Ecology

Teale, S. A. & Castello, J. D. The past as key to the future: a new perspective on forest health. In Forest Health: An Integrated Perspective (eds Castello, J. D. & Teale, S. A.) 3–16 (Cambridge University Press, 2011). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511974977.002.Chapter 

Google Scholar 
Jactel, H., Koricheva, J. & Castagneyrol, B. Responses of forest insect pests to climate change: Not so simple. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 35, 103–108 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Trumbore, S., Brando, P. & Hartmann, H. Forest health and global change. Science 349, 814–818 (2015).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
North, M. P. et al. Operational resilience in western US frequent-fire forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 507, 120004 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Raffa, K. F. et al. A literal use of “forest health” safeguards against misuse and misapplication. J. For. 107, 276–277 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Kolb, T. E., Wagner, M. R. & Covington, W. W. Concepts of forest health: Utilitarian and ecosystem perspectives. J. For. 92, 10–15 (1994).
Google Scholar 
Cale, J. A. et al. A quantitative index of forest structural sustainability. Forests 5, 1618–1634 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lintz, H. E. et al. Quantifying density-independent mortality of temperate tree species. Ecol. Indic. 66, 1–9 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stanke, H., Finley, A. O., Domke, G. M., Weed, A. S. & MacFarlane, D. W. Over half of western United States’ most abundant tree species in decline. Nat. Commun. 12, 451 (2021).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bettinger, P., Boston, K., Siry, J. P. & Grebner, D. L. Chapter 2—Valuing and Characterizing Forest Conditions. In Forest Management and Planning (eds Bettinger, P. et al.) 21–63 (Academic Press, 2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809476-1.00002-3.Chapter 

Google Scholar 
Crowther, T. W. et al. Mapping tree density at a global scale. Nature 525, 201–205 (2015).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Fettig, C. J. et al. The effectiveness of vegetation management practices for prevention and control of bark beetle infestations in coniferous forests of the western and southern United States. For. Ecol. Manag. 238, 24–53 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Morin, R. S. & Liebhold, A. M. Invasions by two non-native insects alter regional forest species composition and successional trajectories. For. Ecol. Manag. 341, 67–74 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nowak, J. T., Meeker, J. R., Coyle, D. R., Steiner, C. A. & Brownie, C. Southern pine beetle infestations in relation to forest stand conditions, previous thinning, and prescribed burning: Evaluation of the southern pine beetle prevention program. J. For. 113, 454–462 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Asaro, C. & Chamberlin, L. A. Outbreak history (1953–2014) of spring defoliators impacting oak-dominated forests in Virginia, with emphasis on gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar L.) and fall cankerworm (Alsophila pometaria Harris). Am. Entomol. 61, 174–185 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Negrón, J. F. Probability of infestation and extent of mortality associated with the Douglas-fir beetle in the Colorado Front Range. For. Ecol. Manag. 107, 71–85 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Negrón, J. F. & Popp, J. B. Probability of ponderosa pine infestation by mountain pine beetle in the Colorado Front Range. For. Ecol. Manag. 191, 17–27 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schmid, J. M. & Frye, R. H. Spruce Beetle in the Rockies. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-49 (US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, 1977).
Google Scholar 
Krivak-Tetley, F. E. et al. Aggressive tree killer or natural thinning agent? Assessing the impacts of a globally important forest insect. For. Ecol. Manag. 483, 118728 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bradford, J. B. et al. Tree mortality response to drought-density interactions suggests opportunities to enhance drought resistance. J. Appl. Ecol. 59, 549–559 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Young, D. J. N. et al. Long-term climate and competition explain forest mortality patterns under extreme drought. Ecol. Lett. 20, 78–86 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Furniss, T. J., Das, A. J., van Mantgem, P. J., Stephenson, N. L. & Lutz, J. A. Crowding, climate, and the case for social distancing among trees. Ecol. Appl. 32, e2507 (2022).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Woodall, C. W. & Weiskittel, A. R. Relative density of United States forests has shifted to higher levels over last two decades with important implications for future dynamics. Sci. Rep. 11, 1–12 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gandhi, K. J. K., Campbell, F. & Abrams, J. Current status of forest health policy in the United States. Insects 10, 1–14 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ciesla, W. M. The role of human activities on forest insect outbreaks worldwide. Int. For. Rev. 17, 269–281 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Jactel, H. & Brockerhoff, E. G. Tree diversity reduces herbivory by forest insects. Ecol. Lett. 10, 835–848 (2007).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Marini, L., Ayres, M. P. & Jactel, H. Impact of stand and landscape management on forest pest damage. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 67, 181–199 (2022).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Guyot, V., Castagneyrol, B., Vialatte, A., Deconchat, M. & Jactel, H. Tree diversity reduces pest damage in mature forests across Europe. Biol. Lett. 12, 20151037 (2016).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kneeshaw, D. D. et al. The vision of managing for pest-resistant landscapes: Realistic or utopic? Curr. For. Rep. 7, 97–113 (2021).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Chisholm, P. J., Stevens-Rumann, C. S. & Davis, T. S. Interactions between climate and stand conditions predict pine mortality during a bark beetle outbreak. Forests 12, 360 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ferrell, G. T., Otrosina, W. J. & Demars, C. J. Predicting susceptibility of white fir during a drought-associated outbreak of the fir engraver, Scolytus ventralis in California. Can. J. For. Res. 24, 302–305 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
Asaro, C., Nowak, J. T. & Elledge, A. Why have southern pine beetle outbreaks declined in the southeastern U.S. with the expansion of intensive pine silviculture? A brief review of hypotheses. For. Ecol. Manag. 391, 338–348 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nowak, J. T., Klepzig, K. D., Coyle, D. R., Carothers, W. A. & Gandhi, K. J. K. Southern pine beetles in central hardwood forests: Frequency, spatial extent, and changes to forest structure. In Managing Forest Ecosystems Volume 32: Natural Disturbances and Historic Range of Variation (eds Greenberg, C. H. & Collins, B. S.) 73–88 (Springer International Publishing, 2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21527-3_4.Chapter 

