Ecology

1.Cavicchioli R, Ripple WJ, Timmis KN, Azam F, Bakken LR, Baylis M, et al. Scientists’ warning to humanity: microorganisms and climate change. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2019;17:569–86.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
2.Bunse C, Pinhassi J. Marine Bacterioplankton seasonal succession dynamics. Trends Microbiol. 2017;25:494–505.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
3.Buttigieg PL, Fadeev E, Bienhold C, Hehemann L, Offre P, Boetius A. Marine microbes in 4D-using time series observation to assess the dynamics of the ocean microbiome and its links to ocean health. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2018;43:169–85.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
4.Gilbert JA, Steele JA, Caporaso JG, Steinbrück L, Reeder J, Temperton B, et al. Defining seasonal marine microbial community dynamics. ISME J. 2012;6:298–308.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
5.Cram JA, Chow C-ET, Sachdeva R, Needham DM, Parada AE, Steele JA, et al. Seasonal and interannual variability of the marine bacterioplankton community throughout the water column over ten years. ISME J. 2015;9:563–80.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
6.Auladell A, Barberán A, Logares R, Garcés E, Gasol JM, Ferrera I. Seasonal niche differentiation among closely related marine bacteria. ISME J. 2021.7.Alonso-Saez L, Sanchez O, Gasol JM, Balague V, Pedros-Alio C. Winter-to-summer changes in the composition and single-cell activity of near-surface Arctic prokaryotes. Environ Microbiol. 2008;10:2444–54.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
8.Rokkan Iversen K, Seuthe L. Seasonal microbial processes in a high-latitude fjord (Kongsfjorden, Svalbard): I. Heterotrophic bacteria, picoplankton and nanoflagellates. Polar Biol. 2011;34:731–49.
Google Scholar 
9.Grzymski JJ, Riesenfeld CS, Williams TJ, Dussaq AM, Ducklow H, Erickson M, et al. A metagenomic assessment of winter and summer bacterioplankton from Antarctica Peninsula coastal surface waters. ISME J. 2012;6:1901–15.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
10.Pedrós-Alió C, Potvin M, Lovejoy C. Diversity of planktonic microorganisms in the Arctic Ocean. Prog Oceanogr. 2015;139:233–43.
Google Scholar 
11.Wilson B, Müller O, Nordmann E-L, Seuthe L, Bratbak G, Øvreås L. Changes in marine prokaryote composition with season and depth over an Arctic polar year. Front Mar Sci. 2017;4:95.
Google Scholar 
12.Sandaa R-A, E Storesund J, Olesin E, Lund Paulsen M, Larsen A, Bratbak G, et al. Seasonality drives microbial community structure, shaping both eukaryotic and prokaryotic host−viral relationships in an Arctic marine ecosystem. Viruses. 2018;10:715.CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
13.Williams TJ, Long E, Evans F, Demaere MZ, Lauro FM, Raftery MJ, et al. A metaproteomic assessment of winter and summer bacterioplankton from Antarctic Peninsula coastal surface waters. ISME J. 2012;6:1883–900.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
14.Freyria NJ, Joli N, Lovejoy C. A decadal perspective on north water microbial eukaryotes as Arctic Ocean sentinels. Sci Rep. 2021;11:8413.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
15.Assmy P, Fernández-Méndez M, Duarte P, Meyer A, Randelhoff A, Mundy CJ, et al. Leads in Arctic pack ice enable early phytoplankton blooms below snow-covered sea ice. Sci Rep. 2017;7:40850.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
16.Hegseth EN, Assmy P, Wiktor JM, Wiktor J, Kristiansen S, Leu E, et al. Phytoplankton seasonal dynamics in Kongsfjorden, Svalbard and the adjacent shelf. In: Hop H, Wiencke C (eds). The ecosystem of Kongsfjorden, Svalbard. 2019. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 173–227.17.Liu Y, Blain S, Crispi O, Rembauville M, Obernosterer I. Seasonal dynamics of prokaryotes and their associations with diatoms in the Southern Ocean as revealed by an autonomous sampler. Environ Microbiol. 2020;22:3968–84.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
18.Randelhoff A, Lacour L, Marec C, Leymarie E, Lagunas J, Xing X, et al. Arctic mid-winter phytoplankton growth revealed by autonomous profilers. Sci Adv. 2020;6:eabc2678.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
19.Randelhoff A, Reigstad M, Chierici M, Sundfjord A, Ivanov V, Cape M, et al. Seasonality of the physical and biogeochemical hydrography in the inflow to the Arctic Ocean through Fram Strait. Front Mar Sci. 2018;5:224.
Google Scholar 
20.Berge J, Renaud PE, Darnis G, Cottier F, Last K, Gabrielsen TM, et al. In the dark: a review of ecosystem processes during the Arctic polar night. Prog Oceanogr. 2015;139:258–71.
Google Scholar 
21.Müller O, Wilson B, Paulsen ML, Rumińska A, Armo HR, Bratbak G, et al. Spatiotemporal dynamics of ammonia-oxidizing thaumarchaeota in distinct arctic water masses. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:24.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
22.Johnsen G, Leu E, Gradinger R. Marine micro- and macroalgae in the polar night. In: Berge J, Johnsen G, Cohen JH (eds). Polar night marine ecology: life and light in the dead of night. 2020. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 67–112.23.Vader A, Marquardt M, Meshram A, Gabrielsen T. Key Arctic phototrophs are widespread in the polar night. Polar Biol. 2014;38:13–21.
Google Scholar 
24.Leu E, Mundy CJ, Assmy P, Campbell K, Gabrielsen TM, Gosselin M, et al. Arctic spring awakening—steering principles behind the phenology of vernal ice algal blooms. Prog Oceanogr. 2015;139:151–70.
Google Scholar 
25.Soltwedel T, Bauerfeind E, Bergmann M, Bracher A, Budaeva N, Busch K, et al. Natural variability or anthropogenically-induced variation? Insights from 15 years of multidisciplinary observations at the arctic marine LTER site HAUSGARTEN. Ecol Indic. 2016;65:89–102.
Google Scholar 
26.Nöthig E-M, Ramondenc S, Haas A, Hehemann L, Walter A, Bracher A, et al. Summertime chlorophyll a and particulate organic carbon standing stocks in surface waters of the Fram Strait and the Arctic Ocean (1991–2015). Front Mar Sci. 2020;7:350.
Google Scholar 
27.Nöthig E-M, Bracher A, Engel A, Metfies K, Niehoff B, Peeken I, et al. Summertime plankton ecology in Fram Strait—a compilation of long- and short-term observations. Polar Res. 2015;34:23349.
Google Scholar 
28.Engel A, Bracher A, Dinter T, Endres S, Grosse J, Metfies K, et al. Inter-annual variability of organic carbon concentration in the Eastern Fram Strait during summer (2009-17). Front Mar Sci. 2019;6:187.
Google Scholar 
29.Fadeev E, Salter I, Schourup-Kristensen V, Nöthig E-M, Metfies K, Engel A, et al. Microbial communities in the east and west Fram Strait during sea ice melting season. Front Mar Sci. 2018;5:429.
Google Scholar 
30.von Jackowski A, Grosse J, Nöthig E-M, Engel A. Dynamics of organic matter and bacterial activity in the Fram Strait during summer and autumn. Philos Trans R Soc Math Phys Eng Sci. 2020;378:20190366.
Google Scholar 
31.Metfies K, Bauerfeind E, Wolf C, Sprong P, Frickenhaus S, Kaleschke L, et al. Protist communities in moored long-term sediment traps (Fram Strait, Arctic)–preservation with mercury chloride allows for PCR-based molecular genetic analyses. Front Mar Sci. 2017;4:301.
Google Scholar 
32.Cardozo-Mino MG, Fadeev E, Salman-Carvalho V, Boetius A. Spatial distribution of Arctic bacterioplankton abundance is linked to distinct water masses and summertime phytoplankton bloom dynamics (Fram Strait, 79°N). Front Microbiol. 2021;12:658803.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
33.Richter ME, von Appen W-J, Wekerle C. Does the East Greenland Current exist in the northern Fram Strait? Ocean Sci. 2018;14:1147–65.CAS 

Google Scholar 
34.Tuerena RE, Hopkins J, Buchanan PJ, Ganeshram RS, Norman L, von Appen W-J, et al. An Arctic strait of two halves: the changing dynamics of nutrient uptake and limitation across the Fram Strait. Glob Biogeochem Cycles. 2021;35:e2021GB006961.35.Polyakov IV, Pnyushkov AV, Alkire MB, Ashik IM, Baumann TM, Carmack EC, et al. Greater role for Atlantic inflows on sea-ice loss in the Eurasian Basin of the Arctic Ocean. Science. 2017;356:285–91.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
36.Lannuzel D, Tedesco L, van Leeuwe M, Campbell K, Flores H, Delille B, et al. The future of Arctic sea-ice biogeochemistry and ice-associated ecosystems. Nat Clim Change. 2020;10:983–92.
Google Scholar 
37.Carter-Gates M, Balestreri C, Thorpe SE, Cottier F, Baylay A, Bibby TS, et al. Implications of increasing Atlantic influence for Arctic microbial community structure. Sci Rep. 2020;10:19262.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
38.Parada AE, Needham DM, Fuhrman JA. Every base matters: assessing small subunit rRNA primers for marine microbiomes with mock communities, time series and global field samples. Environ Microbiol. 2016;18:1403–14.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
39.Martin M. Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet.journal 2011;17:10–2.
Google Scholar 
40.Callahan BJ, McMurdie PJ, Rosen MJ, Han AW, Johnson AJA, Holmes SP. DADA2: High-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat Methods. 2016;13:581–3.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
41.Quast C, Pruesse E, Yilmaz P, Gerken J, Schweer T, Yarza P, et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41:D590–596.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
42.Guillou L, Bachar D, Audic S, Bass D, Berney C, Bittner L, et al. The Protist Ribosomal Reference database (PR2): a catalog of unicellular eukaryote Small Sub-Unit rRNA sequences with curated taxonomy. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41:D597–D604.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
43.Hsieh TC, Ma KH, Chao A. iNEXT: an R package for rarefaction and extrapolation of species diversity (Hill numbers). Methods Ecol Evol. 2016;7:1451–6.
Google Scholar 
44.Wickham H, Averick M, Bryan J, Chang W, McGowan LD, François R, et al. Welcome to the Tidyverse. J Open Source Softw. 2019;4:1686.
Google Scholar 
45.McMurdie PJ, Holmes S. phyloseq: an R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PLOS ONE. 2013;8:e61217.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
46.Andersen KSS, Kirkegaard RH, Karst SM, Albertsen M. ampvis2: an R package to analyse and visualise 16S rRNA amplicon data. bioRxiv. 2018.47.Lawlor J. PNWColors: A Pacific Northwest inspired R color palette package. 2020 https://github.com/jakelawlor/PNWColors.48.von Appen W-J, Schauer U, Hattermann T, Beszczynska-Möller A. Seasonal cycle of mesoscale instability of the west Spitsbergen Current. J Phys Oceanogr. 2016;46:1231–54.
Google Scholar 
49.Wekerle C, Wang Q, von Appen W-J, Danilov S, Schourup-Kristensen V, Jung T. Eddy-resolving simulation of the Atlantic water circulation in the Fram Strait with focus on the seasonal cycle. J Geophys Res Oceans. 2017;122:8385–405.
Google Scholar 
50.Giner CR, Balagué V, Krabberød AK, Ferrera I, Reñé A, Garcés E, et al. Quantifying long-term recurrence in planktonic microbial eukaryotes. Mol Ecol. 2019;28:923–35.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
51.Royo-Llonch M, Sánchez P, Ruiz-González C, Salazar G, Pedrós-Alió C, Sebastián M, et al. Compendium of 530 metagenome-assembled bacterial and archaeal genomes from the polar Arctic Ocean. Nat. Microbiol. 2021;6:1561–74.52.Priest T, Orellana LH, Huettel B, Fuchs BM, Amann R. Microbial metagenome-assembled genomes of the Fram Strait from short and long read sequencing platforms. PeerJ. 2021;9:e11721.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
53.Sunagawa S, Coelho LP, Chaffron S, Kultima JR, Labadie K, Salazar G, et al. Structure and function of the global ocean microbiome. Science. 2015;348:1261359.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
54.Teeling H, Fuchs BM, Becher D, Klockow C, Gardebrecht A, Bennke CM, et al. Substrate-controlled succession of marine bacterioplankton populations induced by a phytoplankton bloom. Science. 2012;336:608–11.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
55.Monier A, Comte J, Babin M, Forest A, Matsuoka A, Lovejoy C. Oceanographic structure drives the assembly processes of microbial eukaryotic communities. ISME J. 2015;9:990–1002.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
56.Leeuwe M, van, Tedesco L, Arrigo KR, Assmy P, Campbell K, Meiners KM, et al. Microalgal community structure and primary production in Arctic and Antarctic sea ice: a synthesis. Elem Sci Anth. 2018;6:4.
Google Scholar 
57.Fadeev E, Rogge A, Ramondenc S, Nöthig E-M, Wekerle C, Bienhold C, et al. Sea ice presence is linked to higher carbon export and vertical microbial connectivity in the Eurasian Arctic Ocean. Commun Biol. 2021;4:1–13.
Google Scholar 
58.Wasmund N, Göbel J, von Bodungen B. 100-years-changes in the phytoplankton community of Kiel Bight (Baltic Sea). J Mar Syst. 2008;73:300–22.
Google Scholar 
59.Stoecker DK, Lavrentyev PJ. Mixotrophic plankton in the polar seas: a pan-Arctic review. Front Mar Sci. 2018;5:292.
Google Scholar 
60.Lampe V, Nöthig E-M, Schartau M. Spatio-temporal variations in community size structure of Arctic protist plankton in the Fram Strait. Front Mar Sci. 2021;7:579880.
Google Scholar 
61.Brichta M, Nöthig E-M. The role of life cycle stages of diatoms in decoupling carbon and silica cycles in polar regions. In: Proceedings of SCAR Open Science Conference Bremen, Germany. 2004.62.Not F, Siano R, Kooistra WHCF, Simon N, Vaulot D, Probert I. Diversity and ecology of eukaryotic marine phytoplankton. In: Piganeau G (ed). Advances in botanical research. 2012. Academic Press, pp 1–53.63.Raghukumar S. Ecology of the marine protists, the Labyrinthulomycetes (Thraustochytrids and Labyrinthulids). Eur J Protistol. 2002;38:127–45.
Google Scholar 
64.Scholz B, Guillou L, Marano AV, Neuhauser S, Sullivan BK, Karsten U, et al. Zoosporic parasites infecting marine diatoms—a black box that needs to be opened. Fungal Ecol. 2016;19:59–76.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
65.Choi DH, Park K-T, An SM, Lee K, Cho J-C, Lee J-H, et al. Pyrosequencing revealed SAR116 clade as dominant dddP-containing bacteria in oligotrophic NW Pacific Ocean. PLOS One. 2015;10:e0116271.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
66.Wemheuer B, Wemheuer F, Hollensteiner J, Meyer F-D, Voget S, Daniel R. The green impact: bacterioplankton response toward a phytoplankton spring bloom in the southern North Sea assessed by comparative metagenomic and metatranscriptomic approaches. Front Microbiol. 2015;6:805.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
67.Delpech L-M, Vonnahme TR, McGovern M, Gradinger R, Præbel K, Poste A. Terrestrial inputs shape coastal bacterial and archaeal communities in a high Arctic Fjord (Isfjorden, Svalbard). Front Microbiol. 2021;12:614634.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
68.Alldredge AL, Gotschalk CC. Direct observations of the mass flocculation of diatom blooms: characteristics, settling velocities and formation of diatom aggregates. Deep Sea Res Part A. Oceanogr Res Pap. 1989;36:159–71.CAS 

Google Scholar 
69.Lundholm N, Hansen PJ, Kotaki Y. Effect of pH on growth and domoic acid production by potentially toxic diatoms of the genera Pseudo-nitzschia and Nitzschia. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2004;273:1–15.CAS 

Google Scholar 
70.Underwood GJC, Michel C, Meisterhans G, Niemi A, Belzile C, Witt M, et al. Organic matter from Arctic sea-ice loss alters bacterial community structure and function. Nat Clim Change. 2019;9:170–6.
Google Scholar 
71.Graham E, Tully BJ. Marine Dadabacteria exhibit genome streamlining and phototrophy-driven niche partitioning. ISME J. 2021;15:1248–56.72.Clarke LJ, Bestley S, Bissett A, Deagle BE. A globally distributed Syndiniales parasite dominates the Southern Ocean micro-eukaryote community near the sea-ice edge. ISME J. 2019;13:734–7.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
73.Randelhoff A, Sundfjord A, Reigstad M. Seasonal variability and fluxes of nitrate in the surface waters over the Arctic shelf slope. Geophys Res Lett. 2015;42:3442–9.CAS 

