWe obtained data on historical distribution of megafauna species from the MegaPast2Future/PHYLACINE_1.2 dataset24, a dataset containing distribution maps (96.5 km of spatial resolution) and functional traits for mammal species of the last 130,000 years. From this dataset, we obtained the probable past distribution of extinct large mammal herbivore (hereafter, “megafauna”) species, if these species were still alive today (“Present Natural” scenario; see details below). The “Present Natural” distribution of extinct species in this database is based on the estimated historical distribution (i.e., preceding anthropogenic range modifications) of extant species that are known (from the fossil record) to have coexisted with the extinct species. In this approach, an extinct species is considered to have been present in a given grid cell if at least 50% of the extant species that were found coexisting with the extinct species in the fossil (and subfossil) record was predicted to have occurred in the same cell prior to anthropogenic range modifications24,48. This approach assumes that, since extant and extinct species coexisted in the same locations, they must have had similar ecological requirements. It also assumes that megafauna extinction had anthropogenic causes, instead of causes related to climate change49, which is largely accepted in the literature50.We extracted the “Present Natural” distribution of extinct mammal (coded “EP” for IUCN status; i.e., “extinct in prehistory”, meaning before 1500 CE) whose body mass was higher than 50 kg (megafauna), and for which at least 90% of their diet consisted of plants (i.e., strict herbivores). For each Ecoregion, we began by calculating two megafauna-related metrics: extinct megafauna species richness (Mrich) and their mean body mass (Mbm). For this, we cropped the distribution maps of the megafauna species (containing 1 for presence and 0 for absence of each species) to the Neotropical realm. To calculate Mrich, we (1) counted species presences within each of the grid cells in the global grid (i.e., calculated the cell’s megafauna richness); (2) assigned the corresponding ecoregion label to the resulting richness grid cells, subset the richness cell values corresponding to the Neotropical region; and (3) calculated the mean for each Neotropical ecoregion. For Mbm, we replaced the presences of the megafauna species in the initial raster object (grid cell map of each megafauna species) by their body masses and calculated the grid cell-level mean body mass, before calculating the ecoregion-level means. We also calculated megafauna density and secondary productivity based on allometric equations that relate these metrics to megafauna body mass. However, we did not used megafauna density and secondary productivity because they were strongly correlated to megafauna richness (Supplementary Fig. 3). More details on how these metrics were calculated can be found in the Supplementary Methods.We also obtained diet preference information from the literature for most megafauna species that occurred in the Neotropical region (details and references in the Supplementary Material). Based on these information, we calculated the richness of large browser (MBrich for megabrowser richness), grazer (MGrich for megagrazer richness), and mixed-feeder (MMfrich for mega mixed-feeder richness) species by sub setting the megafauna species by grid cell array before the richness calculation in order to select only species that were classified within the correspondent subgroup.Extant herbivore mammal distributionWe also compiled data on the distribution, body mass and diet of extant and recently extinct (i.e., extinct after 1500 CE) herbivore mammal species (for simplicity, called ‘extant’ species in this study). As with megafauna maps, the distributions used represented reconstructions for periods preceding anthropogenic reduction of extant herbivores ranges (“Present Natural” scenario), based on abiotic, biotic and geographic variables48, rather than the currently observed distribution. This scenario was used because modern anthropogenic range reductions are too recent to produce substantial geographic effects at this spatial scale. These data were obtained by sub setting the MegaPast2Future/PHYLACINE_1.2 dataset to exclude species that were coded “EP” for IUCN status and that were not strict herbivores (at least 90% of the diet constituting of plants). We subsequently associated diet information to these species using data from ref. 51 and excluded all species that did not feed mainly on aboveground vegetative plant tissues (i.e., species that fed mostly on fruits, seed, roots were excluded). This later filtering was because the number of herbivores that feed mostly on seed and fruit increase with decreasing size (and this dataset included small mammals). We subsequently calculated the same metrics as for the extinct megafauna species (except for the richness of mixed-feeders as our source for diets50 labelled species according to dominant feeding pattern). For this, we used the same approach described for extinct megafauna species. We did not use a size threshold for extant species because there were only 13 extant mammal herbivore species with over 50 kg in the Neotropical region, most of which were grazers (9 species; 4 species were mixed-feeders and none were browsers). Therefore, we relied on the mean body mass metric calculated for extant mammals to detect potential size-related effects.Climate, soil, fire, insularity, and hurricanesFor each Ecoregion, we obtained data on climate (mean annual precipitation and temperature, and rainfall seasonality) and soil (sand content, pH, and cation exchange capacity) variables. Climate data was obtained from WorldClim 2.1 (10 min spatial resolution) and was based on climate data from 1970 to 200052. Soil data were obtained from SoilGrids (5 km of spatial resolution)53, and consisted of mean values for two depths, 0.05 and 2 m. We calculated Ecoregion level means for all of the soil and climate variables after intersecting the climate and soil grid maps with the ecoregion map.We obtained the number (a proxy for frequency) and intensity of wildfires per ecoregion area using the MODIS active fire location product (MCD14ML)54. We only considered fires (i.e., hotspots) with detection confidence of 95% or higher occurring from November 2000 to December 2019 (both included). To ensure that only wildfires were considered, we associated each fire pixel with a land cover type (300 m of spatial resolution) from ref. 55 for a buffer area of 1000 m surrounding the fire pixel centroid. We excluded all of the fires occurring in areas in which more than 10% of the surrounding land cover pixels corresponded to agricultural, urban and water classes. We calculated the number of wildfires per ecoregion area by dividing the fire count of each Ecoregion by the ecoregion area, and multiplying the resulting value by the proportion of vegetated land cover pixels (same classes used to exclude fires in anthropogenic areas and water bodies above). Fire intensity was estimated as the average fire radiative power across all detected MODIS hotspots in the ecoregion. Ecoregions lacking large preserved vegetated areas (criteria above) were excluded from subsequent analyses.Using the ecoregion map, we also classified ecoregions into insular (1), when most of the ecoregion area was located in islands, vs. continental (0), otherwise. This was performed because island biogeography theory predicts that, in island, species richness should be low due to low colonization and high extinction rates. Insularity has also been shown to reduce megafauna body size (i.e., the island rule), even though the mechanisms are not fully understood56. We also compiled data on hurricane activity, as woody density was suggested to confer resistance against this disturbance57. We used data from 1990 to 2019 from the HURDAT2 dataset58, containing six-hourly information about the location of all of the known tropical and subtropical cyclones (0.1° latitude/longitude). We used the sum of hurricane occurrences per ecoregions divided by ecoregion area as an indicator of hurricane activity.Statistical analysesTo understand megafauna patterns, we began by fitting (multiple) regression models with habitat-related (fire, climate, soil) and geographical (insularity) variables as predictors. We expected that megafauna richness in general was higher under savanna conditions (arid nutrient-rich or mesic nutrient-poor environments with frequent fires)1,22. We also expected that megafauna richness and body mass were affected negatively by insularity (i.e., following the island biogeography theory and island rule). Before the analyses, we tested the correlations among all of the variables that would eventually be entered as predictors in the same model for both the megafauna and trait models (Supplementary Table 1), in order to avoid multicollinearity associated with highly correlated variables (here, r ≥ 0.60). Since mean annual precipitation and soil pH were strongly positively correlated (r = −0.78), for all of the analyses (including the analyses with functional traits, described below), model selection was performed separately for these two variables (i.e., two different model selection procedures, one containing each of the two variables among the initial set of predictors). We selected the best among the two resulting models as that with the lowest AIC (differences higher than two points in all of the cases). To make sure that no multicollinearity remained we also calculated the Variation Inflation Factor (VIF) for all of the predictor variables as 1/tolerance, where tolerance is calculated as 1 minus the R2 of all of the model regressing a predictive variable against all of the other predictors. In all of the models, VIF was 3.33 or smaller (i.e., a tolerance of 0.30 or higher), indicating absence of multicollinearity.Model simplification was carried interactively using stepwise (both forward and backward) searching for the model with the lowest AIC (using R’s “step” function) and subsequently retaining only the significant variables (p ≤ 0.05). We calculated the Pearson r statistics as a measure of effect size for the selected variables as well as the associated confidence intervals, using the packages “parameters” and “effectsize” for R. The average contribution of each predictor variable was also calculated, using the package “dominanceanalysis”, as the mean difference in R2 before and after removing the target variable from models containing all of the possible subset combinations of the selected predictor variables, including the full selected model.For testing whether the studied plant functional traits were related to our megafauna indicators, we fit linear models to WD and leaf size, and generalized linear models (GLM; binomial family) for spinescence and latescence, using ecoregion as the unit. For spinescence and latescence, we used the matrix containing the count of spiny/latex and non-spiny/non-latex plants (species abundance; for stem spines and latex) or number of species with or without spines (for leaf spines; see above) as response variables. The predictor variables included the animal indicators for extinct megafauna and extant herbivores, as well as climate, soil, and fire predictors (and, for WD, hurricane counts). Because total, as well as megagrazer, megabrowser, and mega mixed-feeder species richness were strongly positively correlated (Supplementary Table 1), we used the richness difference between grazers and browsers to evaluate the effect of diet (Supplementary Fig. 1). For consistency, we used the same diet variable for extant and extinct species. Since we did not identify strong correlations among extinct megafauna and extant herbivore indicators (Supplementary Table 1), these variables were all entered simultaneously in the same initial models. As with the analyses of the megafauna indices, we also used r as effect size and calculated the average predictor contribution in terms of R2 for these models. For the later, we used the MacFadden Pseudo-R2 in the GLM models as implemented in the “pscl” and “dominanceanalysis” packages for R, as this statistic is the most comparable with R2 from linear multiple regression (Maximum Likelihood and Cragg and Uhler’s Pseudo-R2 were also calculated for the logistic models), and adjusted R2 for continuous traits. Islands were not included in these models, as island plants were expected to respond differently due to the effects of insularity on animal species richness, precluding megafauna and extant mammal richness from being accurate proxies for consumer abundance. For stem spines, we always included a quadratic term to both megafauna and extant mammal herbivore body mass, as evidence suggest that medium-size herbivores (i.e., approximately 250 kg) are important selective drivers of this trait12. If a significant relationship with our herbivory indicators (both extant and extinct) were significant but not indicative of a selective effect by herbivores (for more defended plants), this relationship was discarded (along with related variables, such as diet); this happened only once, for leaf size, which increased with extant herbivore richness (Supplementary Table 8).For all of the general linear regression models, assumptions of normality, homoscesticity and lack of spatial autocorrelation in the residuals were checked using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov, Breusch–Pagan and Moran’s I tests, respectively. For the later, ecoregions were considered neighbours when they were adjacent and non-neighbour otherwise. In some cases, heteroscesticity was detected and, thus, the significance of the coefficients was tested using heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimation. If one or more variable lost their significance they were stepwise removed from the final model, beginning by the least significant, until all remaining variables had a significant effect. Overdispersion in the generalized linear model was also detected and dealt with using overdispersed binomial logit models, as implemented in the “dispmod” package for R, in which weights are interactively calculated and used to maintain the residual deviance lower than the degrees of freedom. To confirm that the detected associations between megafauna indices and plant traits were robust, we also tested the coefficient significance using randomization of the plant species by ecoregion matrices (see Supplementary Methods for details).To test the prediction that Neotropical ecoregions could be broadly classified into the three hypothesised antiherbiomes, we used hierarchical clustering on principal component axes of the ecoregion by trait matrix (five plant traits, standardized to zero mean and unit variance). We selected the number of clusters associated with the highest loss of inertia (within group variability) when progressively increasing the number of clusters, using the R package “FactoMineR”. This procedure allowed the recognition of large regions characterised by specific patterns of defence strategies (‘antiherbiomes’). We subsequently tested for axes score, megafauna and environmental differences among the resulting antiherbiomes to verify whether and how trait, climate and soil patterns matched those described for African ecosystems, and to understand the megafaunal differences among the antiherbiomes. For these comparisons, we used Kruskal-Wallis and post-hoc pairwise Dunn tests, using the Benjamini & Hochberg59 (1995) correction of P-values for multiple comparisons in both cases, and exclusively included continental ecoregions. For spines, we used the proportion of spinescent plants/species (rather than the number of “yes” and “no” used on previous analyses) in the principal component analysis. Because palms were missing from 20 ecoregions, we completed the values for these ecoregions using predicted model probabilities. To better understand these associations between traits and the environmental and megafauna variables, we also regressed the PCA axes against the same predictors used for traits.We also developed a framework to identify forest ecoregions most likely to have experienced a biome shift after megafauna extinction using antiherbiome, biome and megafauna distribution data. Ecoregions likely to have experienced a savanna-to-forest shift since the Pleistocene are those that: (1) are currently forest-dominated; (2) are classified in antiherbiomes analogous to African arid nutrient-rich or mesic nutrient-poor savannas; and (3) were megafauna- and, especially, megagrazer- rich during the Pleistocene (richness equal or greater than the 0.75 quantile: 14 species for Mrich, and 3 for exclusively grazing species; MGrich). We validated the distribution of these areas with fossil evidence (22 sites) from the Last Glacial Maximum and mid-Holocene (see Supplementary Methods and Supplementary Table 9). For this, we also used information about the present dominant vegetation type in the fossil sites, extracted from the reference sources (see Supplementary Table 9), to segregate savanna-forest shifts from data coming from stable savanna patches within forest or long-term savanna regions. We also contrasted the predicted patterns with the present location of savanna patches within the Amazon Forest region from ref. 60.All statistical analyses and data handling were carried out in the R (v.4.0.2) environment, using the previously mentioned packages, in addition to FSA, gridExtra, grid, lattice, lmtest, latticeExtra, olsrr, raster, rgdal, rgeos, sandwich, spatialreg, spdep and vegan, using codes provided in ref. 47.Reporting SummaryFurther information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article. More

