Ecology

1.Gaston, K. J. et al. Personalised ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 33, 916–925 (2018).
Google Scholar 
2.Soga, M. & Gaston, K. J. The ecology of human–nature interactions. Proc. R. Soc. B 287, 20191882 (2020).
Google Scholar 
3.Leong, M., Dunn, R. R. & Trautwein, M. D. Biodiversity and socioeconomics in the city: a review of the luxury effect. Biol. Lett. 14, 20180082 (2018).
Google Scholar 
4.Mace, G. M. Whose conservation? Science 345, 1558–1560 (2014).CAS 

Google Scholar 
5.Soga, M. & Gaston, K. J. Extinction of experience: the loss of human–nature interactions. Front. Ecol. Environ. 14, 94–101 (2016).
Google Scholar 
6.Hartig, T., Mitchell, R., De Vries, S. & Frumkin, H. Nature and health. Annu. Rev. Public Health 35, 207–228 (2014).
Google Scholar 
7.Chippaux, J. P. Incidence and mortality due to snakebite in the Americas. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 11, e0005662 (2017).
Google Scholar 
8.Markevych, I. et al. Exploring pathways linking greenspace to health: theoretical and methodological guidance. Environ. Res. 158, 301–317 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
9.Bratman, G. N. et al. Nature and mental health: an ecosystem service perspective. Sci. Adv. 5, eaax0903 (2019).
Google Scholar 
10.Marselle, M. R. et al. Pathways linking biodiversity to human health: a conceptual framework. Environ. Int. 150, 106420 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
11.Hanski, I. et al. Environmental biodiversity, human microbiota, and allergy are interrelated. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 8334–8339 (2012).CAS 

Google Scholar 
12.Rook, G. A. Regulation of the immune system by biodiversity from the natural environment: an ecosystem service essential to health. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 18360–18367 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
13.Tzoulas, K. et al. Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: a literature review. Landsc. Urban Plann. 81, 167–178 (2007).
Google Scholar 
14.Balmford, A. et al. A global perspective on trends in nature-based tourism. PLoS Biol. 7, e1000144 (2009).
Google Scholar 
15.Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M. & Murphy, S. A. The nature relatedness scale: linking individuals’ connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environ. Behav. 41, 715–740 (2009).
Google Scholar 
16.Chawla, L. Childhood nature connection and constructive hope: a review of research on connecting with nature and coping with environmental loss. People Nat. 2, 619–642 (2020).
Google Scholar 
17.Shanahan, D. F. et al. Nature-based interventions for improving health and wellbeing: the purpose, the people and the outcomes. Sports 7, 141 (2019).
Google Scholar 
18.Chapman, B. K. & McPhee, D. Global shark attack hotspots: identifying underlying factors behind increased unprovoked shark bite incidence. Ocean Coast. Manag. 133, 72–84 (2016).
Google Scholar 
19.Penteriani, V. et al. Human behaviour can trigger large carnivore attacks in developed countries. Sci. Rep. 6, 20552 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
20.Ives, C. D. et al. Reconnecting with nature for sustainability. Sustain. Sci. 13, 1389–1397 (2018).
Google Scholar 
21.Cox, D. T. C. & Gaston, K. J. Human-nature interactions and the consequences and drivers of provisioning wildlife. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 373, 20170092 (2018).
Google Scholar 
22.Michie, S., Van Stralen, M. M. & West, R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement. Sci. 6, 42 (2011).
Google Scholar 
23.Soga, M., Evans, M. J., Cox, D. T. & Gaston, K. J. Impacts of the COVID‐19 pandemic on human–nature interactions: pathways, evidence and implications. People Nat. 3, 518–527 (2021).
Google Scholar 
24.Shaw, L. M., Chamberlain, D. & Evans, M. The house sparrow Passer domesticus in urban areas: reviewing a possible link between post-decline distribution and human socioeconomic status. J. Ornith. 149, 293–299 (2008).
Google Scholar 
25.Gaston, K. J. & Evans, K. L. Birds and people in Europe. Proc. R. Soc. B 271, 1649–1655 (2004).
Google Scholar 
26.Soga, M. & Gaston, K. J. Shifting baseline syndrome: causes, consequences, and implications. Front. Ecol. Environ. 16, 222–230 (2018).
Google Scholar 
27.Pauly, D. Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. Trends Ecol. Evol. 10, 430 (1995).CAS 

Google Scholar 
28.Kellert, S. R. & Wilson, E. O. The Biophilia Hypothesis (Island, 1993).29.Balling, J. D. & Falk, J. H. Development of visual preference for natural environments. Environ. Behav. 14, 5–28 (1982).
Google Scholar 
30.Ulrich, R. S. in The Biophilia Hypothesis (eds Kelbert, S. R. & Wilson, E. O.) 73–137 (Island, 1993).31.Fukano, Y. & Soga, M. Why do so many modern people hate insects? The urbanization-disgust hypothesis. Sci. Total Environ. 777, 146229 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
32.Pergams, O. R. & Zaradic, P. A. Is love of nature in the US becoming love of electronic media? 16-year downtrend in national park visits explained by watching movies, playing video games, internet use, and oil prices. J. Environ. Manag. 80, 387–393 (2006).
Google Scholar 
33.Kesebir, S. & Kesebir, P. A growing disconnection from nature is evident in cultural products. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 12, 258–269 (2017).
Google Scholar 
34.Soga, M. et al. How can we mitigate against increasing biophobia among children during the extinction of experience? Biol. Conserv. 242, 108420 (2020).
Google Scholar 
35.Soga, M., Yamanoi, T., Tsuchiya, K., Koyanagi, T. F. & Kanai, T. What are the drivers of and barriers to children’s direct experiences of nature? Landsc. Urban Plann. 180, 114–120 (2018).
Google Scholar 
36.Pett, T. J., Shwartz, A., Irvine, K. N., Dallimer, M. & Davies, Z. G. Unpacking the people–biodiversity paradox: a conceptual framework. BioScience 66, 576–583 (2016).
Google Scholar 
37.Balding, M. & Williams, K. J. Plant blindness and the implications for plant conservation. Conserv. Biol. 30, 1192–1199 (2016).
Google Scholar 
38.Gerl, T., Randler, C. & Neuhaus, B. J. Vertebrate species knowledge: an important skill is threatened by extinction. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 43, 928–948 (2021).
Google Scholar 
39.Cheng, J. C. H. & Monroe, M. C. Connection to nature: children’s affective attitude toward nature. Environ. Behav. 44, 31–49 (2012).
Google Scholar 
40.Pyle, R. M. The Thunder Tree: Lessons from an Urban Wildland (Houghton Mifflin, 1993).41.Wells, N. M. & Lekies, K. S. Nature and the life course: pathways from childhood nature experiences to adult environmentalism. Child. Youth Environ 16, 41663 (2006).
Google Scholar 
42.Wilson, E. O. in The Biophilia Hypothesis (Island, 1993).43.Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M. & Murphy, S. A. Happiness is in our nature: exploring nature relatedness as a contributor to subjective well-being. J. Happiness Stud. 12, 303–322 (2011).
Google Scholar 
44.Lin, B. B. et al. How green is your garden? Urban form and socio-demographic factors influence yard vegetation, visitation, and ecosystem service benefits. Landsc. Urban Plann. 157, 239–246 (2017).
Google Scholar 
45.Uitto, A., Juuti, K., Lavonen, J. & Meisalo, V. Students’ interest in biology and their out-of-school experiences. J. Biol. Educ. 40, 124–129 (2006).
Google Scholar 
46.Pretty, J. et al. Green exercise in the UK countryside: effects on health and psychological well-being, and implications for policy and planning. J. Environ. Plann. Manag. 50, 211–231 (2007).
Google Scholar 
47.Strachan, D. P. Family size, infection and atopy: the first decade of the ‘hygiene hypothesis’. Thorax 55, S2–S10 (2000).
Google Scholar 
48.Mills, J. G. et al. Urban habitat restoration provides a human health benefit through microbiome rewilding: the Microbiome Rewilding Hypothesis. Restor. Ecol. 25, 866–872 (2017).
Google Scholar 
49.Ulrich, R. S. et al. Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. J. Environ. Psychol. 11, 201–230 (1991).
Google Scholar 
50.Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, S. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1989).51.Fuller, R. A., Irvine, K. N., Devine-Wright, P., Warren, P. H. & Gaston, K. J. Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biol. Lett. 3, 390–394 (2007).
Google Scholar 
52.Kuo, F. E. Nature-deficit disorder: evidence, dosage, and treatment. J. Policy Res. Tour. Leis. Events 5, 172–186 (2013).
Google Scholar 
53.Louv, R. Last Child in the Woods (Algonquin Books, 2005).54.Mygind, L. et al. Mental, physical and social health benefits of immersive nature-experience for children and adolescents: a systematic review and quality assessment of the evidence. Health Place 58, 102136 (2019).
Google Scholar 
55.Nyhus, P. J. Human–wildlife conflict and coexistence. Annu. Rev. Environ. Res. 41, 143–171 (2016).
Google Scholar 
56.von Döhren, P. & Haase, D. Ecosystem disservices research: a review of the state of the art with a focus on cities. Ecol. Indic. 52, 490–497 (2015).
Google Scholar 
57.Geffroy, B., Samia, D. S., Bessa, E. & Blumstein, D. T. How nature-based tourism might increase prey vulnerability to predators. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 755–765 (2015).
Google Scholar 
58.Richardson, M. et al. The green care code: how nature connectedness and simple activities help explain pro‐nature conservation behaviours. People Nat. 2, 821–839 (2020).
Google Scholar 
59.Van der Wal, A. J., Schade, H. M., Krabbendam, L. & Van Vugt, M. Do natural landscapes reduce future discounting in humans? Proc. R. Soc. B 280, 20132295 (2013).
Google Scholar 
60.Zelenski, J. M., Dopko, R. L. & Capaldi, C. A. Cooperation is in our nature: nature exposure may promote cooperative and environmentally sustainable behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 42, 24–31 (2015).
Google Scholar 
61.Barua, M., Bhagwat, S. A. & Jadhav, S. The hidden dimensions of human-wildlife conflict: health impacts, opportunity and transaction costs. Biol. Conserv. 157, 309–316 (2013).
Google Scholar  More