Google Scholar 
74.García FC, Alonso-Sáez L, Morán XAG, López-Urrutia Á. Seasonality in molecular and cytometric diversity of marine bacterioplankton: the re-shuffling of bacterial taxa by vertical mixing. Environ Microbiol. 2015;17:4133–42.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
75.Jousset A, Bienhold C, Chatzinotas A, Gallien L, Gobet A, Kurm V, et al. Where less may be more: how the rare biosphere pulls ecosystems strings. ISME J. 2017;11:853–62.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
76.Giner CR, Pernice MC, Balagué V, Duarte CM, Gasol JM, Logares R, et al. Marked changes in diversity and relative activity of picoeukaryotes with depth in the world ocean. ISME J. 2020;14:437–49.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
77.Lehtovirta-Morley LE. Ammonia oxidation: ecology, physiology, biochemistry and why they must all come together. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2018;365:fny058.
Google Scholar 
78.Williams TJ, Lefevre CT, Zhao W, Beveridge TJ, Bazylinski DA. Magnetospira thiophila gen. nov., sp. nov., a marine magnetotactic bacterium that represents a novel lineage within the Rhodospirillaceae (Alphaproteobacteria). Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2012;62:2443–50.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
79.von Friesen LW, Riemann L. Nitrogen fixation in a changing Arctic Ocean: an overlooked source of nitrogen? Front Microbiol. 2020;11:596426.
Google Scholar 
80.Alonso-Saez L, Waller AS, Mende DR, Bakker K, Farnelid H, Yager PL, et al. Role for urea in nitrification by polar marine archaea. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012;109:17989–94.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
81.Martínez-Pérez C, Greening C, Zhao Z, Lappan RJ, Bay SK, De Corte D, et al. Lifting the lid: nitrifying archaea sustain diverse microbial communities below the Ross Ice Shelf. Cell Rev. 2020; SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3677479 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3677479.82.Mohamed NM, Saito K, Tal Y, Hill RT. Diversity of aerobic and anaerobic ammonia-oxidizing bacteria in marine sponges. ISME J. 2010;4:38–48.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
83.Mussmann M, Pjevac P, Kruger K, Dyksma S. Genomic repertoire of the Woeseiaceae/JTB255, cosmopolitan and abundant core members of microbial communities in marine sediments. ISME J. 2017;11:1276–81.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
84.Burow LC, Kong Y, Nielsen JL, Blackall LL, Nielsen PH. Abundance and ecophysiology of Defluviicoccus spp., glycogen-accumulating organisms in full-scale wastewater treatment processes. Microbiology. 2007;153:178–85.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
85.Lucas J, Koester I, Wichels A, Niggemann J, Dittmar T, Callies U, et al. Short-term dynamics of North Sea Bacterioplankton-dissolved organic matter coherence on molecular level. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:321.86.Stecher A, Neuhaus S, Lange B, Frickenhaus S, Beszteri B, Kroth PG, et al. rRNA and rDNA based assessment of sea ice protist biodiversity from the central Arctic Ocean. Eur J Phycol. 2016;51:31–46.CAS 

Google Scholar 
87.Lalande C, Nöthig E-M, Somavilla R, Bauerfeind E, Shevchenko V, Okolodkov Y. Variability in under-ice export fluxes of biogenic matter in the Arctic Ocean. Glob Biogeochem Cycles. 2014;28:571–83.CAS 

Google Scholar 
88.Hoffmann K, Hassenrück C, Salman-Carvalho V, Holtappels M, Bienhold C. Response of bacterial communities to different detritus compositions in Arctic deep-sea sediments. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:266.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
89.Kappelmann L, Krüger K, Hehemann J-H, Harder J, Markert S, Unfried F, et al. Polysaccharide utilization loci of North Sea Flavobacteriia as basis for using SusC/D-protein expression for predicting major phytoplankton glycans. ISME J. 2019;13:76–91.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
90.Izaguirre I, Unrein F, Schiaffino MR, Lara E, Singer D, Balagué V, et al. Phylogenetic diversity and dominant ecological traits of freshwater Antarctic Chrysophyceae. Polar Biol. 2021;44:941–57.
Google Scholar 
91.Humphry DR, George A, Black GW, Cummings SP. Flavobacterium frigidarium sp. nov., an aerobic, psychrophilic, xylanolytic and laminarinolytic bacterium from Antarctica. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2001;51:1235–43.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
92.Rapp JZ, Fernández-Méndez M, Bienhold C, Boetius A. Effects of ice-algal aggregate export on the connectivity of bacterial communities in the central Arctic Ocean. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:1035.93.Ardyna M, Mundy CJ, Mayot N, Matthes LC, Oziel L, Horvat C, et al. Under-ice phytoplankton blooms: shedding light on the “invisible” part of Arctic primary production. Front Mar Sci. 2020;7:608032.
Google Scholar 
94.Alonso-Sáez L, Zeder M, Harding T, Pernthaler J, Lovejoy C, Bertilsson S, et al. Winter bloom of a rare betaproteobacterium in the Arctic Ocean. Front Microbiol. 2014;5:425.95.Hawley AK, Nobu MK, Wright JJ, Durno WE, Morgan-Lang C, Sage B, et al. Diverse Marinimicrobia bacteria may mediate coupled biogeochemical cycles along eco-thermodynamic gradients. Nat Commun. 2017;8:1507.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
96.Berdjeb L, Parada A, Needham DM, Fuhrman JA. Short-term dynamics and interactions of marine protist communities during the spring–summer transition. ISME J. 2018;12:1907–17.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
97.Singh A, Divya DT, Tripathy SC, Naik RK. Interplay of regional oceanography and biogeochemistry on phytoplankton bloom development in an Arctic fjord. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci. 2020;243:106916.CAS 

Google Scholar 
98.Engel A, Piontek J, Metfies K, Endres S, Sprong P, Peeken I, et al. Inter-annual variability of transparent exopolymer particles in the Arctic Ocean reveals high sensitivity to ecosystem changes. Sci Rep. 2017;7:4129.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
99.Nejstgaard JC, Tang KW, Steinke M, Dutz J, Koski M, Antajan E, et al. Zooplankton grazing on Phaeocystis: a quantitative review and future challenges. Biogeochemistry. 2007;83:147–72.
Google Scholar 
100.Lampitt RS, Salter I, Johns D. Radiolaria: major exporters of organic carbon to the deep ocean. Glob Biogeochem Cycles. 2009;23:GB1010.
Google Scholar 
101.Luria CM, Amaral-Zettler LA, Ducklow HW, Rich JJ. Seasonal succession of free-living bacterial communities in coastal waters of the western Antarctic Peninsula. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:1731.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
102.Taylor JD, Cunliffe M. Coastal bacterioplankton community response to diatom-derived polysaccharide microgels. Environ Microbiol Rep. 2017;9:151–7.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
103.Gómez-Gutiérrez J, Kawaguchi S, Nicol S. Epibiotic suctorians and enigmatic ecto- and endoparasitoid dinoflagellates of euphausiid eggs (Euphausiacea) off Oregon, USA. J Plankton Res. 2009;31:777–85.
Google Scholar 
104.Cardman Z, Arnosti C, Durbin A, Ziervogel K, Cox C, Steen AD, et al. Verrucomicrobia: candidates for polysaccharide-degrading bacterioplankton in an Arctic fjord of Svalbard. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2014;80:3749–56.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
105.Landa M, Blain S, Harmand J, Monchy S, Rapaport A, Obernosterer I. Major changes in the composition of a Southern Ocean bacterial community in response to diatom-derived dissolved organic matter. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2018;94:fiy034.
Google Scholar 
106.Fahrbach E, Meincke J, Østerhus S, Rohardt G, Schauer U, Tverberg V, et al. Direct measurements of volume transports through Fram Strait. Polar Res. 2001;20:217–24.
Google Scholar 
107.Comeau AM, Li WK, Tremblay JE, Carmack EC, Lovejoy C. Arctic Ocean microbial community structure before and after the 2007 record sea ice minimum. PLOS ONE. 2011;6:e27492.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
108.Lalande C, Bauerfeind E, Nöthig E-M, Beszczynska-Möller A. Impact of a warm anomaly on export fluxes of biogenic matter in the eastern Fram Strait. Prog Oceanogr. 2013;109:70–7.
Google Scholar 
109.Dybwad C, Assmy P, Olsen LM, Peeken I, Nikolopoulos A, Krumpen T, et al. Carbon export in the seasonal sea ice zone north of Svalbard from winter to late summer. Front Mar Sci. 2021;7:525800.
Google Scholar 
110.Glud RN, Rysgaard S, Turner G, McGinnis DF, Leakey RJG. Biological- and physical-induced oxygen dynamics in melting sea ice of the Fram Strait. Limnol Oceanogr. 2014;59:1097–111.CAS 

Google Scholar 
111.Shiozaki T, Ijichi M, Fujiwara A, Makabe A, Nishino S, Yoshikawa C, et al. Factors regulating nitrification in the Arctic Ocean: potential impact of sea ice reduction and ocean acidification. Glob Biogeochem Cycles. 2019;33:1085–99.CAS 

Google Scholar  More

OverviewWe used data from the national forest inventory conducted by the US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program to quantify tree biomass and growth along forest edges and within the forest interior. We estimated the causal impact of the forest edge environment on patterns of tree biomass and growth, while accounting for potentially confounding variables. We then used the regression models to estimate the aggregate difference in growth attributable to forest edges throughout the northeastern U.S. Finally, to better understand the implications of our findings, we quantified the degree of forest fragmentation throughout temperate and tropical forest biomes world-wide, using a 30 m forest cover map.Study areaOur analyses of edge impacts on forest biomass and growth were conducted throughout twenty-states (1.7 million km2) in the northeastern and upper mid-west of the United States (Supplementary Fig. 1). This region contains 765,000 km2 of forest and encompasses gradients of dominant land-uses, climatic conditions, and forest composition while remaining within deciduous, coniferous, and mixed temperate forest ecosystems.Identifying edges in forest inventory dataThe FIA collects measurements of tree size, growth, and land-use within a nested plot design across the country19. Each FIA plot is composed of four individual subplots; within each subplot, the diameter at breast height (dbh) of every tree >12.7 cm is measured during each measurement period. The re-measurement frequency for FIA plots in our study area is between 5 and 7 years, but this can differ between Forest Service regions. In addition to tree measurements, the database details land-use condition data that includes the proportion of the area that is forested and, on some plots, the land-cover class of the non-forest area (FIA User’s Manual, Condition Table). FIA plots are considered forested if some portion of the plot includes a contiguous forest patch (including potentially outside of the plot area) of greater than 4047 m2 that has more than 10% canopy cover. With a memorandum of understanding between the USFS and Harvard University, we had access to the true, unfuzzed plot coordinates, which are not publicly available. Evaluating >48,000 plots in the USFS Northern Region sampled from 2010 to 2020 and selecting the most recent measurement cycle for each plot, we identified subplots that contained both a forest and a non-forest condition and categorized these as edges (Supplementary Table 1). Only subplots that included a forest condition in both the most recent and previous measurement were included. Subplots where the mapped condition changed from forest to non-forest were excluded. Changes in the amount of mapped forest condition were included and are incorporated into the calculation of response variables using the most recent condition area. We identified FIA plots where all four subplots were fully forested as interior plots to be used for comparison. Subplots located within the same plot as an edge subplot (i.e., edge-proximate subplots) were excluded from this study due to limitations in our ability to quantify their distance from an edge. The spatial configuration of subplots is such that a fully forested subplot may be up to ~65 m away from an identified forest edge within another subplot. Studies suggest that the distance of edge influence in temperate forest does not extend more than 30 m into the forest interior15,33. Since the FIA does not contain information about the geometry of non-forest conditions beyond the subplot boundary, we deemed that the large uncertainty in the relationship between these subplots to a non-forest edge precluded their inclusion in the study. The FIA plot configuration prevented quantification of the distance of edge influence in our analysis; the exclusion of subplots adjacent to edge-subplots may limit direct comparisons with other fragmentation studies.We used the FIA condition data to characterize the non-forest land use in edge subplots. Information on adjacent non-forest land cover is not collected on all FIA plots (4327 of 6607 edge subplots). We aggregated FIA land-cover classification to a binary anthropogenic or unknown edge type designation and present results from all edge subplots and the anthropogenic edge subset (FIA User’s Manual Condition Table, Section 2.4.50).For each subplot (168 m2 in area), we calculated two primary response variables of interest: total live tree BA and BAI. Notably, trees smaller than 12.7 cm dbh) in m2. BAI was calculated on a per-tree basis as the difference in radial growth of live adult trees between the most recent and previous measurements, and then divided by the number of years between measurements (m2 yr−1). In addition, we aggregated individual tree diameter measurements to calculate mean stem density (stems ha−1) and mean tree diameter for each subplot (Fig. 2).We accounted for variable subplot area by normalizing both BA and BAI to a per-hectare of forested area basis, resulting in units of m2 ha−1 and m2 ha−1 yr−1, respectively. To account for potential small-area bias, we performed a sensitivity analysis on the relationship between BA and subplot forested area (Supplementary Fig. 2). We subsequently excluded 1284 subplots under 30 m2 in area as the area to BA relationship asymptotes relationship above this threshold. Finally, we accounted for errors in field dbh measurements, sometimes resulting in negative BAI values, by excluding the 97.5% quantiles of both BA and BAI distributions.Given their spatial configuration, FIA subplots are not fully independent measurements, potentially introducing issues with pseudo-replication and spatial autocorrelation within our dataset. To test for spatial autocorrelation we examined the semivariance of model residuals36, and found that there was high correlation only at distances of less than 1 km. The spatial stratification of the FIA plot design minimizes issues of plot–plot proximity within our study. However, to account for autocorrelation between subplots, we filtered our pre-matched dataset to only including one subplot from each FIA plot. For plots containing multiple edge subplots, we selected the subplot with the largest forested area. For interior plots, we selected the central subplot and excluded all others.Isolating the effect of edges on growthAbiotic controlsTo account for environmental controls on forest growth we included the most critical abiotic predictors of terrestrial vegetation productivity (light, water, temperature, and nitrogen deposition) as covariates in the regression models (Supplementary Fig. 4, Supplementary Table 2). Light, water, and temperature data were drawn from spatial raster maps (0.5° resolution) as unit-less indices of relative limitation on vegetation productivity, ranging from 0 to 13. Nitrogen data were drawn from the 2018 NADP gridded inorganic wet nitrogen deposition product (4 km spatial resolution; kg of N ha−1)37. To interpolate across small gaps in the raster data (usually along water bodies), we used the Nibble tool from ArcGis Pro (ESRI Team). We then used FIA plot locations to extract values from each raster layer for all FIA subplots.Forest compositionTree species may vary in their responses to biogeochemical changes that occur on forest edges. Overall forest community response emerges from complex interactions between species. We used aggregations of tree species, termed forest composition groups (or forest types)38, to assess if species composition influenced the response to altered edge condition. Forest type classifications for each subplot are provided by the FIA (FIA User’s Manual, Condition Table) and are defined in Appendix D therein. We aggregated the FIA forest types into eight broader species groups, following Thompson et al.23, and defined in Supplementary Table 1.Matching, GLM regressions, and model selectionAll statistical analyses and most of the data processing were conducted in R, version 3.439. Using a causal inference framework, we created a quasi-experimental statistical design that included pre-matching followed by a GLM regression analysis40. Matching emulates an experimental design using observational data by identifying control groups of untreated (forest interior) plots that were as similar as possible to treated (forest edge) plots in terms of observable confounders. By capturing key differences in abiotic variables we control for the fundamental drivers of forest productivity, allowing for a direct estimation of the average treatment effect of edges. Similarity was defined by nearest-neighbor covariate matching determined by Malahanobis distance, implemented in the MatchIt library in R41, the simplest and best method when the dataset is robust enough to find a match for every treated plot20. This method excludes forest interior plots that are not matched with an edge plot. Given differences in sample size between the full edge dataset and the subset designated as anthropogenic edges, we performed matching separately on the two datasets. To assess the efficacy of matching on reducing the differences in covariate distributions, we used summary statistics calculated with the MatchIt library and report the pre- and post-matched covariate balance in Supplementary Table 4 and Supplementary Table 5 (sensu Schleicher et al.42). Matching was highly successful, largely eliminating differences in all covariate distributions in both datasets.Our primary response variables of interest, BA and BAI, were right-skewed, non-normally distributed and violated the assumptions of normality necessary for ordinary least squares regression43. We, therefore, used a GLM to better fit the structure of our data. GLMs are an extension of linear regression that allow more freedom in the choice of probability distribution function through the use of a link function to model relationships between predictors and response variables44. The gamma probability distribution is frequently chosen to model BA, given its assumptions of positive, continuous values and flexible model form23,45. We performed a series of GLM regressions on our post-matched datasets, using a gamma probability distribution with an inverse link function to model the relationship of BA and BA with a suite of predictor variables, using the glm function as implemented in the R Core stats package39. Due to differences in sample size between the all-edge dataset and the anthropogenic-edge subset, we modeled these two datasets separately for each of BA and BAI, resulting in four separate regression analyses. We used a model selection framework to identify the most parsimonious model within each of the model sets based on the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and residual deviance statistic46,47. We report the model-selection and model-fit results for each of our separate analyses, including model forms, AIC, Nagelkerke Pseudo-R2, and residual deviance in Supplementary Table 2. Across all four regression analyses, the best-performing model was one that included an interaction between the edge-status and forest type categorical variables, as well as the variables of temperature-limitation, light-limitation, water-limitation, and nitrogen deposition.We then used the best performing model from each analysis to compare the differences in BA and BAI between forest edge and interior across each forest type. We estimated the treatment effect of edge-state within each forest type using the ggeffects package48 to calculate marginal effects with the continuous predictors (temperature, light, water, and nitrogen deposition) held at their within-forest type regional means. The results of this analysis are displayed in Fig. 1 and Supplementary Table 3; primary error bars on the interior point show the 95% confidence interval of the marginal effect from the full edge model, while secondary error bars show the CI from the anthropogenic edge model. Due to the smaller sample size in the anthropogenic model, estimates of the mean marginal effect of the interior plots vary slightly (though non-significantly) from those from the full dataset. The main text description reports outputs from both models, calculated from separate interior mean estimates. For visual clarity, we only display one set of interior means in Fig. 1.Mortality and timber harvestIn tropical forests, large reductions in productivity along edges are associated with increased tree mortality.9 To assess differences in tree mortality across our study region, we applied a simplified GLM analysis, including edge-state as our only predictor variable. The FIA differentiates between mortality attributed to timber harvest and that attributed to other, non-harvest causes. The results of this analysis are presented as marginal effects of each edge category in Supplementary Fig. 3. There are no significant differences in biogenic mortality between edge groups and no difference in overall mortality (combined biogenic and anthropogenic); there is a small, but statistically significant (p  More