  • in

    Water availability, bedrock, disturbance by herbivores, and climate determine plant diversity in South-African savanna

    1.Gaston, K. J., Jackson, S. F., Cantú-Salazar, L. & Cruz-Piñón, G. The ecological performance of protected areas. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 39, 93–113 (2008).
    Google Scholar 
    2.Staver, A. C., Abraham, J. O., Hempson, G. P., Karp, A. T. & Faith, J. T. The past, present, and future of herbivore impacts on savanna vegetation. J. Ecol. 109, 2804–2822 (2021).
    Google Scholar 
    3.Bond, W. J. Keystone species. In Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function (eds Schulze, E. D. & Mooney, H. A.) 237–253 (Springer, 1994).
    Google Scholar 
    4.Cole, M. M. The influence of soils, geomorphology and geology on the distribution of plant communities in savanna ecosystems. In Ecology of Tropical Savannas (eds Huntley, B. J. & Walker, B. H.) 145–174 (Springer, 1982).
    Google Scholar 
    5.Huntley, B. J. & Walker, B. H. (eds) Ecology of Tropical Savannas Vol. 42 (Springer, 1982).
    Google Scholar 
    6.Frost, P. et al. Responses of Savannas to Stress and Disturbance: A Proposal for a Collaborative Programme of Research (Biology International 10, 1985).
    Google Scholar 
    7.Medina, E. & Silva, J. F. Savannas of northern South America: A steady state regulated by water–ire interactions on a background of low nutrient availability. J. Biogeogr. 17, 403–413 (1990).
    Google Scholar 
    8.Fensham, R. J., Fairfax, R. J. & Archer, S. R. Rainfall, land use and woody vegetation cover change in semi-arid Australian savanna. J. Ecol. 93, 596–606 (2005).
    Google Scholar 
    9.Mucina, L. & Rutherford, M. C. The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (South African National Biodiversity Institute, 2006).
    Google Scholar 
    10.Staver, A. C., Botha, J. & Hedin, L. Soils and fire jointly determine vegetation structure in an African savanna. New Phytol. 216, 1151–1160 (2017).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    11.Jakubka, D. et al. Effects of climate, habitat and land use on the cover and diversity of the savanna herbaceous layer in Burkina-Faso, West Africa. Folia Geobot. 52, 129–142 (2017).
    Google Scholar 
    12.Bond, W. J. Open Ecosystems: Ecology and Evolution Beyond the Forest Edge (Oxford University Press, 2019).
    Google Scholar 
    13.O’Connor, T. G. Composition and population responses of an African savanna grassland to rainfall and grazing. J. Appl. Ecol. 31, 155–171 (1994).
    Google Scholar 
    14.Walker, B. & Langridge, J. Predicting savanna vegetation structure on the basis of plant available moisture (PAM) and plant available nutrients (PAN): A case study from Australia. J. Biogeogr. 24, 813–825 (1997).
    Google Scholar 
    15.Sankaran, M. et al. Determinants of woody cover in African savannas. Nature 438, 846–849 (2005).CAS 
    ADS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    16.Bucini, G. & Hanan, N. P. A continental-scale analysis of tree cover in African savannas. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 16, 593–605 (2007).
    Google Scholar 
    17.Venter, F. J., Scholes, R. J. & Eckhardt, H. C. The abiotic template and its associated vegetation pattern. In The Kruger Experience: Ecology and Management of Savanna Heterogeneity (eds du Toit, J. T. et al.) 83–129 (Island Press, Washington, D.C., 2003).18.Valeix, M. et al. Vegetation structure and ungulate abundance over a period of increasing elephant abundance in Hwange National Park, Zimbabwe. J. Trop. Ecol. 23, 87–93 (2007).
    Google Scholar 
    19.Asner, G. P. et al. Large-scale impacts of herbivores on the structural diversity of African savannas. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 4947–4952 (2009).CAS 
    ADS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    20.Archibald, S. & Hempson, G. P. Competing consumers: Contrasting the patterns and impacts of fire and mammalian herbivory in Africa. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 371, 20150309 (2016).
    Google Scholar 
    21.Archibald, S., Bond, W. J., Stock, W. D. & Fairbanks, D. H. K. Shaping the landscape: Fire–grazer interactions in an African savanna. Ecol. Appl. 15, 96–109 (2005).
    Google Scholar 
    22.Staver, A. C. & Bond, W. J. Is there a ‘browse trap’? Dynamics of herbivore impacts on trees and grasses in an African savanna. J. Ecol. 102, 595–602 (2014).
    Google Scholar 
    23.Jeltsch, F., Weber, G. E. & Grimm, V. Ecological buffering mechanisms in savannas: A unifying theory of long-term tree-grass coexistence. Plant Ecol. 105, 161–171 (2000).
    Google Scholar 
    24.February, E. C., Higgins, S. I., Bond, W. J. & Swemmer, L. Influence of competition and rainfall manipulation on the growth responses of savanna trees and grasses. Ecology 94, 1155–1164 (2013).PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    25.Savadogo, P., Tiveau, D., Sawadogo, L. & Tigabu, M. Herbaceous species responses to long-term effects of prescribed fire, grazing and selective tree cutting in the savanna-woodlands of West Africa. Perspect. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst. 10, 179–195 (2008).
    Google Scholar 
    26.Smith, M. D. et al. Long-term effects of fire frequency and season on herbaceous vegetation in savannas of the Kruger National Park, South Africa. J. Plant Ecol. 6, 71–83 (2013).
    Google Scholar 
    27.Thrash, I. Impact of water provision on herbaceous vegetation in Kruger National Park, South Africa. J. Arid Environ. 38, 437–450 (1998).ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    28.Staver, A. C., Bond, W. J., Stock, W. D., van Rensburg, S. J. & Waldram, M. S. Browsing and fire interact to suppress tree density in an African savanna. Ecol. Appl. 19, 1909–1919 (2009).PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    29.Smit, I. P. J. & Ferreira, S. M. Management intervention affects river-bound spatial dynamics of elephants. Biol. Conserv. 143, 2172–2181 (2010).
    Google Scholar 
    30.Loarie, S. R., van Aarde, R. J. & Pimm, S. L. Elephant seasonal vegetation preferences across dry and wet savannas. Biol. Conserv. 142, 3099–3107 (2009).
    Google Scholar 
    31.Young, K. D., Ferreira, S. M. & Van Aarde, R. J. Elephant spatial use in wet and dry savannas of southern Africa. J. Zool. 278, 189–205 (2009).
    Google Scholar 
    32.Codron, J. et al. Elephant (Loxodonta africana) diets in Kruger National Park, South Africa: spatial and landscape differences. J. Mammal. 87, 27–34 (2006).
    Google Scholar 
    33.Timberlake, J. Colophospermum mopane: Annotated Bibliography and Review (Zimbabwe Bulletin of Forestry Research No. 11, 1995).
    Google Scholar 
    34.Pyšek, P. et al. Into the great wide open: Do alien plants spread from rivers to dry savanna in the Kruger National Park?. NeoBiota 60, 61–77 (2020).
    Google Scholar 
    35.Eckhardt, H. C., van Wilgen, B. W. & Biggs, H. C. Trends in woody vegetation cover in the Kruger National Park, South Africa, between 1940 and 1998. Afr. J. Ecol. 38, 108–115 (2000).
    Google Scholar 
    36.Groen, T. A. Spatial Matters: How Spatial Patterns and Processes Affect Savanna Dynamics. PhD Thesis, Wageningen University, The Netherlands (2007).37.MacFadyen, S., Hui, C., Verburg, P. H. & Van Teeffelen, A. J. A. Quantifying spatiotemporal drivers of environmental heterogeneity in Kruger National Park, South Africa. Landsc. Ecol. 31, 2013–2029 (2016).
    Google Scholar 
    38.Munyati, C. & Ratshibvumo, T. Differentiating geological fertility derived vegetation zones in Kruger National Park, SouthAfrica, using Landsat and MODIS imagery. J. Nat. Conserv. 18, 169–179 (2010).
    Google Scholar 
    39.Colgan, M. S., Asner, G. P., Levick, S. R., Martin, R. E. & Chadwick, O. A. Topo-edaphic controls over woody plant biomass in South African savannas. Biogeosciences 9, 1809–1821 (2012).ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    40.Walter, H. & Burnett, J. H. Ecology of Tropical and Subtropical Vegetation Vol. 539 (Oliver and Boyd, 1971).
    Google Scholar 
    41.Scholes, R. J., Bond, W. J. & Eckhardt, H. C. Vegetation dynamics in the Kruger ecosystem. In The Kruger Experience: Ecology and Management of Savanna Heterogeneity (eds du Toit, J. T. et al.) 243–262 (Island Press, 2003).
    Google Scholar 
    42.Knoop, W. T. & Walker, B. H. Interactions of woody and herbaceous vegetation in southern African savanna. J. Ecol. 73, 235–253 (1985).
    Google Scholar 
    43.Tilman, D. The resource-ratio hypothesis of plant succession. Am. Nat. 125, 827–852 (1985).
    Google Scholar 
    44.Scholes, R. J. & Archer, S. R. Tree–grass interactions in savannas. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 28, 517–544 (1997).
    Google Scholar 
    45.Muvengwi, J., Davies, A. B., Parrini, F. & Witkowski, E. T. F. Contrasting termite diversity and assemblages on granitic and basaltic African savanna landscapes. Insect. Soc. 65, 25–35 (2018).
    Google Scholar 
    46.Trollope, W. S. W., Potgieter, A. L. F. & Zambatis, N. Assessing veld condition in the Kruger National Park using key grass species. Koedoe 32, 67–93 (1989).
    Google Scholar 
    47.Ehleringer, J. R. & Monson, R. K. Evolutionary and ecological aspects of photosynthetic pathway variation. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 24, 411–439 (1993).
    Google Scholar 
    48.Chytrý, M., Tichý, L. & Roleček, J. Local and regional patterns of species richness in Central European vegetation types along the pH/calcium gradient. Folia Geobot. 38, 429–442 (2003).
    Google Scholar 
    49.Owen-Smith, N., Page, B., Teren, G. & Druce, D. J. Megabrowser impacts on woody vegetation in savannas. In Savanna Woody Plants and Large Herbivores (eds Scogings, P. F. & Sankaran, M.) 585–611 (Wiley, 2019).
    Google Scholar 
    50.Nasseri, N. A., McBrayer, L. D. & Schulte, B. A. The impact of tree modification by African elephant (Loxodonta africana) on herpetofaunal species richness in northern Tanzania. Afr. J. Ecol. 49, 133–140 (2010).
    Google Scholar 
    51.Asner, G. P. & Levick, S. R. Landscape-scale effects of herbivores on treefall in African savannas. Ecol. Lett. 15, 1211–1217 (2012).PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    52.Haynes, G. Elephants (and extinct relatives) as earth-movers and ecosystem engineers. Geomorphology 157, 99–107 (2012).ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    53.Kruger, L. M., Coetzee, J. A. & Vickers, K. The Impacts of Elephants on Woodlands and Associated Biodiversity (Summary report to South African National Parks, Organization for Tropical Studies, 2007).54.Guy, P. R. The influence of elephants and fire on a Brachystegia julbernardia woodland in Zimbabwe. J. Trop. Ecol. 5, 215–226 (1989).
    Google Scholar 
    55.Laws, R. M., Parker, I. S. C. & Johnstone, R. C. B. Elephants and Their Habitats: The Ecology of Elephants in North Bunyoro, Uganda (Clarendon Press, 1975).
    Google Scholar 
    56.Thompson, P. J. The role of elephants, fire and other agents in the decline of Brachystegia woodlands. J. S. Afr. Wildl. Manag. Assoc. 5, 11–18 (1975).
    Google Scholar 
    57.Barnes, M. E. Effects of large herbivores and fire on the regeneration of Acacia erioloba woodlands in Chobe National Park, Botswana. Afr. J. Ecol. 39, 340–350 (2001).
    Google Scholar 
    58.Scogings, P. F., Johansson, T., Hjältén, J. & Kruger, J. Responses of woody vegetation to exclusion of large herbivores in semi-arid savannas. Austral Ecol. 37, 56–66 (2012).
    Google Scholar 
    59.Verweij, R. J. T., Higgins, S. I., Bond, W. J. & February, E. C. Water sourcing by trees in a mesic savanna: Responses to severing deep and shallow roots. Environ. Exp. Bot. 74, 229–236 (2011).
    Google Scholar 
    60.Smit, I. et al. Effects of fire on woody vegetation structure in African savanna. Ecol. Appl. 20, 1865–1875 (2010).PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    61.MacFadyen, S., Hui, C., Verburg, P. H. & Van Teeffelen, A. J. A. Spatiotemporal distribution dynamics of elephants in response to density, rainfall, rivers and fire in Kruger National Park, South Africa. Divers. Distrib. 25, 880–894 (2019).
    Google Scholar 
    62.O’Connor, T. G., Goodman, P. S. & Clegg, B. A functional hypothesis of the threat of local extirpation of woody plant species by elephant in Africa. Biol. Conserv. 136, 329–345 (2007).
    Google Scholar 
    63.Didan, K. MOD13Q1 MODIS/Terra Vegetation Indices 16-Day L3 Global 250m SIN Grid V006. NASA EOSDIS Land Processes DAAC. Accessed 2021-06-08 from https://doi.org/10.5067/MODIS/MOD13Q1.006 (2015).64.Kreft, H. & Jetz, W. Global patterns and determinants of vascular plant diversity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 104, 5925–5930 (2007).CAS 
    ADS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    65.Bohdalková, E., Toszogyova, A., Šímová, I. & Storch, D. Universality in biodiversity patterns: variation in species-temperature and species-productivity relationships reveals a prominent role of productivity in diversity gradients. Ecography 44, 1366–1378 (2021).
    Google Scholar 
    66.Knight, R. S., Crowe, T. M. & Siegfried, W. R. Distribution and species richness of trees in southern Africa. J. S. Afr. Bot. 48, 455–480 (1982).
    Google Scholar 
    67.Gaylard, A., Owen-Smith, N. & Redfern, J. Surface water availability: implications for heterogeneity and eco-system processes. In The Kruger Experience: Ecology and Management of Savanna Heterogeneity (eds du Toit, J. T. et al.) 171–188 (Island Press, 2003).
    Google Scholar 
    68.Venter, F. J. A Classification of Land for Management Planning in the Kruger National Park. PhD Thesis, University of South Africa (1990).69.du Toit, J. T. et al. (eds) The Kruger Experience: Ecology and Management of Savanna Heterogeneity (Island Press, 2003).
    Google Scholar 
    70.Smit, I. P. J., Smit, C. F., Govender, N., van der Linde, M. & MacFadyen, S. Rainfall, geology and landscape position generate large-scale spatiotemporal fire pattern heterogeneity in an African savanna. Ecography 36, 447–459 (2013).
    Google Scholar 
    71.Obermeijer, A. A. A preliminary list of plants found in the Kruger National Park. Ann. Transvaal Mus. 17, 185–227 (1937).
    Google Scholar 
    72.van der Schijff, H. P. ‘n Ekologiese Studie van die Flora van die Nasionale Krugerwildtuin. D.Sc. Thesis, Potchefstroom University (1957).73.van der Schijff, H. P. The affinities of the flora of the Kruger National Park. Kirkia 7, 109–120 (1968).
    Google Scholar 
    74.Coetzee, B. J. Phytosociology, Vegetation Structure and Landscapes of the Central District. Kruger National Park, South Africa. Dissertationes Botanicae, J. Cramer, Vaduz (1983).75.Gertenbach, W. P. D. Landscapes of the Kruger National Park. Koedoe 26, 9–121 (1983).
    Google Scholar 
    76.Siebert, F. & Eckhardt, H. C. The vegetation and floristics of the Nkhuhlu exclosures, Kruger National Park. Koedoe 50, 126–144 (2008).
    Google Scholar 
    77.Siebert, F., Eckhardt, H. C. & Siebert, S. J. The vegetation and floristics of the Letaba exclosures, Kruger National Park, South Africa. Koedoe 52, 1–12 (2010).
    Google Scholar 
    78.Wigley, B. J., Fritz, H., Coetsee, C. & Bond, W. J. Herbivores shape woody plant communities in the Kruger National Park: Lessons from three long-term exclosures. Koedoe 56, 1–12 (2014).
    Google Scholar 
    79.Enslin, B. W., Potgieter, A. L. F., Biggs, H. C. & Biggs, R. Long term effects of fire frequency and season on the woody vegetation dynamics of the Sclerocarya birrea/Acacia nigrescens savanna of the Kruger National Park. Koedoe 43, 27–37 (2000).
    Google Scholar 
    80.Brits, J., Van Rooyen, M. W. & Van Rooyen, N. Ecological impact of large herbivores on the woody vegetation at selected watering points on the eastern basaltic soils in the Kruger National Park. Afr. J. Ecol. 40, 53–60 (2002).
    Google Scholar 
    81.Todd, S. W. Gradients in vegetation cover, structure and species richness of Nama-Karoo shrublands in relation to distance from livestock watering points. J. Appl. Ecol. 43, 293–304 (2006).
    Google Scholar 
    82.Foxcroft, L. C., Henderson, L., Nichols, G. R. & Martin, B. W. A revised list of alien plants for the Kruger National Park. Koedoe 46, 21–44 (2003).
    Google Scholar 
    83.Foxcroft, L. C., Richardson, D. M. & Wilson, J. R. Ornamental plants as invasive aliens: Problems and solutions in Kruger National Park, South Africa. Environ. Manag. 41, 32–51 (2008).ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    84.Mueller-Dombois, D. & Ellenberg, H. Aims and Methods of Vegetation Ecology (Wiley, 1974).
    Google Scholar 
    85.van der Maarel, E. Transformation of cover-abundance values in phytosociology and its effects on community similarity. Vegetatio 38, 97–114 (1979).
    Google Scholar 
    86.Magurran, A. E. Ecological Diversity and Its Measurement (Croom Helm, 1988).
    Google Scholar 
    87.Pooley, E. Wildflowers of Kwazulu-Natal and the Eastern Region (Natal Flora Publications Trust, 1998).
    Google Scholar 
    88.Schmidt, E., Lötter, M. & McCleland, W. Trees and Shrubs of Mpumalanga and Kruger National Park (Jacana Media, 2002).
    Google Scholar 
    89.van der Walt, R. Wild Flowers of the Limpopo Valley (Retha van der Walt, 2009).
    Google Scholar 
    90.Oudtshoorn, F. V. Guide to Grasses of Southern Africa 3rd edn. (Briza Publications, 2018).
    Google Scholar 
    91.R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, 2013).
    Google Scholar 
    92.Lenth, R. Emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Square Means. R package version 1.2.1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans (2018).93.Lepš, J. & Šmilauer, P. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data Using CANOCO 5 (Cambridge University Press, 2014).MATH 