Our results show that Chl a alone is not an adequate proxy for prey growth rates in dilution grazing experiments when mixoplankton are present5,10. Chlorophyll is, in any case, a poor proxy for phototrophic plankton biomass31 because of inter-species variations, and also for the photoacclimation abilities of some species (for which very significant changes can occur within a few hours). The problem extends to the involvement of mixoplanktonic prey and grazers. Nevertheless, even very recent studies continue to rely on this parameter for quantifications of grazing despite acknowledging the dominance, both in biomass and abundance, of mixoplanktonic predators in their system30. Moreover, the detailed analysis of the species-specific dynamics revealed that different prey species are consumed at very different rates. In our experiments, and contrary to expectations (see32,33, and Fig. S1 in the Supplementary Information), C. weissflogii was only actively ingested in the ciliate experiment and, according to the results from the control bottles (Table 2), not by M. rubrum (see Fig. 4 and Fig. S1a).Certainly, it is not the first time that a negative selection against diatoms has been seen; for example, Burkill et al.34 noticed that diatoms were less grazed by protist grazers than other phytoplankton species, as assessed by a dilution technique paired with High-Performance Liquid Chromatography for pigment analysis. Using the same method, Suzuki et al.35 reported that diatoms became the dominant phytoplankton group, which suggests that other groups were preferentially fed upon. Calbet et al.36, in the Arctic, also found only occasional grazing over the local diatoms. In our study, diatoms were not only not consumed, but the presence of dinoflagellates appeared to contribute to their growth (Fig. 4), this relationship being partly dependent on the concentration of the predator (see Fig. 2c, d). This result could be a direct consequence of assimilation and use of compounds (e.g.,37,38) released by microplankton such as ammonium (e.g.,39,40) and urea (e.g.,41), which were not supplied in the growth medium, but which would have supported prey growth. Alternatively, this unexpected outcome may have been a consequence of the selective ingestion of R. salina by the two predators, relieving the competition for nutrients and light and resulting in a higher growth rate of the diatom in the presence of the predators. We cannot rule out the fact that diatoms sink faster than flagellates which, as the bottles were not mixed during most of the incubation period (although gently mixed at every sampling point), may have also involuntarily decreased ingestion rates on C. weissflogii. Still, one C. weissflogii cell contains, on average, ca. 2.5 times more Chl a than one R. salina cell (initial value excluded, see Table 3). Taken together with the preference for R. salina it is not surprising that the proportion of total Chl a represented by the diatoms increased over time, in particular in the L/D treatment (Figs. 6a, c and 7a, c).Table 3 Chl a content (pg Chl a cell−1) of the target species at each sampling point as calculated from the control bottles.Full size tableAnother factor clearly highlighted by our experiments, is that protozooplankton themselves contribute a significant portion of the total chlorophyll of the system (due to ingested Chl a), in particular at the beginning of the incubation (see Figs. 6 and 7); this being invariably ignored in a traditional dilution experiment. The high Chl a detected inside the protozooplanktonic grazers at the beginning of the incubations could suggest that the system was initially not in equilibrium, and that this was the result of superfluous feeding (e.g.,42). This would, nevertheless, be surprising since we required ca. 1 h to collect the initial samples (t = 0 h) after joining all the organisms together (see the section “Dilution grazing experiments” in the “Methods” section); previous studies, like the one on G. dominans and Oxyrrhis marina by Calbet et al.42, showed that the hunger response and consequent vacuole replenishment occurred in ca. 100 min for very high prey concentrations and it is expected to decrease at lower prey concentrations as the ones used in our study. Therefore, even if one assumes that the first 4 h of incubation are a result of superfluous feeding, after 24 h, the “estimated”, “observed”, and “from dilution slope” grazing estimates are not significantly different to those displayed in Fig. 5 (P  > 0.05 in all instances) and, therefore, we can assume that the hunger response was likely irrelevant (e.g.,43) and did not mask our results. In any case, as stated before, an actual field grazing dilution experiment also suffers from similar problems, because grazers and prey are suddenly diluted and not pre-adapted to distinct food concentrations. Nevertheless, this is not novel information, since Chl a and its degradation products have been found inside several protozooplankton species from different phylogenetic groups immediately after feeding44 and even after some days without food45. An increase in intracellular Chl a concentrations immediately after feeding has also been found in mixoplankton46,47, on which this increase is derived both from ingested prey as well as from new synthesis of their own Chl a. Additionally, several experiments with Live Fluorescently Labelled Algae (LFLA) show that predators (irrespective of their trophic mode) seem to maximise the concentration of intracellular prey shortly after the initiation of the incubation (e.g.,48; Ferreira et al., submitted). Indeed, some authors have even been able to measure photosynthesis in protozooplankton, like the ciliates Mesodinium pulex49 and Strombidinopsis sp.50.The fact that Chl a is a poor indicator of phytoplankton biomass and the inherent consequences discussed so far can be solved by the quantification of the prey community abundance (e.g.,51) by microscopy or by the use of signature pigments for each major phytoplankton group. The latter method, however, is not as thorough as the former, since rare are the cases where one pigment is exclusively associated with a single group of organisms (see52 and references therein). In any case, any pigment-based proxy is subject to the same problems, as identified by Kruskopf & Flynn31. Irrespective of the quantification method, it has been made evident that the different algae are consumed at different rates (e.g., pigments10,34,35; microscopy5,36).Prey selection in protistan grazers is a common feature (e.g.,23,26,27,28). Given the diversity of grazers in natural communities and the array of preferred prey that each particular species possesses, it is logical to think that dilution experiments will capture the net community response properly. Likewise, grazers interact with each other through toxins, competition, and intraguild predation among other factors. An example of intraguild predation could be the observed on K. armiger by G. dominans (see Figs. 2f and 4 and Table 1), which caused an average loss of ca. 18.72 pg of K. armiger carbon per G. dominans per hour in the D treatment. Interestingly, in the same treatment, a slight negative effect of K. armiger on its predator G. dominans can also be deduced (i.e., positive g, Table 1), resulting in an average loss of ca. 0.33 pg G. dominans carbon per K. armiger per hour. This could be a consequence of algal toxins, since K. armiger is a known producer of karmitoxin22, whose presence may have negative effects even on metazoan grazers21. Regarding ciliates, none of the species used is a known producer of toxic compounds, which suggests that the average loss of ca. 1.25 pg M. rubrum carbon per hour in the D treatment was due to S. arenicola predation. Altogether, it seems clear from our data that intraguild predation cannot be ignored when analysing dilution experiments (Fig. 4). Furthermore, our results clearly show that single functional responses cannot be used to extrapolate community grazing impacts, as evidenced by the differences in estimated and measured ingestion rates based on the disappearance of prey in combined grazers experiments (Fig. 5). Nevertheless, this is a relatively common procedure (e.g.,53 and references therein). Often in modelling approaches, individual predator’s functional responses have been used to extrapolate prey selectivity and community grazing responses27; in reality complex prey selectivity functions are required to satisfactorily describe prey selectivity and inter-prey allelopathic interactions54.It is, however, also evident that the measured ingestion rates in combined grazers experiments were not the same as those calculated from the slope of the dilution grazing experiment. This raises the question of why was that the case. It is well known that phytoplankton cultures, when extremely diluted, show a lag phase of different duration55 which has been attributed to the net leakage of metabolites56. Assuming that the duration of the lag phase will be dependent on the level of dilution, it seems reasonable to deduce that after ca. 24 h the instantaneous growth rates (µ) in the most diluted treatments will be lower than that of the undiluted treatments. This has consequences, not only for the estimated prey growth rates but also for the whole assessment of the grazing rate, due to the flattening of the regression line (i.e., the decrease in the computed growth rate). This artefact may be more evident in cultures acclimated to very particular conditions (as the laboratory cultures used in this study) than in nature.Another important finding of our research is the importance of light on the correct expression of the feeding activity by both mixoplankton and protozooplankton. We noticed that irrespective of the light conditions, all species exhibited a diurnal feeding rhythm (R. salina panels in Figs. 2 and 3), which is in accordance with earlier observations on protists (e.g.,29,57,58). The presence of light typically increased the ingestion rates. Additionally, the ingestion rates differed during the night period between L/D and D treatments, which implies that receiving light during the day is also vital in modulating the night behaviour of protoozoo- and mixoplankton. In particular, mixoplankton grazing is usually affected by light conditions, typically increasing (e.g.,32,59), but also sometimes decreasing(e.g.,60) in the presence of light. Different irradiance levels can also affect the magnitude of ingestion rates both in protozoo- and mixoplankton (see61 and references therein).For those reasons, we hoped for a rather consistent pattern among our protists that would help us discriminate mixoplankton in dilution grazing experiments. As a matter of fact, based on the results from Arias et al.29, we expected that in the dinoflagellate experiment, the D treatment would have inhibited only the grazing of K. armiger, enabling a simple discrimination between trophic modes. The reality did not meet the expectations since the day and night-time carbon-specific ingestion rates (as assessed using the control bottles, Table 2) of K. armiger were respectively higher and equal than those of G. dominans. Conversely, in the ciliate experiment, protozooplankton were the major grazers in our incubations regardless of the day period and light conditions. This response was not as straightforward as one would expect it to be because M. rubrum has been recently suggested to be a species complex containing at least 7 different species (62 and references therein), which hinders any possible conjecture on their grazing impact. Indeed, the uneven responses found between and within trophic modes precluded such optimistic hypothetical procedure.The D treatment in the present paper illustrated the importance of mimicking natural light conditions, a factor also addressed in the original description of the technique by Landry and Hassett1. It is crucial for the whole interpretation of the dilution technique that incubations should be conducted in similar light (and temperature) conditions as the natural ones to allow for the continued growth of the phototrophic prey. However, here we want to stress another aspect of the incubations: should they start during the day or the night? Considering our (and previous) results on diel feeding rhythms, and on the contribution of each species to the total Chl a pool, it is clear that different results will be obtained if the incubations are started during the day or the night. Besides, whether day or night, organisms are also likely to be in a very different physiological state (either growing or decreasing). Therefore, we recommend that dilution experiments conducted in the field should always be started at the same period of the day to enable comparisons (see also Anderson et al.14 for similar conclusions on bacterivory exerted by small flagellates). Ideally, incubations would be started at different times of the day to capture the intricacies of the community dynamics on a diel cycle. Nevertheless, should the segmented analysis be impossible, we argue that the right time to begin the incubations would be during the night, as this is the time where ingestion rates by protozooplankton are typically lower (e.g.,29,57,58, this study) and would, consequently, reduce their quota of Chl a in the system.Lastly, we want to stress that we are aware that our study does not represent natural biodiversity because our experiments were conducted in the laboratory with a few species. Nevertheless, we attempted to use common species of wide distribution for each major group of protists to provide a better institutionalisation of our conclusions. Further to the choice of predator and prey is their concentrations and proportions. Being a laboratory experiment designed to understand fundamental mechanisms within a dilution grazing experiment, we departed from near saturating food conditions from where we started the dilution series. In nature, the concentrations that we used may be high but are not unrealistic, and actually lower than in many bloom scenarios. We included diatoms at high concentrations, even knowing that they are not the preferred prey of most grazers34, because diatoms are very abundant in many natural ecosystems and to stress the point of food selection within the experiment. For sure, using different proportions of prey would have rendered different results. However, as previously mentioned, our aim was not to seek flaws in the dilution technique, but to understand the role of mixoplankton in these experiments and the complex trophic interactions that may occur within. Ultimately, with our choice of prey and their concentrations, we have proven that when there is no selection for a massively abundant prey, the use of Chl a as a proxy for community abundances may underestimate actual grazing rates.Some other aspects of our experiments may also be criticised because they do not fully match a standard dilution experiment. For instance, we manipulated light, adding complexity to the study. However, this manipulation enabled the deepening into the drivers of the mixoplanktonic and protozooplanktonic grazing responses. Another characteristic, perhaps awkward, of our study is that we allowed the grazers to deplete their prey before starting the experiment. One may argue this procedure does not mimic the natural previous trophic history a grazer may have in nature. Yet, in nature, when facing a dilution experiment, it is impossible to ascertain whether the organisms are encountering novel prey or not. Indeed, they (prey and predator) could have just migrated into such conditions, or be subject to famine, or just moved from a food patch. In any case, it is true that a consistent “hunger response” would have affected our initial grazing values, biasing grazing rate estimates. To overcome this artefact, we let the grazers feed for about one hour before starting the actual dilution assay (see the “Methods” section). From that point on, any dilution is, in fact, an abrupt alteration of the food scenario, which is likely more important than the previous trophic history of the grazer.In summary, with these laboratory experiments, we have presented evidence calling for a revision of the use of chlorophyll in dilution grazing experiments5,10, and we have highlighted the need to observe the organismal composition of both initial and final communities to better understand the dynamics during the dilution grazing experiments51. This approach will not incorporate mixoplanktonic activity into the dilution technique per se however if combined with LFLA (see5,17), a semi-quantitative approach to disentangle the contribution of mixoplankton to community grazing could be achieved (although not perfect). An alternative (and perhaps more elegant) solution could be the integration of the experimental technique with in silico modelling. The modelling approaches of the dilution technique have already been used, for example, to disentangle niche competition63 and to explore nonlinear grazer responses20. We believe that our experimental design and knowledge of the previously indicated data could be of use for the configuration of a dilution grazing model, which could then be validated in the field (and, optimistically, coupled to the ubiquitous application of the dilution technique across the globe). We cannot guarantee that having a properly constructed model that mimics the dilution technique will be the solution to the mixoplankton paradigm. However, it may provide a step towards that goal as it could finally shed much-needed light on the mixo- and heterotrophic contributions to the grazing pressure of a given system. To quote from the commentary of Flynn et al.6, it could provide the answer to the question of whether mixoplankton are de facto “another of the Emperor’s New Suit of Clothes” or, “on the other hand (…) collectively worthy of more detailed inclusion in models”. More