1.Wilson, E. O. Introduction. in Biodiversity II: understanding and protecting our biological resources (eds. Reaka-Kudla, M. L., Wilson, D. E. & Wilson, E. O.) 1–3 (Joseph Henry Press, 1997).2.Lovejoy, T. E. Biodiversity: what is it? in Biodiversity II: Understanding and protecting our biological resources (eds. Reaka-Kudla, M. L., Wilson, D. E. & Wilson, E. O.) 7–14 (Joseph Henry Press, 1997).3.Ehrlich, P. R. & Wilson, E. O. Biodiversity studies: Science and policy. Science 253, 758–762 (1991).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Myers, R. A. & Ottensmeyers, C. A. Extinction risk in marine species. in Marine Conservation Biology: The Science of Maintaining the Sea’s Biodiversity (eds. Norse, E. A. & Crowder, L. B.) 58–79 (Island Press, 2005).5.Reaka-Kudla, M. L. The global biodiversity of coral reefs: a comparison with rain forests. in Biodiversity II: understanding and protecting our biological resources (eds. Reaka-Kudla, M. L., Wilson, D. E. & Wilson, E. O.) 83–108 (Joseph Henry Press, 1997).6.Briggs, J. C. Marine extinctions and conservation. Mar. Biol. 158, 485–488 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Harley, C. D. G. et al. The impacts of climate change in coastal marine systems: Climate change in coastal marine systems. Ecol. Lett. 9, 228–241 (2006).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Dupont, S., Dorey, N. & Thorndyke, M. What meta-analysis can tell us about vulnerability of marine biodiversity to ocean acidification?. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 89, 182–185 (2010).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Stork, N. E. Measuring global biodiversity and its decline. in Biodiversity II: understanding and protecting our biological resources (eds. Reaka-Kudla, M. L., Wilson, D. E. & Wilson, E. O.) 41–68 (Joseph Henry Press, 1997).10.Richards, Z. T. & Day, J. C. Biodiversity of the Great Barrier Reef—How adequately is it protected? PeerJ 6, e4747 (2018).11.Pyle, R. L. & Copus, J. M. Mesophotic Coral Ecosystems: introduction and overview. in Mesophotic Coral Ecosystems (eds. Loya, Y., Puglise, K. A. & Bridge, T. C. L.) vol. 12 3–27 (Springer International Publishing, 2019).12.Hinderstein, L. M. et al. Theme section on ‘Mesophotic coral ecosystems: Characterization, ecology, and management’. Coral Reefs 29, 247–251 (2010).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Bongaerts, P., Ridgway, T., Sampayo, E. M. & Hoegh-Guldberg, O. Assessing the ‘deep reef refugia’ hypothesis: Focus on Caribbean reefs. Coral Reefs 29, 309–327 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Bongaerts, P. & Smith, T. B. Beyond the “Deep Reef Refuge” hypothesis: a conceptual framework to characterize persistence at depth. in Mesophotic Coral Ecosystems (eds. Loya, Y., Puglise, K. A. & Bridge, T. C. L.) vol. 12, 881–895 (Springer International Publishing, 2019).15.Vermeij, G. J. Survival during biotic crises: the properties and evolutionary significance of refuges. Dyn. Extinct. 231–246 (1986).16.Glynn, P. W. Coral reef bleaching: Facts, hypotheses and implications. Glob. Change Biol. 2, 495–509 (1996).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Riegl, B. & Piller, W. E. Possible refugia for reefs in times of environmental stress. Int. J. Earth Sci. 92, 520–531 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Halfar, J., Godinez-Orta, L., Riegl, B., Valdez-Holguin, J. E. & Borges, J. M. Living on the edge: high-latitude Porites carbonate production under temperate eutrophic conditions. Coral Reefs 24, 582–592 (2005).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Loya, Y., Eyal, G., Treibitz, T., Lesser, M. P. & Appeldoorn, R. Theme section on mesophotic coral ecosystems: Advances in knowledge and future perspectives. Coral Reefs 35, 1–9 (2016).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Laverick, J. H. et al. To what extent do mesophotic coral ecosystems and shallow reefs share species of conservation interest? A systematic review. Environ. Evid. 7, 15 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Smith, T. B., Glynn, P. W., Maté, J. L., Toth, L. T. & Gyory, J. A depth refugium from catastrophic coral bleaching prevents regional extinction. Ecology 95, 1663–1673 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Smith, T. B. et al. Caribbean mesophotic coral ecosystems are unlikely climate change refugia. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 2756–2765 (2016).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Holstein, D. M., Smith, T. B., Gyory, J. & Paris, C. B. Fertile fathoms: Deep reproductive refugia for threatened shallow corals. Sci. Rep. 5 (2015).24.Holstein, D. M., Paris, C. B., Vaz, A. C. & Smith, T. B. Modeling vertical coral connectivity and mesophotic refugia. Coral Reefs 35, 23–37 (2016).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Holstein, D. M., Smith, T. B. & Paris, C. B. Depth-independent reproduction in the reef coral Porites astreoides from shallow to mesophotic zones. PLoS ONE 11, e0146068 (2016).26.Assis, J. et al. Deep reefs are climatic refugia for genetic diversity of marine forests. J. Biogeogr. 43, 833–844 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Bongaerts, P. et al. Deep reefs are not universal refuges: Reseeding potential varies among coral species. Sci. Adv. 3, e1602373 (2017).28.Muir, P. R., Marshall, P. A., Abdulla, A. & Aguirre, J. D. Species identity and depth predict bleaching severity in reef-building corals: Shall the deep inherit the reef?. Proc. R. Soc. B. 284, 20171551 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Semmler, R. F., Hoot, W. C. & Reaka, M. L. Are mesophotic coral ecosystems distinct communities and can they serve as refugia for shallow reefs?. Coral Reefs 36, 433–444 (2017).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Kavousi, J. & Keppel, G. Clarifying the concept of climate change refugia for coral reefs. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 75, 43–49 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Morais, J. & Santos, B. A. Limited potential of deep reefs to serve as refuges for tropical Southwestern Atlantic corals. Ecosphere 9, e02281 (2018).32.Pereira, P. H. C., Macedo, C. H., Nunes, J. de A. C. C., Marangoni, L. F. de B. & Bianchini, A. Effects of depth on reef fish communities: Insights of a “deep refuge hypothesis” from Southwestern Atlantic reefs. PLoS ONE 13, e0203072 (2018).33.Rocha, L. A. et al. Mesophotic coral ecosystems are threatened and ecologically distinct from shallow water reefs. Science 361, 281–284 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Slattery, M. et al. The Pulley Ridge deep reef is not a stable refugia through time. Coral Reefs 37, 391–396 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Kavousi, J. Biological interactions: The overlooked aspects of marine climate change refugia. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 3571–3573 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Baselga, A. The relationship between species replacement, dissimilarity derived from nestedness, and nestedness: Species replacement and nestedness. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 21, 1223–1232 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Fisher, R. et al. Species richness on coral reefs and the pursuit of convergent global estimates. Curr. Biol. 25, 500–505 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Montgomery, A. D., Fenner, D. & Toonen, R. J. Annotated checklist for stony corals of American Sāmoa with reference to mesophotic depth records. ZK 849, 1–170 (2019).39.Colwell, R. K. et al. Models and estimators linking individual-based and sample-based rarefaction, extrapolation and comparison of assemblages. J. Plant Ecol. 5, 3–21 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Rooney, J. et al. Mesophotic coral ecosystems in the Hawaiian Archipelago. Coral Reefs 29, 361–367 (2010).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Bridge, T. C. L. et al. Diversity of Scleractinia and Octocorallia in the mesophotic zone of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Coral Reefs 31, 179–189 (2012).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Pyle, R. L. et al. A comprehensive investigation of mesophotic coral ecosystems in the Hawaiian Archipelago. PeerJ 4, e2475 (2016).43.Muir, P. R. & Pichon, M. Biodiversity of reef-building, Scleractinian corals. in Mesophotic Coral Ecosystems (eds. Loya, Y., Puglise, K. A. & Bridge, T. C. L.) vol. 12, 589–620 (Springer International Publishing, 2019).44.Spalding, H. L. et al. The Hawaiian Archipelago. in Mesophotic Coral Ecosystems (eds. Loya, Y., Puglise, K. A. & Bridge, T. C. L.) vol. 12, 445–464 (Springer International Publishing, 2019).45.Turak, E. & DeVantier, L. Reef-building corals of the upper mesophotic zone of the Central Indo-West Pacific. in Mesophotic Coral Ecosystems (eds. Loya, Y., Puglise, K. A. & Bridge, T. C. L.) vol. 12, 621–651 (Springer International Publishing, 2019).46.Vermeij, G. J. & Grosberg, R. K. Rarity and persistence. Ecol. Lett. 21, 3–8 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Kammer, T. W., Baumiller, T. K. & Ausich, W. I. Evolutionary significance of differential species longevity in Osagean-Meramecian (Mississippian) crinoid clades. Paleobiology 24, 155–176 (1998).
Google Scholar 
48.Jones, G. P., Julian, C. M. & Munday, P. L. Rarity in coral reef fish communities. in Coral reef fishes: dynamics and diversity in a complex ecosystem (ed. Sale, P. F.) 81–102 (Academic Press, 2006).49.Yang, Q., Liu, G., Casazza, M., Gonella, F. & Yang, Z. Three dimensions of biodiversity: New perspectives and methods. Ecol. Indic. 130, 108099 (2021).50.Richards, Z. T. Rarity in the coral genus Acropora: Implications for biodiversity conservation. (James Cook University, 2009).51.Soares, M. de O. Marginal reef paradox: A possible refuge from environmental changes? Ocean Coast. Manag. 185, 105063 (2020).52.Soares, M. de O. et al. Why do mesophotic coral ecosystems have to be protected? Sci. Total Environ. 726, 138456 (2020).53.White, K. N. et al. Typhoon damage on a shallow mesophotic reef in Okinawa, Japan. PeerJ 1, e151 (2013).54.Smith, T. B., Holstein, D. M. & Ennis, R. S. Disturbance in mesophotic coral ecosystems and linkages to conservation and management. in Mesophotic Coral Ecosystems (eds. Loya, Y., Puglise, K. A. & Bridge, T. C. L.) vol. 12, 911–929 (Springer International Publishing, 2019).55.Pinheiro, H. T., Eyal, G., Shepherd, B. & Rocha, L. A. Ecological insights from environmental disturbances in mesophotic coral ecosystems. Ecosphere 10, e02666 (2019).56.Veron, J. E. N. Corals of the world. (Australian Institute of Marine Science, 2000).57.Luzon, K. S., Lin, M.-F., Ablan Lagman, Ma. C. A., Licuanan, W. R. Y. & Chen, C. A. Resurrecting a subgenus to genus: molecular phylogeny of Euphyllia and Fimbriaphyllia (order Scleractinia; Family Euphyllidae; clade V). PeerJ 5, e4074 (2017).58.Eyal, G. et al. Euphyllia paradivisa, a successful mesophotic coral in the northern Gulf of Eilat/Aqaba, Red Sea. Coral Reefs 35, 91–102 (2016).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Eyal, G., Tamir, R., Kramer, N., Eyal-Shaham, L. & Loya, Y. The Red Sea: Israel. in Mesophotic Coral Ecosystems (eds. Loya, Y., Puglise, K. A. & Bridge, T. C. L.) vol. 12, 199–214 (Springer International Publishing, 2019).60.Tamir, R., Eyal, G., Kramer, N., Laverick, J. H. & Loya, Y. Light environment drives the shallow‐to‐mesophotic coral community transition. Ecosphere 10 (2019).61.Fujii, T., Kitano, Y. F. & Tachikawa, H. New distributional records of three species of Euphylliidae (Cnidaria, Anthozoa, Hexacorallia, Scleractinia) from the Ryukyu Islands, Japan. Spec. Div. 25, 275–282 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Longenecker, K., Roberts, T. E. & Colin, P. L. Papua New Guinea. in Mesophotic Coral Ecosystems (eds. Loya, Y., Puglise, K. A. & Bridge, T. C. L.) vol. 12 321–336 (Springer International Publishing, 2019).63.NOAA, [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration]. Endangered and threatened species; Critical habitat for the threatened Indo-Pacific corals. 85 FR 76262 (50 CFR Part 223 and 226) 76262–76299 (2020).64.Maragos, J. E., Hunter, C. L. & Meier, K. Z. Reefs and corals observed during the 1991–92 American Samoa coastal resources inventory. 50 (1994).65.Coles, S. et al. Introduced marine species in Pago Pago Harbor, Fagatele Bay and the National Park Coast, American Samoa. 182 (2003).66.Montgomery, A. D. et al. American Samoa. in Mesophotic Coral Ecosystems (eds. Loya, Y., Puglise, K. A. & Bridge, T. C. L.) vol. 12 387–407 (Springer International Publishing, 2019).67.Wallace, C. C. Staghorn corals of the world: A revision of the coral genus Acropora (Scleractinia; Astrocoeniina; Acroporidae) worldwide, with emphasis on morphology, phylogeny and biogeography. (Csiro Publishing, 1999).68.Hoeksema, B. W. Taxonomy, phylogeny and biogeography of mushroom corals (Scleractinina: Fungiidae). Zoologische Verhandelingen 254, 1–295 (1989).
Google Scholar 
69.World Register of Marine Species: WoRMS. Available online: http://www.marinespecies.org/. Accessed on 9/9/2020 (2020). https://doi.org/10.14284/170.70.Hsieh, T. C., Ma, K. H. & Chao, A. Interpolation and extrapolation for species diversity. (2020).71.Chao, A. et al. Rarefaction and extrapolation with Hill numbers: A framework for sampling and estimation in species diversity studies. Ecol. Monogr. 84, 45–67 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Baselga, A. et al. Partitioning beta diversity into turnover and nestedness components ver. 1.5.2. (2020).73.Anderson, M. J., Gorley, R. N. & Clarke, K. R. PERMANOVA+ for Primer: Guide to software and statistical methods. 218 (2008).74.Clarke, K. R. & Gorley, R. N. Getting started with PRIMER 7. 18 http://updates.primer-e.com/primer7/manuals/Getting_started_with_PRIMER_7.pdf (2015).75.Gaston, K. What is rarity? in Rarity 1–21 (Chapman & Hall, 1994). More