    Google Scholar 
    94.Dray, S., Legendre, P. & Peres-Neto, P. R. Spatial modelling: A comprehensive framework 562 for principal coordinate analysis of neighbour matrices (PCNM). Ecol. Modell. 196, 483–563 (2006).
    Google Scholar 
    95.Šmilauer, P. & Lepš, J. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data Using Canoco 5 2nd edn. (Cambridge University Press, 2014).MATH 

    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    The role of methanotrophy in the microbial carbon metabolism of temperate lakes

    1.Bastviken, D. Methane. in Encyclopedia of Inland Waters (ed. Likens, G. E.) 783–805 (Elsevier, 2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012370626-3.00117-42.Hanson, R. S. & Hanson, T. E. Methanotrophic bacteria. Microbiol. Rev. 60, 439–471 (1996).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    3.Thottathil, S. D., Reis, P. C. J., del Giorgio, P. A. & Prairie, Y. T. The extent and regulation of summer methane oxidation in Northern Lakes. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosciences 123, 3216–3230 (2018).CAS 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    4.Kankaala, P., Taipale, S., Nykänen, H. & Jones, R. I. Oxidation, efflux, and isotopic fractionation of methane during autumnal turnover in a polyhumic, boreal lake. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosciences 112, 1–7 (2007).
    Google Scholar 
    5.Kankaala, P., Huotari, J., Peltomaa, E., Saloranta, T. & Ojala, A. Methanotrophic activity in relation to methane efflux and total heterotrophic bacterial production in a stratified, humic, boreal lake. Limnol. Oceanogr. 51, 1195–1204 (2006).CAS 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    6.Bastviken, D., Ejlertsson, J., Sundh, I. & Tranvik, L. Methane as a source of carbon and energy for lake pelagic food webs. Ecology 84, 969–981 (2003).
    Google Scholar 
    7.Kankaala, P., Lopez Bellido, J., Ojala, A., Tulonen, T. & Jones, R. I. Variable production by different pelagic energy mobilizers in Boreal Lakes. Ecosystems 16, 1152–1164 (2013).CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    8.Morana, C. et al. Methanotrophy within the water column of a large meromictic tropical lake (Lake Kivu, East Africa). Biogeosciences 12, 2077–2088 (2015).ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    9.Grey, J. The incredible lightness of being methane-fuelled: stable isotopes reveal alternative energy pathways in aquatic ecosystems and beyond. Front. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1–14 (2016).
    Google Scholar 
    10.Jones, R. I. & Grey, J. Biogenic methane in freshwater food webs. Freshw. Biol. 56, 213–229 (2011).CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    11.Kankaala, P., Taipale, S. & Grey, J. Experimental d13C evidence for a contribution of methane to pelagic food webs in lakes. Limnol. Oceanogr. 51, 2821–2827 (2006).CAS 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    12.Guérin, F. & Abril, G. Significance of pelagic aerobic methane oxidation in the methane and carbon budget of a tropical reservoir. J. Geophys. Res. 112, 1–14 (2007).
    Google Scholar 
    13.Rasilo, T., Hutchins, R. H. S., Ruiz-González, C. & del Giorgio, P. A. Transport and transformation of soil-derived CO2, CH4 and DOC sustain CO2 supersaturation in small boreal streams. Sci. Total Environ. 579, 902–912 (2017).CAS 
    PubMed 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    14.Soued, C. & Prairie, Y. T. The carbon footprint of a Malaysian tropical reservoir: measured versus modeled estimates highlight the underestimated key role of downstream processes. Biogeosciences 17, 515–227 (2020).CAS 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    15.Del Giorgio, P. A. & Gasol, J. M. Physiological structure and single-cell activity in marine bacterioplankton. in Microbial Ecology of the Oceans: Second Edition (ed. Kirchman, D. L.) 243–298 (John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2008). https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470281840.ch816.Reis, P. C. J., Ruiz-González, C., Soued, C., Crevecoeur, S. & Prairie, Y. T. Rapid shifts in methanotrophic bacterial communities mitigate methane emissions from a tropical hydropower reservoir and its downstream river. Sci. Total Environ. 748, 141374 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    17.Thottathil, S. D., Reis, P. C. J. & Prairie, Y. T. Methane oxidation kinetics in northern freshwater lakes. Biogeochemistry 143, 105–116 (2019).CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    18.Milucka, J. et al. Methane oxidation coupled to oxygenic photosynthesis in anoxic waters. ISME J. 9, 1991–2002 (2015).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    19.Zigah, P. K. et al. Methane oxidation pathways and associated methanotrophic communities in the water column of a tropical lake. Limnol. Oceanogr. 60, 553–572 (2015).ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    20.Mayr, M. J. et al. Growth and rapid succession of methanotrophs effectively limit methane release during lake overturn. Commun. Biol. 3, 1–9 (2020).
    Google Scholar 
    21.Bussmann, I., Rahalkar, M. & Schink, B. Cultivation of methanotrophic bacteria in opposing gradients of methane and oxygen. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 56, 331–344 (2006).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    22.Kankaala, P., Eller, G. & Jones, R. I. Could bacterivorous zooplankton affect lake pelagic methanotrophic activity? Fundam. Appl. Limnol. / Arch. f.ür. Hydrobiol. 169, 203–209 (2007).
    Google Scholar 
    23.Khmelenina, V. N. et al. Structural and functional features of methanotrophs from hypersaline and alkaline lakes. Microbiology 79, 472–482 (2010).CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    24.Westfall, C. S. & Levin, P. A. Bacterial cell size: multifactorial and multifaceted. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 71, 499–517 (2017).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    25.Chien, A. C., Hill, N. S. & Levin, P. A. Cell size control in bacteria. Curr. Biol. 22, R340–R349 (2012).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    26.Velimirov, B. Nanobacteria, ultramicrobacteria and starvation forms: a search for the smallest metabolizing bacterium. Microbes Environ. 16, 67–77 (2001).
    Google Scholar 
    27.Reis, P. C. J., Thottathil, S. D., Ruiz-González, C. & Prairie, Y. T. Niche separation within aerobic methanotrophic bacteria across lakes and its link to methane oxidation rates. Environ. Microbiol. 22, 738–751 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    28.Garcia-Chaves, M. C., Cottrell, M. T., Kirchman, D. L., Ruiz-González, C. & del Giorgio, P. A. Single-cell activity of freshwater aerobic anoxygenic phototrophic bacteria and their contribution to biomass production. Isme J. 10, 1579–1588 (2016).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    29.Jürgens, K. & Matz, C. Predation as a shaping force for the phenotypic and genotypic composition of planktonic bacteria. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek. Int. J. Gen. Mol. Microbiol. 81, 413–434 (2002).
    Google Scholar 
    30.Rautio, M. & Vincent, W. F. Benthic and pelagic food resources for–zooplankton in shallow high-latitude lakes and ponds. Freshw. Biol. 51, 1038–1052 (2006).CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    31.Rissanen, A. J. et al. Gammaproteobacterial methanotrophs dominate methanotrophy in aerobic and anaerobic layers of boreal lake waters. Aquat. Microb. Ecol. 81, 257–276 (2018).
    Google Scholar 
    32.Zimmermann, M. et al. Microbial methane oxidation efficiency and robustness during lake overturn. Limnol. Oceanogr. Lett. 6, 320–328 (2021).CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    33.Puri, A. W. et al. Genetic tools for the industrially promising methanotroph Methylomicrobium buryatense. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 81, 1775–1781 (2015).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    34.Strong, P. J., Kalyuzhnaya, M., Silverman, J. & Clarke, W. P. A methanotroph-based biorefinery: potential scenarios for generating multiple products from a single fermentation. Bioresour. Technol. 215, 314–323 (2016).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    35.Oswald, K. et al. Aerobic gammaproteobacterial methanotrophs mitigate methane emissions from oxic and anoxic lake waters. Limnol. Oceanogr. 61, S101–S118 (2016).
    Google Scholar 
    36.Smith, E. M. & Prairie, Y. T. Bacterial metabolism and growth efficiency in lakes: the importance of phosphorus availability. Limnol. Oceanogr. 49, 137–147 (2004).CAS 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    37.Del Giorgio, P. A., Cole, J. J., Caraco, N. F. & Peters, R. H. Linking planktonic biomass and metabolism to net gas fluxes in northern temperate lakes. Ecology 80, 1422–1431 (1999).
    Google Scholar 
    38.Kellerman, A. M., Dittmar, T., Kothawala, D. N. & Tranvik, L. J. Chemodiversity of dissolved organic matter in lakes driven by climate and hydrology. Nat. Commun. 5, 3804 (2014).CAS 
    PubMed 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    39.Sun, L., Perdue, E. M., Meyer, J. L. & Weis, J. Use of elemental composition to predict bioavailability of dissolved organic matter in a Georgia river. Limnol. Oceanogr. 42, 714–721 (1997).CAS 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    40.Kellerman, A. M., Kothawala, D. N., Dittmar, T. & Tranvik, L. J. Persistence of dissolved organic matter in lakes related to its molecular characteristics. Nat. Geosci. 8, 454–457 (2015).CAS 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    41.Guillemette, F. & del Giorgio, P. A. Reconstructing the various facets of dissolved organic carbon bioavailability in freshwater ecosystems. Limnol. Oceanogr. 56, 734–748 (2011).CAS 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    42.Logue, J. B. et al. Experimental insights into the importance of aquatic bacterial community composition to the degradation of dissolved organic matter. ISME J. 10, 533–545 (2016).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    43.Salcher, M. M., Posch, T. & Pernthaler, J. In situ substrate preferences of abundant bacterioplankton populations in a prealpine freshwater lake. ISME J. 7, 896–907 (2013).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    44.Sobek, S., Tranvik, L. J., Prairie, Y., Kortelainen, P. & Cole, J. J. Patterns and regulation of dissolved organic carbon: an analysis of 7,500 widely distributed lakes. Limnol. Oceanogr. 52, 1208–1219 (2007).CAS 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    45.Kalyuzhnaya, M. G. et al. Highly efficient methane biocatalysis revealed in a methanotrophic bacterium. Nat. Commun. 4, 2785 (2013).CAS 
    PubMed 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    46.Oshkin, I. Y. et al. Methane-fed microbial microcosms show differential community dynamics and pinpoint taxa involved in communal response. ISME J. 9, 1119–1129 (2014).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    47.Chistoserdova, L. & Kalyuzhnaya, M. G. Current trends in methylotrophy. Trends Microbiol 26, 703–714 (2018).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    48.Martinez-Cruz, K. et al. Anaerobic oxidation of methane by aerobic methanotrophs in sub-Arctic lake sediments. Sci. Total Environ. 607–608, 23–31 (2017).PubMed 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    49.Samad, M. S. & Bertilsson, S. Seasonal variation in abundance and diversity of bacterial methanotrophs in five temperate lakes. Front. Microbiol. 8, 1–12 (2017).
    Google Scholar 
    50.Ricão Canelhas, M., Denfeld, B. A., Weyhenmeyer, G. A., Bastviken, D. & Bertilsson, S. Methane oxidation at the water-ice interface of an ice-covered lake. Limnol. Oceanogr. 61, S78–S90 (2016).ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    51.Houser, J. N. Water color affects the stratification, surface temperature, heat content, and mean epilimnetic irradiance of small lakes. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 63, 2447–2455 (2006).
    Google Scholar 
    52.Caplanne, S. & Laurion, I. Effect of chromophoric dissolved organic matter on epilimnetic stratification in lakes. Aquat. Sci. 70, 123–133 (2008).CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    53.Oswald, K. et al. Light-dependent aerobic methane oxidation reduces methane emissions from seasonally stratified lakes. PLoS ONE 10, e0132574 (2015).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    54.Savvichev, A. S. et al. Light-dependent methane oxidation is the major process of the methane cycle in the water column of the Bol’shie Khruslomeny Polar Lake. Microbiology 88, 370–374 (2019).CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    55.Baines, S. B. & Pace, M. L. The production of dissolved organic matter by phytoplankton and its importance to bacteria: patterns across marine and freshwater systems. Limnol. Oceanogr. 36, 1078–1090 (1991).ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    56.Cole, J. J., Likens, G. E. & Strayer, D. L. Photosynthetically produced dissolved organic carbon: an important carbon source for planktonic bacteria. Limnol. Oceanogr. 27, 1080–1090 (1982).CAS 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    57.Dumestre, J. et al. Influence of light intensity on methanotrophic bacterial activity in Petit Saut reservoir, French Guiana. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 65, 534–539 (1999).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    58.Murase, J. & Sugimoto, A. Inhibitory effect of light on methane oxidation in the pelagic water column of a mesotrophic lake (Lake Biwa, Japan). Limnol. Oceanogr. 50, 1339–1343 (2005).CAS 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    59.Moran, M. A. & Hodson, R. E. Bacterial production on humic and nonhumic components of dissolved organic carbon. Limnol. Oceanogr. 35, 1744–1756 (1990).CAS 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    60.Azam, F. et al. The ecological role of water-column microbes in the sea. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 10, 257–263 (1983).ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    61.Roulet, N. & Moore, T. R. Browning the waters. Nature 444, 283–284 (2006).CAS 
    PubMed 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    62.Weyhenmeyer, G. A., Prairie, Y. T. & Tranvik, L. J. Browning of boreal freshwaters coupled to carbon-iron interactions along the aquatic continuum. PLoS ONE 9, e88104 (2014).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    63.O’Reilly, C. M. et al. Rapid and highly variable warming of lake surface waters around the globe. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 10773–10781 (2015).ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    64.Yamamoto, S., Alcauskas, J. B. & Crozier, T. E. Solubility of methane in distilled water and seawater. J. Chem. Eng. Data 21, 78–80 (1976).CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    65.Cantin, A., Beisner, B. E., Gunn, J. M., Prairie, Y. T. & Winter, J. G. Effects of thermocline deepening on lake plankton communities. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 68, 260–276 (2011).
    Google Scholar 
    66.Smith, D. C. & Azam, F. A simple, economical method for measuring bacterial protein synthesis rates in seawater using 3H-leucine. Mar. Microb. Food Webs 6, 107–114 (1992).
    Google Scholar 
    67.Del Giorgio, P. A., Pace, M. L. & Fischer, D. Relationship of bacterial growth efficiency to spatial variation in bacterial activity in the Hudson River. Aquat. Microb. Ecol. 45, 55–67 (2006).
    Google Scholar 
    68.Eller, G., Stubner, S. & Frenzel, P. Group-specific 16S rRNA targeted probes for the detection of type I and type II methanotrophs by fluorescence in situ hybridisation. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 198, 91–97 (2001).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    69.Zeder, M. ACME tool3. (2014).70.Callieri, C. et al. Bacteria, Archaea, and Crenarchaeota in the epilimnion and hypolimnion of a deep holo-oligomictic lake. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 75, 7298–7300 (2009).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    71.Lew, S. & Glińska-Lewczuk, K. Environmental controls on the abundance of methanotrophs and methanogens in peat bog lakes. Sci. Total Environ. 645, 1201–1211 (2018).CAS 
    PubMed 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    72.Fagerbakke, K. M., Heldal, M. & Norland, S. Content of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur and phosphorus in native aquatic and cultured bacteria. Aquat. Microb. Ecol. 10, 15–27 (1996).
    Google Scholar 
    73.Read J. S. et al. Derivation of lake mixing and stratification indices from high-resolution lake buoy data. Environmental Modelling and Software. 26, 1325–1336 (2011).
    Google Scholar 
    74.R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. (2019). https://www.R-project.org/.75.RStudio Team. RStudio: Integrated Development for R. RStudio, Inc., Boston, MAURL. (2018). http://www.rstudio.com/.76.Wickham, H., François, R., Henry, L. & Müller, K. dplyr: A Grammar of Data Manipulation. R package version 0.8.3. (2019). https://cran.r-project.org/package=dplyr.77.Sievert, C. Interactive Web-Based Data Visualization with R, plotly, and shiny. Chapman and Hall/CRC Florida. (2020).78.Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. (Springer-Verlag, New York, 2016). https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org.79.Wilke, C.O. cowplot: Streamlined Plot Theme and Plot Annotations for ‘ggplot2’. R package version 1.0.0. (2019). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=cowplot.80.Auguie, B. gridExtra: Miscellaneous Functions for ‘Grid’ Graphics. R package version 2.3. (2017). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=gridExtra.81.Reis, P. C. J., Thottathil, S. D. & Prairie, Y. T. Dataset: the role of methanotrophy in the microbial carbon metabolism of temperate lakes. (1.0.0) [Data set]. Zenodo. (2021). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5737277. More