Our results showed that covariates at different geographical scales (national and local) may have important effects on the risk of snakebite, both for humans and animals. The results indicate that the risk of snakebite in the Terai varies at national scale between clusters and at local scale between households. The evaluation of the final models without spatial random components and the worsening of the models’ goodness of fit as a result highlighted how snakebite risk and its determining factors are indeed spatially structured.A strong association between high snakebite incidence and mortality, and poverty was established from the analysis of 138 countries affected by the disease32. In this study, we identified the PPI, an indicator for poverty, as a highly influential risk-increasing factor for humans. This not only confirms the critical role of poverty as a driver for this Neglected Tropical Disease, but also offers the possibility to use a standardized index at individual household scale for similar studies. Chaves et al.33 used the Poverty Gap, which is a simpler index expressing how far a person is from the average national poverty line, but to our knowledge, no study has used PPI for snakebite in any way. Applying PPI as a snakebite risk predictor also addresses previous expert calls for an Ecohealth approach to consider the relationship between the structural characteristics of houses, poverty, and snakebite34.Three of the survey covariates had significant effects on the odds of snakebite. Food storage and straw storage increased them, while sleeping on the floor reduce them. The effect of the first two covariates is likely to be related to prey availability, represented by rodents, which are attracted by food and shelter sources. Both food and straw are very often stored near dwellings, which in the end multiply the number of possible encounters between humans, domestic animals, and the hunting snakes20. The expected snakebite risk reduction effect by sleeping on the floor is more complex though. Previously, a higher snakebite incidence was reported among rural Hindus in Maharashtra, India, due to their custom of sleeping on the floor35,36, while in Nepal, Chappuis et al. did not find any protective effect or significant difference in snakebite cases between sleeping on a cot or on the floor37. This result, nevertheless, might be influenced again by regional customs that make sleeping on the floor more common in eastern Terai (71.1% of all affirmative answers to this question), and second, by the commonly acknowledged prevalence of kraits (Bungarus spp.) in western Terai, which are the species most commonly linked to bites to people sleeping on the floor while hunting at night inside houses22,38. This geographic separation, between the human behaviour and the distribution of the species considered to cause most bites linked to it, could explain the observed shift in the odds towards a reduction effect. This effect should be further explored in localized studies designed to capture behavioural differences in humans and snakes.For both the general human risk model and its equivalent prediction model, the covariate Distance to water had a significant risk-increasing effect. For each additional km in distance from permanent water sources, the odds of snakebite increased by 1.38 and 1.51 times, respectively. From a human perspective and in this socio-economic framework, it would be important to consider not only the distance to water, but also the path taken to get the water (or any other resource). If this path would lead a person through grasslands and open fields, this could imply an increased risk of snakebite. From an ecological perspective, there are two important aspects to consider in relation to water sources. One is, as in this study, the distance from large, constant water sources, which usually represent stable environments subject to less hydric stress. The second (not considered here) are the human-made water sources, such as ponds, reservoirs, and paddy fields that change often, are usually closer to human dwellings, and are known to attract some medically important venomous snakes (MIVS)5. Studies on snake migration and home range use have concluded that depending on species and ecological conditions, snakes can move between a few tens of meters per day and more than 10 km between seasons, while searching for water and prey resources38,39,40,41. In sub-tropical regions like the Terai, snakes living closer to continuous sources of water and vegetation should have easier access to a wider variety of prey. On the contrary, those living in agricultural areas might need to scout farther in the search for resources, encountering human-made waterbodies and prey, such as rodents42 and amphibians, abundant in this region10. Further studies considering all sources of water, and species ecology, biology and richness would be necessary to completely understand the effect of this and similar eco-physiological covariates.Another important factor was the NDVI, which is a commonly used value to express photosynthetic activity, leaf production and in summary the ‘greenness’ of the environment43. As is the case for other covariates, its interpretation depends on the study circumstances. In Iran, it was considered an indicator of prey availability for snakes and linked to snake habitat suitability14. Elevated NDVI values have been associated with higher number of hospitalizations in Nigeria and northern Ghana, in particular during the periods of high agricultural activity, which is also related to higher snake-human contact and higher snakebite incidence43. In our study, its ‘protective’ effect can indeed be the consequence of better access to prey associated with healthier ecosystems, explained in the Terai by the higher NDVI values of the multiple dense forests distributed along the region. In addition, the averaged NDVI values for agricultural areas should be lower than those for perennial forests, because they include the highs and lows of production and harvest.Environmental drivers like temperature and precipitation are common factors in geospatial analyses of snakebite13,14,17,44. They are found in many cases to be the main factors modulating the incidence or risk of snakebite, while varying in importance according to study conditions. For example, in Iran, precipitation seasonality was the most prevalent climatic covariate determining the habitat suitability leading to snakebite risk14, while in Mozambique, temperature seasonality was the predominant covariate13. Despite the Terai’s sub-tropical climate, the range of the average minimum temperature of the coldest month (BIO6) was 1.8–10.9 °C. For our snakebite risk analysis in animals, an increase of 10 °C of BIO6 between any two points represented an increase in the odds of snakebite of 23.41 times. For snakes, this range could be the difference between total lethargy and partial activity45, which could lead to increased numbers of snakebites. In addition, and according to the production and holding practices of domestic animals in the Terai, this temperature range can also represent the difference between animals (mainly ruminants) being kept in sheds when at the lower range limits, or being let out of them at the upper limits, which would again increase the chances of encounters with snakes.Similarly, for the animal model, pig density and sheep density, significantly influenced the variation in the risk of snakebite for animals in the Terai. This could be due to the conditions in which the animals and their feed are kept, favouring environments that are beneficial for either snakes or their prey. At more local scales, rather than the distribution, the presence of other animal species could instead be the factor associated with higher snakebite rates12. However, since the available data on domestic animal density was produced more than 10 years ago, and the animal population has grown substantially in the last years in Nepal, this outcome should be interpreted with caution.For the animal risk, the possession of an animal shed also significantly increased the odds of snakebite. Similar to straw storage, animal sheds and similar constructions offer some shelter and at the same time attract small (prey) animals, both of which are likely to attract snakes, increasing snakebite risk for the animals using the shed. If in addition, the sheds function as poultry coops, the snake hunting behaviour might be instead targeted towards chicks and chickens12. Mitigation measures such as raising the coop’s floor or securing openings with fine metal mesh have been suggested to reduce this risk12.The human modification of terrestrial systems was the only non-significant covariate in the animal risk model. However, as its strong, risk-reducing effect still seems to explain a lot of the response variation, it was retained. Its change in one unit, i.e., going from a pristine to fully modified environment, decreased the odds of snakebite by 0.13 (equivalent to 7.69 times), which agrees with previous national survey results from Sri Lanka21.For our human risk prediction model, four covariates were either significant or helped to explain the changes in the response. Distance to water and NDVI were clearly significant, and precipitation of the driest quarter (BIO17) and the mean annual temperature (BIO1) helped to explain some of the response variation with convincing, unambiguous effects. For BIO17, an increase of 100 mm of rain during the driest months of the year represented an odds-reduction effect equivalent to 8.33 times. This agrees with the results of distance to water, suggesting that the additional availability of resources during water shortage periods, i.e., almost four times more rain (BIO17 range: 18–71 mm), could locally improve ecological conditions for snakes also leading to less scouting and fewer human encounters. Previous studies have analysed the multilevel ecological effects of droughts, e.g., reducing snake prey and leading snakes to engage in riskier behaviours46,47. For BIO1, the protective effect was weaker. An increase of 10 °C represented a reduction of the odds of snakebite equivalent to 3.57 times. Average temperatures for specific locations are difficult to interpret, since they might depend on mild highs and lows, strong highs and lows, or relative combinations of both. Thus, despite having a relatively important effect on the response, this effect still might be the consequence of confounding and unknown interactions.Several other evaluated covariates, for both humans and animals, showed a negligible effect on describing the response, were not significant while having very large uncertainties, or both. Consequently, they were discarded as predicting factors. For the list of baseline covariates evaluated, see supplementary Table S1. For a complete list of available survey covariates, see Alcoba et al.27.Some of our discarded covariates have been important in other studies, for example, to quantify snakebite risk based on reclassification methods of covariates such as habitat suitability, species presence, or envenoming severity13,14,17,44,48. These methods are especially relevant when one species (or very few) is the cause of most snakebite cases, and has differentiated optimal and sub-optimal habitats. In Nepal, and particularly in the Terai, there are at least two, and sometimes more than 10 MIVS with overlapping distributions49. Thus, it could be said that practically the whole region offers suitable habitat for multiple MIVS. In addition, the impossibility of reliably identifying the species having bitten the surveyed victims hindered the use of single species in the analysis. In our analysis, species richness was removed, as it showed almost no effect on the response. A recent meta-analysis reported an equivalent result at global scale, finding no significant difference between the number of venomous snake species in tropical and temperate locations, while the number of snakebites is clearly higher in tropical areas50. These results suggested that high incidence of snakebite is unrelated to species richness, but instead related to other factors like the number of people working in agricultural environments21,32,50. Another important driver of snakebite incidence has been population density50. In our study, however, any possible effect from population density on the risk was diminished by the random selection of households at specific numbers during study design. This was later confirmed by the minimal effect of population density as covariate in the human risk analysis.This study presents a few limitations. For instance, despite the capacity of the INLA method to borrow strength from neighbouring observations and areas, the selection of adequate covariates with enough explanatory power still depends greatly on the number of snakebite cases, which even for a national scale study like this remains small. Also, some of the covariates with the strongest explanatory power came from our household survey, which prevented their use for generalized spatial prediction models. Concerning the animal risk analysis, due to the small number of snakebite cases we opted to aggregate all animal species and consider a grouped response. Thus, for a spatial analysis of animal risk, it was not worth it to consider each species, since that would dilute further an already sparse dataset in individual models and selection processes. Moreover, the data gathered for animals was dependent on the random selection of (human) households and unrelated to the current distribution of animal populations. This, in addition to the possible number of dry bites that go unnoticed, might be responsible for the low number of animal victims recorded (even combined across all species), making a more detailed analysis unfeasible.Despite the large number of covariates examined during our analysis, very few were useful to predict snakebite risk along the Terai. It is possible that confounders or other difficult-to-measure covariates could better explain the complex relationship between the ecology and biology of MIVS, socio-economic factors, human behavioural traits, and the circumstances around domestic animal keeping. This needs to be further explored, following a recent call for an overarching One Health and Ecohealth approach to better understand the drivers for snakebite risk, incidence, and mortality under specific situations34.In conclusion, snakebite is a multi-factorial disease and there is no possible universal approach to model its risk. Each model should be individually designed for each set of socio-economical, geographic, ecological, cultural, and environmental circumstances19. To better understand and address the snakebite problem, it is necessary to approach it, whenever possible, with local data collected at a national scale, so that the conclusions drawn can fuel appropriate national public health policies and actions. As long as people work, live, and keep their domestic animals in close contact with natural environments with MIVS, the risk of snakebite will be present. However, better understanding of the factors influencing that risk at the most granular scale possible, and the estimation of the populations at risk, can help to better target prevention and mitigation measures. For humans, this evidence can channel efforts towards improved access to treatment through the optimized stockpiling of antivenom, and the improvement, relocation or new construction of treating facilities, but more importantly, towards community education and sensitization in preventive campaigns51. Part of that preventive and educative efforts can be done at household level, by promoting and facilitating the use of protective equipment such as rubber boots, or the guidance on how to improve and adapt their immediate surroundings to make them ecologically less attractive for snakes and their prey. For domestic animals, this information could help better target awareness-raising activities for animal owners and implement mitigation strategies. For animals at higher risk, tailored interventions such as the improvement of housing conditions, regular cleaning of sheds and surrounding areas (e.g., from food waste and surrounding vegetation), and using light when animals are walked out of the enclosure at night could be deployed specifically as snakebite prevention measures52. It is also important to highlight that many of the factors analysed in this study affect most directly the snakes themselves, not only as snakebite agents, but also as a diverse group of species, differently affected by ecological, climatic and environmental factors in a multiplicity of settings shared with humans and domestic animals. It is therefore necessary to further investigate how those factors influence the behavioural and ecological traits of MIVS in order to truly understand this disease from a One Health viewpoint. At stake is the reduction of snakebite envenoming incidence rates in humans and animals, and of its possible long-term sequelae on human populations. More