1.Hou, S. et al. A microbiota–root–shoot circuit favours Arabidopsis growth over defence under suboptimal light. Nat. Plants 7, 1078–1092 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
2.Durán, P. et al. Microbial interkingdom interactions in roots promote Arabidopsis survival. Cell 175, 973–983.e14 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
3.van der Heijden, M. G., Bruin, S., de, Luckerhoff, L., van Logtestijn, R. S. & Schlaeppi, K. A widespread plant-fungal-bacterial symbiosis promotes plant biodiversity, plant nutrition and seedling recruitment. ISME J. 10, 389–399 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
4.Carrión, V. J. et al. Pathogen-induced activation of disease-suppressive functions in the endophytic root microbiome. Science 366, 606–612 (2019).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
5.Wagg, C., Schlaeppi, K., Banerjee, S., Kuramae, E. E. & van der Heijden, M. G. A. Fungal-bacterial diversity and microbiome complexity predict ecosystem functioning. Nat. Commun. 10, 1–10 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
6.Martin, F. M., Uroz, S. & Barker, D. G. Ancestral alliances: Plant mutualistic symbioses with fungi and bacteria. Science 356 (2017).7.Nagy, L. G. et al. in The Fungal Kingdom 35–56 (ASM Press, 2017). https://doi.org/10.1128/9781555819583.ch2.8.Brundrett, M. C. & Tedersoo, L. Evolutionary history of mycorrhizal symbioses and global host plant diversity. N. Phytol. 220, 1108–1115 (2018).
Google Scholar 
9.Delavaux, C. S. et al. Mycorrhizal fungi influence global plant biogeography. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 424–429 (2019).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
10.Soudzilovskaia, N. A. et al. Global mycorrhizal plant distribution linked to terrestrial carbon stocks. Nat. Commun. 10, 1–10 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
11.Steidinger, B. S. et al. Climatic controls of decomposition drive the global biogeography of forest-tree symbioses. Nature 569, 404–408 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
12.Trivedi, P., Leach, J. E., Tringe, S. G., Sa, T. & Singh, B. K. Plant–microbiome interactions: from community assembly to plant health. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 18, 607–621 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
13.Lugtenberg, B. J. J., Caradus, J. R. & Johnson, L. J. Fungal endophytes for sustainable crop production. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 92, fiw194 (2016).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
14.Glynou, K. et al. The local environment determines the assembly of root endophytic fungi at a continental scale. Environ. Microbiol. 18, 2418–2434 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
15.Glynou, K., Nam, B., Thines, M. & Maciá-Vicente, J. G. Facultative root-colonizing fungi dominate endophytic assemblages in roots of nonmycorrhizal Microthlaspi species. N. Phytol. 217, 1190–1202 (2018).
Google Scholar 
16.U’Ren, J. M. et al. Host availability drives distributions of fungal endophytes in the imperilled boreal realm. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 1430–1437 (2019).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
17.Maciá-Vicente, J. G., Piepenbring, M. & Koukol, O. Brassicaceous roots as an unexpected diversity hot-spot of helotialean endophytes. IMA Fungus 11, 1–23 (2020).
Google Scholar 
18.Thiergart, T. et al. Root microbiota assembly and adaptive differentiation among European Arabidopsis populations. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 122–131 (2020).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
19.Oita, S. et al. Climate and seasonality drive the richness and composition of tropical fungal endophytes at a landscape scale. Commun. Biol. 4, 1–11 (2021).
Google Scholar 
20.Vannier, N., Bittebiere, A. K., Mony, C. & Vandenkoornhuyse, P. Root endophytic fungi impact host plant biomass and respond to plant composition at varying spatio-temporal scales. Fungal Ecol. 44, 100907 (2020).
Google Scholar 
21.Jumpponen, A., Herrera, J., Porras-Alfaro, A. & Rudgers, J. Biogeography of root-associated fungal endophytes. Biogeography of Mycorrhizal Symbiosis 195–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56363-3_10 (2017).22.Bokati, D., Herrera, J. & Poudel, R. Soil influences colonization of root-associated fungal endophyte communities of maize, wheat, and their progenitors. J. Mycol. 2016, 1–9 (2016).
Google Scholar 
23.Card, S. D. et al. Beneficial endophytic microorganisms of Brassica – A review. Biol. Control 90, 102–112 (2015).
Google Scholar 
24.Junker, C., Draeger, S. & Schulz, B. A fine line – endophytes or pathogens in Arabidopsis thaliana. Fungal Ecol. 5, 657–662 (2012).
Google Scholar 
25.Fesel, P. H. & Zuccaro, A. Dissecting endophytic lifestyle along the parasitism/mutualism continuum in Arabidopsis. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 32, 103–112 (2016).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
26.Kia, S. H. et al. Influence of phylogenetic conservatism and trait convergence on the interactions between fungal root endophytes and plants. ISME J. 11, 777–790 (2017).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
27.Lahrmann, U. et al. Mutualistic root endophytism is not associated with the reduction of saprotrophic traits and requires a noncompromised plant innate immunity. N. Phytol. 207, 841–857 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
28.Hacquard, S. et al. Survival trade-offs in plant roots during colonization by closely related beneficial and pathogenic fungi. Nat. Commun. 7, 1–13 (2016).
Google Scholar 
29.Hiruma, K. et al. Root endophyte Colletotrichum tofieldiae confers plant fitness benefits that are phosphate status dependent. Cell 165, 464–474 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
30.Almario, J. et al. Root-associated fungal microbiota of nonmycorrhizal Arabis alpina and its contribution to plant phosphorus nutrition. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, E9403–E9412 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
31.Kohler, A. et al. Convergent losses of decay mechanisms and rapid turnover of symbiosis genes in mycorrhizal mutualists. Nat. Genet. 47, 410–415 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
32.Miyauchi, S. et al. Large-scale genome sequencing of mycorrhizal fungi provides insights into the early evolution of symbiotic traits. Nat. Commun. 11, 1–17 (2020).
Google Scholar 
33.Spatafora, J. W., Sung, G. H. J. M. S., Hywel-Jones, N. L. & White, J. F. Phylogenetic evidence for an animal pathogen origin of ergot and the grass endophytes. Mol. Ecol. 16, 1701–1711 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
34.Xu, X. H. et al. The rice endophyte Harpophora oryzae genome reveals evolution from a pathogen to a mutualistic endophyte. Sci. Rep. 4, 1–9 (2014).CAS 

Google Scholar 
35.Weiß, M., Waller, F., Zuccaro, A. & Selosse, M. Sebacinales – one thousand and one interactions with land plants. N. Phytol. 211, 20–40 (2016).
Google Scholar 
36.Knapp, D. G. et al. Comparative genomics provides insights into the lifestyle and reveals functional heterogeneity of dark septate endophytic fungi. Sci. Rep. 8, 6321 (2018).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
37.Hettiarachchige, I. K. et al. Global changes in asexual Epichloë transcriptomes during the early stages, from seed to seedling, of symbiotum establishment. Microorg 9, 991 (2021).
Google Scholar 
38.Větrovský, T. et al. GlobalFungi, a global database of fungal occurrences from high-throughput-sequencing metabarcoding studies. Sci. Data 7, 1–14 (2020).
Google Scholar 
39.Agler, M. T. et al. Microbial hub taxa link host and abiotic factors to plant microbiome variation. PLoS Biol. 14, e1002352 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
40.Nguyen, N. H. et al. FUNGuild: an open annotation tool for parsing fungal community datasets by ecological guild. Fungal Ecol. 20, 241–248 (2016).
Google Scholar 
41.Selosse, M.-A., Schneider-Maunoury, L. & Martos, F. Time to re-think fungal ecology? Fungal ecological niches are often prejudged. N. Phytol. 217, 968–972 (2018).
Google Scholar 
42.Zuccaro, A. et al. Endophytic life strategies decoded by genome and transcriptome analyses of the mutualistic root symbiont Piriformospora indica. PLoS Pathog. 7, e1002290 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
43.David, A. S. et al. Draft genome sequence of Microdochium bolleyi, a dark septate fungal endophyte of beach grass. Genome Announc. 4, e00270-16 (2016).44.Walker, A. K. et al. Full genome of Phialocephala scopiformis DAOMC 229536, a fungal endophyte of spruce producing the potent anti-insectan compound rugulosin. Genome Announc. 4, e01768-15 (2016).45.Wu, W. et al. Characterization of four endophytic fungi as potential consolidated bioprocessing hosts for conversion of lignocellulose into advanced biofuels. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 101.6, 2603–2618 (2017).
Google Scholar 
46.Emms, D. M. & Kelly, S. OrthoFinder: phylogenetic orthology inference for comparative genomics. Genome Biol. 20, 1–14 (2019).
Google Scholar 
47.Csűös, M. Count: evolutionary analysis of phylogenetic profiles with parsimony and likelihood. Bioinformatics 26, 1910–1912 (2010).
Google Scholar 
48.Shah, F. et al. Ectomycorrhizal fungi decompose soil organic matter using oxidative mechanisms adapted from saprotrophic ancestors. N. Phytol. 209, 1705–1719 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
49.Pellegrin, C., Morin, E., Martin, F. M. & Veneault-Fourrey, C. Comparative analysis of secretomes from ectomycorrhizal fungi with an emphasis on small-secreted proteins. Front. Microbiol. 6, 1278 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
50.Tung Ho, L. S. & Ané, C. A linear-time algorithm for gaussian and non-gaussian trait evolution models. Syst. Biol. 63, 397–408 (2014).
Google Scholar 
51.Klopfenstein, D. V. et al. GOATOOLS: A Python library for Gene Ontology analyses. Sci. Rep. 8, 1–17 (2018).CAS 

Google Scholar 
52.Szklarczyk, D. et al. STRING v11: Protein-protein association networks with increased coverage, supporting functional discovery in genome-wide experimental datasets. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, D607–D613 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
53.Schulz, B. & Boyle, C. The endophytic continuum. Mycol. Res. 109, 661–686 (2005).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
54.Kim, D., Paggi, J. M., Park, C., Bennett, C. & Salzberg, S. L. Graph-based genome alignment and genotyping with HISAT2 and HISAT-genotype. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 907–915 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
55.Love, M. I., Huber, W. & Anders, S. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biol. 15, 550 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
56.Curran, D. M., Gilleard, J. S. & Wasmuth, J. D. MIPhy: identify and quantify rapidly evolving members of large gene fam. PeerJ 2018, e4873 (2018).
Google Scholar 
57.Atanasova, L. et al. Evolution and functional characterization of pectate lyase PEL12, a member of a highly expanded Clonostachys rosea polysaccharide lyase 1 family. BMC Microbiol. 18, 1–19 (2018).
Google Scholar 
58.Keim, J., Mishra, B., Sharma, R., Ploch, S. & Thines, M. Root-associated fungi of Arabidopsis thaliana and Microthlaspi perfoliatum. Fungal Divers 66, 99–111 (2014).
Google Scholar 
59.Vannier, N., Agler, M. & Hacquard, S. Microbiota-mediated disease resistance in plants. PLoS Pathog. 15, e1007740 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
60.Hassani, M. A., Durán, P. & Hacquard, S. Microbial interactions within the plant holobiont. Microbiome 6, 1–17 (2018).
Google Scholar 
61.Getzke, F., Thiergart, T. & Hacquard, S. Contribution of bacterial-fungal balance to plant and animal health. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 49, 66–72 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
62.Wolinska, K. W. et al. Tryptophan metabolism and bacterial commensals prevent fungal dysbiosis in Arabidopsis roots. Proc. Natl Acad Sci USA. 118, e2111521118 (2021).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
63.Lofgren, L. A. et al. Genome-based estimates of fungal rDNA copy number variation across phylogenetic scales and ecological lifestyles. Mol. Ecol. 28, 721–730 (2019).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
64.Karasov, T. L. et al. Arabidopsis thaliana and Pseudomonas pathogens exhibit stable associations over evolutionary timescales. Cell Host Microbe 24, 168–179.e4 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
65.Karasov, T. L. et al. The relationship between microbial population size and disease in the Arabidopsis thaliana phyllosphere. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.1101/828814 (2020).66.Benen, J. A. E., Kester, H. C. M., Pařenicová, L. & Visser, J. Characterization of Aspergillus niger pectate lyase A. Biochemistry 39, 15563–15569 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
67.Bauer, S., Vasu, P., Persson, S., Mort, A. J. & Somerville, C. R. Development and application of a suite of polysaccharide-degrading enzymes for analyzing plant cell walls. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 11417–11422 (2006).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
68.Bacic, A. Breaking an impasse in pectin biosynthesis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 5639–5640 (2006).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
69.Vogel, J. Unique aspects of the grass cell wall. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 11, 301–307 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
70.Bacete, L. et al. Arabidopsis response reGUlator 6 (ARR6) modulates plant cell-wall composition and disease resistance. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact. 33, 767–780 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
71.Molina, A. et al. Arabidopsis cell wall composition determines disease resistance specificity and fitness. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, 2021 (2021).
Google Scholar 
72.Sun, Z.-B. et al. Biology and applications of Clonostachys rosea. J. Appl. Microbiol. 129, 486–495 (2020).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
73.Broberg, M. et al. Comparative genomics highlights the importance of drug efflux transporters during evolution of mycoparasitism in Clonostachys subgenus Bionectria (Fungi, Ascomycota, Hypocreales). Evol. Appl. 14, 476–497 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
74.Edgar, R. C. Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics 26, 2460–2461 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

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

Google Scholar 
76.Grabherr, M. G. et al. Trinity: Reconstructing a full-length transcriptome without a genome from RNA-Seq data. Nat. Biotechnol. 29, 644 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
77.Grigoriev, I. V. et al. MycoCosm portal: gearing up for 1000 fungal genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, D699–D704 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
78.Nilsson, R. H. et al. The UNITE database for molecular identification of fungi: Handling dark taxa and parallel taxonomic classifications. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, D259–D264 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
79.Solovyev, V., Kosarev, P., Seledsov, I. & Vorobyev, D. Automatic annotation of eukaryotic genes, pseudogenes and promoters. Genome Biol. 7, S10 (2006).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
80.Cohen, O., Ashkenazy, H., Belinky, F., Huchon, D. & Pupko, T. GLOOME: gain-loss mapping engine. Bioinformatics 26, 2914–2915 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
81.Pedregosa, F. et al. Scikit-learn: machine learning in Python. J. Machine Learning Res. http://scikit-learn.sourceforge.net. (2011).82.Seppey, M., Manni, M. & Zdobnov, E. M. BUSCO: Assessing genome assembly and annotation completeness. In Methods in Molecular Biology vol. 1962, 227–245 (Humana Press Inc., 2019).83.Morin, E. et al. Comparative genomics of Rhizophagus irregularis, R. cerebriforme, R. diaphanus and Gigaspora rosea highlights specific genetic features in Glomeromycotina. N. Phytol. 222, 1584–1598 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
84.Cantarel, B. I. et al. The Carbohydrate-Active EnZymes database (CAZy): an expert resource for glycogenomics. Nucleic Acids Res. 37, 233–238 (2009).
Google Scholar 
85.Rawlings, N. D., Barrett, A. J. & Finn, R. Twenty years of the MEROPS database of proteolytic enzymes, their substrates and inhibitors. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, D343–D350 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
86.Fischer, M. & Pleiss, J. The Lipase Engineering Database: a navigation and analysis tool for protein families. Nucleic Acids Res. 31, 319–321 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
87.Cock, P. J. A. et al. Biopython: freely available Python tools for computational molecular biology and bioinformatics. Bioinformatics 25, 1422–1423 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
88.Deorowicz, S., Debudaj-Grabysz, A. & Gudys, A. FAMSA: Fast and accurate multiple sequence alignment of huge protein families. Sci. Rep. 6, 1–13 (2016).
Google Scholar 
89.Eddy, S. R. Accelerated profile HMM searches. PLoS Comput. Biol. 7, e1002195 (2011).90.Shannon, P. et al. Cytoscape: a software environment for integrated models of biomolecular interaction networks. Genome Res. 13, 2498–2504 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
91.Morris, J. H. et al. ClusterMaker: a multi-algorithm clustering plugin for Cytoscape. BMC Bioinforma. 12, 436 (2011).CAS 