  • in

    Nutrient supply controls the linkage between species abundance and ecological interactions in marine bacterial communities

    1.Sogin, M. L. et al. Microbial diversity in the deep sea and the underexplored “rare biosphere”. P Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 12115–12120 (2006).CAS 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    2.Pedros-Alio, C. The rare bacterial biosphere. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 4, 449–466 (2012).PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    3.Lynch, M. D. J. & Neufeld, J. D. Ecology and exploration of the rare biosphere. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 13, 217–229 (2015).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    4.Campbell, B. J., Yu, L. Y., Heidelberg, J. F. & Kirchman, D. L. Activity of abundant and rare bacteria in a coastal ocean. P Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 12776–12781 (2011).CAS 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    5.Gobet, A. et al. Diversity and dynamics of rare and of resident bacterial populations in coastal sands. Isme J. 6, 542–553 (2012).PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    6.Wilhelm, L. et al. Rare but active taxa contribute to community dynamics of benthic biofilms in glacier-fed streams. Environ. Microbiol. 16, 2514–2524 (2014).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    7.Lawson, C. E. et al. Rare taxa have potential to make metabolic contributions in enhanced biological phosphorus removal ecosystems. Environ. Microbiol. 17, 4979–4993 (2015).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    8.Newton, R. J. & Shade, A. Lifestyles of rarity: understanding heterotrophic strategies to inform the ecology of the microbial rare biosphere. Aquat. Micro. Ecol. 78, 51–63 (2016).
    Google Scholar 
    9.Lauro, F. M. et al. The genomic basis of trophic strategy in marine bacteria. P Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 15527–15533 (2009).CAS 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    10.Klappenbach, J. A., Dunbar, J. M. & Schmidt, T. M. RRNA operon copy number reflects ecological strategies of bacteria. Appl Environ. Micro. 66, 1328–1333 (2000).CAS 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    11.Roller, B. R. K., Stoddard, S. F. & Schmidt, T. M. Exploiting rRNA operon copy number to investigate bacterial reproductive strategies. Nat. Microbiol. 1, 16160 (2016).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    12.Polz, M. F. & Cordero, O. X. Bacterial evolution: genomics of metabolic trade-offs. Nat. Microbiol. 1, 16181 (2016).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    13.Giovannoni, S. J. SAR11 bacteria: the most abundant plankton in the oceans. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 9, 231–255 (2017).PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    14.Elser, J. J. et al. Biological stoichiometry from genes to ecosystems. Ecol. Lett. 3, 540–550 (2000).
    Google Scholar 
    15.Hessen, D. O., Elser, J. J., Sterner, R. W. & Urabe, J. Ecological stoichiometry: an elementary approach using basic principles. Limnol. Oceanogr. 58, 2219–2236 (2013).CAS 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    16.Acharya, K., Kyle, M. & Elser, J. J. Biological stoichiometry of Daphnia growth: an ecophysiological test of the growth rate hypothesis. Limnol. Oceanogr. 49, 656–665 (2004).CAS 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    17.Hendrixson, H. A., Sterner, R. W. & Kay, A. D. Elemental stoichiometry of freshwater fishes in relation to phylogeny, allometry and ecology. J. Fish. Biol. 70, 121–140 (2007).
    Google Scholar 
    18.Matzek, V. & Vitousek, P. M. N: P stoichiometry and protein: RNA ratios in vascular plants: an evaluation of the growth-rate hypothesis. Ecol. Lett. 12, 765–771 (2009).PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    19.Ghoul, M. & Mitri, S. The ecology and evolution of microbial competition. Trends Microbiol 24, 833–845 (2016).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    20.Laland, K., Matthews, B. & Feldman, M. W. An introduction to niche construction theory. Evol. Ecol. 30, 191–202 (2016).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    21.Ratzke, C., Barrere, J. & Gore, J. Strength of species interactions determines biodiversity and stability in microbial communities. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 376–383 (2020).PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    22.Větrovský, T. & Baldrian, P. The variability of the 16S rRNA gene in bacterial genomes and its consequences for bacterial community analyses. Plos ONE 8, e57923 (2013).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    23.Molenaar, D., van Berlo, R., de Ridder, D. & Teusink, B. Shifts in growth strategies reflect tradeoffs in cellular economics. Mol. Syst. Biol. 5, 323–323 (2009).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    24.Nemergut, D. R. et al. Decreases in average bacterial community rRNA operon copy number during succession. Isme J. 10, 1147–1156 (2016).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    25.Wu, L. W. et al. Microbial functional trait of rRNA operon copy numbers increases with organic levels in anaerobic digesters. Isme J. 11, 2874–2878 (2017).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    26.Wu, L. W. et al. Global diversity and biogeography of bacterial communities in wastewater treatment plants. Nat. Microbiol. 4, 2579–2579 (2019).PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    27.Stoddard, S. F., Smith, B. J., Hein, R., Roller, B. R. K. & Schmidt, T. M. rrnDB: improved tools for interpreting rRNA gene abundance in bacteria and archaea and a new foundation for future development. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, D593–D598 (2015).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    28.Dai, T. et al. Dynamics of coastal bacterial community average ribosomal RNA operon copy number reflect its response and sensitivity to ammonium and phosphate. Environ. Pollut. 260, 113971 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    29.Zhou, J., Deng, Y., Luo, F., He, Z. & Yang, Y. Phylogenetic molecular ecological network of soil microbial communities in response to elevated CO2. Mbio 2, e00122–00111 (2011).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    30.Vellend, M. Conceptual Synthesis in Community Ecology. Q Rev. Biol. 85, 183–206 (2010).PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    31.Frey, E. Evolutionary game theory: Theoretical concepts and applications to microbial communities. Phys. A 389, 4265–4298 (2010).MathSciNet 
    CAS 
    MATH 

    Google Scholar 
    32.Boeuf, D. et al. Biological composition and microbial dynamics of sinking particulate organic matter at abyssal depths in the oligotrophic open ocean. P Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 11824 (2019).CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    33.Thompson, L. R. et al. A communal catalogue reveals Earth’s multiscale microbial diversity. Nature 551, 457–463 (2017).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    34.Gralka, M., Szabo, R., Stocker, R. & Cordero, O. X. Trophic Interactions and the Drivers of Microbial Community Assembly. Curr. Biol. 30, R1176–R1188 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    35.Gorter, F. A., Manhart, M. & Ackermann, M. Understanding the evolution of interspecies interactions in microbial communities. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 375, 20190256 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    36.Gandhi, S. R., Korolev, K. S. & Gore, J. Cooperation mitigates diversity loss in a spatially expanding microbial population. P Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 23582–23587 (2019).CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    37.Calatayud, J. et al. Positive associations among rare species and their persistence in ecological assemblages. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 40–45 (2020).PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    38.Furman, O. et al. Stochasticity constrained by deterministic effects of diet and age drive rumen microbiome assembly dynamics. Nat. Commun. 11, 1904 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    39.Tardy, V. et al. Stability of soil microbial structure and activity depends on microbial diversity. Env. Microbiol. Rep. 6, 173–183 (2014).CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    40.Coyte, K. Z., Schluter, J. & Foster, K. R. The ecology of the microbiome: networks, competition, and stability. Science 350, 663–666 (2015).CAS 
    PubMed 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    41.Blanchet, F. G., Cazelles, K. & Gravel, D. Co-occurrence is not evidence of ecological interactions. Ecol. Lett. 23, 1050–1063 (2020).PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    42.Blasche, S. et al. Metabolic cooperation and spatiotemporal niche partitioning in a kefir microbial community. Nat. Microbiol. 6, 196–208 (2021).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    43.Chatzinikolaou, E. et al. Spatio-temporal benthic biodiversity patterns and pollution pressure in three Mediterranean touristic ports. Sci. Total Environ. 624, 648–660 (2018).CAS 
    PubMed 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    44.Filippini, G. et al. Sediment bacterial communities associated with environmental factors in Intermittently Closed and Open Lakes and Lagoons (ICOLLs). Sci. Total Environ. 693, 133462 (2019).CAS 
    PubMed 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    45.Pesant, S. et al. Open science resources for the discovery and analysis of Tara Oceans data. Sci. Data 2, 150023 (2015).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    46.Huse, S. M. et al. Exploring microbial diversity and taxonomy using SSU rRNA hypervariable tag sequencing. Plos Genet. 4, e1000255 (2008).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    47.Salas-González, I. et al. Coordination between microbiota and root endodermis supports plant mineral nutrient homeostasis. Science 371, eabd0695 (2021).PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    48.Caporaso, J. G. et al. Global patterns of 16S rRNA diversity at a depth of millions of sequences per sample. P Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 4516 (2011).CAS 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    49.Wear, E. K., Wilbanks, E. G., Nelson, C. E. & Carlson, C. A. Primer selection impacts specific population abundances but not community dynamics in a monthly time-series 16S rRNA gene amplicon analysis of coastal marine bacterioplankton. Environ. Microbiol. 20, 2709–2726 (2018).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    50.Edgar, R. C. UPARSE: highly accurate OTU sequences from microbial amplicon reads. Nat. Methods 10, 996–998 (2013).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    51.Webb, C. O., Ackerly, D. D., McPeek, M. A. & Donoghue, M. J. Phylogenies and community ecology. Annu Rev. Ecol. Syst. 33, 475–505 (2002).
    Google Scholar 
    52.Wu, L. W. et al. Long-term successional dynamics of microbial association networks in anaerobic digestion processes. Water Res. 104, 1–10 (2016).PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    53.Galand, P. E., Casamayor, E. O., Kirchman, D. L. & Lovejoy, C. Ecology of the rare microbial biosphere of the Arctic Ocean. P Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 22427–22432 (2009).CAS 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    54.Ju, F. & Zhang, T. Bacterial assembly and temporal dynamics in activated sludge of a full-scale municipal wastewater treatment plant. Isme J. 9, 683–695 (2015).CAS 
    PubMed 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    The metabolic cost of turning right side up in the Mediterranean spur-thighed tortoise (Testudo graeca)

