More stories

  • in

    Seasonal mixed layer depth shapes phytoplankton physiology, viral production, and accumulation in the North Atlantic

    Mixed layer depth and phytoplankton accumulation dynamics in the North AtlanticThe NAAMES expeditions intensively measured biological, chemical, and physical properties from 4 to 7 locations, or stations, in each bloom phase during November (Winter Transition), March−April (Accumulation), May (Climax; same as Climax Transition22), and September (Decline)22. Stations spanned a broad range in latitude (~37 °N to ~55 °N, Fig. 1a), sub-regional classifications (Gulf Stream and Sargasso Sea, Subtropical, Temperate and Subpolar)24, and MLDs (tens to hundreds of meters) (Fig. 1b and Supplementary Fig. 1). MLDs were calculated using a density difference threshold of 0.03 kg m−3 from the top 10 m25. Field data and associated analyses are derived from phytoplankton 1–20 µm in diameter and their associated communities sampled within the photic zone (40, 20, 1% surface irradiance) and within the mixed layer, unless otherwise noted.Fig. 1: Mixed layer depth and phytoplankton accumulation dynamics.a Locations of sampled stations within subregions of the Northwest Atlantic during the NAAMES expeditions (color coded and shaped by the bloom phase; W. Tran = Winter Transition; Acc = Accumulation; Clim = Climax; Decl = Decline; See key in Panel B). Black rectangle represents the study area of NAAMES and this research. b Mixed layer depths within the NAAMES campaigns (black box in Fig. 1a), calculated from CTD casts at each of the station locations (colored symbols) and Bio-ARGO profiling floats that were deployed at stations and sampled continuously (small circles with separate grey lines for each float). The latter provided a history of mixed layer depths before, during, and after occupation. c Bloom phase distribution of accumulation rates for in situ phytoplankton populations sampled several times per day at 5 m. Each point represents the median accumulation rate of each station. d Bloom phase distribution of phytoplankton cell accumulation rates derived from on-deck incubations of phytoplankton populations at simulated in situ light and temperature conditions (see ‘Methods’). Each point represents a biological replicate. Data in panels (c) and (d) are based on cell concentrations and contoured with ridgeline smoothing to represent the distribution of accumulation rates across stations within a given bloom phase. The size of contour peaks is driven by frequency of observations. e Phytoplankton concentration (taken from 5 m) as a function of water column stratification (expressed as buoyancy frequency; s−1). Higher buoyancy frequencies to the right of the plot represent more stratification. A LOESS line of best fit (shaded area = 95% confidence interval) for data shows the general trend of phytoplankton concentration across all seasonal phases. Different letters denote statistically significant groups (p  0.05, Kruskal−Wallis) between populations collected from 5 m in-line sampling throughout the day (in situ) and contemporaneous incubations of the same phytoplankton populations under simulated in situ irradiance and temperature (incubations; see ‘Methods’) (Fig. 1c, d). Accumulation rates using incubations calculated via cell concentration or via biovolume were not statistically different (Supplementary Fig. 2b).Phytoplankton cell concentration and biovolume generally increased with water column stability (stratification), during the Winter Transition, Accumulation, and Climax phases (Fig. 1e and Supplementary Fig. 2c). Stratification was quantified by the buoyancy frequency averaged over the upper 300 m of the water column (see ‘Methods’). Higher values of buoyancy frequency indicate a more stratified water column where exchange with nutrient-rich water below the surface is reduced. Strongly stratified water columns (buoyancy frequencies above 2 × 10−5 s−1) during the Decline phase were associated with lower cell concentrations (Fig. 1e), consistent with enhanced phytoplankton loss or reduced accumulation. Phytoplankton biovolume and cell size distribution within 1–20 µm-sized phytoplankton cells increased during the Decline phase (Supplementary Fig. 2c–e). These higher biovolumes could have been a result of changes in community composition. They could have also been attributed to aggregation caused by virus infection20,21,28, as virus concentrations were highest during this season (discussed below), or by light stress27, as mixed layer populations were more consistently exposed to daily higher irradiance levels characteristic of shallow mixed layers (Fig. 1e).In situ phytoplankton cell concentrations increased from Winter Transition until the Climax phase, from ~1 × 106 to 2.5 × 107 cells L−1 (Fig. 2a, c, gray boxes). On-deck incubations showed similar trends but had higher overall cell concentrations (Fig. 2a, c, white boxes). The Decline phase was characterized by a 4-fold reduction in median phytoplankton cell concentrations from the peak abundances observed during Climax phase (Fig. 2a, c). The stress markers utilized in this study provided a unique view into the physiological status of communities across these annual bloom phases (Supplementary Table 1). Our ROS and compromised cell membranes biomarkers specifically targeted eukaryotic phytoplankton, given the conditions used for flow cytometry analysis (see ‘Methods’). PCD-related proteases and lipids were extracted from biomass collected onto 1.2 and 0.2 µm diameter membrane filters, respectively. Consequently, these biomarkers could also include eukaryotic heterotrophs and bacteria in the system. Induction of caspase and metacaspase activities have been found in diverse phytoplankton, such as coccolithophores, diatoms, chlorophytes, nitrogen-fixing cyanobacteria, and dinoflagellates cells undergoing stress, senescence, and death29. They have also been reported in stressed or dying grazers30, although no marine species has been explicitly studied. TAGs are found mainly in marine eukaryotic phytoplankton31,33,33 and grazers34. The highly unsaturated fatty acids in the PC and OxPCs detected in our measurements are also indicative of eukaryotic organisms, and not marine cyanobacteria32 or heterotrophic bacteria35.Fig. 2: Seasonal phases have distinct physiological state signatures.a, c Concentration of phytoplankton cells sampled within the mixed layer at depths associated with 40, 20, or 1% surface irradiance during different seasonal phases (W.Tran = Winter Transition; Acc = Accumulation; Clim = Climax; Decl = Decline). Data are shown for in situ water (grey bars) and on-deck incubations (open bars). Population-wide levels of a, b cellular reactive oxygen species (colored by fluorescence fold change from unstained; median per population) and c, d cell death (colored by % compromised membrane). Plots (b) and (d) are contoured with ridgeline smoothing to represent the relative in situ distribution of biomarker levels within each phase. The size of contour peaks is driven by frequency of observations. e, f In situ inventories of live (e; green) and dead (f; red) cells within the mixed layer through the different phases. Individual circles denote biological replicates. Box plots in (a), (c), (e) and (f) represent the median value bounded by the upper and lower quartiles with whiskers representing median + quartile × 1.5. Different letters denote statistically significant groups (p  5 µM; PO4  > 0.4 µM). Notably, nutrient concentrations during the Climax phase were similar or higher than those observed for Accumulation phase samples, which had lower ROS signatures (Fig. 2b).Phytoplankton cells in the Decline and Winter Transition phases had a higher percentage of compromised cell membranes, reaching levels as high as 80% (Fig. 2c, d). Both late stage viral infection and PCD have been linked to high levels of compromised membranes13,29. The percentage of phytoplankton cells with compromised membranes was used to calculate concentrations of live and dead cells within the mixed layer across the bloom phases. Living phytoplankton cell concentrations generally increased from the Winter Transition through the Climax phase (Fig. 2e). The variability of dead cells was highest in the Decline phase, which also had the largest variation in total, living, and dead cell concentrations (Fig. 2c, e, f).Targeted analysis of OxPC, and TAGs in resident phytoplankton communities provided further context of changes in physiological states due to their relevance in cellular stress and loss processes. The seasonal bloom phases were characterized by distinct levels of these lipids (Fig. 3 and Supplementary Fig. 4). OxPC levels were highest in the Climax phase (Fig. 3a), where mixed layers had recently shallowed (Fig. 1b) and were concomitant with high intracellular ROS levels (Fig. 2b). Subcellular environments lacking in adequate antioxidant capacity are expected to accumulate OxPC40 particularly when a shallow mixed-layer enhances UV exposure15. Chlorophyll-normalized TAG was highest in the Decline phase (Fig. 3b), which also had the lowest accumulation rates (Fig. 1c, d). High cellular TAG levels have been observed in senescent41,42 or nutrient limited9 diatoms, and virus infected haptophytes43.Fig. 3: Seasonal phases are characterized by distinct lipid profiles and cell death-associated proteolytic activity.a Oxidized phosphatidylcholine (OxPC40:10, OxPC42:11, OxPC44:12) normalized to total phosphatidylcholine (PC40:10, PC42:11, PC44:12). b Triacylglycerol (TAG; pmol L−1), normalized to ChlA (peak area/L). c (top) The proportion of in situ samples with positive caspase activity (cleavage of IETD-AFC; color shading). (bottom) Caspase-specific activity rates (µmol substrate hydrolyzed h−1 µg protein−1) for in situ populations. d (top) The proportion of in situ samples with positive metacaspase activity (cleavage of VRPR-AMC; color shading). (bottom) Metacaspase-specific activity rates (µmol substrate hydrolyzed h−1 µg protein−1) for in situ populations. All box plots represent the median value bounded by the upper and lower quartiles, with whiskers representing median + quartile × 1.5. Different letters denote statistically significant groups (p  More

  • in

    A newly discovered behavior (‘tail-belting’) among wild rodents in sub zero conditions