1.Muok AR, Briegel A. Intermicrobial hitchhiking: how nonmotile microbes leverage communal motility. Trends Microbiol. 2021;29:542–50.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
2.Kohlmeier S, Smits THM, Ford RM, Keel C, Harms H, Wick LY. Taking the fungal highway: mobilization of pollutant-degrading bacteria by fungi. Environ Sci Technol. 2005;39:4640–6.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
3.Simon A, Bindschedler S, Job D, Wick LY, Filippidou S, Kooli WM, et al. Exploiting the fungal highway: development of a novel tool for the in situ isolation of bacteria migrating along fungal mycelium. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2015;91:fiv116.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
4.Deveau A, Bonito G, Uehling J, Paoletti M, Becker M, Bindschedler S, et al. Bacterial–fungal interactions: ecology, mechanisms and challenges. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2018;42:335–52.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
5.Harms H, Schlosser D, Wick LY. Untapped potential: exploiting fungi in bioremediation of hazardous chemicals. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2011;9:177.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
6.Otten W, Hall D, Harris K, Ritz K, Young IM, Gilligan CA. Soil physics, fungal epidemiology and the spread of Rhizoctonia solani. N. Phytol. 2001;151:459–68.
Google Scholar 
7.Sun B, Chen X, Zhang X, Liang A, Whalen JK, McLaughlin NB. Greater fungal and bacterial biomass in soil large macropores under no-tillage than mouldboard ploughing. Eur J Soil Biol. 2020;97:103155.CAS 