Google Scholar 
92.Gruber, B. D., Giehl, R. F. H., Friedel, S. & von Wirén, N. Plasticity of the Arabidopsis root system under nutrient deficiencies. Plant Physiol. 163, 161–179 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
93.Hedges, L. V. Distribution Theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. J. Educ. Stat. 6, 107–128 (1981).
Google Scholar 
94.Bolger, A. M., Lohse, M. & Usadel, B. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 30, 2114–2120 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
95.Liao, Y., Smyth, G. K. & Shi, W. featureCounts: an efficient general purpose program for assigning sequence reads to genomic features. Bioinformatics 30, 923–930 (2014).CAS 

Google Scholar 
96.Zhu, A., Ibrahim, J. G. & Love, M. I. Heavy-tailed prior distributions for sequence count data: removing the noise and preserving large differences. Bioinformatics 35, 2084–2092 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
97.Mesny, F. Genomic determinants of endophytism in the Arabidopsis root mycobiome. GitHub https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5642698 (2021). More

1.Wright, I. J. et al. The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature 428, 821–827 (2004).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
2.Lourens, P. & Frans, B. Leaf traits are good predictors of plant performance across 53 rain forest species. Ecology 87, 1733–1743 (2006).
Google Scholar 
3.Domínguez, M. T. et al. Relationships between leaf morphological traits, nutrient concentrations and isotopic signatures for Mediterranean woody plant species and communities. Plant Soil 357, 407–424 (2012).
Google Scholar 
4.Tian, M., Yu, G., He, N. & Hou, J. Leaf morphological and anatomical traits from tropical to temperate coniferous forests Mechanisms and influencing factors. Sci. Rep. 6, 19703 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
5.Paź-Dyderska, S. et al. Leaf traits and aboveground biomass variability of forest understory herbaceous plant species. Ecosystems 23, 555–569 (2020).
Google Scholar 
6.Lusk, C. H. Leaf functional trait variation in a humid temperate forest, and relationships with juvenile tree light requirements. PeerJ 7, e6855 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
7.Liu, C., Li, Y., Xu, L., Chen, Z. & He, N. Variation in leaf morphological, stomatal, and anatomical traits and their relationships in temperate and subtropical forests. Sci. Rep. 9, 1–8 (2019).ADS 

Google Scholar 
8.Qin, J. & Shangguan, Z. Effects of forest types on leaf functional traits and their interrelationships of Pinus massoniana coniferous and broad-leaved mixed forests in the subtropical mountain, Southeastern China. Ecol. Evol. 9, 6922–6932 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
9.Smart, S. M. et al. Leaf dry matter content is better at predicting above-ground net primary production than specific leaf area. Funct. Ecol. 31, 1336–1344 (2017).
Google Scholar 
10.Osnas, J. L. D., Lichstein, J. W., Reich, P. B. & Pacala, S. W. Global leaf trait relationships: Mass, area, and the leaf economics spectrum. Science 340, 741–744 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
11.Pierce, S. et al. A global method for calculating plant CSR ecological strategies applied across biomes world-wide. Funct. Ecol. 31, 444–457 (2017).
Google Scholar 
12.Grime, J. P. Plant strategy theories: A comment on Craine (2005). J. Ecol. 95, 227–230 (2007).
Google Scholar 
13.Nam, K. J. & Lee, E. J. Variation in leaf functional traits of the Korean maple (Acer pseudosieboldianum) along an elevational gradient in a montane forest in Southern Korea. J. Ecol. Environ. 42, 33 (2018).
Google Scholar 
14.Li, Y. et al. Spatiotemporal variation in leaf size and shape in response to climate. J. Plant Ecol. 13, 87–96 (2020).
Google Scholar 
15.Liu, W., Zheng, L. & Qi, D. Variation in leaf traits at different altitudes reflects the adaptive strategy of plants to environmental changes. Ecol. Evol. 10, 8166–8175 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
16.Zhu, Z., Wang, X., Li, Y., Wang, G. & Guo, H. Predicting plant traits and functional types response to grazing in an alpine shrub meadow on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Sci. China Earth Sci. 55, 837–851 (2012).ADS 

Google Scholar 
17.Wang, J. et al. Response of plant functional traits to grazing for three dominant species in alpine steppe habitat of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, China. Ecol. Res. 31, 515–524 (2016).
Google Scholar 
18.Negi, G. C. S. Leaf and bud demography and shoot growth in evergreen and deciduous trees of central Himalaya, India. Trees 20, 416–429 (2006).
Google Scholar 
19.Osnas, J. L. D. et al. Divergent drivers of leaf trait variation within species, among species, and among functional groups. PNAS 115, 5480–5485 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
20.Liu, C., Li, Y., Xu, L., Chen, Z. & He, N. Variation in leaf morphological, stomatal, and anatomical traits and their relationships in temperate and subtropical forests. Sci. Rep. 9, 5803 (2019).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
21.Zobel, D. B. & Singh, S. P. Himalayan forests and ecological generalizations. Bioscience 47, 735–745 (1997).
Google Scholar 
22.Kattge, J. et al. TRY—A global database of plant traits. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 2905–2935 (2011).ADS 

Google Scholar 
23.Pérez-Harguindeguy, N. et al. New handbook for standardised measurement of plant functional traits worldwide. Aust. J. Bot. 61, 167 (2013).
Google Scholar 
24.Reich, P. B., Walters, M. B. & Ellsworth, D. S. From tropics to tundra: Global convergence in plant functioning. PNAS 94, 13730–13734 (1997).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
25.Güsewell, S. & Verhoeven, J. T. A. Litter N:P ratios indicate whether N or P limits the decomposability of graminoid leaf litter. Plant Soil 287, 131–143 (2006).
Google Scholar 
26.Niinemets, U. Is there a species spectrum within the world-wide leaf economics spectrum? Major variations in leaf functional traits in the Mediterranean sclerophyll Quercus ilex. New Phytol. 205, 79–96 (2015).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
27.Devi, A. F. & Garkoti, S. C. Variation in evergreen and deciduous species leaf phenology in Assam, India. Trees 27, 985–997 (2013).
Google Scholar 
28.Givnish, T. Adaptive significance of evergreen vs. deciduous leaves: Solving the triple paradox. Silva Fenn. 36, 703–743 (2002).
Google Scholar 
29.Liu, Y. et al. Does greater specific leaf area plasticity help plants to maintain a high performance when shaded?. Ann. Bot. 118, 1329–1336 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
30.Derroire, G., Powers, J. S., Hulshof, C. M., Varela, L. E. C. & Healey, J. R. Contrasting patterns of leaf trait variation among and within species during tropical dry forest succession in Costa Rica. Sci. Rep. 8, 285 (2018).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
31.Bai, K., He, C., Wan, X. & Jiang, D. Leaf economics of evergreen and deciduous tree species along an elevational gradient in a subtropical mountain. AoB Plants 7, plv064. https://doi.org/10.1093/aobpla/plv064 (2015).
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
32.Ma, S. et al. Variations and determinants of carbon content in plants: A global synthesis. Biogeosciences 15, 693–702 (2018).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
33.Singh, N. D. Leaf litter decomposition of evergreen and deciduous Dillenia species in humid tropics of north-east India. J. Trop. For. Sci. 14, 105–115 (2002).
Google Scholar 
34.Liang, X., Liu, S., Wang, H. & Wang, J. Variation of carbon and nitrogen stoichiometry along a chronosequence of natural temperate forest in northeastern China. J. Plant Ecol. 11, 339–350 (2018).
Google Scholar 
35.Lübbe, T., Schuldt, B. & Leuschner, C. Acclimation of leaf water status and stem hydraulics to drought and tree neighbourhood: Alternative strategies among the saplings of five temperate deciduous tree species. Tree Physiol. 37, 456–468 (2017).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
36.Young-Robertson, J. M., Bolton, W. R., Bhatt, U. S., Cristóbal, J. & Thoman, R. Deciduous trees are a large and overlooked sink for snowmelt water in the boreal forest. Sci. Rep. 6, 1–10 (2016).
Google Scholar 
37.Hogan, K. P., Smith, A. P. & Samaniego, M. Gas exchange in six tropical semi-deciduous forest canopy tree species during the wet and dry seasons. Biotropica 27, 324–333 (1995).
Google Scholar 
38.Keel, S. G., Pepin, S., Leuzinger, S. & Körner, C. Stomatal conductance in mature deciduous forest trees exposed to elevated CO2. Trees 21, 151 (2006).
Google Scholar 
39.Kosugi, Y. & Matsuo, N. Seasonal fluctuations and temperature dependence of leaf gas exchange parameters of co-occurring evergreen and deciduous trees in a temperate broad-leaved forest. Tree Physiol. 26, 1173–1184 (2006).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
40.Medlyn, B. E. et al. Stomatal conductance of forest species after long-term exposure to elevated CO2 concentration: A synthesis. New Phytol. 149, 247–264 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
41.Catovsky, S., Holbrook, N. M. & Bazzaz, F. A. Coupling whole-tree transpiration and canopy photosynthesis in coniferous and broad-leaved tree species. Can. J. For. Res. 32, 295–309 (2002).
Google Scholar 
42.Rawat, M., Arunachalam, K., Arunachalam, A., Alatalo, J. & Pandey, R. Associations of plant functional diversity with carbon accumulation in a temperate forest ecosystem in the Indian Himalayas. Ecol. Ind. 98, 861–868 (2019).
Google Scholar 
43.Weraduwage, S. M. et al. The relationship between leaf area growth and biomass accumulation in Arabidopsis thaliana. Front. Plant Sci. 6, 167 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
44.Sirisampan, S., Hiyama, T., Takahashi, A., Hashimoto, T. & Fukushima, Y. Diurnal and seasonal variations of stomatal conductance in a secondary temperate forest. J. Jpn. Soc. Hydrol. Water Resour. 16, 113–130 (2003).
Google Scholar 
45.Ghimire, C. P. et al. Transpiration and stomatal conductance in a young secondary tropical montane forest: Contrasts between native trees and invasive understorey shrubs. Tree Physiol. 38, 1053–1070 (2018).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
46.Kirschbaum, M. U. F. & McMillan, A. M. S. Warming and elevated CO2 have opposing influences on transpiration. Which is more important?. Curr. For. Rep. 4, 51–71 (2018).
Google Scholar 
47.Saha, S., Rajwar, G. S. & Kumar, M. Soil properties along altitudinal gradient in Himalayan temperate forest of Garhwal region. Acta Ecol. Sin. 38, 1–8 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
48.Raina, A. K. & Gupta, M. K. Soil characteristics in relation to vegetation and parent material under different forest covers in Kempty forest range, Uttarakhand. Indian Forester 135, 331–341 (2009).CAS 

Google Scholar 
49.Champion, S. H. G. & Seth, S. K. A Revised Survey of the Forest Types of India. (1968).50.Belluau, M. & Shipley, B. Linking hard and soft traits: Physiology, morphology and anatomy interact to determine habitat affinities to soil water availability in herbaceous dicots. PLoS ONE 13, e0193130 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
51.Rita, A. et al. Coordination of morphological and physiological traits in naturally recruited Abies alba Mill. saplings: Insights from a structural equation modeling approach. Ann. For. Sci. 74, 49 (2017).
Google Scholar 
52.Kumar, U., Singh, P. & Boote, K. J. Chapter two—effect of climate change factors on processes of crop growth and development and yield of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). In Advances in Agronomy Vol. 116 (ed. Sparks, D. L.) 41–69 (Academic Press, 2012).
Google Scholar 
53.Gratani, L., Pesoli, P. & Crescente, M. F. Relationship between photosynthetic activity and chlorophyll content in an isolated Quercus ilex L. tree during the year. Photosynthetica 35, 445–451 (1998).
Google Scholar 
54.Lin, H., Chen, Y., Zhang, H., Fu, P. & Fan, Z. Stronger cooling effects of transpiration and leaf physical traits of plants from a hot dry habitat than from a hot wet habitat. Funct. Ecol. 31, 2202–2211 (2017).
Google Scholar 
55.Damm, A., Haghighi, E., Paul-Limoges, E. & van der Tol, C. On the seasonal relation of sun-induced chlorophyll fluorescence and transpiration in a temperate mixed forest. Agric. For. Meteorol. 304–305, 108386 (2021).ADS 

Google Scholar 
56.Zhang, X. et al. Stomatal conductance bears no correlation with transpiration rate in wheat during their diurnal variation under high air humidity. PeerJ 8, e8927 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
57.Wang, C., Zhou, J., Xiao, H., Liu, J. & Wang, L. Variations in leaf functional traits among plant species grouped by growth and leaf types in Zhenjiang, China. J. For. Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-016-0290-6 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Cornelissen, J. H. C., Castro Diez, P. & Hunt, R. Seedling growth, allocation and leaf attributes in a wide range of woody plant species and types. J. Ecol. 84, 755–765 (1996).
Google Scholar 
59.Zhang, S., Zhang, Y. & Ma, K. The association of leaf lifespan and background insect herbivory at the interspecific level. Ecology 98, 425–432 (2017).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
60.Cunningham, S., Summerhayes, B. & Westoby, M. Evolutionary divergences in leaf structure and chemistry, comparing rainfall and soil nutrient gradients. Ecol. Monogr. 69(4), 569–588. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9615(1999)069[0569:EDILSA]2.0.CO;2 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Reich, P. B. et al. Generality of leaf trait relationships: A test across six biomes. Ecology 80, 1955–1969 (1999).
Google Scholar 
62.Fyllas, N. M. et al. Functional trait variation among and within species and plant functional types in mountainous Mediterranean forests. Front. Plant Sci. 11, 212 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
63.De Long, J. R. et al. Relationships between plant traits, soil properties and carbon fluxes differ between monocultures and mixed communities in temperate grassland. J. Ecol. 107, 1704–1719 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar  More

1.Baker, A. & Brooks, R. Terrestrial higher plants which hyperaccumulate metallic elements, a review of their distribution, ecology and phytochemistry. Biorecovery 1, 81–126 (1989).CAS 

Google Scholar 
2.Reeves, R. D. et al. A global database for plants that hyperaccumulate metal and metalloid trace elements. New Phytol. 218, 407–411 (2018).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
3.Reeves, R. D., Baker, A. J. M., Borhidi, A. & Berazaín, R. Nickel-accumulating plants from the ancient serpentine soils of Cuba. New Phytol. 133, 217–224 (1996).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
4.Reeves, R., Baker, A., Borhidi, A. & Berazaín Iturralde, R. Nickel hyperaccumulation in the serpentine flora of Cuba. Ann. Bot. 83, 29–38 (1999).CAS 

Google Scholar 
5.Whiting, S. N. et al. Research priorities for conservation of metallophyte biodiversity and their potential for restoration and site remediation. Restor. Ecol. 12, 106–116 (2004).
Google Scholar 
6.Jaffré, T., Pillon, Y., Thomine, S. & Merlot, S. The metal hyperaccumulators from New Caledonia can broaden our understanding of nickel accumulation in plants. Front. Plant Sci. 4, 279 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
7.Losfeld, G. et al. Leaf-age and soil–plant relationships: Key factors for reporting trace-elements hyperaccumulation by plants and design applications. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 22, 5620–5632 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
8.Gei, V. et al. Tools for the discovery of hyperaccumulator plant species and understanding their ecophysiology. In Agromining: Farming for metals: Extracting unconventional resources using plants (eds Van der Ent, A. et al.) 117–133 (Springer International Publishing, 2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61899-9_7.Chapter 

Google Scholar 
9.Gei, V. et al. A systematic assessment of the occurrence of trace element hyperaccumulation in the flora of New Caledonia. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 194, 1–22 (2020).
Google Scholar 
10.Grison, C., Escande, V. & Biton, J. Ecocatalysis: A New Integrated Approach to Scientific Ecology (Elsevier, 2015).
Google Scholar 
11.Grison, C. Special issue in environmental science and pollution research: Combining phytoextraction and ecocatalysis: an environmental, ecological, ethic and economic opportunity. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 22, 5589–5698 (2015).
Google Scholar 
12.Grison, C., Escande, V. & Olszewski, T. K. Ecocatalysis: A new approach toward bioeconomy, chapter 25. In Bioremediation and Bioeconomy (ed. Prasad, M. N. V.) 629–663 (Elsevier, 2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-802830-8.00025-3.Chapter 