    1.Simeonovska-Nikolova, D. M. Interspecific social interactions and behavioral responses of Apodemus agrarius and Apodemus flavicollis to conspecific and heterospecific odors. J. Ethol. 25(1), 41–48 (2007).
    Google Scholar 
    2.Yoon, M.-H. & Han, C.-W. A study on daily torpor in the Korean striped field mouse (Apodemus agrarius). J. Life Sci. 16(4), 618–625 (2006).
    Google Scholar 
    3.Stryjek, R. et al. A methodological review of free-ranging rat assays as context-enriched supplements to traditional laboratory models. J. Neurosci. Methods 362, 109303 (2021).PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    4.Stryjek, R. et al. Wild Norway rats do not avoid predator scents when collecting food in a familiar habitat: A field study. Sci. Rep. 8(1), 9475 (2018).ADS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    5.Parsons, M. H. et al. Differential responses by city rats (Rattus norvegicus) toward male or female-produced pheromones in sheltered and high-risk presentations. J. Urban Ecol. 5, juz009 (2019).
    Google Scholar 
    6.Vukicevic-Radic, O. et al. Spatial distribution of Apodemus flavicollis and A. agrarius in a forest community quercetum-petraea on Mt. Avala (Serbia). Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 20(1), 57–60 (2006).
    Google Scholar 
    7.Filippucci, M. G., Macholan, M. & Michaux, J. R. Genetic variation and evolution in the genus Apodemus (Muridae: Rodentia). Biol. J. Lin. Soc. 75(3), 395–419 (2002).
    Google Scholar 
    8.Hille, A. et al. Morphometric, biochemical and molecular traits in Caucasian wood mice (podemus/Sylvaemus), with remarks on species divergence. Acta Theriol. 47(4), 389–416 (2002).
    Google Scholar 
    9.Rubtsov, N. et al. Comparative analysis of DNA homology in pericentric regions of chromosomes of wood mice from genera Apodemus and Sylvaemus. Russ. J. Genet. 51(12), 1233–1242 (2015).CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    10.Suzuki, H. et al. Molecular phylogeny of wood mice (Apodemus, Muridae) in East Asia. Biol. J. Lin. Soc. 80(3), 469–481 (2003).
    Google Scholar 
    11.Wilson, D. E. & Mittermeier, R. A. Handbook of the Mammals of the World: Lagomorphs and Rodents I (Lynx, 2016).
    Google Scholar 
    12.Ge, D. et al. Evolutionary history of field mice (Murinae: Apodemus), with emphasis on morphological variation among species in China and description of a new species. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 187(2), 518–534 (2019).
    Google Scholar 
    13.Knitlová, M. & Horáček, I. Late Pleistocene-Holocene paleobiogeography of the genus Apodemus in central Europe. PLoS ONE 12(3), e0173668 (2017).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    14.Bronson, F. & Pryor, S. Ambient temperature and reproductive success in rodents living at different latitudes. Biol. Reprod. 29(1), 72–80 (1983).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    15.Kay, E. H. & Hoekstra, H. E. Rodents. Curr. Biol. 18(10), R406–R410 (2008).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    16.Auffray, J.-C., Renaud, S. & Claude, J. Rodent biodiversity in changing environments. Agric. Nat. Resour. 43(1), 83–93 (2009).
    Google Scholar 
    17.Atopkin, D., Bogdanov, A. & Chelomina, G. Genetic variation and differentiation in striped field mouse Apodemus agrarius inferred from RAPD-PCR analysis. Russ. J. Genet. 43(6), 665–676 (2007).CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    18.Zhigileva, O. Allozyme variability and the population genetic structure of the mice Apodemus agrarius, Mus musculus, and Sylvaemus uralensis (Rodenita, Muridae) in Western Siberia. Russ. J. Genet. 50(8), 838–845 (2014).CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    19.Khlyap, L. A. et al. Aggregated occurrence records of the invasive alien striped field mouse (Apodemus agrarius Pall.) in the former USSR. Biodivers. Data J. 9, e69159 (2021).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    20.Klaus, S., Heldmaier, G. & Ricquier, D. Seasonal acclimation of bank voles and wood mice: Nonshivering thermogenesis and thermogenic properties of brown adipose tissue mitochondria. J. Comp. Physiol. B. 158(2), 157–164 (1988).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    21.Haim, A., McDevitt, R. & Speakman, J. Daily variations in the response of wood mice Apodemus sylvaticus to noradrenaline. J. Exp. Biol. 198(2), 561–565 (1995).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    22.Boratyński, J. S. & Szafrańska, P. A. Does basal metabolism set the limit for metabolic downregulation during torpor?. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 91(5), 1057–1067 (2018).PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    23.Bligh, J. et al. Thermoreception and Temperature Regulation (Springer, 1990).
    Google Scholar 
    24.Ijzerman, H. et al. Social thermoregulation: A meta-analysis. Psyarxiv https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/fc6yq (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    25.Tertil, R. The effect of behavioural thermoregulation on the daily metabolism of Apodemus agrarius (Pallas, 1771). Acta Theriol. 17(22), 295–313 (1972).
    Google Scholar 
    26.Hester, P. et al. Effect of partial comb and wattle trim on pullet behavior and thermoregulation. Poult. Sci. 94(5), 860–866 (2015).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    27.Arad, Z., Midtgård, U. & Bernstein, M. H. Thermoregulation in turkey vultures: Vascular anatomy, arteriovenous heat exchange, and behavior. The Condor 91(3), 505–514 (1989).
    Google Scholar 
    28.Tattersall, G. J., Andrade, D. V. & Abe, A. S. Heat exchange from the toucan bill reveals a controllable vascular thermal radiator. Science 325(5939), 468–470 (2009).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    29.Raman, E. R., Roberts, M. F. & Vanhuyse, V. J. Body temperature control of rat tail blood flow. Am. J. Physiol. 245(3), R426–R432 (1983).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    30.Romanovsky, A. A., Ivanov, A. I. & Shimansky, Y. P. Selected contribution: ambient temperature for experiments in rats: A new method for determining the zone of thermal neutrality. J. Appl. Physiol. 92(6), 2667–2679 (2002).PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    31.O’Leary, D. S., Johnson, J. M. & Taylor, W. F. Mode of neural control mediating rat tail vasodilation during heating. J. Appl. Physiol. 59(5), 1533–1538 (1985).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    32.Tan, C. L. & Knight, Z. A. Regulation of body temperature by the nervous system. Neuron 98(1), 31–48 (2018).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    33.Scholander, P. & Krog, J. Countercurrent heat exchange and vascular bundles in sloths. J. Appl. Physiol. 10(3), 405–411 (1957).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    34.Heyning, J. E. Thermoregulation in feeding baleen whales: Morphological and physiological evidence. Aquat. Mamm. 27(3), 284–288 (2001).
    Google Scholar 
    35.Davenport, J. et al. Topsy-turvy: Turning the counter-current heat exchange of leatherback turtles upside down. Biol. Lett. 11(10), 20150592 (2015).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    36.Dawson, N. & Keber, A. Physiology of heat loss from an extremity: The tail of the rat. Clin. Exp. Pharmacol. Physiol. 6(1), 69–80 (1979).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    37.Young, A. & Dawson, N. Evidence for on–off control of heat dissipation from the tail of the rat. Can. J. Physiol. Pharmacol. 60(3), 392–398 (1982).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    38.Škop, V. et al. Mouse thermoregulation: Introducing the concept of the thermoneutral point. Cell Rep. 31(2), 107501 (2020).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    39.Bozinovic, F. et al. Time and energy use under thermoregulatory constraints in a diurnal rodent. J. Therm. Biol 25(3), 251–256 (2000).
    Google Scholar 
    40.Sears, M. W. et al. Out in the cold: Physiological capacity influences behaviour in deer mice. Funct. Ecol. 23(4), 774–783 (2009).
    Google Scholar 
    41.Lagos, V. O., Bozinovic, F. & Contreras, L. C. Microhabitat use by a small diurnal rodent (Octodon degus) in a semiarid environment: Thermoregulatory constraints or predation risk?. J. Mammal. 76(3), 900–905 (1995).
    Google Scholar 
    42.Murray, I. W. & Smith, F. A. Estimating the influence of the thermal environment on activity patterns of the desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida) using temperature chronologies. Can. J. Zool. 90(9), 1171–1180 (2012).
    Google Scholar 
    43.Hoogenboom, I. et al. Seasonal change in the daily timing of behaviour of the common vole, Microtus arvalis. Oecologia 61, 18–31 (1984).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    44.Bennie, J. J. et al. Biogeography of time partitioning in mammals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111(38), 13727–13732 (2014).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    45.D’Odorico, P., Okin, G. S. & Bestelmeyer, B. T. A synthetic review of feedbacks and drivers of shrub encroachment in arid grasslands. Ecohydrology 5(5), 520–530 (2012).
    Google Scholar 
    46.Pigeon, K. E. et al. Staying cool in a changing landscape: The influence of maximum daily ambient temperature on grizzly bear habitat selection. Oecologia 181(4), 1101–1116 (2016).ADS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    47.Terrien, J., Perret, M. & Aujard, F. Behavioral thermoregulation in mammals: A review. Front. Biosci. 16(4), 1428–1444 (2011).
    Google Scholar 
    48.Morrison, P. R. & Tietz, W. J. Cooling and thermal conductivity in three small Alaskan mammals. J. Mammal. 38(1), 78–86 (1957).
    Google Scholar 
    49.Gosling, L. The twenty-four hour activity cycle of captive coypus (Myocastor coypus). J. Zool. 187(3), 341–367 (1979).
    Google Scholar 
    50.Moinard, C., Doncaster, C. P. & Barré, H. Indirect calorimetry measurements of behavioral thermoregulation in a semiaquatic social rodent, Myocastor coypus. Can. J. Zool. 70(5), 907–911 (1992).
    Google Scholar 
    51.Scholander, P. F. Evolution of climatic adaptation in homeotherms. Evolution 9, 15–26 (1955).
    Google Scholar 
    52.Prestrud, P. Adaptations by the arctic fox (Alopex lagopus) to the polar winter. Arctic 44, 132–138 (1991).
    Google Scholar 
    53.Weihong, J., Veitch, C. & Craig, J. L. An evaluation of the efficiency of rodent trapping methods: The effect of trap arrangement, cover type, and bait. N. Z. J. Ecol. 1999(23), 45–51 (1999).
    Google Scholar 
    54.Jackson, M., Hartley, S. & Linklater, W. Better food-based baits and lures for invasive rats Rattus spp. and the brushtail possum Trichosurus vulpecula: A bioassay on wild, free-ranging animals. J. Pest Sci. 89(2), 479–488 (2016).
    Google Scholar 
    55.Stryjek, R., Kalinowski, A. & Parsons, M. H, Unbiased sampling for rodents and other small mammals: How to overcome neophobia through use of an electronic-triggered live trap: A preliminary test. Front. Ecol. Evol. 7, 11 (2019).
    Google Scholar 
    56.Kilkenny, C. et al. Improving bioscience research reporting: The ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol. 8(6), e1000412 (2010).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    57.Hardy, J. D. Physiology of temperature regulation. Physiol. Rev. 41(3), 521–606 (1961).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    58.Follmann, E. Behavioral thermoregulation of arctic foxes in winter. Biotelemetry 5, 36 (1978).
    Google Scholar 
    59.Rieger, I. Tail functions in ounces, Uncia uncia. Intl. Ped. Book Snow Leopards 4, 85–97 (1984).
    Google Scholar 
    60.Sokolov, V. Adaptations of mammal skin to the environment. In Mammal Skin 573–630 (University of California Press, 1993).
    Google Scholar 
    61.Donati, G. et al. Behavioral thermoregulation in a gregarious lemur, Eulemur collaris: Effects of climatic and dietary-related factors. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 144(3), 355–364 (2011).PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    62.Dawson, T. J. & Fanning, F. D. Thermal and energetic problems of semiaquatic mammals: A study of the Australian water rat, including comparisons with the platypus. Physiol. Zool. 54(3), 285–296 (1981).
    Google Scholar 
    63.Mai, T. C. et al. Low-level radiofrequency exposure induces vasoconstriction in rats. Bioelectromagnetics 42, 455–463 (2021).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    64.Grant, R. Vasodilatation and body warming in the rat. J. Physiol. 167(2), 311 (1963).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    65.Steen, I. & Steen, J. Thermoregulatory importance of the beaver’s tail. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 15(2), 267–270 (1965).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    66.Mohler, F. S. & Heath, J. E. Comparison of IR thermography and thermocouple measurement of heat loss from rabbit pinna. Am. J. Physiol. 254(2), R389–R395 (1988).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    67.Klir, J. J., Heath, J. E. & Bennani, N. An infrared thermographic study of surface temperature in relation to external thermal stress in the Mongolian gerbil, Meriones unguiculatus. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A 96(1), 141–146 (1990).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    68.Vejmělka, F. et al. Heat dissipation in subterranean rodents: the role of body region and social organisation. Sci. Rep. 11(1), 1–17 (2021).
    Google Scholar 
    69.Heisig, M. et al. Frostbite protection in mice expressing an antifreeze glycoprotein. PLoS ONE 10(2), e0116562 (2015).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    70.Cilulko, J. et al. Infrared thermal imaging in studies of wild animals. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 59(1), 17–23 (2013).
    Google Scholar 
    71.Auerbach, L. J. et al. A novel mouse model for frostbite injury. Wilderness Environ. Med. 24(2), 94–104 (2013).MathSciNet 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    72.Phifer-Rixey, M. & Nachman, M. W. The Natural History of Model Organisms: Insights into mammalian biology from the wild house mouse Mus musculus. Elife 4, e05959 (2015).PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Effects of species and geo-information on the 137Cs concentrations in edible wild mushrooms and plants collected by residents after the Fukushima nuclear accident