Google Scholar 
Crocker, S. J., Liknes, G. C., McKee, F. R., Albers, J. S. & Aukema, B. H. Stand-level factors associated with resurging mortality from eastern larch beetle (Dendroctonus simplex LeConte). For. Ecol. Manag. 375, 27–34 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mattson, W. J. & Addy, N. D. Phytophagous insects as regulators of forest primary production. Science 190, 515–522 (1975).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Thom, D. & Seidl, R. Natural disturbance impacts on ecosystem services and biodiversity in temperate and boreal forests. Biol. Rev. 91, 760–781 (2016).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Grégoire, J. C., Raffa, K. F. & Lindgren, B. S. Economics and politics of bark beetles. In Bark Beetles: Biology and Ecology of Native and Invasive Species (eds Vega, F. E. & Hofstetter, R. W.) 585–613 (Academic Press, 2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-417156-5.00015-0.Chapter 

Google Scholar 
Kolb, T. E. et al. Observed and anticipated impacts of drought on forest insects and diseases in the United States. For. Ecol. Manag. 380, 321–334 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fettig, C. J. et al. Changing climates, changing forests: A western North American perspective. J. For. 111, 214–228 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Liebhold, A. M. et al. A highly aggregated geographical distribution of forest pest invasions in the USA. Divers. Distrib. 19, 1208–1216 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Siegert, N. W., Mccullough, D. G., Liebhold, A. M. & Telewski, F. W. Dendrochronological reconstruction of the epicentre and early spread of emerald ash borer in North America. Divers. Distrib. 20, 847–858 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Smith, A., Herms, D. A., Long, R. P. & Gandhi, K. J. K. Community composition and structure had no effect on forest susceptibility to invasion by the emerald ash borer (Coleoptera: Buprestidae). Can. Entomol. 147, 318–328 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Aukema, J. E. et al. Historical accumulation of nonindigenous forest pests in the continental United States. Bioscience 60, 886–897 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hicke, J. A. et al. Effects of biotic disturbances on forest carbon cycling in the United States and Canada. Glob. Chang. Biol. 18, 7–34 (2012).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Feeny, P. Seasonal changes in oak leaf tannins and nutrients as a cause of spring feeding by winter moth caterpillars. Ecology 51, 565–581 (1970).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schowalter, T. D., Hargrove, W. W. & Crossley, D. A. Herbivory in forested ecosystems. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 31, 177–196 (1986).Article 