Google Scholar 
13.Deyris, P.-A. & Grison, C. Nature, ecology and chemistry: An unusual combination for a new green catalysis, ecocatalysis. Curr. Opin. Green Sustain. Chem. 10, 6–10 (2018).
Google Scholar 
14.Grison, C. & LockToyKi, Y. Ecocatalysis, a new vision of green and sustainable chemistry. Curr. Opin. Green Sustain. Chem. 29, 100461 (2021).
Google Scholar 
15.Chaney, R. L., Angle, J. S., Li, Y.-M. & Baker, A. J. M. Recuperation de metaux presents dans des sols (2000).16.Chaney, R. L. et al. Improved understanding of hyperaccumulation yields commercial phytoextraction and phytomining technologies. J. Environ. Qual. 36, 1429–1443 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
17.Li, Y.-M. et al. Development of a technology for commercial phytoextraction of nickel: Economic and technical considerations. Plant Soil 249, 107–115 (2003).CAS 

Google Scholar 
18.Strawn, K. Unearthing the habitat of a hyperaccumulator: Case study of the invasive plant yellowtuft (Alyssum; Brassicaceae) in Southwest Oregon, USA. Manag. Biol. Invasions 4, 249–259 (2013).
Google Scholar 
19.Grison, C. et al. Psychotria douarrei and Geissois pruinosa, novel resources for the plant-based catalytic chemistry. RSC Adv. 3, 22340–22345 (2013).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
20.Lange, B. et al. Copper and cobalt mobility in soil and accumulation in a metallophyte as influenced by experimental manipulation of soil chemical factors. Chemosphere 146, 75–84 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
21.Grison, C. M. et al. The leguminous species Anthyllis vulneraria as a Zn-hyperaccumulator and eco-Zn catalyst resources. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 22, 5667–5676 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
22.Escande, V. et al. Ecological catalysis and phytoextraction: Symbiosis for future. Appl. Catal. B 146, 279–288 (2014).CAS 

Google Scholar 
23.Liu, C. et al. Element case studies: Rare earth elements. In Agromining: Farming for Metals (Springer, 2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61899-9_1924.Lahl, U. & Hawxwell, K. A. REACH—The new European chemicals law. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40, 7115–7121 (2006).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
25.Sarrailh, J.-M. La revégétalisation des exploitations minières: l’exemple de la Nouvelle-Calédonie. Bois For. Trop. (2002).26.Losfeld, G. et al. Phytoextraction from mine spoils: Insights from New Caledonia. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 22, 5608–5619 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
27.Garel, C. et al. Structure and composition of first biosourced Mn-rich catalysts with a unique vegetal footprint. Mater. Today Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtsust.2019.100020 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Jaffré, T. Accumulation du manganèse par les Protéacées de Nouvelle Calédonie. Compt. Rend. Acad. Sci. (Paris) Sér. D 289, 425–428 (1979).
Google Scholar 
29.Jaffré, T. Plantes de Nouvelle Calédonie permettant de revégétaliser des sites miniers (SLN, 1992).
Google Scholar 
30.Jaffré, T. Accumulation du manganèse par des espèces associées aux terrains ultrabasiques de Nouvelle Calédonie. Compt. Rend. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. D 284, 1573–1575 (1977).
Google Scholar 
31.Luçon, S., Marion, F., Niel, J. F. & Pelletier, B. Réhabilitation des sites miniers sur roches ultramafiques en Nouvelle-Calédonie. In Ecologie des milieux sur roches ultramafiques et sur sols métallifères: actes de la deuxième conférence internationale sur l’écologie des milieux serpentiniques Vol. III (eds Jaffré, T. et al.) 297–303 (ORSTOM, 1997).
Google Scholar 
32.Reeves, R. D. Tropical hyperaccumulators of metals and their potential for phytoextraction. Plant Soil 249, 57–65 (2003).CAS 

Google Scholar 
33.L’Huillier, L. et al. La restauration des sites miniers. In Mines et environnement en Nouvelle Calédonie: les milieux sur substrats ultramafiques et leur restauration (eds L’Huillier, L. et al.) 147–230 (IAC, 2010).
Google Scholar 
34.Udo, H., Barrault, J. & Gâteblé, G. Multiplication et valorisation horticole de plantes indigènes à la Nouvelle-Calédonie: Compte-rendu des essais 2011 (2011).35.Jaffré, T. Etude écologique du peuplement végétal des sols dérivés de roches ultrabasiques en Nouvelle Calédonie (ORSTOM, 1980).
Google Scholar 
36.Baker, A., Mcgrath, S., Reeves, R. & Smith, J. A. C. Metal hyperaccumulator plants: A review of the ecology and physiology of a biological resource for phytoremediation of metal-polluted soils. Phytoremediat. Contamin. Soil Water. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780367803148-5 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Bihanic, C., Richards, K., Olszewski, T. K. & Grison, C. Eco-Mn ecocatalysts: Toolbox for sustainable and green Lewis acid catalysis and oxidation reactions. ChemCatChem 12, 1529–1545 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
38.Pillon, Y., Munzinger, J., Amir, H. & Lebrun, M. Ultramafic soils and species sorting in the flora of New Caledonia. J. Ecol. 98, 1108–1116 (2010).
Google Scholar 
39.Bidwell, S. D., Woodrow, I. E., Batianoff, G. N. & Sommer-Knudsen, J. Hyperaccumulation of manganese in the rainforest tree Austromyrtus bidwillii (Myrtaceae) from Queensland, Australia. Funct. Plant Biol. 29, 899–905 (2002).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
40.Fernando, D. R. et al. Foliar Mn accumulation in eastern Australian herbarium specimens: Prospecting for ‘new’ Mn hyperaccumulators and potential applications in taxonomy. Ann. Bot. 103, 931–939 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
41.Mizuno, T. et al. Age-dependent manganese hyperaccumulation in Chengiopanax sciadophylloides (Araliaceae). J. Plant Nutr. 31, 1811–1819 (2008).CAS 

Google Scholar 
42.Xue, S. G. et al. Manganese uptake and accumulation by the hyperaccumulator plant Phytolacca acinosa Roxb. (Phytolaccaceae). Environ. Pollut. 131, 393–399 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
43.Yang, S. X., Deng, H. & Li, M. S. Manganese uptake and accumulation in a woody hyperaccumulator, Schima superba. Plant Soil Environ. 54, 441–446 (2008).CAS 

Google Scholar 
44.Proctor, J., Phillipps, C., Duff, G. K., Heaney, A. & Robertson, F. M. Ecological studies on Gunung Silam, a small ultrabasic Mountain in Sabah, Malaysia. II. Some Forest Processes. J. Ecol. 77, 317–331 (1989).CAS 

Google Scholar 
45.Graham, R. D., Hannam, R. J. & Uren, N. C. Manganese in Soils and Plants. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2817-6 (Springer Netherlands, 1988).46.Loneragan, J. F. Distribution and movement of manganese in plants. In Manganese in Soils and Plants (eds Graham, R. D. et al.) 113–124 (Springer Netherlands, 1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2817-6_9.Chapter 

Google Scholar 
47.Taiz, L. & Zeiger, E. Plant Physiology 3rd edn. (Sinauer Associates Inc., 2002).
Google Scholar 
48.Burnell, J. N. The biochemistry of manganese in plants. In Manganese in Soils and Plants (eds Graham, R. D. et al.) 125–137 (Springer Netherlands, 1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2817-6_10.Chapter 

Google Scholar 
49.Lidon, F. C., Barreiro, M. G. & Ramalho, J. C. Manganese accumulation in rice: Implications for photosynthetic functioning. J. Plant Physiol. 161, 1235–1244 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
50.Rengel, Z. Availability of Mn, Zn and Fe in the rhizosphere. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 15, 397–409 (2015).
Google Scholar 
51.Schmidt, S. B., Jensen, P. E. & Husted, S. Manganese deficiency in plants: The impact on photosystem II. Trends Plant Sci. 21, 622–632 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
52.Wissemeier, A. H. & Horst, W. J. Simplified methods for screening cowpea cultivars for manganese leaf-tissue tolerance. Crop Sci. 31, 435–439 (1991).CAS 

Google Scholar 
53.Joardar Mukhopadhyay, M. & Sharma, A. Manganese in cell metabolism of higher plants. Bot. Rev. 57, 117–149 (1991).
Google Scholar 
54.Lynch, J. & St. Clair, S. Mineral stress: The missing link in understanding how global climate change will affect plants in real world soils. Field Crops Res. 90, 101–115 (2004).
Google Scholar 
55.Alejandro, S., Höller, S., Meier, B. & Peiter, E. Manganese in plants: From acquisition to subcellular allocation. Front. Plant Sci 11, 300 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
56.Shao, J. F., Yamaji, N., Shen, R. F. & Ma, J. F. The key to Mn homeostasis in plants: Regulation of Mn transporters. Trends Plant Sci. 22, 215–224 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
57.Millaleo, R., Reyes-Diaz, M., Ivanov, A. G., Mora, M. L. & Alberdi, M. Manganese as essential and toxic element for plants: Transport, accumulation and resistance mechanisms. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 10, 470–481 (2010).
Google Scholar 
58.Vázquez, M. D. et al. Localization of zinc and cadmium in Thlaspi caerulescens (Brassicaceae), a metallophyte that can hyperaccumulate both metals. J. Plant Physiol. 140, 350–355 (1992).
Google Scholar 
59.Krämer, U., Grime, G. W., Smith, J. A. C., Hawes, C. R. & Baker, A. J. M. Micro-PIXE as a technique for studying nickel localization in leaves of the hyperaccumulator plant Alyssum lesbiacum. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. B 130, 346–350 (1997).ADS 

Google Scholar 
60.Küpper, H., Lombi, E., Zhao, F.-J. & McGrath, S. P. Cellular compartmentation of cadmium and zinc in relation to other elements in the hyperaccumulator Arabidopsis halleri. Planta 212, 75–84 (2000).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
61.Küpper, H., Lombi, E., Zhao, F.-J., Wieshammer, G. & McGrath, S. P. Cellular compartmentation of nickel in the hyperaccumulators Alyssum lesbiacum, Alyssum bertolonii and Thlaspi goesingense. J. Exp. Bot. 52, 2291–2300 (2001).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
62.Mesjasz-Przybyłowicz, J., Przybyłowicz, W. & Pineda, C. Nuclear microprobe studies of elemental distribution in apical leaves of the Ni hyperaccumulator Berkheya coddii. S. Afr. J. Sci. 97, 591 (2001).
Google Scholar 
63.Robinson, B. H., Lombi, E., Zhao, F. J. & McGrath, S. P. Uptake and distribution of nickel and other metals in the hyperaccumulator Berkheya coddii. New Phytol. 158, 279–285 (2003).CAS 

Google Scholar 
64.Bidwell, S. D., Crawford, S. A., Woodrow, I. E., Sommer-Knudsen, J. & Marshall, A. T. Sub-cellular localization of Ni in the hyperaccumulator, Hybanthus floribundus (Lindley) F. Muell. Plant Cell Environ. 27, 705–716 (2004).CAS 

Google Scholar 
65.Memon, A. R., Chino, M., Takeoka, Y., Hara, K. & Yatazawa, M. Distribution of manganese in leaf tissues of manganese accumulator: Acanthopanax sciadophylloides as revealed by Electronprobe X-Ray Microanalyzer. J. Plant Nutr. 2, 457–476 (1980).CAS 

Google Scholar 
66.Memon, A. R., Chino, M., Hara, K. & Yatazawa, M. Microdistribution of manganese in the leaf tissues of different plant species as revealed by X-ray microanalyzer. Physiol. Plant. 53, 225–232 (1981).CAS 

Google Scholar 
67.Xu, X. et al. Distribution and mobility of manganese in the hyperaccumulator plant Phytolacca acinosa Roxb. (Phytolaccaceae). Plant Soil 285, 323–331 (2006).CAS 

Google Scholar 
68.Fernando, D. R. et al. Novel pattern of foliar metal distribution in a manganese hyperaccumulator. Funct. Plant Biol. 35, 193 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
69.Fernando, D. R. et al. Foliar manganese accumulation by Maytenus founieri (Celastraceae) in its native New Caledonian habitats: Populational variation and localization by X-ray microanalysis. New Phytol. 177, 178–185 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
70.Fernando, D. R. et al. Manganese accumulation in the leaf mesophyll of four tree species: A PIXE/EDAX localization study. New Phytol. 171, 751–757 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
71.Fernando, D. R. et al. Variability of Mn hyperaccumulation in the Australian rainforest tree Gossia bidwillii (Myrtaceae). Plant Soil 293, 145–152 (2007).CAS 

Google Scholar 
72.Fernando, D. R., Marshall, A., Baker, A. J. M. & Mizuno, T. Microbeam methodologies as powerful tools in manganese hyperaccumulation research: present status and future directions. Front. Plant Sci. 4, 319 (2013).73.Fernando, D. R., Woodrow, I. E., Baker, A. J. M. & Marshall, A. T. Plant homeostasis of foliar manganese sinks: Specific variation in hyperaccumulators. Planta 236, 1459–1470 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
74.Fernando, D. R., Marshall, A. T. & Green, P. T. Cellular ion interactions in two endemic tropical rainforest species of a novel metallophytic tree genus. Tree Physiol. 38, 119–128 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
75.Bihanic, C. et al. Eco-CaMnOx: A greener generation of eco-catalysts for eco-friendly oxidation processes. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 8, 4044–4057 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
76.Park, Y. J. & Doeff, M. M. Synthesis and electrochemical characterization of M2Mn3O8 (M = Ca, Cu) compounds and derivatives. Solid State Ion. 177, 893–900 (2006).CAS 

Google Scholar 
77.Harper, F. A. et al. Metal coordination in hyperaccumulating plants studied using EXAFS. In Synchrotron Radiation Department Scientific Reports 102 (eds Murphy, B. et al.) (Central Laboratory of Research Councils, 1999).
Google Scholar 
78.Rabier, J., Laffont-Schwob, I., Notonier, R., Fogliani, B. & Bouraïma-Madjèbi, S. Anatomical element localization by EDXS in Grevillea exul var. exul under nickel stress. Environ. Pollut. 156, 1156–1163 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
79.Fernando, D. R., Mizuno, T., Woodrow, I. E., Baker, A. J. M. & Collins, R. N. Characterization of foliar manganese (Mn) in Mn (hyper)accumulators using X-ray absorption spectroscopy. New Phytol. 188, 1014–1027 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
80.Fritsch, E. Les sols. In Atlas de la Nouvelle Calédonie (eds Bonvallot, J. et al.) 73–76 (IRD, 2012).
Google Scholar 
81.Isnard, S., L’huillier, L., Rigault, F. & Jaffré, T. How did the ultramafic soils shape the flora of the New Caledonian hotspot?. Plant Soil 403, 53–76 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
82.Jaffré, T. Composition chimique et conditions de l’alimentation minérale des plantes sur roches ultrabasiques (Nouvelle Calédonie). Cah. ORSTOM. Sér. Biol. 11, 53–63 (1976).
Google Scholar 
83.Majourau, P. & Pillon, Y. A review of Grevillea (Proteaceae) from New Caledonia with the description of two new species. Phytotaxa 477, 243–252 (2020).
Google Scholar 
84.Jaffré, T. & Latham, M. Contribution à l’étude des relations sol-végétation sur un massif de roches ultrabasiques de la côte Ouest de la Nouvelle Calédonie: le Boulinda. Adansonia. Série 2(14), 311–336 (1974).
Google Scholar 
85.L’Huillier, L. et al. Mines et environnement en Nouvelle-Caledonie: les milieux sur substrats ultramafiques et leur restauration (IAC, 2010).
Google Scholar 
86.Purnell, H. M. Studies of the family Proteaceae. I. Anatomy and morphology of the roots of some Victorian species. Aust. J. Bot. 8, 38–50 (1960).
Google Scholar 
87.Lamont, B. B. Structure, ecology and physiology of root clusters—A review. Plant Soil 248, 1–19 (2003).CAS 

Google Scholar 
88.Shane, M. W. & Lambers, H. Manganese accumulation in leaves of Hakea prostrata (Proteaceae) and the significance of cluster roots for micronutrient uptake as dependent on phosphorus supply. Physiol. Plant. 124, 441–450 (2005).CAS 