    Site informationWe collected radioactivity data of wild mushrooms and wild edible plants from inspection results of specimens brought in by residents in Kawauchi Village, which is located 12–30 km away from the FDNPP (Fig. 1). Kawauchi Village is considered small, with an area of 197.4 km2, and a population of about 2500 (2820 in 2010 and 2518 in 2021)48. It is located in the middle of the Abukuma Highlands, where the elevation ranges from 270 to 1,192 m above the sea level. It has a forest coverage of 89.0%, which is higher than the average for Fukushima Prefecture (71%) and Japan as a whole (69%)49. 137Cs deposition in the village ranged from 42 to 960 kBq/m2 in 2011, estimated from an aircraft monitoring28. Before the accident, its residents were accustomed to gathering wild foods, such as wild edible mushrooms, plants, mammals, and wild honey50; many have been brought in for inspection. Information on collection areas of sub-village levels, called “Ko-aza” in Japanese, is also recorded. For these reasons, we thought that the data of the brought in inspection in Kawauchi Village would possess high value as data for inter-species and inter-region analysis on the wild mushrooms and edible plants’ radioactivity concentrations.Radioactivity data of mushrooms and wild plantsFukushima Prefecture sets up a system for each municipality to inspect radioactivity in vegetables and mushrooms consumed by residents, and Kawauchi Village started its inspection program in May 2012. Simple inspection machines are set up at public facilities, and inspections are conducted upon application by residents. In Kawauchi Village, the location of samples inspected was requested at the sub-village level. The inspection results were regularly reported in the village newsletter, along with the inspection date, inspected food, and collection location. The data compiled from May 2012 to March 2020 was provided to us through the village officials. Orita et al. analyzed the same inspection data of agricultural products in Kawauchi Village24. They used 7668 food data from April 2013 to December 2014, including 1986 wild plants and mushrooms data for internal radiation exposure assessment. Some of their data overlap with the data used in our analyses.System of monitoring radioactivity in Kawauchi VillageKawauchi Village started the brought in inspection in May 2012, and there is a maximum of eight inspection stations and currently three stations managed by residents. In the inspection sites, there are four types of NaI (Tl) or CsI (Tl) scintillation detectors. The machine names are Triathler Becquerel Finder (Hidex, Oy, Finland), Captus-3000A (Capintec, NJ), CAN-OSP-NAI (Hitachi Aloka, Tokyo, Japan), and FD-08Cs1000-1 (X-Ray Technology, Osaka, Japan). Table S4 shows the specifications of the machines51,52,53. All instruments have been confirmed to meet the radiocesium screening method requirements for food53. Among these machines, FD-08Cs1000-1 can measure radioactivity non-destructively, and the others conduct destructive measurements. The sample weight is approximately 500 g, and the counting time is 30 min. FD-08Cs1000-1 outputs the summed concentration of the two radiocesium nuclides (134Cs and 137Cs), and its detection limit is 10 Bq/kg (for total 134Cs + 137Cs). Each of the other three machines separately outputs the concentrations of 134Cs and 137Cs, and the detection limit is 10 Bq/kg for each radionuclide. Energy calibrations and background checks were performed daily, and the accuracy was periodically verified with brown rice whose radiocesium concentration was verified by calibrated high-purity Germanium (HPGe) detectors installed in the Fukushima Nuclear Center49. Table S4 shows the results of quality control using brown rice.Data preparation of radioactivity of samplesFrom the radioactivity data of wild mushrooms and plants, we picked up data that met the following criteria;

    Data have information of sampling location at sub-village levels

    Items that are not confirmed to be cooked products such as “boiled” or “dried.”

    Species with more than ten samples in which radiocesium was detected.

    In cases where mushrooms and wild plants were given in dialects, we confirmed the species’ names with residents. The names of the species were determined from the Japanese names of the items, but in some cases, it was not possible to distinguish between Cortinarius salor (“Murasakiaburashimejimodoki” in Japanese) and C. iodes (“Murasakiaburashimeji”), considered to be closely related species, so the two were mixed for analysis. The leaf stalk and scape of Petasites japonicus (Japanese butterbur) are called “Fuki” and “Fukinotou” in Japanese, respectively, and are registered separately. Therefore, despite being the same species, they were distinguished in the analysis. In this data, there were not sampling date but measurement date. Therefore, the date of measurement and sample collection were assumed to be the same.The 137Cs concentration results were used in the model analysis. The reason for not using the134Cs concentration among the measured values is explained in the subsection of “Bayesian estimation”. 137Cs concentrations were decay-corrected to March 11th, 2011 for comparison with Komatsu et al. (2019). Based on the assumption that the 134Cs/137Cs ratio at the time of the accident was one54, the summed concentration of 134Cs and 137Cs concentration taken by FD08-Cs1000-1 was converted to a 137Cs concentration, which was decay-corrected to March 11th, 2011, using the following equation;$${}^{137}C{s}_{2011/03/11}=tC{s}_{mathrm{sampling}_mathrm{day}}*frac{{0.5}^{dy/30.17}}{{0.5}^{dy/2.065}+{0.5}^{dy/30.17}}$$In this equation, dy indicates the period from March 11th, 2011, to the date of measuring, and it is expressed by decimal years.Sub-village (“Ko-aza”) boundary map of Kawauchi VillageKawauchi Village comprises eight administrative communities (called “Oh-aza” in Japanese), which are further subdivided into small administrative units known as “Ko-aza”. Here, we refer to these small administrative units as sub-villages. We obtained a sub-village map from the administrative office. The printed map was originally drawn by hand and had been used for village administration. To create a polygon shapefile of the map, we digitized it by scanning, geo-rectifying, and digitizing using GIS software in TNTmips v2014 (MicroImages, Inc, NE) and ArcGIS 10.3 (Esri, Inc, CA). We used this map to associate land names with monthly radioactivity data from samples and to estimate sample collection locations.Deposition dataFor the 137Cs deposition data of this area, we used 250 m grid deposition data measured by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology28,55 and then corrected by Kato and Onda26. We computed the geometric mean value of 137Cs deposition within each sub-village polygon. The 137Cs deposition is also decay-corrected to March 11th, 2011.Bayesian estimationWe constructed a Bayesian model partially modified from Komatsu et al.22 to estimate 137Cs concentration (137Cssample). The model is based on the Gonze and Calmon’s concept of normalized concentration (NC) as expressed by:$$NC= frac{Cs}{D}$$where D indicates the radiocesium deposition amount based on the aircraft monitoring. Then the above equation is transformed and logarithmized to yield;$$mathrm{log}Cs=mathrm{log}NC+mathrm{log}D$$In this expression of the model equation, we further assumed that the logartihm of NC encompassed the summed effects of species identity, collection date, and collection site, and that the logarithm of NC was normally distributed around the estimated mean as per the following equations;$$begin{array}{l}{text{log}}_{10}{hspace{0.17em}}^{137}C{s}_{mathrm{sample}} sim Normal({mu }_{mathrm{sample}},sigma )\ {mu }_{mathrm{sample}} ={text{log}}_{10}N{C}_{mathrm{sp}}+{lambda }_{mathrm{sp}}Y+{text{log}}_{10}{D}_{mathrm{loc}}+{r}_{mathrm{loc}}\ {text{log}}_{10}N{C}_{mathrm{sp}} sim Normal({mu }_{mathrm{sp}},{sigma }_{mathrm{sp}})\ {lambda }_{mathrm{sp}} sim Normal({mu }_{mathrm{lambda sp}},{sigma }_{mathrm{lambda sp}})\ {r}_{mathrm{loc}} sim Normal(0,{sigma }_{mathrm{loc}})end{array}$$where NCsp, λsp, Dloc and rloc indicate characteristics of concentration of species, temporal trends of species, 137Cs deposition of each sub-village area and effects of sub-village on concentration, respectively. rloc is a parameter with zero mean that represents the deviation of the concentration effect from the expected value based on the deposition (Dloc) value at the point of collection. These parameters except Dloc were obtained from hierarchically sampled from normal distribution with hierarchical parameters (μsp, σsp, μλsp, σλsp, σloc). Additionally, rloc was sampled using the Intrinsic Conditional Auto-Regressive (Intrinsic CAR) model56, which is one of the models considering spatial auto-correlation. For samples whose measured radiocesium concentrations were below the detection limit, radiocesium concentration values were estimated by a censoring distribution in which the detection limit was treated as the upper bound57. This model was defined as the “sub-village model” for this research. This model is similar to model 6 in Komatsu et al.22 but differs in that their previous model takes into account 134Cs values and differences between 134 and 137Cs values. Komatsu et al. evaluated the regional trend in the difference between134Cs and 137Cs concentrations across eastern Japan because 137Cs originating from nuclear bomb tests before the FDNPP accident was detected in wild mushrooms sampled in the northern and southern parts of eastern Japan, which are far from the FDNPP and received less deposition from the accident ( More

  • in

    Microplastics increase susceptibility of amphibian larvae to the chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis

    1.Fendall, L. S. & Sewell, M. A. Contributing to marine pollution by washing your face: Microplastics in facial cleansers. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 58, 1225–1228 (2009).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    2.Weinstein, J. E., Crocker, B. K. & Gray, A. D. From macroplastic to microplastic: Degradation of high-density polyethylene, polypropylene, and polystyrene in a salt marsh habitat. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 35, 1632–1640 (2016).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    3.Eerkes-Medrano, D., Thompson, R. C. & Aldridge, D. C. Microplastics in freshwater systems: A review of the emerging threats, identification of knowledge gaps and prioritisation of research needs. Water Res. 75, 63–82 (2015).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    4.Avio, C. G., Gorbi, S. & Regoli, F. Plastics and microplastics in the oceans: From emerging pollutants to emerged threat. Mar. Environ. Res. 128, 2–11 (2017).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    5.Lambert, S. & Wagner, M. Microplastics are contaminants of emerging concern in freshwater environments: an overview. Freshwater Microplastics, 1–23 (2018).6.de Souza Machado, A. A., Kloas, W., Zarfl, C., Hempel, S. & Rillig, M. C. Microplastics as an emerging threat to terrestrial ecosystems. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 1405–1416 (2018).ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    7.Rist, S., Almroth, B. C., Hartmann, N. B. & Karlsson, T. M. A critical perspective on early communications concerning human health aspects of microplastics. Sci. Total Environ. 626, 720–726 (2018).CAS 
    PubMed 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    8.Borrelle, S. B. et al. Predicted growth in plastic waste exceeds efforts to mitigate plastic pollution. Science 369, 1515–1518 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    9.Anbumani, S. & Kakkar, P. Ecotoxicological effects of microplastics on biota: A review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 25, 14373–14396 (2018).CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    10.Horton, A. A., Walton, A., Spurgeon, D. J., Lahive, E. & Svendsen, C. Microplastics in freshwater and terrestrial environments: Evaluating the current understanding to identify the knowledge gaps and future research priorities. Sci. Total Environ. 586, 127–141 (2017).CAS 
    PubMed 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    11.Foley, C. J., Feiner, Z. S., Malinich, T. D. & Höök, T. O. A meta-analysis of the effects of exposure to microplastics on fish and aquatic invertebrates. Sci. Total Environ. 631, 550–559 (2018).PubMed 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    12.Wong, J. K. H., Lee, K. K., Tang, K. H. D. & Yap, P.-S. Microplastics in the freshwater and terrestrial environments: Prevalence, fates, impacts and sustainable solutions. Sci. Total Environ. 719, 137512 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    13.Alimi, O. S., Farner Budarz, J., Hernandez, L. M. & Tufenkji, N. Microplastics and nanoplastics in aquatic environments: Aggregation, deposition, and enhanced contaminant transport. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52, 1704–1724 (2018).CAS 
    PubMed 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    14.Sokolova, I. M. Energy-limited tolerance to stress as a conceptual framework to integrate the effects of multiple stressors. Integr. Comp. Biol. 53, 597–608. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/ict028 (2013).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    15.Kirstein, I. V. et al. Dangerous hitchhikers? Evidence for potentially pathogenic Vibrio spp. on microplastic particles. Mar. Environ. Res. 120, 1–8 (2016).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    16.Viršek, M. K., Lovšin, M. N., Koren, Š, Kržan, A. & Peterlin, M. Microplastics as a vector for the transport of the bacterial fish pathogen species Aeromonas salmonicida. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 125, 301–309 (2017).PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    17.Reid, A. J. et al. Emerging threats and persistent conservation challenges for freshwater biodiversity. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12480 (2018).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    18.Berger, L. et al. Chytridiomycosis causes amphibian mortality associated with population declines in the rain forests of Australia and Central America. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 95, 9031–9036 (1998).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    19.Lips, K. R. Overview of chytrid emergence and impacts on amphibians. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 371, 20150465 (2016).
    Google Scholar 
    20.O’Hanlon, S. J. et al. Recent Asian origin of chytrid fungi causing global amphibian declines. Science 360, 621–627 (2018).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    21.Xie, G. Y., Olson, D. H. & Blaustein, A. R. Projecting the global distribution of the emerging amphibian fungal pathogen, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, based on IPCC climate futures. PLoS One 11, e0160746 (2016).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    22.Walker, S. et al. Factors driving pathogenicity versus prevalence of the amphibian pathogen Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis and chytridiomycosis in Iberia. Ecol. Lett. 13, 372–382 (2010).PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    23.Hite, J. L., Bosch, J., Fernández-Beaskoetxea, S., Medina, D. & Hall, S. R. Joint effects of habitat, zooplankton, host stage structure and diversity on amphibian chytrid. Proc. R. Soc. B 283, 20160832 (2016).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    24.Bosch, J., Carrascal, L. M., Duran, L., Walker, S. & Fisher, M. C. Climate change and outbreaks of amphibian chytridiomycosis in a montane area of Central Spain; Is there a link?. Proc. R. Soc. B 274, 253–260 (2007).PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    25.Parris, M. J. & Baud, D. R. Interactive effects of a heavy metal and chytridiomycosis on gray treefrog larvae (Hyla chrysoscelis). Copeia 2004, 344–350 (2004).
    Google Scholar 
    26.Bosch, J. et al. Increased tropospheric ozone levels enhance pathogen infection levels of amphibians. Sci. Total Environ. 759, 143461 (2021).CAS 
    PubMed 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    27.Brown, J. R., Miiller, T. & Kerby, J. L. The interactive effect of an emerging infectious disease and an emerging contaminant on Woodhouse’s toad (Anaxyrus woodhousii) tadpoles. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 32, 2003–2008 (2013).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    28.Hanlon, S. M. & Parris, M. J. The interactive effects of chytrid fungus, pesticides, and exposure timing on gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor) larvae. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 33, 216–222 (2014).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    29.McMahon, T. A., Romansic, J. M. & Rohr, J. R. Nonmonotonic and monotonic effects of pesticides on the pathogenic fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in culture and on tadpoles. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 7958–7964 (2013).CAS 
    PubMed 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    30.Bosch, J., Martinez-Solano, I. & Garcia-Paris, M. Evidence of a chytrid fungus infection involved in the decline of the common midwife toad (Alytes obstetricans) in protected areas of central Spain. Biol. Conserv. 97, 331–337 (2001).
    Google Scholar 
    31.Tobler, U. & Schmidt, B. R. Within-and among-population variation in chytridiomycosis-induced mortality in the toad Alytes obstetricans. PLoS One 5, e10927 (2010).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    32.Boyero, L. et al. Microplastics impair amphibian survival, body condition and function. Chemosphere 244, 125500 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    33.Fisher, M. C. & Garner, T. W. Chytrid fungi and global amphibian declines. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 18, 332–343 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    34.Kriger, K. M. & Hero, J. M. Altitudinal distribution of chytrid (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) infection in subtropical Australian frogs. Austral Ecol. 33, 1022–1032 (2008).
    Google Scholar 
    35.Kriger, K. M., Pereoglou, F. & Hero, J. M. Latitudinal variation in the prevalence and intensity of chytrid (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) infection in eastern Australia. Conserv. Biol. 21, 1280–1290 (2007).PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    36.Garner, T. W., Rowcliffe, J. M. & Fisher, M. C. Climate change, chytridiomycosis or condition: An experimental test of amphibian survival. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 667–675 (2011).ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    37.Raffel, T. R., Halstead, N. T., McMahon, T. A., Davis, A. K. & Rohr, J. R. Temperature variability and moisture synergistically interact to exacerbate an epizootic disease. Proc. R. Soc. B 282, 20142039 (2015).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    38.Clare, F. C. et al. Climate forcing of an emerging pathogenic fungus across a montane multi-host community. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 371, 20150454 (2016).
    Google Scholar 
    39.Ortiz-Santaliestra, M. E., Fisher, M. C., Fernández-Beaskoetxea, S., Fernández-Benéitez, M. J. & Bosch, J. Ambient ultraviolet B radiation and prevalence of infection by Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in two amphibian species. Conserv. Biol. 25, 975–982 (2011).PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    40.Rohr, J. R. et al. Early-life exposure to a herbicide has enduring effects on pathogen-induced mortality. Proc. R. Soc. B 281, 20140629 (2014).PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    41.Hanlon, S. M., Lynch, K. J., Kerby, J. & Parris, M. J. Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis exposure effects on foraging efficiencies and body size in anuran tadpoles. Dis. Aquat. Org. 112, 237–242 (2015).
    Google Scholar 
    42.Wright, S. L., Thompson, R. C. & Galloway, T. S. The physical impacts of microplastics on marine organisms: A review. Environ. Pollut. 178, 483–492 (2013).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    43.Gabor, C. R., Bosch, J., Fries, J. N. & Davis, D. R. A non-invasive water-borne hormone assay for amphibians. Amphibia-Reptilia 34, 151–162 (2013).
    Google Scholar 
    44.Ortiz-Santaliestra, M. E., Marco, A., Fernández, M. J. & Lizana, M. Influence of developmental stage on sensitivity to ammonium nitrate of aquatic stages of amphibians. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 25, 105–111 (2006).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    45.Jackson, M. C., Loewen, C. J., Vinebrooke, R. D. & Chimimba, C. T. Net effects of multiple stressors in freshwater ecosystems: A meta-analysis. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 180–189 (2016).ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    46.Buck, J. C., Truong, L. & Blaustein, A. R. Predation by zooplankton on Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis: Biological control of the deadly amphibian chytrid fungus?. Biodivers. Conserv. 20, 3549–3553 (2011).
    Google Scholar 
    47.Medina, D., Garner, T. W., Carrascal, L. M. & Bosch, J. Delayed metamorphosis of amphibian larvae facilitates Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis transmission and persistence. Dis. Aquat. Org. 117, 85–92 (2015).
    Google Scholar 
    48.Boyle, A. H. D. et al. Diagnostic assays and sampling protocols for the detection of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis. Dis. Aquat. Org. 73, 175–192 (2007).
    Google Scholar 
    49.Hu, L. et al. Uptake, accumulation and elimination of polystyrene microspheres in tadpoles of Xenopus tropicalis. Chemosphere 164, 611–617 (2016).CAS 
    PubMed 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    50.Boyle, D. G., Boyle, D., Olsen, V., Morgan, J. & Hyatt, A. Rapid quantitative detection of chytridiomycosis (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) in amphibian samples using real-time Taqman PCR assay. Dis. Aquat. Org. 60, 141–148 (2004).CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    51.Peig, J. & Green, A. J. New perspectives for estimating body condition from mass/length data: The scaled mass index as an alternative method. Oikos 118, 1883–1891 (2009).
    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Shallow-emerged coral may warn of deep-sea coral response to thermal stress