Google Scholar 
8.Otto S, Bruni EP, Harms H, Wick LY. Catch me if you can: dispersal and foraging of Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus 109J along mycelia. ISME J. 2017;11:386–93.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
9.Kjeldgaard B, Listian SA, Ramaswamhi V, Richter A, Kiesewalter HT, Kovács ÁT. Fungal hyphae colonization by Bacillus subtilis relies on biofilm matrix components. Biofilm. 2019;1:100007.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
10.Narr A, Nawaz A, Wick LY, Harms H, Chatzinotas A. Soil viral communities vary temporally and along a land use transect as revealed by virus-like particle counting and a modified community fingerprinting approach (fRAPD). Front Microbiol. 2017;8:1975.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
11.Rosner A, Gutstein R. Adsorption of actinophage Pal 6 to developing mycelium of Streptomyces albus. Can J Microbiol. 1981;27:254–7.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
12.Ghanem N, E. Stanley C, Harms H, Chatzinotas A,Y, Wick L. Mycelial effects on phage retention during transport in a microfluidic platform. Environ Sci Technol. 2019;53:11755–63.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
13.Dennehy JJ. What ecologists can tell virologists. Annu Rev Microbiol. 2014;68:117–35.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
14.Hurst CJ, Gerba CP, Cech I. Effects of environmental variables and soil characteristics on virus survival in soil. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1980;40:1067–79.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
15.Yeager JG, Brien RT. Enterovirus inactivation in soil. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1979;38:694–701.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
16.Schwartz DA, Lindell D. Genetic hurdles limit the arms race between Prochlorococcus and the T7-like podoviruses infecting them. ISME J. 2017;11:1836–51.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
17.Shan J, Ramachandran A, Thanki AM, Vukusic FBI, Barylski J, Clokie MRJ. Bacteriophages are more virulent to bacteria with human cells than they are in bacterial culture; insights from HT-29 cells. Sci Rep. 2018;8:5091.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
18.Chaudhry W, Lee E, Worthy A, Weiss Z, Grabowicz M, Vega NM, et al. Mucoidy, a general mechanism for maintaining lytic phage in populations of bacteria. FEMS Microbiology Ecology. 2020;96:fiaa162.19.Yu Z, Schwarz C, Zhu L, Chen L, Shen Y, Yu P. Hitchhiking behavior in bacteriophages facilitates phage infection and enhances carrier bacteria colonization. Environ Sci Technol. 2020;55:2462–72.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
20.Tarafder AK, von Kügelgen A, Mellul AJ, Schulze U, Aarts DGAL, Bharat TAM. Phage liquid crystalline droplets form occlusive sheaths that encapsulate and protect infectious rod-shaped bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2020;117:4724–31.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
21.Callaway RM, Ridenour WM. Novel weapons: invasive success and the evolution of increased competitive ability. Front Ecol Environ. 2004;2:436–43.
Google Scholar 
22.Granato ET, Meiller-Legrand TA, Foster KR. The evolution and ecology of bacterial warfare. Curr Biol. 2019;29:521–37.
Google Scholar 
23.Gama JA, Reis AM, Domingues I, Mendes-Soares H, Matos AM, Dionisio F. Temperate Bacterial viruses as double-edged swords in bacterial warfare. PLoS One. 2013;8:e59043.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
24.Dragoš A, Andersen AJC, Lozano-Andrade CN, Kempen PJ, Kovács ÁT, Strube ML. Phages carry interbacterial weapons encoded by biosynthetic gene clusters. Curr Biol. 2021;31:3479–89.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
25.Pyšek P, Bacher S, Kühn I, Novoa A, Catford JA, Hulme PE, et al. Macroecological framework for invasive aliens (MAFIA): disentangling large-scale context dependence in biological invasions. NeoBiota. 2020;62:407–61.
Google Scholar 
26.Blackburn TM, Pyšek P, Bacher S, Carlton JT, Duncan RP, Jarošík V, et al. A proposed unified framework for biological invasions. Trends Ecol Evol. 2011;26:333–9.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
27.Richardson DM, Pyšek P. Plant invasions: merging the concepts of species invasiveness and community invasibility. Prog Phys Geogr Earth Environ. 2006;30:409–31.
Google Scholar 
28.Williamson M. Explaining and predicting the success of invading species at different stages of invasion. Biol Invasions. 2006;8:1561–8.
Google Scholar 
29.Demerec M, Adelberg EA, Clark AJ, Hartman PE. A proposal for a uniform nomenclature in bacterial genetics. Genetics 1966;54:61–76.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
30.Dechesne A, Wang G, Gülez G, Or D, Smets BF. Hydration-controlled bacterial motility and dispersal on surfaces. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2010;107:14369–72.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
31.Maurhofer M, Keel C, Schnider U, Voisard C, Haas D, Defao G. Influence of enhanced antibiotic production in Pseudomanas fluorescens strain CHA0 on its disease suppressive capacity. Phytopathol. 1992;82:190–5.CAS 

Google Scholar 
32.Schamfuß S, Neu TR, van der Meer JR, Tecon R, Harms H, Wick LY. Impact of mycelia on the accessibility of fluorene to PAH-degrading bacteria. Environ Sci Technol. 2013;47:6908–15.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
33.Bichet MC, Chin WH, Richards W, Lin Y-W, Avellaneda-Franco L, Hernandez CA, et al. Bacteriophage uptake by mammalian cell layers represents a potential sink that may impact phage therapy. iScience. 2021;24:102287.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
34.Lu F, Wu S-H, Hung Y, Mou C-Y. Size effect on cell uptake in well-suspended, uniform mesoporous silica nanoparticles. Small. 2009;5:1408–13.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
35.Fortier L-C, Moineau S Phage production and maintenance of stocks, including expected stock Lifetimes. In: Clokie MRJ, Kropinski AM, editors. Bacteriophages: Methods and Protocols, Volume 1: Isolation, Characterization, and Interactions. Totowa: Humana Press; 2009. p. 203–19.36.Mazzocco A, Waddell TE, Lingohr E, Johnson RP Enumeration of Bacteriophages Using the Small Drop Plaque Assay System In: Clokie MRJ, Kropinski AM, editors. Bacteriophages: Methods and Protocols, Volume 1: Isolation, Characterization, and Interactions Totowa: Humana Press; 2009. p. 81–85.37.Kropinski AM, Mazzocco A, Waddell TE, Lingohr E, Johnson RP Enumeration of Bacteriophages by Double Agar Overlay Plaque Assay In: Clokie MRJ, Kropinski AM, editors. Bacteriophages: Methods and Protocols, Volume 1: Isolation, Characterization, and Interactions. Totowa: Humana Press; 2009. p. 69–76.38.Thanki AM, Taylor-Joyce G, Dowah A, Yakubu Nale J, Malik D, Rebecca Jane Clokie M. Unravelling the Links between Phage Adsorption and Successful Infection in Clostridium difficile. Viruses. 2018;10:441.39.Nair RR, Fiegna F, Velicer GJ. Indirect evolution of social fitness inequalities and facultative social exploitation. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2018;285:20180054.
Google Scholar 
40.Postma M, Goedhart J. PlotsOfData—A web app for visualizing data together with their summaries. PLOS Biol. 2019;17:e3000202.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
41.Wood M. Statistical inference using bootstrap confidence intervals. Significance. 2004;1:180–2.
Google Scholar 
42.Cumming G, Finch S. Inference by eye: confidence interval and how to read pictures of data. Am Psychol. 2005;60:170–80.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
43.Frada MJ, Schatz D, Farstey V, Ossolinski JE, Sabanay H, Ben-Dor S, et al. Zooplankton may serve as transmission vectors for viruses infecting algal blooms in the ocean. Curr Biol. 2014;24:2592–7.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
44.Frada MJ, Vardi A. Algal viruses hitchhiking on zooplankton across phytoplankton blooms. Commun Integr Biol. 2015;8:e1029210.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
45.Totsche KU, Kögel-Knabner I. Mobile organic sorbent affected contaminant transport in soil: numerical case studies for enhanced and reduced mobility. Vadose Zo J. 2004;3:352–67.CAS 