    1.Lyson, T. R. et al. Origin of the unique ventilatory apparatus of turtles. Nat. Commun. 5(5211), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms6211 (2014).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    2.Gans, C. & Hughes, G. The mechanism of lung ventilation in the tortoise Testudo graeca Linné. J. Exp. Biol. 47(1), 1–20 (1967).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    3.Jackson, D. C., Singer, J. H. & Downey, P. T. Oxidative cost of breathing in the turtle Chrysemys picta bellii. Am. J. Physiol. 261, R1325–R1328 (1991).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    4.Landberg, T., Mailhot, J. D. & Brainerd, E. L. Lung ventilation during treadmill locomotion in a semi-aquatic turtle, Trachemys scripta. J. Exp. Zool. 311A, 551–562. https://doi.org/10.1002/jez.478 (2009).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    5.Ruhr, I., Rose, K., Sellers, W., Crossley, D. II. & Codd, J. Turning turtle: Scaling relationships and self-righting ability in Chelydra serpentina. Proc. R. Soc. B. 288, 20210213. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2021.0213 (2021).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    6.Pritchard, P. C. H. Encyclopaedia of Turtles (TFH, 1979).
    Google Scholar 
    7.Carr, A. Handbook of Turtles: The Turtles of the United States, Canada, and Baja California (Cornell University Press, 1952).
    Google Scholar 
    8.Rivera, G. Ecomorphological variation in shell shape of the freshwater turtle Pseudemys concinna inhabiting different aquatic flow regimes. Int. Comp. Biol. 48(6), 769–787. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icn088 (2008).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    9.McNeill Alexander, R. Gaits of mammals and turtles. J. R. Soc. Jpn. 11(3), 314–319 (1993).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    10.Zani, P. A. & Kram, R. Low metabolic cost of locomotion in ornate box turtles, Terrapene ornate. J. Exp. Biol. 211, 3671–3676. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.019869 (2008).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    11.Sellers, W. I., Rose, K. A. R., Crossley, D. A. II. & Codd, J. R. Inferring cost of transport from whole-body kinematics in three sympatric turtle species with different locomotor habits. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A. 247, 110739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpa.2020.110739 (2020).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    12.Chiari, Y., van der Meijden, A., Caccone, A., Claude, J. & Gilles, B. Self-righting potential and the evolution of shell shape in Galápagos tortoises. Sci. Rep. 7(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-15787-7 (2017).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    13.Woledge, R. C. The energetics of tortoise muscle. J. Physiol. 197(3), 685–707 (1968).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    14.Steyermark, A. C. & Spotila, J. R. Body temperature and maternal identity affect snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina) righting response. Copeia 4, 1050–1057. https://doi.org/10.1643/0045-8511(2001)001[1050:BTAMIA]2.0.CO;2 (2001).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    15.Rubin, A. M., Blob, R. W. & Mayerl, C. J. Biomechanical factors influencing successful self-righting in the Pleurodire turtle, Emydura subglobosa. J. Exp. Biol. 221, jeb182642. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.182642 (2018).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    16.Penn, D. & Brockmann, H. J. Age-biased stranding and righting in male horseshoe crabs, Limulus polyphemus. Anim. Behav. 49, 1531–1539. https://doi.org/10.1016/003-3472(95)90074-8 (1995).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    17.Bonnet, X. et al. Sexual dimorphism in steppe tortoises (Testudo horsfieldii): Influence of the environment and sexual selection on body shape and mobility. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 72, 357–372. https://doi.org/10.1006/bjls.2000.0504 (2001).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    18.Zuffi, M. A. L. & Corti, C. Aspects of population ecology of Testudo hermanni hermanni from Asinara Island, NW Sardinia (Italy, Western Mediterranean Sea): Preliminary data. Amphib-Reptil. 24, 441–447 (2003).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    19.Domokos, G. & Várkonyi, P. L. Geometry and self-righting of turtles. Proc. R. Soc. B. 275(1630), 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2007.1188 (2008).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    20.Mann, G. K. H., O’Riain, M. J. & Hofmeyr, M. D. Shaping up to fight: Sexual selection influences body shape and size in the fighting tortoise (Chersina angulata). J. Zool. 269, 373–379. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2006.00079x (2006).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    21.Golubović, A., Bonnet, X., Djordjević, S., Djurakic, M. & Tomović, L. Variations in righting behavior across Hermann’s tortoise populations. J. Zool. 291, 69–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/jzo.12047 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    22.Golubović, A., Andelkovic, M., Arsovski, D., Bonnet, X. & Tomović, L. Locomotor performances reflect habitat constraints in an armoured species. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 71, 93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-017-2318-0 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    23.Ashe, V. M. The righting reflex in turtles: A description and comparison. Psychol. Sci. 20, 150–152. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03335647 (1970).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    24.Golubović, A., Tomović, L. & Ivanović, A. Geometry of self-righting: The case of Hermann’s tortoises. Zool. Anz. 254, 99–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcz.2014.12.003 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    25.Finkler, M. S. Influence of water availability during hatching on hatchling size, body composition, desiccation tolerance, and terrestrial locomotor performance in the snapping turtle, Chelydra serpentina. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 72, 714–722. https://doi.org/10.1086/316711 (1999).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    26.Stojadinović, D., Milošević, D. & Crnobrnja-Isailović, J. Righting time versus shell size and shape dimorphism in adult Hermann’s tortoises: Field observations meet theoretical predictions. Anim. Biol. 63(4), 381–396. https://doi.org/10.1163/15707563-00002420 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    27.Delmas, V., Baudry, E., Girondot, M. & Prevot-Julliard, A.-C. The righting reflex as a fitness indicator in freshwater turtles. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 91, 99–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312/2007.00780.x (2007).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    28.Burger, J. Behavior of hatchling diamondback terrapins (Malaclemys terrapin) in the field. Copeia 1976, 742. https://doi.org/10.2307/1443457 (1976).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    29.Landberg, T., Mailhot, J. D. & Brainerd, E. L. Lung ventilation during treadmill locomotion in a terrestrial turtle, Terrapene carolina. J. Exp. Biol. 206, 3391–3404. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.00553 (2003).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    30.Gaunt, A. S. & Gans, C. Mechanics of respiration in the snapping turtle, Chelydra serpentina (Linné). J. Morph. 128, 195–227. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmor.1051280205 (1969).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    31.Lambertz, M., Böhme, W. & Perry, S. F. The anatomy of the respiratory system in Platysternon megacephalum Gray, 1831 (Testudines: Crytodira) and related species, and its phylogenetic implications. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 156, 330–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpa.2009.12.016 (2010).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    32.de Souza, R. B. B. & Klein, W. The influence of the post-pulmonary septum and submersion on the pulmonary mechanics of Trachemys scripta (Cryptodira: Emydidae). J. Exp. Biol. 224(12), 242386. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.242386 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    33.Jodice, P. G. R., Epperson, D. M. & Visser, G. H. Daily energy expenditure in free-ranging gopher tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus). Copeia 2006(1), 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1643/0045-8511(2006)006[0129:DEEIFG]2.0.CO;2 (2006).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    34.Zera, A. J. & Harshman, L. G. The physiology of life history trade-offs in animals. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 32, 95–126. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.32.081501.114006 (2001).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    35.Shadmehr, R., Huang, H. J. & Ahmed, A. A. A representation of effort in decision-making and motor control. Curr. Biol. 26, 1929–1934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.05.065 (2016).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    36.Shepard, E. L. C. et al. Energy landscapes shapes animal movement ecology. Am. Nat. 182(3), 298–312. https://doi.org/10.1086/671257 (2013).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    37.Baudinette, R. V., Miller, A. M. & Sarre, M. P. Aquatic and terrestrial locomotory energetics in a toad and a turtle: A search for generalisations among ectotherms. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 73(6), 672–682. https://doi.org/10.1086/318101 (2000).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    38.Hailey, A. & Coulson, I. M. Measurement of time budgets from continuous observation of thread-trailed tortoises (Kinixys spekii). Herp. J. 9, 15–20 (1999).
    Google Scholar 
    39.Kram, R. & Taylor, C. R. Energetics of running: A new perspective. Nature 346, 265–267. https://doi.org/10.1038/346265a0 (1990).CAS 
    Article 
    ADS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    40.Taylor, C. R. Relating mechanics and energetics during exercise. Adv. Vet. Sci. Comp. Med. 38A, 181–215 (1994).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    41.Cavagna, G. A. & Kaneko, M. Mechanical work and efficiency in level walking and running. J. Physiol. 268(2), 467–481. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1977.sp011866 (1977).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    42.Carrier, D. R., Deban, S. M. & Fischbein, T. Locomotor function of the pectoral girdle “muscular sling” in trotting dogs. J. Exp. Biol. 209, 2224–2237. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.02236 (2006).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    43.Heglund, N. C. & Cavagna, G. A. Efficiency of vertebrate locomotory muscles. J. Exp. Biol. 115, 283–292. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.115.1.283 (1985).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    44.Barclay, C. J. The basis of difference in thermodynamic efficiency among skeletal muscles. Clin. Exp. Pharm. Physiol. 44(12), 1279–1286. https://doi.org/10.1111/1440-1681.12850 (2017).MathSciNet 
    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    45.Nwoye, L. O. & Goldspink, G. Biochemical efficiency and intrinsic shortening speed in selected fast and slow muscles. Experientia 37, 856–857. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF1985678 (1981).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    46.Lambert, M. Temperature, activity and field sighting in the Mediterranean spur-thighed or common garden tortoise Testudo graeca. Biol. Conserv. 21, 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(81)90067-7 (1981).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    47.Tracy, R., Zimmerman, L., Tracy, C., Bradley, K. & Castle, K. Rates of food passage in the digestive tract of young desert tortoises: Effects of body size and diet quality. Chelonian Conserv. Biol. 5(2), 269–273. https://doi.org/10.2744/1071-8443(2006)5[269:ROFPIT]2.0.co;2 (2006).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    48.Huey, R. & Kingsolver, J. Evolution of thermal sensitivity of ectotherm performance. Trends Ecol. Evol. 4(5), 131–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(89)90211-5 (1989).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    49.Lailvaux, S. & Irschick, D. Effects of temperature and sex on jump performance and biomechanics in the lizard Anolis carolinensis. Funct. Ecol. 21(3), 534–543. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2007.01263.x (2007).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    50.Lighton, J. Measuring Metabolic Rates: A Manual for Scientists (Oxford University Press, 2008).Book 

    Google Scholar 
    51.Brody, S. Bioenergetics and Growth (Reinhold, 1945).
    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Temporally consistent predominance and distribution of secondary malaria vectors in the Anopheles community of the upper Zambezi floodplain