    1.Stone, R. P., Masuda, M. M. & Karinen, J. F. Assessing the ecological importance of red tree coral thickets in the eastern Gulf of Alaska. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 72, 900–915 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    2.Matsumoto, A. K. Recent observations on the distribution of deep-sea coral communities on the Shiribeshi Seamount, Sea of Japan’. In Freiwald, A., & Roberts, J. M. (eds) Cold-Water Corals and Ecosystems. 345–356. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2005).3.Power, M. E. et al. Challenges in the quest for keystones: Identifying keystone species is difficult—But essential to understanding how loss of species will affect ecosystems. BioSci. 46, 609–620 (1996).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    4.Waller, R. G. et al. Phenotypic plasticity or a reproductive dead end? Primnoa pacifica (Cnidaria: Alcyonacea) in the Southeastern Alaska Region. Front. Mar. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00709 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    5.Witherell, D. & Coon, C. ‘Protecting gorgonian corals off Alaska from fishing impacts.’ In: Willison, J. H. M., Hall J., Gass, S. E., Kenchington, E. L. R., Butler, M. & Doherty, P. (eds) First international symposium on deep-sea corals. Ecology Action Center and Nova Scotia Museum, Halifax, 117–115 (2000).6.Krieger, K. J. ‘Coral (Primnoa) impacted by fishing gear in the Gulf of Alaska.’ In: Willison, J. H. M., Hall J., Gass, S. E., Kenchington, E. L. R., Butler, M. & Doherty, P. (eds) First international symposium on deep-sea corals. Ecology Action Center and Nova Scotia Museum, Halifax, 106–116 (2000).7.Stone, R. P. & Shotwell, S. K. State of deep coral ecosystems in the Alaska Region: Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea and the Aleutian Islands. The State of Deep Coral Ecosystems of the United States. NOAA Technical Memorandum CRCP-3, NOAA, Silver Spring, 65–108 (2007).8.Andrews, A. H. et al. Age, growth and radiometric age validation of a deep-sea, habitat-forming gorgonian (Primnoa resedaeformis) from the Gulf of Alaska. Hydrobiologia 471, 101–110 (2002).MathSciNet 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    9.Federal Register Fisheries of the exclusive economic zone of Alaska, 50 CFD, Ch. VI, Part 679 (10-1-17 edition): 490–964 (2017).10.Stone, R. P. & Mondragon, J. Deep-sea emergence of red tree corals (Primnoa pacifica) in Southeast Alaska glacial fjords. NOAA professional Papers NMFS 20, 33 p. https://doi.org/10.7755/PP.20 (2018).11.Waller, R. G., Stone, R. P., Johnstone, J. & Mondragon, J. Sexual reproduction and seasonality of the Alaskan red tree coral, Primnoa pacifia. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0090893 (2014).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    12.Franzén, Å. ‘Spermatogenesis.’ In Giese, A., Pearse, J.S., & Pearse, V.B. (eds.) Reproduction of marine invertebrates, Vol. IX, 1–47. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Palo Alto, CA, & The Boxwood Press, Pacific Grove, CA (1987).13.Szmant-Froelich, A., Yevich, P. & Pilson, M. E. Gametogenesis and early development of the temperate coral Astrangia danae (Anthozoa: Scleractinia). Biol. Bull. 158, 257–269 (1980).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    14.Schmidt, H. & Zissler, D. The sperm of the Anthozoa and their phylogenetic significance. Zoologica (Stuttg.) 44, 1–98 (1979).
    Google Scholar 
    15.Harrison, P.L. & Jamieson, B.G.M. ‘Cnidaria and Ctenophora.’ In Jamieson, B. G. M (ed), Progress in male gamete ultrastructure and phylogeny, Reproductive biology of invertebrates; vol. 9, pt. A, John Wiley and Sons Ltd, UK (1999).16.National Park Service Southeast Alaska Inventory and Monitoring Network. https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/Reference/Profile/2258347 (accessed 11 February 2020).17.Cheng, L. et al. Record-setting ocean warmth continued in 2019. Adv. Atmos. Sci. 37, 137–142 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    18.Smale, D. A. et al. Marine heatwaves threaten global biodiversity and the provision of ecosystem services. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 306–312 (2019).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    19.Cairns, S. D. & Bayer, F. M. A review of the genus Primnoa (Octocorallia: Gorgonacea: Primnoidae), with the description of two new species. Bull. Mar. Sci. 77, 225–256 (2005).
    Google Scholar 
    20.Taylor, M. I., Cairns, S. D., Agnew, J. A. & Rogers, A. D. A revision of the genus Thouarella Gray, 1870 (Octocorallia, Primnoidae) including an illustrated dichotomous key, a new species description, and comments on Plumarella Gray, 1870 and Dasystenella, Versluys, 1906. Zootaxa 3602, 1–105 (2013).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    21.Walsh, J. E. et al. The high latitude marine heat wave of 2016 and its impacts on Alaska. Bull. Am. Meteorol. 99, S39–S43 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    22.Randall, C. J. et al. Sexual production of corals for reef restoration in the Anthropocene. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 635, 203–232 (2020).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    23.Leuzinger, S., Willis, B. L. & Anthony, K. R. Energy allocation in a reef coral under varying resource availability. Mar. Biol. 159, 177–186 (2012).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    24.Sweetman, A. K. et al. Major impacts of climate change on deep-sea benthic ecosystems. Elem. Sci. Anth. https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.203 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    25.Naumann, M. S., Orejas, C. & Ferrier-Pagès, C. Species-specific physiological response by the cold-water corals Lophelia pertusa and Madrepora oculata to variations within their natural temperature range. Deep Sea Res. (2 Top. Stud. Oceanogr.) 99, 36–41 (2014).26.Gori, A. et al. Physiological response of the cold-water coral Desmophyllum dianthus to thermal stress and ocean acidification. PeerJ https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1606 (2016).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    27.Weinnig, A. M., Gómez, C. E., Hallaj, A. & Cordes, E. E. Cold-water coral (Lophelia pertusa) response to multiple stressors: High temperature affects recovery from short-term pollution exposure. Sci. Rep. 10, 1–13 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    28.Thompson, D. M. & Van Woesik, R. Corals escape bleaching in regions that recently and historically experienced frequent thermal stress. Proc. R. Soc. B 276, 2893–2901 (2009).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    29.Palumbi, S. R., Barshis, D. J., Traylor-Knowles, N. & Bay, R. A. Mechanisms of reef coral resistance to future climate change. Science 344, 895–898 (2014).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    30.Sully, S., Burkepile, D. E., Donovan, M. K., Hodgson, G. & Van Woesik, R. A global analysis of coral bleaching over the past two decades. Nat. Commun. 10, 1–5 (2019).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    31.Liberman, R., Fine, M. & Benayahu, Y. Simulated climate change scenarios impact the reproduction and early life stages of a soft coral. Mar. Environ. Res. 163, 105215 (2021).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    32.Gori, A. et al. Reproductive cycle and trophic ecology in deep versus shallow populations of the Mediterranean gorgonian Eunicella singularis (Cap de Creus, northwestern Mediterranean Sea). Coral Reefs 31, 823–837 (2012).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    33.Holstein, D. M., Smith, T. B., Gyory, J. & Paris, C. B. Fertile fathoms: deep reproductive refugia for threatened shallow corals. Sci. Rep. 5, 1–12 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    34.Feldman, B., Shlesinger, T. & Loya, Y. Mesophotic coral-reef environments depress the reproduction of the coral Paramontastraea peresi in the Red Sea. Coral Reefs 37, 201–214 (2018).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    35.Grinyó, J. et al. Reproduction, energy storage and metabolic requirements in a mesophotic population of the gorgonian Paramuricea macrospina. PLoS ONE 13, e0203308 (2018).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    36.Shlesinger, T., Grinblat, M., Rapuano, H., Amit, T. & Loya, Y. Can mesophotic reefs replenish shallow reefs? Reduced coral reproductive performance casts a doubt. Ecol. 99, 421–437 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    37.Holstein, D. M., Paris, C. B., Vaz, A. C. & Smith, T. B. Modeling vertical coral connectivity and mesophotic refugia. Coral Reefs 35, 23–37 (2016).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    38.Hartmann, A. C., Marhaver, K. L. & Vermeij, M. J. Corals in healthy populations produce more larvae per unit cover. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12410 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    39.Gori, A., Linares, C., Rossi, S., Coma, R. & Gili, J. M. Spatial variability in reproductive cycle of the gorgonians Paramuricea clavata and Eunicella singularis (Anthozoa, Octocorallia) in the Western Mediterranean Sea. Mar. Biol. 151, 1571–1584 (2007).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    40.Liberman, R., Shlesinger, T., Loya, Y. & Benayahu, Y. Octocoral sexual reproduction: Temporal disparity between mesophotic and shallow-reef populations. Front. Mar. Sci. 5, 445 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    41.Tsounis, G., Rossi, S., Aranguren, M., Gili, J. M. & Arntz, W. Effects of spatial variability and colony size on the reproductive output and gonadal development cycle of the Mediterranean red coral (Corallium rubrum L.). Mar. Biol. 148, 513–527 (2006).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    42.Shlesinger, T. & Loya, Y. Breakdown in spawning synchrony: A silent threat to coral persistence. Science 365, 1002–1007 (2019).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    43.Johnstone, J., Nash, S., Hernandez, E. & Rahman, M. S. Effects of elevated temperature on gonadal functions, cellular apoptosis, and oxidative stress in Atlantic sea urchin Arbacia punculata. Mar. Environ. Res. 149, 40–49 (2019).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    44.Bögner, D. Life under climate change scenarios: Sea urchins’ cellular mechanisms for reproductive success. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 4, 28 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    45.Nash, S. & Rahman, M. S. Short-term heat stress impairs testicular functions in the American oyster, Crassostrea virginica: Molecular mechanisms and induction of oxidative stress and apoptosis in spermatogenic cells. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 86, 1444–1458 (2019).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    46.López-Galindo, L. et al. Reproductive performance of Octopus maya males conditioned by thermal stress. Ecol. Indic. 96, 437–447 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    47.IPCC, 2019: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems [P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. van Diemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S. Neogi, M. Pathak, J. Petzold, J. Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, K. Kissick, M. Belkacemi, J. Malley, (eds.)]. In press.48.Barrie, J. V. & Conway, K. W. Late Quaternary glaciation and postglacial stratigraphy of the northern Pacific margin of Canada. Quat. Res. 51, 113–123 (1999).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    49.Hartill, É. C., Waller, R. G. & Auster, P. J. Deep coral habitats of Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, Alaska. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236945 (2020).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    50.Rossin, A. M., Waller, R. G. & Stone, R. P. The effects of in-vitro pH decrease on the gametogenesis of the red tree coral, Primnoa pacifica. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203976 (2019).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Microbes in a sea of sinking particles

    1.Alcolombri, U. et al. Nat. Geosci. 14, 775–780 (2021).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    2.Briggs, N., Dall’Olmo, G. & Claustre, H. Science 367, 791–793 (2020).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    3.Azam, F. Science 280, 694–696 (1998).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    4.Boyd, P. W., Claustre, H., Levy, M., Siegel, D. A. & Weber, T. Nature 568, 327–335 (2019).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    5.Steinberg, D. K. et al. Limnol. Oceanogr. 53, 1327–1338 (2008).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    6.Lampitt, R. S., Wishner, K. F., Turley, C. M. & Angel, M. V. Mar. Biol. 116, 689–702 (1993).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    7.Mende, D. R. et al. Nat. Microbiol. 2, 1367–1373 (2017).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    8.Enke, T. N., Leventhal, G. E., Metzger, M., Saavedra, J. T. & Cordero, O. X. Nat. Commun. 9, 2743 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    9.Trull, T. W. et al. 55, 1684–1695 (2008).10.Bressac, M. et al. Nat. Geosci. 12, 995–1000 (2019).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Effect of biostimulants on the growth, yield and nutritional value of Capsicum annuum grown in an unheated plastic tunnel