Google Scholar 
46.Reche I, D’Orta G, Mladenov N, Winget DM, Suttle CA. Deposition rates of viruses and bacteria above the atmospheric boundary layer. ISME J. 2018;12:1154–62.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
47.Lehmann K, Lehmann R, Totsche KU. Event-driven dynamics of the total mobile inventory in undisturbed soil account for significant fluxes of particulate organic carbon. Sci Total Environ. 2021;756:143774.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
48.Storms ZJ, Sauvageau D. Modeling tailed bacteriophage adsorption: insight into mechanisms. Virology. 2015;485:355–62.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
49.Shan Y, Harms H, Wick LY. Electric field effects on bacterial deposition and transport in porous media. Environ Sci Technol. 2018;52:14294–301.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
50.Junier P, Cailleau G, Palmieri I, Vallotton C, Trautschold OC, Junier T, et al. Democratization of fungal highway columns as a tool to investigate bacteria associated with soil fungi. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2021;97:fiab003.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
51.Furuno S, Remer R, Chatzinotas A, Harms H, Wick LY. Use of mycelia as paths for the isolation of contaminant-degrading bacteria from soil. Micro Biotechnol. 2012;5:142–8.CAS 

Google Scholar 
52.Jiang F, Zhang L, Zhou J, George TS, Feng G. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi enhance mineralisation of organic phosphorus by carrying bacteria along their extraradical hyphae. N. Phytol. 2021;230:304–15.CAS 

Google Scholar 
53.Jansa J, Hodge A. Swimming, gliding, or hyphal riding? On microbial migration along the arbuscular mycorrhizal hyphal highway and functional consequences thereof. N. Phytol. 2021;230:14–16.
Google Scholar 
54.Zhang Y, Kastman EK, Guasto JS, Wolfe BE. Fungal networks shape dynamics of bacterial dispersal and community assembly in cheese rind microbiomes. Nat Commun. 2018;9:336.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
55.Ping D, Wang T, Fraebel DT, Maslov S, Sneppen K, Kuehn S. Hitchhiking, collapse, and contingency in phage infections of migrating bacterial populations. ISME J 2020;14:2007–18.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
56.Testa S, Berger S, Piccardi P, Oechslin F, Resch G, Mitri S. Spatial structure affects phage efficacy in infecting dual-strain biofilms of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Commun Biol. 2019;2:405.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
57.May T, Tsuruta K, Okabe S. Exposure of conjugative plasmid carrying Escherichia coli biofilms to male-specific bacteriophages. ISME J. 2011;5:771–5.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
58.Abedon ST. Phage “delay” towards enhancing bacterial escape from biofilms: a more comprehensive way of viewing resistance to bacteriophages. AIMS Microbiol. 2017;3:186.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
59.Adams MH Bacteriophages (Interscience Publishers, Inc., New York – London, 1959)60.Schrader HS, Schrader JO, Walker JJ, Bruggeman NB, Vanderloop JM, Shaffer JJ, et al. Effects of host starvation on bacteriophage dynamics. Bact Oligotrophic Environ Starvation-Survival Lifestyle. 1997; 368-85.61.Schrader HS, Schrader JO, Walker JJ, Wolf TA, Nickerson KW, Kokjohn TA. Bacteriophage infection and multiplication occur in Pseudomonas aeruginosa starved for 5 years. Can J Microbiol. 1997;43:1157–63.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
62.Łoś M, Golec P, Łoś JM, Węglewska-Jurkiewicz A, Czyż A, Węgrzyn A, et al. Effective inhibition of lytic development of bacteriophages λ, P1 and T4 by starvation of their host, Escherichia coli. BMC Biotechnol. 2007;7:13.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
63.Bryan D, El-Shibiny A, Hobbs Z, Porter J, Kutter EM. Bacteriophage T4 infection of stationary phase E. coli: life after log from a phage perspective. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:1391.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
64.Yin J. A quantifiable phenotype of viral propagation. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1991;174:1009–14.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
65.Chatterjee A, Willett JLE, Dunny GM, Duerkop BA. Phage infection and sub-lethal antibiotic exposure mediate Enterococcus faecalis type VII secretion system dependent inhibition of bystander bacteria. PLOS Genet. 2021;17:e1009204.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
66.Berthold T, Centler F, Hübschmann T, Remer R, Thullner M, Harms H, et al. Mycelia as a focal point for horizontal gene transfer among soil bacteria. Sci Rep. 2016;6:36390.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
67.Lee KL, Hubbard LC, Hern S, Yildiz I, Gratzl M, Steinmetz NF. Shape matters: the diffusion rates of TMV rods and CPMV icosahedrons in a spheroid model of extracellular matrix are distinct. Biomater Sci. 2013;1. https://doi.org/10.1039/C3BM00191A.68.Hudson P, Greenman J. Competition mediated by parasites: biological and theoretical progress. Trends Ecol Evol. 1998;13:387–90.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
69.Sax DF, Stachowicz JJ, Brown JH, Bruno JF, Dawson MN, Gaines SD, et al. Ecological and evolutionary insights from species invasions. Trends Ecol Evol. 2007;22:465–71.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
70.Wagner PL, Waldor MK. Bacteriophage control of bacterial virulence. Infect Immun. 2020;70:3985–93.
Google Scholar 
71.Chantrey J, Dale TD, Read JM, White S, Whitfield F, Jones D, et al. European red squirrel population dynamics driven by squirrelpox at a gray squirrel invasion interface. Ecol Evol. 2014;4:3788–99.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
72.Essl F, Bacher S, Genovesi P, Hulme PE, Jeschke JM, Katsanevakis S, et al. Which taxa are alien? Criteria, applications, and uncertainties. Bioscience 2018;68:496–509.
Google Scholar 
73.Seebens H, Gastner MT, Blasius B. The risk of marine bioinvasion caused by global shipping. Ecol Lett. 2013;16:782–90.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
74.Seebens H, Essl F, Blasius B. The intermediate distance hypothesis of biological invasions. Ecol Lett. 2017;20:158–65.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
75.Hulme PE, Bacher S, Kenis M, Klotz S, Kühn I, Minchin D, et al. Grasping at the routes of biological invasions: a framework for integrating pathways into policy. J Appl Ecol. 2008;45:403–14.
Google Scholar 
76.Liebhold AM, Brockerhoff EG, Garrett LJ, Parke JL, Britton KO. Live plant imports: the major pathway for forest insect and pathogen invasions of the US. Front Ecol Environ. 2012;10:135–43.
Google Scholar  More

Systemic co-infections of commensal Pseudomonas with an individual pathogenTo examine the ability of commensal Pseudomonas strains to protect host plants from members of a pathogenic Pseudomonas lineage, we made use of a local isolate collection [16]. We henceforth refer to an operational taxonomic unit (OTU) as reported in that study as “ATUE” (isolates from Around TUEbingen), and following previous findings [16, 17], we refer to the lineage ATUE5 as pathogenic, and to all non-ATUE5 lineages as commensals.We grew plants on MS agar and monitored plant growth and health by extracting the number of green pixels from images over time (illustration in Fig. 1A). Green pixel count and rosette fresh weight were strongly correlated (Supplementary Fig. S1; R2 = 0.92, p value  More

1.Doney S, Abbott MR, Cullen JJ, Karl DM, Rothstein L. From genes to ecosystems: the ocean’s new frontier. Ecol Environ. 2004;2:457–66.
Google Scholar 
2.Field CB, Behrenfeld MJ, Randerson JT, Falkowski P. Primary production of the biosphere: integrating terrestrial and oceanic components. Science. 1998;281:237–40.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
3.Eppley RW, Petersen BJ. Particulate organic matter flux and planktonic new production in the deep ocean. Nature. 1979;282:677–80.
Google Scholar 
4.Ducklow H, Steinberg DK, Buessler KO. Upper ocean carbon export and the biological pump. Oceanography. 2001;14:56–58.
Google Scholar 
5.Carlson C, Ducklow H. Dissolved organic carbon in the upper ocean of the central equatorial Pacific Ocean, 1992: Daily and finescale vertical variations. Deep Sea Res II. 1995;42:639–56.CAS 

Google Scholar 
6.Cho BC, Azam F. Major role of bacteria in biogeochemical fluxes in the ocean’s interior. Nature. 1988;332:441–3.CAS 

Google Scholar 
7.Duarte CM, Cebrian J. The fate of marine autotrophic production. Limnol Oceanogr. 1996;41:1758–66.CAS 

Google Scholar 
8.Ducklow H. The bacterial component of the oceanic euphotic zone. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 1999;30:1–30.CAS 