    1.Russell, T. L., Beebe, N. W., Cooper, R. D., Lobo, N. F. & Burkot, T. R. Successful malaria elimination strategies require interventions that target changing vector behaviours. Malar J. 12, 56. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2875-12-56 (2013).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    2.Mouchet, J. et al. Biodiversité du paludisme dans le monde. (Editions John Libbey Eurotext, 2004).3.Sougoufara, S., Ottih, E. C. & Tripet, F. The need for new vector control approaches targeting outdoor biting anopheline malaria vector communities. Parasit Vectors 13, 295. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-020-04170-7 (2020).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    4.Antonio-Nkondjio, C. et al. Complexity of the malaria vectorial system in Cameroon: contribution of secondary vectors to malaria transmission. J. Med. Entomol. 43, 1215–1221. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmedent/43.6.1215 (2006).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    5.Afrane, Y. A., Bonizzoni, M. & Yan, G. in Current Topics in Malaria Ch. 20, (2016).6.Goupeyou-Youmsi, J. et al. Differential contribution of Anopheles coustani and Anopheles arabiensis to the transmission of Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax in two neighboring villages of Madagascar. bioRxiv 13, 430, https://doi.org/10.1101/787432 (2019).7.Ranson, H. & Lissenden, N. Insecticide resistance in African Anopheles mosquitoes: A worsening situation that needs urgent action to maintain malaria control. Trends Parasitol. 32, 187–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pt.2015.11.010 (2016).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    8.Killeen, G. F. Control of malaria vectors and management of insecticide resistance through universal coverage with next-generation insecticide-treated nets. Lancet 395, 1394–1400. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30745-5 (2020).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    9.Kreppel, K. S. et al. Emergence of behavioural avoidance strategies of malaria vectors in areas of high LLIN coverage in Tanzania. Sci. Rep. 10, 14527. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-71187-4 (2020).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    10.Chinula, D. et al. Proportional decline of Anopheles quadriannulatus and increased contribution of An. arabiensis to the An. gambiae complex following introduction of indoor residual spraying with pirimiphos-methyl: an observational, retrospective secondary analysis of pre-existing data from south-east Zambia. Parasit Vectors 11, 544, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-018-3121-0 (2018).11.Lwetoijera, D. W. et al. Increasing role of Anopheles funestus and Anopheles arabiensis in malaria transmission in the Kilombero Valley, Tanzania. Malar J 13, 331. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2875-13-331 (2014).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    12.Russell, T. L. et al. Impact of promoting longer-lasting insecticide treatment of bed nets upon malaria transmission in a rural Tanzanian setting with pre-existing high coverage of untreated nets. Malar J. 9, 187. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2875-9-187 (2010).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    13.Sougoufara, S., Harry, M., Doucoure, S., Sembene, P. M. & Sokhna, C. Shift in species composition in the Anopheles gambiae complex after implementation of long-lasting insecticidal nets in Dielmo, Senegal. Med. Vet. Entomol. 30, 365–368. https://doi.org/10.1111/mve.12171 (2016).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    14.Agyekum, T. P. et al. A systematic review of the effects of temperature on Anopheles mosquito development and survival: Implications for malaria control in a future warmer climate. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18, 7255 (2021).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    15.Smith, M. W. et al. Incorporating hydrology into climate suitability models changes projections of malaria transmission in Africa. Nat. Commun. 11, 4353. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18239-5 (2020).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    16.Chemison, A. et al. Impact of an accelerated melting of Greenland on malaria distribution over Africa. Nat. Commun. 12, 3971. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-24134-4 (2021).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    17.Thomas, C. J., Davies, G. & Dunn, C. E. Mixed picture for changes in stable malaria distribution with future climate in Africa. Trends Parasitol. 20, 216–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pt.2004.03.001 (2004).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    18.Carnevale, P. & Manguin, S. Review of issues on residual malaria transmission. J. Infect. Dis. 223, S61–S80. https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiab084 (2021).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    19.Killeen, G. F., Chaki, P. P., Reed, T. E., Moyes, C. L. & Govella, N. J. in Towards Malaria Elimination – A Leap Forward Ch. 17, (2018).20.Killeen, G. F. Characterizing, controlling and eliminating residual malaria transmission. Malar J. 13, 330. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2875-13-330 (2014).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    21.Beebe, N. W. DNA barcoding mosquitoes: advice for potential prospectors. Parasitology 145, 622–633. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031182018000343 (2018).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    22.Lobo, N. F. et al. Unexpected diversity of Anopheles species in Eastern Zambia: implications for evaluating vector behavior and interventions using molecular tools. Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep17952 (2015).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    23.St Laurent, B. et al. Molecular characterization reveals diverse and unknown malaria vectors in the western Kenyan highlands. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 94, 327–335. https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.15-0562 (2016).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    24.Zhong, D. et al. Extensive new Anopheles cryptic species involved in human malaria transmission in western Kenya. Sci. Rep. 10, 16139. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-73073-5 (2020).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    25.Killeen, G. F. et al. Developing an expanded vector control toolbox for malaria elimination. BMJ Glob. Health 2, e000211. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2016-000211 (2017).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    26.Dambach, P. et al. Reduction of malaria vector mosquitoes in a large-scale intervention trial in rural Burkina Faso using Bti based larval source management. Malar J. 18, 311. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-019-2951-3 (2019).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    27.Fillinger, U. & Lindsay, S. W. Suppression of exposure to malaria vectors by an order of magnitude using microbial larvicides in rural Kenya. Trop. Med. Int. Health 11, 1629–1642. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3156.2006.01733.x (2006).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    28.Hardy, A., Makame, M., Cross, D., Majambere, S. & Msellem, M. Using low-cost drones to map malaria vector habitats. Parasit Vectors 10, 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-017-1973-3 (2017).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    29.Lwetoijera, D. et al. Effective autodissemination of pyriproxyfen to breeding sites by the exophilic malaria vector Anopheles arabiensis in semi-field settings in Tanzania. Malar J. 13, 161. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2875-13-161 (2014).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    30.Majambere, S., Lindsay, S. W., Green, C., Kandeh, B. & Fillinger, U. Microbial larvicides for malaria control in The Gambia. Malaria J. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2875-6-76 (2007).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    31.Unlu, I., Faraji, A., Wang, Y., Rochlin, I. & Gaugler, R. Heterodissemination: precision insecticide delivery to mosquito larval habitats by cohabiting vertebrates. Sci. Rep. 11, 14119. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-93492-2 (2021).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    32.Majambere, S. et al. Is mosquito larval source management appropriate for reducing malaria in areas of extensive flooding in The Gambia? A cross-over intervention trial. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 82, 176–184. https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.2010.09-0373 (2010).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    33.Dongus, S. et al. Participatory mapping of target areas to enable operational larval source management to suppress malaria vector mosquitoes in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Int. J. Health Geogr. 6, 37. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-072X-6-37 (2007).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    34.Ferguson, H. M. et al. Ecology: a prerequisite for malaria elimination and eradication. PLoS Med. 7, e1000303. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000303 (2010).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    35.Gu, W., Utzinger, J. & Novak, R. J. Habitat-based larval interventions: A new perspective for malaria control. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 78, 2–6 (2008).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    36.Cross, D. E. et al. Geographically extensive larval surveys reveal an unexpected scarcity of primary vector mosquitoes in a region of persistent malaria transmission in western Zambia. Parasit Vectors 14, 91. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-020-04540-1 (2021).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    37.Orba, Y. et al. First isolation of West Nile virus in Zambia from mosquitoes. Transbound Emerg. Dis. 65, 933–938. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.12888 (2018).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    38.Wastika, C. E. et al. Discoveries of exoribonuclease-resistant structures of insect-specific flaviviruses isolated in Zambia. Viruses https://doi.org/10.3390/v12091017 (2020).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    39.Hulsman, P., Savenije, H. H. G. & Hrachowitz, M. Satellite-based drought analysis in the Zambezi River Basin: Was the 2019 drought the most extreme in several decades as locally perceived?. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2021.100789 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    40.Hardy, A. et al. Automatic detection of open and vegetated water bodies using Sentinel 1 to map African malaria vector mosquito breeding habitats. Remote Sensing 11, 593. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11050593 (2019).Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    41.Del Rio, T., Groot, J. C. J., DeClerck, F. & Estrada-Carmona, N. Integrating local knowledge and remote sensing for eco-type classification map in the Barotse Floodplain, Zambia. Data Brief 19, 2297–2304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2018.07.009 (2018).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    42.Timberlake, J. Biodiversity of the Zambezi Basin wetlands: Review and preliminary assessment of available information. IUCN – The World Conservation Union Regional Office for Southern Africa, Harare, Zimbabwe (1997).43.Turpie, J., Smith, B., Emerton, L. & Barnes, J. Economic valuation of the Zambezi basin wetlands. IUCN – The World Conservation Union Regional Office for Southern Africa, Harare, Zimbabwe (1999).44.Ciubotariu, I. I. et al. Genetic diversity of Anopheles coustani in high malaria transmission foci in southern and central Africa. J. Med. Entom. 57, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1093/jme/tjaa132 (2020).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    45.Jones, C. M. Vector biology and genomics of Anopheles in southern and central Africa PhD thesis, John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, (2019).46.Stephen, A., Nicholas, K., Busula, A. O., Webale, M. K. & Omukunda, E. Detection of Plasmodium sporozoites in Anopheles coustani s.l; a hindrance to malaria control strategies in highlands of western Kenya. bioRxiv, https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.10.430589 (2021).47.Tedrow, R. E. et al. Anopheles mosquito surveillance in Madagascar reveals multiple blood feeding behavior and Plasmodium infection. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 13, e0007176. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0007176 (2019).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    48.Taye, B., Lelisa, K., Emana, D., Asale, A. & Yewhalaw, D. Seasonal dynamics, longevity, and biting activity of anopheline mosquitoes in southwestern Ethiopia. J. Insect. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1093/jisesa/iev150 (2016).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    49.Sikaala, C. H. et al. A cost-effective, community-based, mosquito-trapping scheme that captures spatial and temporal heterogeneities of malaria transmission in rural Zambia. Malar J. 13, 225. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2875-13-225 (2014).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    50.De Meillon, B. The anophelini of the Ethiopian geographical region. Publ. South Afr. Inst. Med. Res. 49, 1–272 (1947).