    Plant and fruit characteristicsBiometric parameters of plantsThe analyzed cultivars (characterized by desirable morphological, physical and chemical properties, uniform ripening, suitability for mechanical harvesting, high productivity, resistance to diseases and pests) and the application of modern farming technologies can have significant effects on crop yields and quality and, in consequence, production profitability, which was also observed by other authors11,23,24,25.The influence of the combined application of biostimulants on the biometric parameters of plants in the analyzed cultivars of C. annuum is presented in Table 1. The analyzed biostimulants had no significant effect on the values of leaf greenness (SPAD), relative to the control treatment. In the tested cultivars, the mean values of this parameter ranged from 52.5 (cv. ‘Turbine F1’) to 58.8 (cv. ‘Cyklon’). In general, leaf greenness was not significantly affected by the treatment × cultivar interaction, although two homogeneous groups were identified: cvs. ‘Turbine F1’ and ‘Palivec’, and cvs. ‘Solario F1’, ‘Whitney F1’ and ‘Cyklon’.Table 1 Effect of the combined application of biostimulants on the biometric parameters (mean values ± standard deviations) of plants in the analyzed cultivars of Capsicum.Full size tableThe average weight of aboveground plant parts ranged from 112 g (cv. ‘Palivec’) to 248 g (cv. ‘Solario F1’), and average root weight ranged from 112 g (cv. ‘Palivec’) to 220 g (cv. ‘Cyklon’). These parameters were not significantly affected by the method of biostimulant application, but their values were highest in treatment I (combined application of BB Soil, BB Foliar and Multical). The analyzed C. annuum cultivars can be divided into three homogeneous groups based on the weight of aboveground plant parts, and into two homogeneous groups based on root weight, but the biostimulants exerted different effects on these parameters in each cultivar. The weight of aboveground plant parts was highest in cv. ‘Solario F1’ in treatments I and III, and lowest in cv. ‘Palivec’ in treatment III. Root weight was highest in cv. ‘Cyklon’ in treatment I, and lowest in cv. ‘Palivec’ in the control treatment.It can be concluded that the combined application of the tested biostimulants had a minor effect on the biometric parameters of pepper plants. In contrast, Thevanathan et al.26 and Bai et al.27 demonstrated that algal extracts had a considerable influence on plant height (35% increase) in pulses. Bilal28, Abou-Shlell et al.29 and Hamed30 found that the natural foliar nano-fertilizer Lithovit positively affected the vegetative growth of crop plants.YieldThe fruit yields of the analyzed C. annuum cultivars treated with biostimulants applied in different combinations are presented in Table 2. Similarly to the values of leaf greenness and biometric parameters of plants, early, marketable and total yields were determined mostly by varietal traits, whereas biostimulants exerted a minor effect. On average, ‘Whitney F1’ was the highest-yielding cultivar, and ‘Cyklon’ was the lowest-yielding cultivar. Sweet cultivars were characterized by higher yields than hot cultivars, and the best results were noted in treatment II (combined application of BB Soil, BB Foliar, Multical and MK5), although no significant differences were observed relative to the control treatment and the remaining experimental treatments. The early yield ranged from 0.2 kg·m−2 (cv. ‘Cyklon’) to 3.8 kg·m−2 (cv. ‘Whitney F1’), and ‘Cyklon’ and ‘Palivec’ (hot cultivars) were characterized by similar early yields. The marketable yield was lowest in cv. ‘Cyklon’ (3.1 kg·m−2) and highest in cv. ‘Turbine F1’ (7.3 kg·m−2). ‘Turbine F1’ and ‘Whitney F1’ were characterized by comparable marketable yields. Similar effects were observed with regard to total yield. An analysis of the values of marketable and total yields revealed that the percentage of marketable fruits was higher in hot cultivars (approx. 100% on average) than in sweet cultivars (approx. 93–99% on average), and it was lowest in cv. ‘Whitney F1’ in treatment II (combined application of BB Soil, BB Foliar, Multical and MK5)—around 88%. The analyzed C. annuum cultivars responded differently to the tested combinations of biostimulants in terms of yield, but they did not differ significantly in total fruit yield, although nine homogeneous groups were identified.Table 2 Effect of the combined application of biostimulants on fruit yield (mean values ± standard deviations) in the analyzed cultivars of Capsicum annuum.Full size tableA positive effect of titanium application on crop yields was also observed by Marcinek and Hetman31 in Sparaxis tricolor Ker Gawl, and by Grajkowski and Ochmian32 in raspberries. In a study of strawberries conducted by Michalski33, the effectiveness of titanium in plant nutrition varied across years. Dobromilska34 reported that the foliar application of titanium contributed to an increase in tomato yields and significantly enhanced the vegetative growth of tomato plants, including an increase in plant height, stem diameter and the number of leaves per plant. Normal vegetative growth and development contributes to improving crop quality, and genetic factors play a major role under identical growing conditions6.Biometric parameters of fruitThe biometric parameters of fruit in the analyzed C. annuum cultivars are presented in Table 3. Similarly to the previously described traits, the biometric parameters of pepper fruit were not significantly influenced by the tested biostimulants. The biometric parameters of fruits were affected by varietal traits, and differences were noted between sweet and hot cultivars. The fruits of sweet cultivars had higher weight, larger horizontal diameter, thicker skin and smaller vertical diameter, compared with hot cultivars. No significant treatment × cultivar interaction was found for the weight, vertical diameter or horizontal diameter of fruit, although several homogeneous groups could be identified based on the differences between cultivars.Table 3 Effect of the combined application of biostimulants on the biometric parameters (mean values ± standard deviations) of fruit in the analyzed cultivars of Capsicum annuum.Full size tableAverage fruit weight varied widely across cultivars, from 39 g (cv. ‘Cyklon’) to 224 g (cv. ‘Solario F1’). Hot cultivars (‘Cyklon’ and ‘Palivec’) formed a homogeneous group based on fruit weight. The fruit weight in hot cultivars of C. annuum was similar to that reported by Islam et al.24. Sweet and hot pepper cultivars differ also in fruit shape. The fruits of hot cultivars are long and narrow, whereas the fruits of sweet cultivars have similar horizontal and vertical dimeters. Sweet cultivars are similar in terms of vertical diameter, and they differ mostly in average horizontal diameter. Fruits with the smallest mean vertical diameter (9.1 cm) were harvested from plants of cv. ‘Turbine F1’, and fruits with the largest mean vertical diameter (14.6 cm) were harvested from plants of cv. ‘Palivec’. Fruits with the smallest mean horizontal diameter (2.4 cm) were harvested from plants of cv. ‘Palivec’, and fruits with the largest mean horizontal diameter (9.0 cm) were harvested from plants of cv. ‘Solario F1’.The fruits of sweet and hot C. annuum cultivars had pericarps of similar thickness. In hot cultivars, average skin thickness ranged from 2.9 mm (cv. ‘Palivec’) to 3.3 mm (cv. ‘Cyklon’), and in sweet cultivars—from 5.7 mm (cv.‘Turbine F1’) to 6.4 mm (cv. ‘Whitney F1’).Chemical composition of fruitThe proximate chemical composition of fruit in the analyzed C. annuum cultivars is presented in Table 4. The effects exerted by biostimulants on most chemical properties of pepper fruit (excluding L-ascorbic acid content) varied across cultivars. The applied biostimulants led to both an increase and a decrease in the content of the analyzed components in the studied cultivars. No significant differences in the concentrations of dry matter, total sugars, reducing sugars or L-ascorbic acid in pepper fruit were found between treatments. In comparison with the control treatment, significant differences were noted only for nitrate (V) levels in treatment I. The combined application of biostimulants led to an increase in the nitrate (V) content of fruit, which was nearly two-fold higher in treatment I than in the control group. The fruits of sweet cultivars had a lower content of dry matter, total sugars and L-ascorbic acid than the fruits of hot cultivars.Table 4 Effect of the combined application of biostimulants on the chemical composition (mean values ± standard deviations) of fruit in the analyzed cultivars of Capsicum annuum.Full size tableAverage dry matter content ranged from 6.4% (cv. ‘Whitney F1’) to 7.6% (cv. ‘Solario F1’) in sweet peppers, and from 11.6% (cv. ‘Cyklon’) to 12.3% (cv. ‘Cyklon’) in hot peppers. Sweet and hot cultivars of C. annuum formed separate homogeneous groups. The analyzed cultivars differed significantly in the total sugar content of fruit, which was lowest in cv. ‘Whitney F1’ and highest in cv. ‘Cyklon’. Average total sugar content ranged from 3.2 to 4.6 g∙100 g−1 fresh weight in sweet peppers, and from 6.9 to 8.4 g∙100 g−1 fresh weight in hot peppers. Cultivars ‘Whitney F1’, ‘Turbine F1’ and ‘Palivec’, and ‘Solario F1’ and ‘Palivec’ formed homogeneous groups based on the reducing sugar content of fruit, which ranged from 2.4 g∙100 g−1 fresh weight (cv. ‘Whitney F1’ and ‘Turbine F1’) to 5.1 g∙100 g−1 fresh weight (cv. ‘Cyklon’). Average L-ascorbic acid content 97 mg∙100 g−1 fresh weight in sweet peppers, and 107 mg∙100 g−1 fresh weight in hot peppers. Similarly to the dry matter content of fruit, separate homogeneous groups were formed by sweet and hot cultivars of C. annuum. The combined application of biostimulants caused an increase in the average nitrate (V) content of pepper fruit, which ranged from 136 mg N-NO3 kg−1 fresh weight (cv. ‘Palivec’) to 259 mg N-NO3 kg−1 fresh weight (cv. ‘Turbine F1’).According to Selahle et al.35, the taste of sweet peppers is determined by the content of sugars and organic acids. Taste is a complex phenomenon, and it is affected by environmental factors during plant growth36,37. From the nutritional perspective, the dry matter of pepper fruit consists of sugars, organic acids and other compounds with proven nutraceutical efficacy, including hydrophilic compounds such as ascorbic acid, flavonoids and phenolic acids, and lipophilic compounds such as carotenoids and tocopherols38,39,40,41. Fresh peppers are rich in valuable compounds including vitamins (in particular vitamin C), mineral salts, macronutrients and micronutrients42. According to Hallmann et al.43, pepper fruit contains on average 8.5–10.5 g 100 g fresh weight of dry matter, 3.6–6.6 g 100 g fresh weight of total sugars, 2.4–4.8 g 100 g fresh weight of reducing sugars, and 115–153 mg 100 g fresh weight of L-ascorbic acid, depending on cultivation method. Similar values were determined in the present study. The content of nitrates (V) depends on soil and climatic conditions, fertilization and plant species44, which were identical in all treatments in this study. The tested biostimulants exerted varied effects on the nutrient content of C. annuum fruit. The nitrate (V) content of fruit was higher in experimental treatments than in the control group, but the noted differences were significant only relative to treatment I where the maximum permissible level of 250 mg N-NO3 kg−1 fresh weight was exceeded43. ‘Turbine F1’, followed by ‘Solario F1’, were most prone to nitrate (V) accumulation in fruit. In this respect, the effect exerted by the biostimulants was undesirable.Correlations between the analyzed biometric parameters and chemical composition of fruitDue to the fact that the tested biostimulants exerted no clear-cut effects on the analyzed biometric parameters of C. annuum fruit, and for the sake of simplicity, the measurement data were pooled into two experimental groups of sweet and hot cultivars. The results of a correlation analysis of the above parameters are presented in Table 5. The absolute values of the correlation coefficient ranged from 0.012 (correlation between the L-ascorbic acid content and nitrate (V) content of fruit in sweet cultivars) to 0.932 (correlation between the weight and horizontal diameter of fruit in sweet cultivars). Significant correlations were noted in 36 cases out of 72 comparisons, whereas practical significance (coefficient of correlation minimum 0.4) was observed in 33 comparisons. The nitrate (V) content of fruit was least frequently correlated, and the horizontal diameter, total sugar content and reducing sugar content of fruit were most frequently correlated with the remaining parameters. The nature of relationships between the analyzed parameters was largely affected by the type of cultivar. Differences in the significance of correlation coefficients were found in 19 pairs of the compared traits, and differences in their direction (positive, negative) were observed in 11 pairs out of 36 comparisons. The significance and direction of correlations were consistent only with regard to horizontal diameter vs. the total sugar content and reducing sugar content, and skin thickness vs. reducing sugar content and L-ascorbic acid content. This implies that irrespective of cultivar, an increase in the horizontal diameter of fruit was associated with an increase in sugar content, and an increase in skin thickness was associated with an increase in the content of reducing sugars and L-ascorbic acid. Therefore, it can be assumed that the fruits characterized by a larger horizontal diameter and thicker skin are richer in nutrients.Table 5 Pearson’s coefficients of correlation between the analyzed parameters of Capsicum annuum fruit.Full size tableIn the group of fruit biometric parameters, the strongest correlation was found between the horizontal diameter and weight of fruit in sweet cultivars (coefficient of determination R2 = 0.87), and it was well described by a linear function (Fig. 1a). An increase in the horizontal diameter of fruit from around 4.7 cm to around 10.2 cm was accompanied by a proportional increase in fruit weight from around 53 g to around 254 g (by approx. 380%). Equations with the minimum value of the determination coefficient (0.4) were also derived for the correlations between the vertical diameter and weight of fruit, and between the horizontal diameter and skin thickness of fruit in hot cultivars (Figs. 1b and 1c). An increase in the vertical diameter of fruit by around 65% increased their weight by around 40%, and an increase in the horizontal diameter of fruit by around 120% increased their skin thickness by around 40%.Figure 1Relationships between the biometric parameters of Capsicum annuum fruit: (a) horizontal diameter and weight of sweet peppers, (b) vertical diameter and weight of hot peppers, (c) horizontal diameter and skin thickness of hot peppers.Full size imageThe biometric parameters and chemical composition of pepper fruit are strongly correlated (Figs. 2 and 3). Three and six equations with the minimum value of the determination coefficient (0.4) were derived for the correlations between fruit parameters in sweet and hot pepper cultivars, respectively. In sweet cultivars, the dry matter content of fruit was affected by their weight and horizontal diameter, and the noted relationships were directly proportional. An increase in fruit weight by around 360% (Fig. 2a) and an increase in the horizontal diameter of fruit by around 115% (Fig. 2c) increased their dry matter content by around 35%. An increase in the vertical diameter of fruit by around 60% increased their L-ascorbic acid content by around 25% (Fig. 2b). In hot cultivars, the chemical composition of fruit was most significantly influenced by horizontal diameter, followed by skin thickness. An increase in the horizontal diameter of fruit from around 2.0 cm to around 4.5 cm was accompanied by an increase in their total sugar content by around 50% (from approx. 6.5 g∙100 g−1 fresh weight to approx. 9.8 g∙100 g−1 fresh weight) (Fig. 3b), reducing sugar content—by around 100% (from approx. 3.0 g∙100 g−1 fresh weight to approx. 6.1 g∙100 g−1 fresh weight) (Fig. 3c) and nitrate (V) content—by around 80% (from approx. 125 mg N-NO3 kg−1 fresh weight to approx. 228 mg N-NO3 kg−1 fresh weight) (Fig. 3d). In turn, an increase in skin thickness (from approx. 2.2 mm to approx. 4.2 mm, by approx. 90%) was accompanied by an increase in reducing sugar content (Fig. 3e) and L-ascorbic acid content (from approx. 98 mg∙100 g−1 fresh weight to approx. 118 mg∙100 g−1 fresh weight, by approx. 20%) (Fig. 3f). An increase in the vertical diameter of fruit from around 9.8 cm to around 16.2 cm decreased their reducing sugar content by around 50% (Fig. 3a).Figure 2Relationships between the biometric parameters and chemical composition of fruit in sweet cultivars of Capsicum annuum: (a) weight and dry matter content, (b) vertical diameter and L-ascorbic acid content, (c) horizontal diameter and dry matter content.Full size imageFigure 3Relationships between the biometric parameters and chemical composition of fruit in hot cultivars of Capsicum annuum: (a) vertical diameter and reducing sugar content, (b) horizontal diameter and total sugar content, (c) horizontal diameter and reducing sugar content, (d) horizontal diameter and nitrate (V) content, (e) skin thickness and reducing sugar content, (f) skin thickness and L-ascorbic acid content.Full size imageIn the group of the chemical composition parameters of fruit, the strongest correlation was found between total sugar content and reducing sugar content (R2 = 0.72) in sweet cultivars (Fig. 4a), and between total sugar content and nitrate (V) content (R2 = 0.59) in hot cultivars (Fig. 4b). These relationships can be described by linear functions. An increase in the total sugar content of sweet peppers from around 2.0 g∙100 g−1 fresh weight to around 5.0 g∙100 g−1 fresh weight (by approx. 150%) was accompanied by an increase in reducing sugar content by around 150%, which indicates that the ratio between both sugar fractions remained unchanged. An increase in the total sugar content of hot peppers from around 5.8 g∙100 g−1 fresh weight to around 11.1 g∙100 g−1 fresh weight (by approx. 90%) was accompanied by an increase in nitrate (V) content from around 110 mg N-NO3 kg−1 fresh weight to around 250 mg N-NO3 kg−1 fresh weight (by approx. 120%).Figure 4Relationships between the chemical composition of Capsicum annuum fruit: (a) total sugar content and reducing sugar content of sweet peppers, (b) total sugar content and nitrate (V) content of hot peppers.Full size image More