Google Scholar 
9.Herndl GJ, Reinthaler T. Microbial control of the dark end of the biological pump. Nat Geosci. 2013;6:718–24.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
10.Worden AZ, Follows MJ, Giovannoni SJ, Wilken S, Zimmerman AE, Keeling PJ. Environmental science. Rethinking the marine carbon cycle: factoring in the multifarious lifestyles of microbes. Science. 2015;347:1257594.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
11.Grossart HP, Rojas-Jimenez K. Aquatic fungi: targeting the forgotten in microbial ecology. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2016;31:140–5.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
12.Richards TA, Jones MD, Leonard G, Bass D. Marine fungi: their ecology and molecular diversity. Ann Rev Mar Sci. 2012;4:495–522.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
13.Burgaud G, Arzur D, Durand L, Cambon-Bonavita MA, Barbier G. Marine culturable yeasts in deep-sea hydrothermal vents: species richness and association with fauna. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2010;73:121–33.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
14.Burgaud G, Le Calvez T, Arzur D, Vandenkoornhuyse P, Barbier G. Diversity of culturable marine filamentous fungi from deep-sea hydrothermal vents. Environ Microbiol. 2009;11:1588–1600.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
15.Redou V, Navarri M, Meslet-Cladiere L, Barbier G, Burgaud G. Species richness and adaptation of marine fungi from deep-subseafloor sediments. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2015;81:3571–83.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
16.Hyde KD, Jones EBG, Leao E, Pointing SB, Poonyth AD, Vrjmoed LLP. Role of fungi in marine ecosystems. Biodivers Conserv. 1998;7:1147–61.
Google Scholar 
17.Jones EB. Marine fungi: some factors influencing biodiversity. Fungal Diversity. 2000;4:53–73.
Google Scholar 
18.Priest T, Fuchs B, Amann R, Reich M. Diversity and biomass dynamics of unicellular marine fungi during a spring phytoplankton bloom. Environ Microbiol. 2021;23:448–63.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
19.Gutierrez MH, Jara AM, Pantoja S. Fungal parasites infect marine diatoms in the upwelling ecosystem of the Humboldt current system off central Chile. Environ Microbiol. 2016;18:1646–53.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
20.Gutierrez MH, Pantoja S, Tejos E. The role of fungi in processing marine organic matter in the upwelling ecosystem off Chile. Mar Biol. 2011;158:205–19.
Google Scholar 
21.Bochdansky AB, Clouse MA, Herdl GJ. Eukaryotic microbes, principally fungi and labyrinthulomycetes, dominate biomass on bathypelagic marine snow. ISME J. 2017;11:362–73.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
22.Becker S, Tebben J, Coffinet S, Wittshire K, Iversen MH, Harder T, et al. Laminarin is a major molecule in the marine carbon cycle. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2020;117:6599–607.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
23.Seymour JR, Amin SA, Raina JB, Stocker R. Zooming in on the phycosphere: the ecological interface for phytoplankton-bacteria relationships. Nat Microbiol. 2017;2:17065.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
24.Hassett BT, Gradinger R. Chytrids dominate arctic fungal communities. Environ Microbiol. 2016;18:2001–9.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
25.Lavik G, Stuhrmann T, Bruchert V, Van der Plas A, Mohrholz V, Lam P, et al. Detoxification of sulphidic African shelf waters by blooming chemolithotrophs. Nature. 2009;457:581–4.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
26.Ortega-Arbulu AS, Pichler M, Vuillemin A, Orsi WD. Effects of organic matter and low oxygen on the mycobenthos in a coastal lagoon. Environ Microbiol 2019;21:374–88.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
27.Orsi WD, Morard R, Vuillemin A, Eitel M, Wörheide G, Milucka J, et al. Anaerobic metabolism of Foraminifera thriving below the seafloor. ISME J. 2020;14:2580–94.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
28.Orsi WD, Vuillemin A, Rodriguez P, Coskun OK, Gomez-Saez GV, Lavik G, et al. Metabolic activity analyses demonstrate that Lokiarchaeon exhibits homoacetogenesis in sulfidic marine sediments. Nat Microbiol. 2020;5:248–55.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
29.Dittmar T, Koch B, Hertkorn N, Kattner G. A simple and efficient method for the solid-phase extraction of dissolved organic matter (SPE-DOM) from seawater. Limnology and Oceanography. Methods. 2008;6:230–5.CAS 

Google Scholar 
30.Green NW, Perdue EM, Aiken GR, Butler KD, Chen H, Dittmar T, et al. An intercomparison of three methods for the large-scale isolation of oceanic dissolved organic matter. Mar Chem. 2014;161:14–19.CAS 

Google Scholar 
31.Riedel T, Dittmar T. A method detection limit for the analysis of natural organic matter via Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry. Anal Chem. 2014;86:8376–82.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
32.Merder J, Freund JA, Feudel U, Hansen CT, Hawkes JA, Jacob B, et al. ICBM-OCEAN: processing ultrahigh-resolution mass spectrometry data of complex molecular mixtures. Anal Chem. 2020;92:6832–8.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
33.Koch BP, Dittmar T. From mass to structure: an aromaticity index for high resolution mass data of natural organic matter. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom. 2006;20:926–32.CAS 

Google Scholar 
34.Koch BP, Dittmar T. Erratum: from mass to structure: an aromaticity index for high resolution mass data of natural organic matter. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom. 2016;20:250–250.
Google Scholar 
35.Oksanen J, Blanchen FG, Friendly M, Kindt R, Legendre R, McGlinn D, et al. Vegan: community ecology package. R package version 2 4-3 2017. (https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan). Accessed June 2020.36.Hansen CT, Niggemann J, Giebel HA, Simon M, Bach W, Dittmar T. Biodegradability of hydrothermally altered deep-sea dissolved organic matter. Mar Chem. 2019;217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marchem.2019.103706.37.Orsi WD, Smith JM, Liu S, Liu Z, Sakamoto CM, Wilken S, et al. Diverse, uncultivated bacteria and archaea underlying the cycling of dissolved protein in the ocean. ISME J. 2016;10:2158–73.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
38.Gardes M, Bruns TD. ITS primers with enhanced specificity for basidiomycetes-application to the identification of mycorrhizae and rusts. Mol Ecol. 1993;2:113–8.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
39.White TJ, Bruns S, Lee S, Taylor J “Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics”. In: M Innis, D Gelfand, K Sninsky, T White, editors. PCR Protocols: a guide to methods and applications. Academic Pres, New York, NY; 1990. pp. 315–22.40.Tedersoo L, Lindahl B. Fungal identification biases in microbiome projects. Environ Microbiol Rep. 2016;8:774–9.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
41.Edgar RC. UPARSE: highly accurate OTU sequences from microbial amplicon reads. Nat Methods. 2013;10:996–8.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
42.Nilsson RH, Larsson KH, Taylor AFS, Bengtsson-Palme J, Jeppesen TS, Schigel D, et al. The UNITE database for molecular identification of fungi: handling dark taxa and parallel taxonomic classifications. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47:D259–D264.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
43.Bolyen E, Rideout JR, Dillon MR, Bokulich NA, Abnet CC, Al-Ghalith GA, et al. Reproducible, interactive, scalable and extensible microbiome data science using QIIME 2. Nat Biotechnol. 2019;37:852–7.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
44.Coskun OK, Pichler M, Vargas S, Gilder S, Orsi WD. Linking uncultivated microbial populations and benthic carbon turnover by using quantitative stable isotope probing. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2018;84:e01083–18.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
45.Chemidlin Prevost-Boure N, Christen R, Dequiedt S, Mougel C, Lellevre M, Jolivet C, et al. Validation and application of a PCR primer set to quantify fungal communities in the soil environment by real-time quantitative PCR. PLoS One. 2011;6:e24166.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
46.Banos S, Lentendu G, Kopf A, Wubet T, Glockner FO, Reich M. A comprehensive fungi-specific 18S rRNA gene sequence primer toolkit suited for diverse research issues and sequencing platforms. BMC Microbiol. 2018;18:190.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
47.Haas BJ, Papanicolaou A, Yassour M, Grabherr M, Blood PD, Bowden J, et al. De novo transcript sequence reconstruction from RNA-seq using the Trinity platform for reference generation and analysis. Nat Protoc. 2013;8:1494–512.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
48.Buchfink B, Xie C, Huson DH. Fast and sensitive protein alignment using DIAMOND. Nat Methods. 2015;12:59–60.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
49.Keeling PJ, Burki F, Wilcox HM, Allam B, Allen EE, Amaral-Zettler LA, et al. The marine microbial eukaryote transcriptome sequencing project (MMETSP): illuminating the functional diversity of eukaryotic life in the oceans through transcriptome sequencing. PLoS Biol. 2014;12:e1001889.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
50.Tatusov RL, Koonin EV, Lipman DJ. A genomic perspective on protein families. Science. 1997;278:631–7.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
51.Edgar RC. MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32:1792–7.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
52.Guindon S, Dufayard JF, Lefort V, Anisimova M, Hordijk W, Gascuel O, et al. New algorithms and methods to estimate maximum-likelihood phylogenies: assessing the performance of PhyML 3.0. Syst Biol. 2010;59:307–21.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
53.Gouy M, Guindon S, Gascuel O. SeaView version 4: a multiplatform graphical user interface for sequence alignment and phylogenetic tree building. Mol Biol Evol. 2010;27:221–4.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
54.Lombard V, Golaconda Ramulu H, Drula E, Coutinho PM, Henrissat B. The carbohydrate-active enzymes database (CAZy) in 2013. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42:D490–495.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
55.Tamames J, Puente-Sanchez F. SqueezeMeta, a highly portable, fully automatic metagenomic analysis pipeline. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:3349.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
56.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 
57.Li D, Liu CM, Luo R, Sadakane K, Lam TW. MEGAHIT: an ultra-fast single-node solution for large and complex metagenomics assembly via succinct de Bruijn graph. Bioinformatics. 2015;31:1674–6.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
58.Seemann T. Prokka: rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinformatics. 2014;30:2068–9.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
59.Caporaso JG, Kuczynski J, Stombaugh J, Bittinger K, Bushman FD, Costello EK, et al. QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat Methods. 2010;7:335–6.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
60.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 
61.Edgar RC. MUSCLE: a multiple sequence alignment method with reduced time and space complexity. BMC Bioinforma. 2004;5:1–19.
Google Scholar 
62.Guillard RRL, Hargraves PE. Stichochrysis immobilis is a diatom, not a chrysophyte. Phycologia. 1993;32:234–6.
Google Scholar 
63.Inthorn M, Wagner T, Scheeder G, Zabel M. Lateral transport controls distribution, quality and burial of organic matter along continental slopes in high-productivity areas. Geology. 2006;34:205–8.CAS 