    Google Scholar 
    51.Gillies, M. T. & De Meillon, B. The Anophelinae of Africa south of the Sahara (Ethiopian Zoogeographical Region). Publ. South Afr. Inst. Med. Res. 54, 1–343 (1968).
    Google Scholar 
    52.Dida, G. O. et al. Spatial distribution and habitat characterization of mosquito species during the dry season along the Mara River and its tributaries, in Kenya and Tanzania. Infect. Dis. Poverty 7, 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40249-017-0385-0 (2018).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    53.Njoroge, M. M. et al. Exploring the potential of using cattle for malaria vector surveillance and control: a pilot study in western Kenya. Parasit Vectors 10, 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-016-1957-8 (2017).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    54.Kibret, S. et al. The impact of a small-scale irrigation scheme on malaria transmission in Ziway area, Central Ethiopia. Trop. Med. Int. Health 15, 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3156.2009.02423.x (2010).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    55.Coetzee, M. Anopheles crypticus, new species from South Africa is distinguished from Anopheles coustani (Diptera: Culicidae). Mosq. Syst. 26, 125–131 (1994).
    Google Scholar 
    56.Gillies, M. T. & Coetzee, M. A supplement to the Anophelinae of Africa south of the Sahara (Afrotropical Region). Publ. South Afr. Inst. Med. Res. 55, 1–143 (1987).
    Google Scholar 
    57.Coetzee, M. Key to the females of Afrotropical Anopheles mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae). Malar J. 19, 70. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-020-3144-9 (2020).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    58.Carter, T. E., Yared, S., Hansel, S., Lopez, K. & Janies, D. Sequence-based identification of Anopheles species in eastern Ethiopia. Malar J. 18, 135. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-019-2768-0 (2019).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    59.Degefa, T. et al. Indoor and outdoor malaria vector surveillance in western Kenya: implications for better understanding of residual transmission. Malar J. 16, 443. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-017-2098-z (2017).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    60.Nepomichene, T. N. J. J., Tata, E. & Boyer, S. Malaria case in Madagascar, probable implication of a new vector, Anopheles coustani. Malaria J. 14, 475. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-015-1004-9 (2015).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    61.Finney, M. et al. Widespread zoophagy and detection of Plasmodium spp. in Anopheles mosquitoes in southeastern Madagascar. Malar J. 20, 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-020-03539-4 (2021).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    62.Mwangangi, J. M. et al. The role of Anopheles arabiensis and Anopheles coustani in indoor and outdoor malaria transmission in Taveta District, Kenya. Parasit Vectors 6, 114. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-6-114 (2013).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    63.Hoffman, J. E. et al. Phylogenetic complexity of morphologically identified Anopheles squamosus in southern Zambia. Insects 12, 146. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12020146 (2021).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    64.Fornadel, C. M., Norris, L. C., Franco, V. & Norris, D. E. Unexpected anthropophily in the potential secondary malaria vectors Anopheles coustani s.l. and Anopheles squamosus in Macha, Zambia. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 11, 1173–1179. https://doi.org/10.1089/vbz.2010.0082 (2011).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    65.Wilkes, T. J., Matola, Y. G. & Charlwood, J. D. Anopheles rivulorum, a vector of human malaria in Africa. Med. Vet. Entomol. 10, 108–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2915.1996.tb00092.x (1996).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    66.Majambere, S., Fillinger, U., Sayer, D. R., Green, C. & Lindsay, S. W. Spatial distribution of mosquito larvae and the potential for targeted larval control in The Gambia. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 79, 19–27 (2008).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    67.Thomas, C. J., Cross, D. E. & Bogh, C. Landscape movements of Anopheles gambiae malaria vector mosquitoes in rural Gambia. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068679 (2013).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    68.Hardy, A. J. et al. Habitat hydrology and geomorphology control the distribution of malaria vector larvae in rural Africa. PLoS ONE 8, e81931. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0081931 (2013).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    69.Kent, R. J., Thuma, P. E., Mharakurwa, S. & Norris, D. E. Seasonality, blood feeding behavior, and transmission of Plasmodium falciparum by Anopheles arabiensis after an extended drought in southern Zambia. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 76, 267–274 (2007).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    70.Imbahale, S. S. et al. A longitudinal study on Anopheles mosquito larval abundance in distinct geographical and environmental settings in western Kenya. Malar J. 10, 81. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2875-10-81 (2011).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    71.Bayoh, M. N. et al. Anopheles gambiae: historical population decline associated with regional distribution of insecticide-treated bed nets in western Nyanza Province, Kenya. Malar J. 9, 62. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2875-9-62 (2010).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    72.Mawejje, H. D. et al. Impact of seasonality and malaria control interventions on Anopheles density and species composition from three areas of Uganda with differing malaria endemicity. Malar J. 20, 138. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-021-03675-5 (2021).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    73.Stevenson, J. C. et al. Spatio-temporal heterogeneity of malaria vectors in northern Zambia: Implications for vector control. Parasit Vectors 9, 510. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-016-1786-9 (2016).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    74.Dabire, K. R. et al. Year to year and seasonal variations in vector bionomics and malaria transmission in a humid savannah village in west Burkina Faso. J. Vector Ecol. 33, 70–75. https://doi.org/10.3376/1081-1710(2008)33[70:ytyasv]2.0.co;2 (2008).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    75.Tuno, N., Githeko, A., Yan, G. & Takagi, M. Interspecific variation in diving activity among Anopheles gambiae Giles, An. arabiensis Patton, and An. funestus Giles (Diptera: Culicidae) larvae. J. Vector Ecol. 32, 112–117. https://doi.org/10.3376/1081-1710(2007)32[112:ividaa]2.0.co;2 (2007).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    76.Nambunga, I. H. et al. Aquatic habitats of the malaria vector Anopheles funestus in rural south-eastern Tanzania. Malar J. 19, 219. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-020-03295-5 (2020).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    77.Ageep, T. B. et al. Spatial and temporal distribution of the malaria mosquito Anopheles arabiensis in northern Sudan: influence of environmental factors and implications for vector control. Malar J. 8, 123. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2875-8-123 (2009).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    78.Kweka, E. J. et al. Anopheline larval habitats seasonality and species distribution: a prerequisite for effective targeted larval habitats control programmes. PLoS ONE 7, e52084. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0052084 (2012).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    79.Libanda, B. & Ngonga, C. Projection of frequency and intensity of extreme precipitation in Zambia: a CMIP5 study. Climate Res. 76, 59–72. https://doi.org/10.3354/cr01528 (2018).Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    80.Zimba, H. et al. Assessment of trends in inundation extent in the Barotse Floodplain, upper Zambezi River Basin: A remote sensing-based approach. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud. 15, 149–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2018.01.002 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    81.Hamududu, B. H. & Killingtveit, A. Hydropower production in future climate scenarios; the case for the Zambezi River. Energies https://doi.org/10.3390/en9070502 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    82.IUCN. Barotse Floodplain, Zambia: Local economic dependence on wetland resources. IUCN – The World Conservation Union, Harare, Zimbabwe (2003).83.Moore, A. E., Cotterill, F.P.D., Main, M.P.L., Williams, H.B. in Large Rivers: Geomorphology and Management (ed Avijit Gupta) Ch. 15, (Wiley, 2007).84.Heyden, C. J. V. D. The hydrology and hydrogeology of dambos: a review. Prog. Phys. Geog. 28, 544–564. https://doi.org/10.1191/0309133304pp424oa (2004).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    85.Derua, Y. A. et al. Change in composition of the Anopheles gambiae complex and its possible implications for the transmission of malaria and lymphatic filariasis in north-eastern Tanzania. Malaria J. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2875-11-188 (2012).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    86.Kröckel, U., Rose, A., Eiras, Á. E. & Geier, M. New tools for surveillance of adult yellow fever mosquitoes: comparison of trap catches with human landing rates in an urban environment. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 22, 229–238. https://doi.org/10.2987/8756-971x(2006)22[229:Ntfsoa]2.0.Co;2 (2006).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    87.Gama, R. A., Silva, I. M., Geier, M. & Eiras, A. E. Development of the BG-Malaria trap as an alternative to human-landing catches for the capture of Anopheles darlingi. Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz 108, 763–771. https://doi.org/10.1590/0074-0276108062013013 (2013).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    88.Ribeiro, J. M., Seulu, F., Abose, T., Kidane, G. & Teklehaimanot, A. Temporal and spatial distribution of anopheline mosquitos in an Ethiopian village: implications for malaria control strategies. Bull. World Health Organ. 74, 299–305 (1996).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    89.Russell, T. L. et al. Geographic coincidence of increased malaria transmission hazard and vulnerability occurring at the periphery of two Tanzanian villages. Malar J. 12, 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2875-12-24 (2013).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    90.Smith, D. L., Dushoff, J. & McKenzie, F. E. The risk of a mosquito-borne infection in a heterogeneous environment. PLoS Biol. 2, e368. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020368 (2004).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    91.Midega, J. T. et al. Wind direction and proximity to larval sites determines malaria risk in Kilifi District in Kenya. Nat. Commun. 3, 674. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms1672 (2012).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    92.Kumar, S., Stecher, G., Li, M., Knyaz, C. & Tamura, K. MEGA X: Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis across computing platforms. Mol. Biol. Evol. 35, 1547–1549. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msy096 (2018).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    93.Singh, B. et al. A genus- and species-specific nested polymerase chain reaction malaria detection assay for epidemiologic studies. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 60, 687–692. https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.1999.60.687 (1999).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    94.QGIS Geographic Information System (Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project, 2021).95.Postma, M. & Goedhart, J. PlotsOfData – A web app for visualizing data together with their summaries. PLoS Biol 17, e3000202. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000202 (2019).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    96.IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0 (Armonk, NY, 2017).97.Rita, H. & Komonen, A. Odds ratio: an ecologically sound tool to compare proportions. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 45, 66–72. https://doi.org/10.5735/086.045.0106 (2008).Article 