  • in

    A spatial analysis of seagrass habitat and community diversity in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area

    1.Halpern, B. S. et al. A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science 319, 948–952. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1149345 (2008).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    2.Wilson, K. A. et al. Conserving biodiversity efficiently: What to do, where, and when. PLoS Biol. 5, 1850–1861. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050223 (2007).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    3.Carr, M. H. et al. Comparing marine and terrestrial ecosystems: Implications for the design of coastal marine reserves. Ecol. Appl. 13, 90–107. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2003)013[0090:CMATEI]2.0.CO;2 (2003).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    4.Coles, R. G. et al. The Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area seagrasses: Managing this iconic Australian ecosystem resource for the future. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 153, A1–A12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2014.07.020 (2015).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    5.Beger, M. et al. Incorporating asymmetric connectivity into spatial decision making for conservation. Conserv. Lett. 3, 359–368. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00123.x (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    6.Brodie, J. & Waterhouse, J. A critical review of environmental management of the ‘not so Great’ Barrier Reef. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 104, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2012.03.012 (2012).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    7.Collier, C. J. et al. An evidence-based approach for setting desired state in a complex Great Barrier Reef seagrass ecosystem: A case study from Cleveland Bay. Environ. Sustain. Indicators 7, 100042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.04.005 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    8.Commonwealth of Australia. Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan. http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/d98b3e53-146b-4b9c-a84a-2a22454b9a83/files/reef-2050-long-term-sustainability-plan.pdf (2015). (Accessed 09 June 2021).9.Commonwealth of Australia. Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan—July 2018. https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/35e55187-b76e-4aaf-a2fa-376a65c89810/files/reef-2050-long-term-sustainability-plan-2018.pdf (2018). (Accessed 09 June 2021).10.Tulloch, V. J. et al. Linking threat maps with management to guide conservation investment. Biol. Cons. 245, 108527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108527 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    11.Greene, H. G., Bizzarro, J. J., O’Connell, V. M. & Brylinsky, C. K. Construction of digital potential marine benthic habitat maps using a coded classification scheme and its application. Mapp. Seafloor Habitat Characterization Geol. Assoc. Canada Special Paper 47, 145–159 (2007).
    Google Scholar 
    12.Grech, A. et al. Spatial patterns of seagrass dispersal and settlement. Divers. Distrib. 22, 1150–1162. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12479 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    13.Young, M. & Carr, M. Assessment of habitat representation across a network of marine protected areas with implications for the spatial design of monitoring. PLoS ONE 10, e0116200. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0116200 (2015).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    14.Foley, M. M. et al. Guiding ecological principles for marine spatial planning. Mar. Policy 34, 955–966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2010.02.001 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    15.Diggon, S. et al. The marine plan partnership: Indigenous community-based marine spatial planning. Mar. Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.04.014 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    16.Kenchington, R. & Day, J. Zoning, a fundamental cornerstone of effective Marine Spatial Planning: Lessons learnt from the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. J. Coast. Conserv. 15, 271–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-011-0147-2 (2011).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    17.Noble, M. M., Harasti, D., Pittock, J. & Doran, B. Understanding the spatial diversity of social uses, dynamics, and conflicts in marine spatial planning. J. Environ. Manage. 246, 929–940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.06.048 (2019).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    18.Jayathilake, D. R. M. & Costello, M. J. A modelled global distribution of the seagrass biome. Biol. Cons. 226, 120–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.07.009 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    19.den Hartog, C. & Kuo, J. Seagrasses: Biology, Ecology and Conservation Ch. 1 1–23 (Springer Netherlands, 2006).
    Google Scholar 
    20.Green, E. P. & Short, F. T. World Atlas of Seagrasses (University of California Press, 2003).
    Google Scholar 
    21.Short, F. T. et al. Extinction risk assessment of the world’s seagrass species. Biol. Cons. 144, 1961–1971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.04.010 (2011).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    22.Coles, R., McKenzie, L., De’ath, G., Roelofs, A. & Long, W. L. Spatial distribution of deepwater seagrass in the inter-reef lagoon of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 392, 57–68. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps08197 (2009).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    23.McKenzie, L. J. et al. The global distribution of seagrass meadows. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 074041. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab7d06 (2020).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    24.Hemminga, M. A. & Duarte, C. M. Seagrass Ecology (Cambridge University Press, 2000).Book 

    Google Scholar 
    25.Lamb, J. B. et al. Seagrass ecosystems reduce exposure to bacterial pathogens of humans, fishes, and invertebrates. Science 355, 731–733. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal1956 (2017).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    26.Coles, R. G., Lee Long, W. J., Watson, R. A. & Derbyshire, K. J. Distribution of seagrasses, and their fish and penaeid prawn communities, in Cairns Harbour, a tropical estuary, Northern Queensland, Australia. Mar. Freshw. Res. 44, 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF9930193 (1993).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    27.de los Santos, C. B. et al. Seagrass ecosystem services: Assessment and scale of benefits. Out Blue Value Seagrasses Environ. People. 19–21 (2020).
    28.Marsh, H., O’Shea, T. J. & Reynolds, J. E. III. Ecology and Conservation of the Sirenia: Dugongs and Manatees Vol. 18 (Cambridge University Press, 2011).Book 