Google Scholar 
64.Hungate BA, Mau RL, Schwartz E, Caporaso JG, Dijkstra P, van Gestel N, et al. Quantitative microbial ecology through stable isotope probing. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2015;81:7570–81.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
65.Igarza M, Dittmar T, Graco M, Niggemann J. Dissolved organic matter cycling in the coastal upwelling system off central Peru during an “El Niño” year. Front Mar Sci. 2019;6:198.
Google Scholar 
66.Kuypers MM, Lavik G, Woebken D, Schmid M, Fuchs BM, Amann R, et al. Massive nitrogen loss from the Benguela upwelling system through anaerobic ammonium oxidation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005;102:6478–83.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
67.Wright JJ, Konwar KM, Hallam SJ. Microbial ecology of expanding oxygen minimum zones. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2012;10:381–94.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
68.Rossel PE, Stubbins A, Hach PF, Dittmar T. Bioavailability and molecular composition of dissolved organic matter from a diffuse hydrothermal system. Mar Chem. 2015;177:257–66.CAS 

Google Scholar 
69.Schmidt F, Koch BP, Goldhammer T, Elvert M, Witt M, Lin Y, et al. Unraveling signatures of biogeochemical processes and the depositional setting in the molecular composition of pore water DOM across different marine environments. Geochim Cosmochim Acta. 2017;207:57–80.CAS 

Google Scholar 
70.Gruninger RJ, Puniya AK, Callaghan TM, Edwards JE, Youssef N, Dagar SS, et al. Anaerobic fungi (phylum Neocallimastigomycota): advances in understanding their taxonomy, life cycle, ecology, role and biotechnological potential. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2014;90:1–17.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
71.Jones MD, Richards TA, Hawksworth DL, Bass D. Validation and justification of the phylum name Cryptomycota phyl. nov. IMA Fungus. 2011;2:173–5.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
72.Spatafora JW, Chang Y, Benny GL, Lazarus K, Smith ME, Berbee ML, et al. A phylum-level phylogenetic classification of zygomycete fungi based on genome-scale data. Mycologia. 2016;108:1028–46.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
73.Morand SC, Bertignac M, Iltis A, Kolder ICRM, Pirovano W, Jourdain R, et al. Complete genome sequence of Malassezia restricta CBS 7877, an opportunist pathogen involved in dandruff and seborrheic dermatitis. Microbiol Resour Announc. 2019;8:e01543–18.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
74.Buckley DH, Huangyutitham V, Hsu SF, Nelson TA. Stable isotope probing with 15N achieved by disentangling the effects of genome G+C content and isotope enrichment on DNA density. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007;73:3189–95.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
75.Tedersoo L, Sanchez-Ramirez S, Kõljalg U, Bahram M, Döring M, Schigel D, et al. High-level classification of the Fungi and a tool for evolutionary ecological analyses. Fungal Diversity. 2018;90:135–59.
Google Scholar 
76.Walsh EA, Kirkpatrick JB, Rutherford SD, Smith DC, Sogin M, D’Hondt S, et al. Bacterial diversity and community composition from seasurface to subseafloor. ISME J. 2016;10:979–89.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
77.Karpov SA, Mamkaeva MA, Aleoshin VV, Nassonova E, Lilje O, Gleason FH. Morphology, phylogeny, and ecology of the aphelids (Aphelidea, Opisthokonta) and proposal for the new superphylum Opisthosporidia. Front Microbiol. 2014;5:112.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
78.Jones MD, Forn I, Gadelha C, Egan MJ, Bass D, Massana R, et al. Discovery of novel intermediate forms redefines the fungal tree of life. Nature. 2011;474:200–3.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
79.Chang Y, Wang S, Sekimoto S, Aerts AL, Choi C, Clum A, et al. Phylogenomic analyses indicate that early Fungi evolved digesting cell walls of algal ancestors of land plants. Genome Biol Evol. 2015;7:1590–601.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
80.Loron CC, Francois C, Rainbird RH, Turner EC, Borensztajn S, Javaux EJ. Early fungi from the Proterozoic era in Arctic Canada. Nature. 2019;570:232–5.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
81.Lyons TW, Reinhard CT, Planavsky NJ. The rise of oxygen in Earth’s early ocean and atmosphere. Nature. 2014;506:307–15.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
82.Passow U. Production of transparent exopolymer particles (TEP) by phyto- and bacterioplankton. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2002;236:1–12.
Google Scholar 
83.Takahashi E, Ledauphin J, Goux D, Orvain F. Optimising extraction of extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) from benthic diatoms: comparison of the efficiency of six EPS extraction methods. Mar Freshw Res. 2009;60:1201–10.CAS 

Google Scholar 
84.de Brouwer JFC, Wolfstein K, Stal J. Physical characterization and diel dynamics of different fractions of extracellular polysaccharides in an axenic culture of a benthic diatom. Eur J Phycol. 2002;37:37–44.
Google Scholar 
85.Bass D, Howe A, Brown N, Barton H, Demidova M, Michelle H, et al. Yeast forms dominate fungal diversity in the deep oceans. Proc R Soc B. 2007;274:3069–77.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
86.Amend A. From dandruff to deep-sea vents: Malassezia-like fungi are ecologically hyper-diverse. PLoS Pathog. 2014;10:e1004277.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
87.Meeboon J, Takamatsu S. Microidium phyllanthi-reticulati sp. nov. on Phyllanthus reticulatus. Mycotaxon. 2017;132:289–97.
Google Scholar 
88.Lueders T, Wagner B, Claus P, Friedrich MW. Stable isotope probing of rRNA and DNA reveals a dynamic methylotroph community and trophic interactions with fungi and protozoa in oxic rice field soil. Environ Microbiol. 2004;6:60–72.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
89.Kjeldsen KU, Schreiber L, Thorup CA, Boesen T, Bjerg JT, Yang T, et al. On the evolution and physiology of cable bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2019;116:19116–25.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
90.Dyksma S, Bischof K, Fuchs BM, Hoffmann K, Meier D, Meyerdierks A, et al. Ubiquitous Gammaproteobacteria dominate dark carbon fixation in coastal sediments. ISME J. 2016;10:1939–53.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
91.Middelburg JJ. Chemoautotrophy in the ocean. Geophys Res Let. 2011;38:94–97.
Google Scholar 
92.Starzynska-Janiszewska A, Dulinski R, Stodolak B. Fermentation with edible Rhizopus strains to enhance the bioactive potential of hull-less pumpkin oil cake. Molecules. 2020;25:5782.CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
93.Dubovenko AG, Dunaevsky YE, Belozersky MA, Oppert B, Lord JC, Elpidina EN. Trypsin-like proteins of the fungi as possible markers of pathogenicity. Fungal Biol. 2010;114:151–9.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
94.Arnosti C, Wietz M, Brinkhoff T, Hehemann JH, Probandt D, Zeugner L, et al. The biogeochemistry of marine polysaccharides: sources, inventories, and bacterial drivers of the carbohydrate cycle. Ann Rev Mar Sci. 2021;13:81–108.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
95.Rossel PE, Bienhold C, Hehemann JH, Dittmar T, Boetius A. Molecular composition of dissolved organic matter in sediment porewater of the arctic deep-sea observatory HAUSGARTEN (Fram Strait). Front Mar Sci. 2020;7:428.
Google Scholar 
96.Fenchel T, Finlay BJ. Ecology and evolution in anoxic worlds. In: RM May, PH Harvey, editors. Oxford Series in Ecology and Evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford; 1–288, 1995.97.Lynd LR, Weimer PJ, van Zyl WH, Pretorius IS. Microbial cellulose utilization: fundamentals and biotechnology. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2002;66:506–77.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar  More

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

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