Google Scholar 
Seidl, R. et al. Forest disturbances under climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 7, 395–402 (2017).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Colautti, R. I., Ricciardi, A., Grigorovich, I. A. & MacIsaac, H. J. Is invasion success explained by the enemy release hypothesis? Ecol. Lett. 7, 721–733 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Catford, J. A., Jansson, R. & Nilsson, C. Reducing redundancy in invasion ecology by integrating hypotheses into a single theoretical framework. Divers. Distrib. 15, 22–40 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Guyot, V. et al. Tree diversity limits the impact of an invasive forest pest. PLoS One 10, 1–16 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Root, R. B. Organization of a plant-arthropod association in simple and diverse habitats: The fauna of collards (Brassica oleracea). Ecol. Monogr. 43, 95–124 (1973).Article 

Google Scholar 
Acker, S. A., Boetsch, J. R., Fallon, B. & Denn, M. Stable background tree mortality in mature and old-growth forests in western Washington (NW USA). For. Ecol. Manag. 532, 120817 (2023).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shive, K. L. et al. Ancient trees and modern wildfires: Declining resilience to wildfire in the highly fire-adapted giant sequoia. For. Ecol. Manag. 511, 120110 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Searle, E. B., Chen, H. Y. H. & Paquette, A. Higher tree diversity is linked to higher tree mortality. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 119, 1–7 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hart, S. J., Veblen, T. T., Eisenhart, K. S., Jarvis, D. & Kulakowski, D. Drought induces spruce beetle (Dendroctonus rufipennis) outbreaks across northwestern Colorado. Ecology 95, 930–939 (2014).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hart, S. J., Veblen, T. T. & Kulakowski, D. Do tree and stand-level attributes determine susceptibility of spruce-fir forests to spruce beetle outbreaks in the early 21st century? For. Ecol. Manag. 318, 44–53 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Temperli, C. et al. Are density reduction treatments effective at managing for resistance or resilience to spruce beetle disturbance in the southern Rocky Mountains? For. Ecol. Manag. 334, 53–63 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Six, D. L., Biber, E. & Long, E. Management for mountain pine beetle outbreak suppression: Does relevant science support current policy? Forests 5, 103–133 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Black, S. H., Kulakowski, D., Noon, B. R. & Dellasala, D. A. Do bark beetle outbreaks increase wildfire risks in the central U.S. rocky mountains? Implications from recent research. Nat. Areas J. 33, 59–65 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Oswalt, S. N., Smith, W. B., Miles, P. D. & Pugh, S. A. Forest Resources of the United States, 2017: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2020 RPA Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-97 (US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 2019). https://doi.org/10.2737/WO-GTR-97.Book 

Google Scholar 
Cleland, D. et al. Terrestrial condition assessment for national forests of the USDA Forest Service in the continental US. Sustainability 9, 1–19 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
USDA Forest Service Forest Health Protection. Insect and Disease Detection Survey (IDS) data downloads. https://www.fs.usda.gov/foresthealth/applied-sciences/mapping-reporting/detection-surveys.shtml (2021). Accessed on 9 October 2021.Spruce, J. P. et al. Assessment of MODIS NDVI time series data products for detecting forest defoliation by gypsy moth outbreaks. Remote Sens. Environ. 115, 427–437 (2011).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Gomez, D. F., Ritger, H. M. W., Pearce, C., Eickwort, J. & Hulcr, J. Ability of remote sensing systems to detect bark beetle spots in the southeastern US. Forests 11, 1–10 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hanavan, R. P. et al. Supplementing the forest health national aerial survey program with remote sensing during the COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons learned from a collaborative approach. J. For. 120, 125–132 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Johnson, E. W. & Wittwer, D. Aerial detection surveys in the United States. Aust. For. 71, 212–215 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bright, B. C. et al. Using satellite imagery to evaluate bark beetle-caused tree mortality reported in aerial surveys in a mixed conifer forest in Northern Idaho, USA. Forests 11, 1–19 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Coleman, T. W. et al. Accuracy of aerial detection surveys for mapping insect and disease disturbances in the United States. For. Ecol. Manag. 430, 321–336 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hicke, J. A., Xu, B., Meddens, A. J. H. & Egan, J. M. Characterizing recent bark beetle-caused tree mortality in the western United States from aerial surveys. For. Ecol. Manag. 475, 118402 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kosiba, A. M. et al. Spatiotemporal patterns of forest damage and disturbance in the northeastern United States: 2000–2016. For. Ecol. Manag. 430, 94–104 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Meigs, G. W., Kennedy, R. E., Gray, A. N. & Gregory, M. J. Spatiotemporal dynamics of recent mountain pine beetle and western spruce budworm outbreaks across the Pacific Northwest Region USA. For. Ecol. Manag. 339, 71–86 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bechtold, W. A. & Patterson, P. L. The Enhanced Forest Inventory and Analysis Program—National Sampling Design and Estimation Procedures. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-80 (US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, 2005). https://doi.org/10.2737/SRS-GTR-80.Book 