    Google Scholar 
    29.Scott, A. L. et al. The role of herbivory in structuring tropical seagrass ecosystem service delivery. Front. Plant Sci. 9, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.00127 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    30.Fourqurean, J. W. et al. Seagrass ecosystems as a globally significant carbon stock. Nat. Geosci. 5, 505–509. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1477 (2012).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    31.Carter, A., Taylor, H. & Rasheed, M. Torres Strait Mapping: Seagrass Consolidation, 2002–2014 Vol. 47 (James Cook University, 2014).
    Google Scholar 
    32.Lee Long, W. J., Mellors, J. E. & Coles, R. G. Seagrasses between Cape York and Hervey Bay, Queensland, Australia. Austr. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 44, 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF9930019 (1993).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    33.Maxwell, P. et al. Seagrasses of Moreton Bay Quandamooka: Diversity, ecology and resilience. in Moreton Bay Quandamooka & Catchment: Past, Present, and Future (eds I. R. Tibbetts et al.) 279–298 (Moreton Bay Foundation Ltd, 2019).
    34.Lambert, V. M. et al. Connecting targets for catchment sediment loads to ecological outcomes for seagrass using multiple lines of evidence. Mar. Pollut. Bull. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112494 (2021).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    35.McKenna, S. A. et al. Declines of seagrasses in a tropical harbour, North Queensland, Australia, are not the result of a single event. J. Biosci. 40, 389–398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12038-015-9516-6 (2015).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    36.Collier, C. J., Waycott, M. & McKenzie, L. J. Light thresholds derived from seagrass loss in the coastal zone of the northern Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Ecol. Indicators 23, 211–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.04.005 (2012).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    37.York, P. et al. Dynamics of a deep-water seagrass population on the Great Barrier Reef: Annual occurrence and response to a major dredging program. Sci. Rep. 5, 13167. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep13167 (2015).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    38.Grech, A., Coles, R. & Marsh, H. A broad-scale assessment of the risk to coastal seagrasses from cumulative threats. Mar. Policy 35, 560–567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2011.03.003 (2011).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    39.Brodie, J. & Pearson, R. G. Ecosystem health of the Great Barrier Reef: Time for effective management action based on evidence. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 183, 438–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2016.05.008 (2016).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    40.York, P. H. et al. Identifying knowledge gaps in seagrass research and management: An Australian perspective. Mar. Environ. Res. 127, 163–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2016.06.006 (2017).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    41.Carruthers, T. J. B. et al. Seagrass habitats of Northeast Australia: Models of key processes and controls. Bull. Mar. Sci. 71, 1153–1153 (2002).
    Google Scholar 
    42.Waycott, M., Longstaff, B. J. & Mellors, J. Seagrass population dynamics and water quality in the Great Barrier Reef region: A review and future research directions. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 51, 343–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2005.01.017 (2005).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    43.Grech, A. & Coles, R. G. An ecosystem-scale predictive model of coastal seagrass distribution. Aquat. Conserv.-Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 20, 437–444. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.1107 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    44.Carter, A. et al. Synthesizing 35 years of seagrass spatial data from the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, Queensland, Australia. Limnol. Oceanogr. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1002/lol2.10193 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    45.Beaman, R. J. High-Resolution Depth Model for the Great Barrier Reef—30 m. Dataset. http://pid.geoscience.gov.au/dataset/115066 (2017). (Accessed 10 March 2020).46.Bishop-Taylor, R., Sagar, S., Lymburner, L. & Beaman, R. Between the tides: Modelling the elevation of Australia’s exposed intertidal zone at continental scale. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 223, 115–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2019.03.006 (2019).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    47.Geoscience Australia. Intertidal Extents Model 25m. v. 2.0.0. Dataset. https://ecat.ga.gov.au/geonetwork/srv/eng/catalog.search?node=srv#/metadata/7d6f3432-5f93-45ee-8d6c-14b26740048a (2017). (Accessed 10 March 2021).48.Steven, A. D. et al. eReefs: An operational information system for managing the Great Barrier Reef. J. Operat. Oceanogr. 12, S12–S28. https://doi.org/10.1080/1755876X.2019.1650589 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    49.Baird, M. E. et al. CSIRO environmental modelling suite (EMS): Scientific description of the optical and biogeochemical models (vB3p0). Geosci. Model Dev. 13, 4503–4553. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4503-2020 (2020).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    50.Baird, M. E. et al. Remote-sensing reflectance and true colour produced by a coupled hydrodynamic, optical, sediment, biogeochemical model of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia: Comparison with satellite data. Environ. Model. Softw. 78, 79–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.11.025 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    51.Margvelashvili, N. et al. Simulated fate of catchment-derived sediment on the Great Barrier Reef shelf. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 135, 954–962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.08.018 (2018).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    52.Griffiths, L. L., Connolly, R. M. & Brown, C. J. Critical gaps in seagrass protection reveal the need to address multiple pressures and cumulative impacts. Ocean Coast. Manag. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.104946 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    53.Unsworth, R. K. F. et al. Global challenges for seagrass conservation. Ambio 48, 801–815. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-018-1115-y (2019).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    54.Grech, A. et al. Predicting the cumulative effect of multiple disturbances on seagrass connectivity. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 3093–3104. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14127 (2018).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    55.Fernandes, L. et al. A process to design a network of marine no-take areas: Lessons from the Great Barrier Reef. Ocean Coast. Manag. 52, 439–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2009.06.004 (2009).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    56.Bainbridge, Z. et al. Fine sediment and particulate organic matter: A review and case study on ridge-to-reef transport, transformations, fates, and impacts on marine ecosystems. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 135, 1205–1220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.08.002 (2018).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    57.Tol, S. J. et al. Long distance biotic dispersal of tropical seagrass seeds by marine mega-herbivores. Sci. Rep. 7, 4458. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-04421-1 (2017).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    58.Rasheed, M. A., McKenna, S. A., Carter, A. B. & Coles, R. G. Contrasting recovery of shallow and deep water seagrass communities following climate associated losses in tropical north Queensland, Australia. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 83, 491–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.02.013 (2014).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    59.Collier, C. & Waycott, M. Temperature extremes reduce seagrass growth and induce mortality. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 83, 483–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.03.050 (2014).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    60.Adams, M. P. et al. Predicting seagrass decline due to cumulative stressors. Environ. Modell. Softw. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2020.104717 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    61.Taylor, H. A. & Rasheed, M. A. Impacts of a fuel oil spill on seagrass meadows in a subtropical port, Gladstone, Australia—The value of long-term marine habitat monitoring in high risk areas. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 63, 431–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.04.039 (2011).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    62.Fraser, M. W. et al. Effects of dredging on critical ecological processes for marine invertebrates, seagrasses and macroalgae, and the potential for management with environmental windows using Western Australia as a case study. Ecol. Ind. 78, 229–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.03.026 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    63.Wolanski, E. Physical Oceanographic Processes of the Great Barrier Reef (CRC Press, 1994).
    Google Scholar 
    64.Hopley, D., Smithers, S. G. & Parnell, K. E. The Geomorphology of the Great Barrier Reef: Development, Diversity, and Change (Cambridge University Press, 2007).Book 

    Google Scholar 
    65.Hopley, D. The Queensland coastline: attributes and issues. in Queensland: A Geographical Interpretation (ed J. H. Holmes) 73–94 (Booralong Publications, 1986).66.McKenzie, L. J. et al. Marine Monitoring Program: Annual report for inshore seagrass monitoring 2017–2018. http://hdl.handle.net/11017/3488 (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2019). (Accessed 23 December 2020).67.Van De Wetering, C., Reason, C., Rasheed, M., Wilkinson, J. & York, P. Port of Abbot Point Long-Term Seagrass Monitoring Program—2019 Vol. 53 (James Cook University, 2020).
    Google Scholar 
    68.Van De Wetering, C., Carter, A. & Rasheed, M. Seagrass Habitat of Mourilyan Harbour: Annual Monitoring Report—2019 Vol. 51 (James Cook University, 2020).
    Google Scholar 
    69.McKenna, S. et al. Port of Townsville Seagrass Monitoring Program: 2019 (James Cook University, 2020).
    Google Scholar 
    70.York, P. & Rasheed, M. Annual Seagrass Monitoring in the Mackay-Hay Point Region—2019 Vol. 51 (James Cook University, 2020).
    Google Scholar 
    71.Reason, C., McKenna, S. & Rasheed, M. Seagrass Habitat of Cairns Harbour and Trinity Inlet: Cairns Shipping Development Program and Annual Monitoring Report 2019 Vol. 54 (James Cook University, 2020).
    Google Scholar 
    72.Smith, T., Chartrand, K., Wells, J., Carter, A. & Rasheed, M. Seagrasses in Port Curtis and Rodds Bay 2019 Annual Long-Term Monitoring and Whole Port Survey Vol. 71 (Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research (TropWATER) Publication 20/02, James Cook University, 2020).
    Google Scholar 
    73.Chartrand, K. M., Szabó, M., Sinutok, S., Rasheed, M. A. & Ralph, P. J. Living at the margins: The response of deep-water seagrasses to light and temperature renders them susceptible to acute impacts. Mar. Environ. Res. 136, 126–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2018.02.006 (2018).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    74.Dyall, A. et al. Queensland Coastal Waterways Geomorphic Habitat Mapping, Version 2 (1:100 000 scale digital data). http://catalogue.aodn.org.au/geonetwork/srv/eng/metadata.show?uuid=a05f7892-c344-7506-e044-00144fdd4fa6 (2004). (Accessed 05 October 2020).75.Heap, A. D. & Harris, P. T. Geomorphology of the Australian margin and adjacent seafloor. Aust. J. Earth Sci. 55, 555–585. https://doi.org/10.1080/08120090801888669 (2008).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    76.Breiman, L. Random forests. Mach. Learn. 45, 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324 (2001).Article 
    MATH 

    Google Scholar 
    77.Liaw, A. & Wiener, M. Classification and regression by randomForest. R News 2, 18–22 (2002).
    Google Scholar 
    78.R Foundation for Statistical Computing. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020).
    Google Scholar 
    79.plotmo: Plot a Model’s Residuals, Response, and Partial Dependence Plots. R package version 3.5.7 (2020).80.caret: Classification and Regression Training. R package version 6.0-86 (2020).81.Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N. & Elphick, C. S. A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods Ecol. Evolut. 1, 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2009.00001.x (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    82.raster: Geographic Data Analysis and Modeling. R package version 3.3-13 (2020).83.Pebesma, E. Simple features for R: Standardized support for spatial vector data. R J. 10, 439–446 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    84.De’ath, G. Multivariate partitioning. The mvpart Package version 1.1-1. Archive form on CRAN, https://cran.r-project.org. (2004).85.De’ath, G. Multivariate regression trees: a new technique for modeling species–environment relationships. Ecology 83, 1105–1117 (2002).
    Google Scholar  More