Google Scholar 
89.Dinkelaker, B., Hengeler, C. & Marschner, H. Distribution and function of proteoid roots and other root clusters. Bot. Acta 108, 183–200 (1995).
Google Scholar 
90.Castillo-Michel, H. A., Larue, C., Pradas del Real, A. E., Cotte, M. & Sarret, G. Practical review on the use of synchrotron based micro- and nano- X-ray fluorescence mapping and X-ray absorption spectroscopy to investigate the interactions between plants and engineered nanomaterials. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 110, 13–32 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
91.Vantelon, D. et al. The LUCIA beamline at SOLEIL. J. Synchrotron Radiat. 23, 635–640 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
92.Solé, V. A., Papillon, E., Cotte, M., Walter, P. & Susini, J. A multiplatform code for the analysis of energy-dispersive X-ray fluorescence spectra. Spectrochim. Acta Part B 62, 63–68 (2007).ADS 

Google Scholar 
93.Ravel, B. & Newville, M. ATHENA, ARTEMIS, HEPHAESTUS: Data analysis for X-ray absorption spectroscopy using IFEFFIT. J. Synchrotron Radiat. 12, 537–541 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
94.Schindelin, J. et al. Fiji: An open-source platform for biological-image analysis. Nat. Methods 9, 676–682 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
95.Losfeld, G. L’association de la phytoextraction et de l’écocatalyse : un nouveau concept de chimie verte, une opportunité pour la remédiation de sites miniers. (Montpellier 2, 2014).96.van der Ent, A. et al. X-ray fluorescence elemental mapping of roots, stems and leaves of the nickel hyperaccumulators Rinorea cf. bengalensis and Rinorea cf. javanica (Violaceae) from Sabah (Malaysia), Borneo. Plant Soil. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-019-04386-2 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
97.Belli, M. et al. X-ray absorption near edge structures (XANES) in simple and complex Mn compounds. Solid State Commun. 35, 355–361 (1980).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
98.van der Ent, A. et al. X-ray elemental mapping techniques for elucidating the ecophysiology of hyperaccumulator plants. New Phytol. 218, 432–452 (2018).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
99.Neumann, G. & Martinoia, E. Cluster roots—An underground adaptation for survival in extreme environments. Trends Plant Sci. 7, 162–167 (2002).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
100.Memon, A. R. & Yatazawa, M. Nature of manganese complexes in manganese accumulator plant—Acanthopanax sciadophylloides. J. Plant Nutr. 7, 961–974 (1984).CAS 

Google Scholar 
101.Xu, X., Shi, J., Chen, X., Chen, Y. & Hu, T. Chemical forms of manganese in the leaves of manganese hyperaccumulator Phytolacca acinosa Roxb. (Phytolaccaceae). Plant Soil 318, 197 (2008).
Google Scholar 
102.Fernando, D. R., Baker, A. J. M. & Woodrow, I. E. Physiological responses in Macadamia integrifolia on exposure to manganese treatment. Aust. J. Bot. 57, 406 (2009).CAS 

Google Scholar 
103.Fernando, D. R., Batianoff, G. N., Baker, A. J. & Woodrow, I. E. In vivo localization of manganese in the hyperaccumulator Gossia bidwillii (Benth.) N. Snow & Guymer (Myrtaceae) by cryo-SEM/EDAX. Plant Cell Environ. 29, 1012–1020 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
104.Léon, V. et al. Effects of three nickel salts on germinating seeds of Grevillea exul var. rubiginosa, an endemic serpentine Proteaceae. Ann. Bot. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mci066 (2005).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
105.Jaffré, T., Latham, M. & Schmid, M. Aspects de l’influence de l’extraction du minerai de nickel sur la végétation et les sols en Nouvelle-Calédonie. Cah. ORSTOM. Sér. Biol. 12, 307–321 (1977).
Google Scholar 
106.Boyd, R. S. & Martens, S. The raison d’etre for metal hyperaccumulation by plants (1992).107.Krämer, U., Pickering, I. J., Prince, R. C., Raskin, I. & Salt, D. E. Subcellular localization and speciation of nickel in hyperaccumulator and non-accumulator Thlaspi species. Plant Physiol. 122, 1343–1353 (2000).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
108.Asemaneh, T., Ghaderian, S. M., Crawford, S. A., Marshall, A. T. & Baker, A. J. M. Cellular and subcellular compartmentation of Ni in the Eurasian serpentine plants Alyssum bracteatum, Alyssum murale (Brassicaceae) and Cleome heratensis (Capparaceae). Planta 225, 193–202 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
109.Küpper, H., Jie Zhao, F. & McGrath, S. P. Cellular compartmentation of zinc in leaves of the hyperaccumulator Thlaspi caerulescens. Plant Physiol. 119, 305–312 (1999).PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
110.Abubakari, F. et al. Incidence of hyperaccumulation and tissue-level distribution of manganese, cobalt and zinc in the genus Gossia (Myrtaceae). Metallomics https://doi.org/10.1093/mtomcs/mfab008 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
111.White, P. J. Long-distance transport in the xylem and phloem, chapter 3. In Marschner’s Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants 3rd edn (ed. Marschner, P.) 49–70 (Academic Press, 2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-384905-2.00003-0.Chapter 

Google Scholar 
112.Marschner, H. Marschner’s Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants (Academic Press, 2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/C2009-0-63043-9.Book 

Google Scholar 
113.Fernando, D. R. et al. Does foliage metal accumulation influence plant-insect interactions? A field study of two sympatric tree metallophytes. Funct. Plant Biol. 45, 945–956 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
114.Pearson, R. G. Hard and soft acids and bases, HSAB, part 1: Fundamental principles. J. Chem. Educ. 45, 581 (1968).CAS 

Google Scholar 
115.Alejandro, S., Höller, S., Meier, B. & Peiter, E. Manganese in plants: From acquisition to subcellular allocation. Front. Plant Sci. 11, 300 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
116.Hirschi, K. D., Korenkov, V. D., Wilganowski, N. L. & Wagner, G. J. Expression of Arabidopsis CAX2 in tobacco. Altered metal accumulation and increased manganese tolerance. Plant Physiol. 124, 125–134 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
117.Wu, Z. et al. An endoplasmic reticulum-bound Ca(2+)/Mn(2+) pump, ECA1, supports plant growth and confers tolerance to Mn(2+) stress. Plant Physiol. 130, 128–137 (2002).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
118.Pittman, J. K. Managing the manganese: Molecular mechanisms of manganese transport and homeostasis. New Phytol. 167, 733–742 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
119.Mills, R. F. et al. ECA3, a Golgi-localized P2A-type ATPase, plays a crucial role in manganese nutrition in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 146, 116–128 (2008).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
120.Mizuno, T., Emori, K. & Ito, S. Manganese hyperaccumulation from non-contaminated soil in Chengiopanax sciadophylloides Franch. et Sav. and its correlation with calcium accumulation. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 59, 591–602 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
121.Tordoff, G. M., Baker, A. J. M. & Willis, A. J. Current approaches to the revegetation and reclamation of metalliferous mine wastes. Chemosphere 41, 219–228 (2000).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
122.Grossnickle, S. & Ivetic, V. Direct seeding in reforestation—A field performance review. REFORESTA https://doi.org/10.21750/REFOR.4.07.46 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
123.Bermúdez-Contreras, A. I., Ede, F., Waymouth, V., Miller, R. & Aponte, C. Revegetation technique changes root mycorrhizal colonisation and root fungal communities: The advantage of direct seeding over transplanting tube-stock in riparian ecosystems. Plant Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-020-01031-2 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.Kislyuk AO, Haegeman B, Bergman NH, Weitz JS. Genomic fluidity: an integrative view of gene diversity within microbial populations. BMC Genom. 2011;12:1–10.
Google Scholar 
2.Tettelin H, Riley D, Cattuto C, Medini D. Comparative genomics: the bacterial pan-genome. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2008;11:472–7.CAS 

Google Scholar 
3.Tettelin H, Masignani V, Cieslewicz MJ, Donati C, Medini D, Ward NL, et al. Genome analysis of multiple pathogenic isolates of Streptococcus agalactiae: implications for the microbial “pan-genome”. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005;102:13950–5.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
4.Medini D, Donati C, Tettelin H, Masignani V, Rappuoli R. The microbial pan-genome. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2005;15:589–94.CAS 

Google Scholar 
5.Vernikos G, Medini D, Riley DR, Tettelin H. Ten years of pan-genome analyses. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2015;23:148–54.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
6.Caro-Quintero A, Konstantinidis KT. Bacterial species may exist, metagenomics reveal. Environ Microbiol. 2012;14:347–55.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
7.Garcia SL, Stevens SLR, Crary B, Martinez-Garcia M, Stepanauskas R, Woyke T, et al. Contrasting patterns of genome-level diversity across distinct co-occurring bacterial populations. ISME J. 2018;12:742–55.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
8.Olm MR, Crits-Christoph A, Diamond S, Lavy A, Matheus Carnevali PB, Banfield JF. Consistent metagenome-derived metrics verify and delineate bacterial species boundaries. mSystems. 2020;5:e00731–19.9.Konstantinidis KT, DeLong EF. Genomic patterns of recombination, clonal divergence and environment in marine microbial populations. ISME J. 2008;2:1052–65.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
10.Bendall ML, Stevens SL, Chan LK, Malfatti S, Schwientek P, Tremblay J, et al. Genome-wide selective sweeps and gene-specific sweeps in natural bacterial populations. ISME J. 2016;10:1589–601.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
11.Johnston ER, Rodriguez RL, Luo C, Yuan MM, Wu L, He Z, et al. Metagenomics reveals pervasive bacterial populations and reduced community diversity across the Alaska tundra ecosystem. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:579.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
12.Meziti A, Tsementzi D, Rodriguez RL, Hatt JK, Karayanni H, Kormas KA, et al. Quantifying the changes in genetic diversity within sequence-discrete bacterial populations across a spatial and temporal riverine gradient. ISME J. 2019;13:767–79.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
13.Orellana LH, Ben Francis T, Kruger K, Teeling H, Muller MC, Fuchs BM, et al. Niche differentiation among annually recurrent coastal Marine Group II Euryarchaeota. ISME J. 2019;13:3024–36.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
14.Jain C, Rodriguez RL, Phillippy AM, Konstantinidis KT, Aluru S. High throughput ANI analysis of 90K prokaryotic genomes reveals clear species boundaries. Nat Commun. 2018;9:5114.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
15.Shapiro BJ, Polz MF. Ordering microbial diversity into ecologically and genetically cohesive units. Trends Microbiol. 2014;22:235–47.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
16.Andreani NA, Hesse E, Vos M. Prokaryote genome fluidity is dependent on effective population size. ISME J. 2017;11:1719–21.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
17.Konstantinidis KT, Ramette A, Tiedje JM. The bacterial species definition in the genomic era. Philos Trans R Soc B 2006;361:1929–40.
Google Scholar 
18.McInerney JO, McNally A, O’Connell MJ. Why prokaryotes have pangenomes. Nat Microbiol. 2017;2:17040.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
19.Bowers RM, Kyrpides NC, Stepanauskas R, Harmon-Smith M, Doud D, Reddy TBK, et al. Minimum information about a single amplified genome (MISAG) and a metagenome-assembled genome (MIMAG) of bacteria and archaea. Nat Biotechnol. 2017;35:725–31.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
20.Tully BJ, Graham ED, Heidelberg JF. The reconstruction of 2,631 draft metagenome-assembled genomes from the global oceans. Sci Data. 2018;5:170203.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
21.Chen LX, Anantharaman K, Shaiber A, Eren AM, Banfield JF. Accurate and complete genomes from metagenomes. Genome Res. 2020;30:315–33.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
22.Shaiber A, Eren AM. Composite metagenome-assembled genomes reduce the quality of public genome repositories. mBio. 2019;10:e00725–19.23.Hug LA, Baker BJ, Anantharaman K, Brown CT, Probst AJ, Castelle CJ, et al. A new view of the tree of life. Nat Microbiol. 2016;1:16048.CAS 

Google Scholar 
24.Meziti A, Rodriguez-R LM, Hatt JK, Peña-Gonzalez A, Levy K, Konstantinidis KT. The reliability of metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) in representing natural populations: Insights from comparing MAGs against isolate genomes derived from the same fecal sample. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2021;87:e02593–20.25.Meziti A, Tsementzi D, Ar Kormas K, Karayanni H, Konstantinidis KT. Anthropogenic effects on bacterial diversity and function along a river-to-estuary gradient in Northwest Greece revealed by metagenomics. Environ Microbiol. 2016;18:4640–52.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
26.Arevalo P, VanInsberghe D, Elsherbini J, Gore J, Polz MF. A reverse ecology approach based on a biological definition of microbial populations. Cell. 2019;178:820–34.e14.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
27.Delmont TO, Eren AM. Linking pangenomes and metagenomes: the Prochlorococcus metapangenome. PeerJ. 2018;6:e4320.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
28.Delmont TO, Kiefl E, Kilinc O, Esen OC, Uysal I, Rappe MS, et al. Single-amino acid variants reveal evolutionary processes that shape the biogeography of a global SAR11 subclade. Elife. 2019;8:e46497.29.Berube PM, Biller SJ, Hackl T, Hogle SL, Satinsky BM, Becker JW, et al. Single cell genomes of Prochlorococcus, Synechococcus, and sympatric microbes from diverse marine environments. Sci Data. 2018;5:1–11.
Google Scholar 
30.Kashtan N, Roggensack SE, Rodrigue S, Thompson JW, Biller SJ, Coe A, et al. Single-cell genomics reveals hundreds of coexisting subpopulations in wild Prochlorococcus. Science. 2014;344:416–20.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
31.Viver T, Orellana LH, Diaz S, Urdiain M, Ramos-Barbero MD, Gonzalez-Pastor JE, et al. Predominance of deterministic microbial community dynamics in salterns exposed to different light intensities. Environ Microbiol. 2019;21:4300–15.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
32.Viver T, Cifuentes A, Diaz S, Rodriguez-Valdecantos G, Gonzalez B, Anton J, et al. Diversity of extremely halophilic cultivable prokaryotes in Mediterranean, Atlantic and Pacific solar salterns: evidence that unexplored sites constitute sources of cultivable novelty. Syst Appl Microbiol. 2015;38:266–75.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
33.Viver T, Conrad RE, Orellana LH, Urdiain M, González-Pastor JE, Hatt JK, et al. Distinct ecotypes within a natural haloarchaeal population enable adaptation to changing environmental conditions without causing population sweeps. ISME J. 2020:15:1–14.34.Konstantinidis KT, Tiedje JM. Trends between gene content and genome size in prokaryotic species with larger genomes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2004;101:3160–5.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
35.Rodriguez‐R LM, Tsementzi D, Luo C, Konstantinidis KT. Iterative subtractive binning of freshwater chronoseries metagenomes identifies over 400 novel species and their ecologic preferences. Environ Microbiol. 2020;22:3394–412.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
36.Pena A, Teeling H, Huerta-Cepas J, Santos F, Yarza P, Brito-Echeverria J, et al. Fine-scale evolution: genomic, phenotypic and ecological differentiation in two coexisting Salinibacter ruber strains. ISME J. 2010;4:882–95.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
37.Maistrenko OM, Mende DR, Luetge M, Hildebrand F, Schmidt TSB, Li SS, et al. Disentangling the impact of environmental and phylogenetic constraints on prokaryotic within-species diversity. ISME J. 2020;14:1247–59.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
38.Anton J, Lucio M, Pena A, Cifuentes A, Brito-Echeverria J, Moritz F, et al. High metabolomic microdiversity within co-occurring isolates of the extremely halophilic bacterium Salinibacter ruber. PLOS ONE. 2013;8:e64701.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
39.Luley-Goedl C, Nidetzky B. Glycosides as compatible solutes: biosynthesis and applications. Nat Prod Rep. 2011;28:875–96.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
40.Antón J, Oren A, Benlloch S, Rodríguez-Valera F, Amann R, Rosselló-Mora R. Salinibacter ruber gen. nov., sp. nov., a novel, extremely halophilic member of the bacteria from saltern crystallizer ponds. IJSEM. 2002;52:485–91.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
41.Antón J, Rosselló-Mora R, Rodríguez-Valera F, Amann R. Extremely halophilic bacteria in crystallizer ponds from solar salterns. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2000;66:3052–7.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
42.Viver T, Orellana L, Gonzalez-Torres P, Diaz S, Urdiain M, Farias ME, et al. Genomic comparison between members of the Salinibacteraceae family, and description of a new species of Salinibacter (Salinibacter altiplanensis sp. nov.) isolated from high altitude hypersaline environments of the Argentinian Altiplano. Syst Appl Microbiol. 2018;41:198–212.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
43.Oren A, Rodríguez-Valera F. The contribution of halophilic Bacteria to the red coloration of saltern crystallizer ponds. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2001;36:123–30.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
44.Santos F, Moreno-Paz M, Meseguer I, Lopez C, Rossello-Mora R, Parro V, et al. Metatranscriptomic analysis of extremely halophilic viral communities. ISME J. 2011;5:1621–33.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
45.Kuo CH, Ochman H. Deletional bias across the three domains of life. Genome Biol Evol. 2009;1:145–52.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
46.Lane N, Martin W. The energetics of genome complexity. Nature. 2010;467:929–34.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
47.Vos M, Hesselman MC, Te Beek TA, van Passel MWJ, Eyre-Walker A. Rates of lateral gene transfer in prokaryotes: high but why? Trends Microbiol. 2015;23:598–605.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
48.Gogarten JP, Townsend JP. Horizontal gene transfer, genome innovation and evolution. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2005;3:679–87.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
49.Sczyrba A, Hofmann P, Belmann P, Koslicki D, Janssen S, Droge J, et al. Critical Assessment of Metagenome Interpretation-a benchmark of metagenomics software. Nat Methods. 2017;14:1063–71.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
50.Munoz R, Lopez-Lopez A, Urdiain M, Moore ER, Rossello-Mora R. Evaluation of matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight whole cell profiles for assessing the cultivable diversity of aerobic and moderately halophilic prokaryotes thriving in solar saltern sediments. Syst Appl Microbiol. 2011;34:69–75.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
51.Urdiain M, López-López A, Gonzalo C, Busse H-J, Langer S, Kämpfer P, et al. Reclassification of Rhodobium marinum and Rhodobium pfennigii as Afifella marina gen. nov. comb. nov. and Afifella pfennigii comb. nov., a new genus of photoheterotrophic Alphaproteobacteria and emended descriptions of Rhodobium, Rhodobium orientis and Rhodobium gokarnense. Syst Appl Microbiol. 2008;31:339–51.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
52.Andrews S. FastQC: a quality control tool for high throughput sequence data. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Babraham Bioinformatics, Babraham Institute; 2010.53.Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics. 2014;30:2114–20.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
54.Hyatt D, Chen G-L, LoCascio PF, Land ML, Larimer FW, Hauser LJ. Prodigal: prokaryotic gene recognition and translation initiation site identification. BMC Bioinform. 2010;11:119.
Google Scholar 
55.Rodriguez-R LM, Gunturu S, Harvey WT, Rosselló-Mora R, Tiedje JM, Cole JR, et al. The Microbial Genomes Atlas (MiGA) webserver: taxonomic and gene diversity analysis of Archaea and Bacteria at the whole genome level. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018;46:W282–8.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
56.Sievers F, Wilm A, Dineen D, Gibson TJ, Karplus K, Li W, et al. Fast, scalable generation of high‐quality protein multiple sequence alignments using Clustal Omega. Mol Syst Biol. 2011;7:539.57.Stamatakis A. RAxML version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics. 2014;30:1312–3.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
58.Price MN, Dehal PS, Arkin AP. FastTree 2–approximately maximum-likelihood trees for large alignments. PLOS ONE. 2010;5:e9490.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
59.Rambaut A. FigTree v1.4.4. http://tree.bio.ed.ac.uk/software/figtree/ 2018.60.Letunic I, Bork P. Interactive Tree Of Life (iTOL): an online tool for phylogenetic tree display and annotation. Bioinformatics. 2007;23:127–8.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
61.Fu L, Niu B, Zhu Z, Wu S, Li W. CD-HIT: accelerated for clustering the next-generation sequencing data. Bioinformatics. 2012;28:3150–2.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
62.Camacho C, Coulouris G, Avagyan V, Ma N, Papadopoulos J, Bealer K, et al. BLAST+: architecture and applications. BMC Bioinform. 2009;10:421.
Google Scholar 
63.Aramaki T, Blanc-Mathieu R, Endo H, Ohkubo K, Kanehisa M, Goto S, et al. KofamKOALA: KEGG ortholog assignment based on profile HMM and adaptive score threshold. Bioinformatics. 2020;36:2251–2.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
64.Kanehisa M, Goto S. KEGG: kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2000;28:27–30.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar  More