Google Scholar 
Randolph, K. D. C. et al. Past and present individual-tree damage assessments of the US national forest inventory. Environ. Monit. Assess. 193, 116 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kromroy, K. W., Juzwik, J., Castillo, P. & Hansen, M. H. Using forest service forest inventory and analysis data to estimate regional oak decline and oak mortality. North. J. Appl. For. 25, 17–24 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Coulston, J. W., Edgar, C. B., Westfall, J. A. & Taylor, M. E. Estimation of forest disturbance from retrospective observations in a broad-scale inventory. Forests 11, 1298 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wilson, B. T., Lister, A. J. & Riemann, R. I. A nearest-neighbor imputation approach to mapping tree species over large areas using forest inventory plots and moderate resolution raster data. For. Ecol. Manag. 271, 182–198 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Blackard, J. A. et al. Mapping U.S. forest biomass using nationwide forest inventory data and moderate resolution information. Remote Sens. Environ. 112, 1658–1677 (2008).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Brosofske, K. D., Froese, R. E., Falkowski, M. J. & Banskota, A. A review of methods for mapping and prediction of inventory attributes for operational forest management. For. Sci. 60, 733–756 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lister, A. J. et al. Use of remote sensing data to improve the efficiency of national forest inventories: A case study from the United States national forest inventory. Forests 11, 1–41 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
USDA Forest Service Forest Health Protection. Individual Tree Species Parameter (ITSP) maps – GIS data downloads. https://www.fs.usda.gov/foresthealth/applied-sciences/mapping-reporting/indiv-tree-parameter-maps.shtml (2021). Accessed on 9 October 2021.Ellenwood, J. R., Krist, F. J. & Romero, S. A. National Individual Tree Species Atlas. FHTET-15-01 (US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, 2015).
Google Scholar 
Krist, F. J. et al. National Insect and Disease Forest Risk Assessment. FHTET-14-01 (US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, 2014).
Google Scholar 
Rulequest Inc. Cubist, release 2.07. https://www.rulequest.com/cubist-info.html (2011). Accessed on 15 July 2022.R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.r-project.org (2021). Accessed on 4 March 2022.Esri Inc. ArcGIS Pro 2.8.0. https://www.esri.com/en-us/arcgis/products/arcgis-pro/overview (2021). Accessed on 4 March 2022. More

Cohan FM. Bacterial species and speciation. Syst Biol. 2001;50:513–24.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Delmont TO, Kiefl E, Kilinc O, Esen OC, Uysal I, Rappe MS, et al. Single-amino acid variants reveal evolutionary processes that shape the biogeography of a global SAR11 subclade. eLife 2019;8:e46497.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hunt DE, David LA, Gevers D, Preheim SP, Alm EJ, Polz MF. Resource partitioning and sympatric differentiation among closely related bacterioplankton. Science 2008;320:1081–5.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Moore LR, Rocap G, Chisholm SW. Physiology and molecular phylogeny of coexisting Prochlorococcus ecotypes. Nature 1998;393:464–7.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Rivas LR. A reinterpretation of the concepts “sympatric” and “allopatric” with proposal for the additional terms “syntopic” and “allotopic”. Syst Zool. 1964;13:42–3.Article 