    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Air pollution from gas refinery through contamination with various elements disrupts semiarid Zagros oak (Quercus brantii Lindl.) forests, Iran

    Description of study areasIGR plant (33° 42/N, 46° 13/E) is located along the edge of the mountains of Zagros forests and 25 km from Ilam city. Its main activity, to supply gas to the western provinces of Iran, started in 2007. It converts sour gas to sweet gas and also produces various products such as pastil sulfur, ethane, and liquefied gas. The refinery has two chimneys, which release waste gases into the atmosphere. Oak trees are the main tree species of the Zagros forests around the refinery; these are exposed to various air pollutants and different elements from this source. Based on random analysis of exhaust emissions, sulfur dioxide and sulfide hydrogen are the major pollutants emitted from the flare gases of this refinery plant34. The sampling points have an average altitude of about 1000–1250 m and a slope of less than 20%. The climate of the region is semiarid and influenced by Mediterranean winds. The predominant wind direction was west and southwest. The highest and lowest air temperatures were 41.4 °C and − 11.3 °C, respectively. The average annual rainfall was 71.94 mm (http://www.amarilam.ir).Samples collection and analysesAll methods were carried out in accordance with the relevant institutional, national, and international guidelines and legislation. Besides they were discussed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Tarbiat Modares University. The formal identification of the Quercus brantii Lindl. was performed by H. Dadkhah-Aghdash based on colorful Flora of Iran35. The permissions or licenses to collect Brant oak (Quercus brantii Lindl.) trees in Zagros forests were obtained. A voucher specimen of Brant oaks were collected and deposited at the Herbarium of department of Plant Biology of Tarbiat Modares University.We studied different distances (1000, 1500, 2000, 2500, and 10,000 m [control]) in an easterly direction from the gas refinery. The map of study area was drawn by software of ArcGIS version of 10.5, https://desktop.arcgis.com (Fig. 5). At each distance, three soil samples taken from the depth of 0–20 cm with a plastic gardening shovel, 30 healthy and mature leaves were collected from a certain height (nearly the middle of the canopy) and the outer canopy of three Brant oak trees in the late spring, summer, and autumn of 2019. These trees with average height and diameter at breast height of 5.5 m and 45 cm were selected randomly. The leaf and soil samples were put into polyethylene bags and transported to the laboratory for analysis36.Figure 5Locations of collection sites of soil samples and Brant oak leaves at five different distances (1000, 1500, 2000, 2500 and 10,000 m [control]) from the gas refinery (drawn by H. Dadkhah-Aghdash using software of ArcGIS Desktop. version of 10.5. ESRI, California, US. https://desktop.arcgis.com).Full size imageIn the lab, firstly the leaves were categorized into two types: unwashed leaves and leaves washed with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) solution to remove some atmospheric dusts and particles deposition. The leaf and soil samples were dried for 10 days until they reached a constant weight at lab temperature. The leaves were grinded and homogenized, soils were sieved with ASTM mesh (DAMAVAND, Iran) with a diameter of 2 mm and homogenized.To determine the pH and electrical conductivity (EC) of soils, 2 g of the soil samples were shaken in 10 ml of double-distilled water with a ratio of 1:5; after 1 h, the pH and electrical conductivity (EC) of the solution were measured by a digital pH meter (Fan Azma Gostar Company, Iran) and EC meter (Sartorius, PT-20, USA). The analysis of the particle sizes of the soil was carried out using the hydrometer method and texture class was determined with a soil texture triangle37.According to different U.S.EPA protocols that were modified by following references, the soil and leaf samples were prepared and dissolved. The digestion of soil samples was conducted with a mixture of concentrated HF–HClO4–HNO338. Approximately 0.5 g of dry soil sample was digested with 10 mL of HCl on a hot plate at ~ 180 °C until the solution was reduced to 3 mL. Approximately 5 mL of HF (40%, w/w), 5 mL of HNO3 (63%, w/w), and 3 mL of HClO4 (70%, w/w) were then added and the solution was digested. This process was continued with adding 3 mL of HNO3, 3 mL of HF, and 1 mL of HClO4 until the silicate minerals had fully disappeared. This solution was transferred to a 25 mL volumetric tube, and 1% HNO3 was added to bring the sample up to a constant volume for the element’s determinations. After filtering the digested samples, the concentrations of sulfur (S), arsenic (As), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), lead (Pb), zinc (Zn), manganese (Mn), and nickel (Ni) were measured via inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS,7500 CS, Agilent, US). The procedures of quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) were performed.To quantify element contents from soil samples, external standards with calibration levels were used. The precision and the repeatability of the analysis were tested on the instrument by analyzing three replicate samples.According to Liang et al.39 leaf samples were acid digested and sieved powder samples were placed in the acid-washed tubes and 10 mL of 65% nitric acid was added to it. The solution was placed at room temperature overnight (12 h) after that, it was placed for 4 h at 100 °C and then 4 h at 140 °C until the solution color was clear. After cooling, the solution was diluted by deionized water to 50 mL and then passed through Whatman filter paper until 25 mL of the filtrate volume was provided. Each sample was digested three times and the average of measurements is reported. Total plant elements were measured by using the ICP-MS (7500 CS, Agilent, US). A control sample was also used beside each sample to determine the background pollution during digestion. To confirm the accuracy of the methodology and to ensure the extraction of trace elements from the leaf samples, the standard solution of each studied elements was used.Measuring of pollution levels of different elements in soils and leavesFor assessment of contamination levels (concentration) of different elements in soils and trees, common indices of pollution including geoaccumulation index (Igeo), pollution index (PI), pollution load index (PLI), enrichment factor of plants (EFplant), bioconcentration factor (BCF), air originated metals (AOM ), metal accumulation index (MAI) were used.Igeo was calculated using the following (Eq. 1):$${text{I}}_{{{text{geo}}}} = log_{2} left[ {{text{C}}_{{text{n}}} / 1.5{text{ B}}_{{text{n}}} } right]$$
    (1)
    where Cn is the measured concentration of the element n, Bn is the geoaccumulation background for this element and 1.5 is a constant coefficient used to eliminate potential variations in the baseline data40. The Igeo classifies samples into seven grades:  5 for extremely polluted30.The first PI is expressed as (Eq. 2):$${text{PI }} = {text{ C}}_{{text{i}}} /{text{S}}_{{text{i}}}$$
    (2)
    where Ci is the concentration of element i in the soil (mg kg−1) and Si is the soil quality standard or reference value for element i (mg kg−1). The PLI for different elements is calculated via the (Eq. 3):$${text{PLI}} = left( {{text{PI}}_{{1}} times {text{ PI}}_{{2}} times {text{ PI}}_{{3}} times cdots times {text{PI}}_{{text{n}}} } right)^{{{1}/{text{n}}}}$$
    (3)
    The PLI of soils is classified as follows: PLI  More