1.MacArthur, R. & Wilson, E. O. The Theory of Island Biogeography (Princeton University Press, 1967).
Google Scholar 
2.Stearns, S. C. The evolution of life history traits: A critique of the theory and a review of the data. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 8, 145–171. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.08.110177.001045 (1977).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Lopes-Lima, M. et al. Conservation status of freshwater mussels in Europe: State of the art and future challenges. Biol. Rev. 92, 572–607. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12244 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
4.Lopes-Lima, M. et al. Conservation of freshwater bivalves at the global scale: Diversity, threats and research needs. Hydrobiologia 810, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-017-3486-7 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Ferreira-Rodríguez, N. et al. Research priorities for freshwater mussel conservation assessment. Biol. Conserv. 231, 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.01.002 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Haag, W. R. & Rypel, A. L. Growth and longevity in freshwater mussels: Evolutionary and conservation implications. Biol. Rev. 86, 225–247. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2010.00146.x (2011).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
7.Haag, W. R. North American Freshwater Mussels: Natural History, Ecology, and Conservation (Cambridge University Press, 2012).Book 

Google Scholar 
8.Ziuganov, V. et al. Life span variation of the freshwater pearl shell: A model species for testing longevity mechanisms in animals. AMBIO J. Hum. Environ. 29, 102–105. https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-29.2.102 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Wächtler, K., Drehen-Mansur, M. C., & Richter, T. Larval types and early postlarval biology in Naiads (Unionoida). In Ecology and Evolution of the Freshwater Mussels Unionoida (eds. Bauer, G. & Wächtler, K.) 93–119 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2001).10.Hanson, J. M., Mackay, W. C. & Prepas, E. E. Effect of size-selective predation by muskrats (Ondatra zebithicus) on a population of unionid clams (Anodonta grandis simpsoniana). J. Anim. Ecol. 58, 15–28. https://doi.org/10.2307/4983 (1989).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Bauer, G. The adaptive value of offspring size among freshwater mussels (Bivalvia; Unionoidea). J. Anim. Ecol. 63, 933–944. https://doi.org/10.2307/5270 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Bauer, G. Framework and driving forces for the evolution of Naiad life histories. In Ecology and Evolution of the Freshwater Mussels Unionoida (eds. Bauer, G. & Wächtler, K.) 233–257 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2001).13.Haag, W. R. The role of fecundity and reproductive effort in defining life-history strategies of North American freshwater mussels. Biol. Rev. 88, 745–766. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12028 (2013).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
14.Wood, E. M. Development and morphology of the glochidium larva of Anodonta cygnea (Mollusca: Bivalvia). J. Zool. 173, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1974.tb01743.x (1974).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Silverman, H., Steffens, W. L. & Dietz, T. Calcium from extracellular concretions in the gills of freshwater unionid mussels is mobilized during reproduction. J. Exp. Zool. 236, 137–147. https://doi.org/10.1002/jez.1402360204 (1985).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Silverman, H., Kays, W. T. & Dietz, T. H. Maternal calcium contribution to glochidial shells in freshwater mussels (Eulamellibranchia: Unionidae). J. Exp. Zool. 242, 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1002/jez.1402420204 (1987).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.McIvor, A. L. & Aldridge, D. C. The reproductive biology of the depressed river mussel Pseudanodonta complanata (Bivalvia: Unionidae) with implications for its conservation. J. Molluscan Stud. 73, 259–266. https://doi.org/10.1093/mollus/eym023 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Neves, R. J., Bogan, A. E., WIlliams, J. D., Ahlstedt, S. A., & Hartfield, P. W. Status of aquatic mollusks in the southeastern United States: A downward spiral of diversity. In Aquatic Fauna in Peril: A Southeastern Perspective (eds. Benz, W. & Collins, D. E.) 43–85 (Southeast Aquatic Research Institute, 1997).19.Kat, P. W. Parasitism and the Unionacea (Bivalvia). Biol. Rev. 59, 189–207. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.1984.tb00407.x (1984).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Ćmiel, A. M., Zając, K., Lipińska, A. M. & Zając, T. Glochidial infestation of fish by the endangered thick-shelled river mussel Unio crassus. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 28, 535–544. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2883 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Modesto, V. et al. Fish and mussels: Importance of fish for freshwater mussel conservation. Fish Fish. 19, 244–259. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12252 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Jansen, W. A. & Hanson, M. J. Estimates of the number of glochidia produced by clams (Anodonta grandis simpsoniana Lea) attaching to yellow perch (Perca flavescens) and surviving to various ages in Narrow Lake, Alberta. Can. J. Zool. 69, 973–977. https://doi.org/10.1139/z91-141 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Young, M. & Williams, J. The reproductive biology of the freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera (Linn.) in Scotland. II Laboratory studies. Arch. Hydrobiol. 100, 29–43 (1984).
Google Scholar 
24.Zimmerman, L. & Neves, R. J. Effects of temperature on duration of viability for glochidia of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Am. Malacol. Bull. 17, 31–35 (2002).
Google Scholar 
25.Haag, W. R. & Warren, M. L. Host fishes and infection strategies of freshwater mussels in large Mobile Basin streams, USA. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 22, 78. https://doi.org/10.2307/1467979 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Ćmiel, A. M., Zając, T., Zając, K., Lipińska, A. & Najberek, K. Single or multiple spawning? Comparison of breeding strategies of freshwater Unionidae mussels under stochastic environmental conditions. Hydrobiologia 848, 3067–3075. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-019-04045-8 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Lillie, F. R. The embryology of the unionidae. A study in cell-lineage. J. Morphol. 10, 1–100. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmor.1050100102 (1895).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Lopes-Lima, M. et al. The strange case of the tetragenous Anodonta anatina. J. Exp. Zool. 325, 52–56. https://doi.org/10.1002/jez.1995 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Barnhart, M. C., Haag, W. R. & Roston, W. N. Adaptations to host infection and larval parasitism in Unionoida. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 27, 370–394. https://doi.org/10.1899/07-093.1 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Zając, K. & Zając, T. A. Seasonal patterns in the developmental rate of glochidia in the endangered thick-shelled river mussel. Unio crassus Philipsson. 1788. Hydrobiologia 848, 3077–3091. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-020-04240-y (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Jones, J. W., Mair, R. A. & Neves, R. J. Factors affecting survival and growth of juvenile freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) cultured in recirculating aquaculture systems. N. Am. J. Aquac. 67, 210–220. https://doi.org/10.1577/A04-055.1 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Iwata, H. & Ukai, Y. SHAPE: A computer program package for quantitative evaluation of biological shapes based on elliptic Fourier descriptors. J. Hered. 93, 384–385. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhered/93.5.384 (2002).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
33.Freeman, H. Computer processing of line drawing images. ACM Comput. Surv. 6, 57–97. https://doi.org/10.1145/356625.356627 (1974).Article 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
34.Kuhl, F. P. & Giardina, C. R. Elliptic Fourier features of a closed contour. Comput. Gr. Image Process. 18, 236–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/0146-664X(82)90034-X (1982).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Aldridge, D. C. & Horne, D. C. Fossil glochidia (Bivalvia. Unionidae): Identification and value in palaeoenvironmental reconstructions. J. Micropalaeontol. 17, 179–182. https://doi.org/10.1144/jm.17.2.179 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Antonova, L. A. & Starobogatov, Y. I. Generic differences of glochidia of naiades (Bivalvia Unionoidea) of the fauna of USSR and problems of the evolution of glochidia. Systematics and Fauna of Gastropoda. Bivalvia and Cephalopoda. Proc. Zool. Inst. Leningr. 187, 129–154 (1988) (in Russian).
Google Scholar 
37.Niemeyer, B. Vergleichende Untersuchungen zur bionomischen Strategie der Teichmuschelarten Anodonta cygnea L. und Anodonta anatina L. PhD thesis, Institut für Zoologie der Tierärztlichen Hochschule (1992) (in German).38.Harms, W. Postembryonale Entwicklungsgeschichte der Unioniden. Zool. Jb. 28, 325–386 (1909) (in German).
Google Scholar 
39.Hüby, B. Zur Entwicklungsbiologie der Fließgewässermuschel Pseudanodonta complanata. PhD thesis, Institut für Zoologie der Tierärztlichen Hochschule (1988) (in German).40.Nagel, K. O. Anatomische, morphologische und biochemische Untersuchungen zur Taxonomie und systematik der europäischer Unionacea (Mollusca: Bivalvia). PhD Dissertation, Universitat des Landes Hessen (1988) (in German).41.Nagel, K. O. Anatomische und morphologische Merkmale europäischer Najaden (Unionoidea: Margaritiferidae und Unionidae) und ihre Bedeutung für die Systematik. Heldia 2, 3–48 (1999) (in German).
Google Scholar 
42.Pekkarinen, M. & Englund, V. P. M. Sizes of intramarsupial unionacean glochidia in Finland. Arch. Hydrobiol. 134, 379–391. https://doi.org/10.1127/archiv-hydrobiol/134/1995/379 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Escobar-Calderón, J. F. & Douda, K. Variable performance of metamorphosis success indicators in an in vitro culture of freshwater mussel glochidia. Aquaculture 513, 734404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2019.734404 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Huber, V. M. M. Host Fish Suitability for the Endangered Native Anodonta and Impacts of the Invasive Sinanodonta Woodiana on Their Reproductive Success. PhD Thesis, Technische Universität München (2019).45.Scharsack, G. Licht-und Elektronenmikroskopische Untersuchungen an Larvalstadien einheimischer Unionacea (Bivalvia; Eulamellibranchiata). PhD Thesis, University of Hannover (1994) (in German).46.Hoggarth, M. A. Descriptions of some of the glochidia of the Unionidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia). Malacologia 41, 1–118 (1999).
Google Scholar 
47.Başçınar, N. S. & Düzgüneş, E. A preliminary study on reproduction and larval development of Swan Mussel [Anodonta cygnea (Linnaeus, 1758)] (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in Lake Çıldır (Kars, Turkey). Turk. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 9, 23–27 (2009).
Google Scholar 
48.Sayenko, E. M. The microsculpture of glochidia of some Anodontine bivalves (Unionidae). Biol. Bull. 43, 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1062359016020072 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Claes, M. Untersuchungen zur Entwicklungsbiologie der Teichmuschel Anodonta cygnea. PhD Thesis, Institut für Zoologie, Tierärztliche Hochschule Hannover (1987) (in German).50.Maaß, S. Untersuchungen zur Fortpflanzungsbiologie einheimischer Süßwassermuscheln der Gattung Unio. PhD Dissertation, Institut für Zoologie, Tierärztliche Hochschule Hannover (1987) (in German).51.Heino, M. & Kaitala, V. Evolution of resource allocation between growth and reproduction in animals with indeterminate growth. J. Evol. Biol. 12, 423–429. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1420-9101.1999.00044.x (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Flatt, T. The evolutionary genetics of canalization. Q. Rev. Biol. 80, 287–316. https://doi.org/10.1086/432265 (2005).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
53.Hastie, L. C. & Young, M. R. Timing of spawning and glochidial release in Scottish freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) populations. Freshw. Biol. 48, 2107–2117. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.2003.01153.x (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Glazier, D. S. Smaller amphipod mothers show stronger trade-offs between offspring size and number. Ecol. Lett. 3, 142–149. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2000.00132.x (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Reznick, D. Hard and soft selection revisited: How evolution by natural selection works in the real world. J. Hered. 107, 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhered/esv076 (2016).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
56.Haldane, J. B. S. The effect of variation on fitness. Am. Nat. 71, 337–349 (1937).Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Aldridge, D. C. The morphology, growth and reproduction of Unionidae (Bivalvia) in a fenland waterway. J. Molluscan Stud. 65, 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1093/mollus/65.1.47 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Chernyshev, A. V., Sayenko, E. M. & Bogatov, V. V. Superspecific taxonomy of the far eastern unionids (Bivalvia. Unionidae): Review and analysis. Biol. Bull. 47, 267–275. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1062359020010045 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Pfeiffer, J. M. III. & Graf, D. L. Evolution of bilaterally asymmetrical larvae in freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionoida: Unionidae). Zool. J. Linnean Soc. 175, 307–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/zoj.12282 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar  More