Google Scholar 
Friedman J, Alm EJ, Shapiro BJ. Sympatric speciation: when is it possible in bacteria? PLoS One. 2013;8:e53539.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kiene RP, Nowinski B, Esson K, Preston C, Marin R III, Birch J, et al. Unprecedented DMSP concentrations in a massive dinoflagellate bloom in Monterey Bay. Ca Geophys Res Lett. 2019;46:12279–88.Article 

Google Scholar 
Scholin CA, Birch J, Jensen S, Marin R, Massion E, Pargett D, et al. The quest to develop ecogenomic sensors a 25-year history of the environmental sample processor (ESP) as a case study. Oceanography. 2017;30:100–13.Article 

Google Scholar 
Nowinski B, Smith CB, Thomas CM, Esson K, Marin R, Preston CM, et al. Microbial metagenomes and metatranscriptomes during a coastal phytoplankton bloom. Sci Data. 2019;6:1–7.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Luo H, Löytynoja A, Moran MA. Genome content of uncultivated marine Roseobacters in the surface ocean. Environ Microbiol. 2012;14:41–51.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Connon SA, Giovannoni SJ. High-throughput methods for culturing microorganisms in very-low-nutrient media yield diverse new marine isolates. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2002;68:3878–85.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Feng X, Chu X, Qian Y, Henson MW, Lanclos VC, Qin F, et al. Mechanisms driving genome reduction of a novel Roseobacter lineage. ISME J. 2021;15:3576–86.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Moran MA, Belas R, Schell M, González J, Sun F, Sun S, et al. Ecological genomics of marine roseobacters. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007;73:4559–69.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Newton RJ, Griffin LE, Bowles KM, Meile C, Gifford S, Givens CE, et al. Genome characteristics of a generalist marine bacterial lineage. ISME J. 2010;4:784–98.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Suzuki MT, Preston CM, Béjà O, De La Torre J, Steward G, DeLong EF. Phylogenetic screening of ribosomal RNA gene-containing clones in bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) libraries from different depths in Monterey Bay. Micro Ecol. 2004;48:473–88.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Buchan A, González JM, Moran MA. Overview of the marine Roseobacter lineage. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005;71:5665–77.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Giebel H-A, Kalhoefer D, Lemke A, Thole S, Gahl-Janssen R, Simon M, et al. Distribution of Roseobacter RCA and SAR11 lineages in the North Sea and characteristics of an abundant RCA isolate. ISME J. 2011;5:8–19.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ottesen EA, Marin R, Preston CM, Young CR, Ryan JP, Scholin CA, et al. Metatranscriptomic analysis of autonomously collected and preserved marine bacterioplankton. ISME J. 2011;5:1881–95.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Zhang Y, Sun Y, Jiao N, Stepanauskas R, Luo H. Ecological genomics of the uncultivated marine Roseobacter lineage CHAB-I-5. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2016;82:2100–11.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Aylward FO, Eppley JM, Smith JM, Chavez FP, Scholin CA, DeLong EF. Microbial community transcriptional networks are conserved in three domains at ocean basin scales. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 2015;112:5443–8.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ottesen EA, Young CR, Eppley JM, Ryan JP, Chavez FP, Scholin CA, et al. Pattern and synchrony of gene expression among sympatric marine microbial populations. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 2013;110:E488–E97.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Nowinski B, Motard‐Côté J, Landa M, Preston CM, Scholin CA, Birch JM, et al. Microdiversity and temporal dynamics of marine bacterial dimethylsulfoniopropionate genes. Environ Microbiol. 2019;21:1687–701.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Mukherjee S, Stamatis D, Bertsch J, Ovchinnikova G, Sundaramurthi JC, Lee J, et al. Genomes OnLine Database (GOLD) v. 8: overview and updates. Nucleic Acids Res. 2021;49:D723–D33.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Chen I-MA, Chu K, Palaniappan K, Pillay M, Ratner A, Huang J, et al. IMG/M v. 5.0: an integrated data management and comparative analysis system for microbial genomes and microbiomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47:D666–D77.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Satinsky BM, Gifford SM, Crump BC, Moran MA. Use of internal standards for quantitative metatranscriptome and metagenome analysis. In: DeLong EF, editor. Methods in Enzymology 531: Elsevier; 2013. p. 237–50.Satinsky BM, Gifford SM, Crump BC, Smith C.Moran MA, Internal genomic DNA standard for quantitative metagenome analysis V3. protocols io 2017; https://doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.jxdcpi6p.Satinsky BM, Gifford SM, Crump BC, Smith C.Moran MA, Preparation of custom synthesized RNAtranscript standard V3. protocols io. 2017; https://doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.jxccpiwp.Langmead B, Salzberg SL. Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nat Methods. 2012;9:357.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kang DD, Froula J, Egan R, Wang Z. MetaBAT, an efficient tool for accurately reconstructing single genomes from complex microbial communities. PeerJ 2015;3:e1165.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Olm MR, Brown CT, Brooks B, Banfield JF. dRep: a tool for fast and accurate genomic comparisons that enables improved genome recovery from metagenomes through de-replication. ISME J. 2017;11:2864–8.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Parks DH, Imelfort M, Skennerton CT, Hugenholtz P, Tyson GW. CheckM: assessing the quality of microbial genomes recovered from isolates, single cells, and metagenomes. Genome Res. 2015;25:1043–55.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Rodriguez-R LM, Konstantinidis KT. The enveomics collection: a toolbox for specialized analyses of microbial genomes and metagenomes. PeerJ Prepr. 2016. Report No.: 2167–9843Lee K, Choo Y-J, Giovannoni SJ, Cho J-C. Maritimibacter alkaliphilus gen. nov., sp. nov., a genome-sequenced marine bacterium of the Roseobacter clade in the order Rhodobacterales. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2007;57:1653–8.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Eren AM, Esen ÖC, Quince C, Vineis JH, Morrison HG, Sogin ML, et al. Anvi’o: an advanced analysis and visualization platform for ‘omics data. PeerJ 2015;3:e1319.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Tatusov RL, Galperin MY, Natale DA, Koonin EV. The COG database: a tool for genome-scale analysis of protein functions and evolution. Nucleic Acids Res. 2000;28:33–6.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Huerta-Cepas J, Forslund K, Coelho LP, Szklarczyk D, Jensen LJ, Von Mering C, et al. Fast genome-wide functional annotation through orthology assignment by eggNOG-mapper. Mol Biol Evol. 2017;34:2115–22.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Aramaki T, Blanc-Mathieu R, Endo H, Ohkubo K, Kanehisa M, Goto S, et al. KofamKOALA: KEGG ortholog assignment based on profile HMM and adaptive score threshold. Bioinformatics 2020;36:2251–2.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bushnell B. BBMap: a fast, accurate, splice-aware aligner. No. LBNL-7065E. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA (United States); 2014.Markowitz VM, Chen I-MA, Palaniappan K, Chu K, Szeto E, Grechkin Y, et al. The integrated microbial genomes system: an expanding comparative analysis resource. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010;38:D382–D90.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Sun Y, Luo H. Homologous recombination in core genomes facilitates marine bacterial adaptation. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2018;84:e02545–17.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Pfaffel O. ClustImpute: An R package for K-means clustering with build-in missing data imputation. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341881683.Moran MA, Satinsky B, Gifford SM, Luo H, Rivers A, Chan L-K, et al. Sizing up metatranscriptomics. ISME J 2013;7:237–43.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

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

Google Scholar 
Gifford SM, Zhao L, Stemple B, DeLong K, Medeiros PM, Seim H, et al. Microbial niche diversification in the Galápagos Archipelago and its response to El Niño. Front Microbiol. 2020;11:575194.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Rich VI, Pham VD, Eppley J, Shi Y, DeLong EF. Time‐series analyses of Monterey Bay coastal microbial picoplankton using a ‘genome proxy’microarray. Environ Microbiol. 2011;13:116–34.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Riedel T, Tomasch J, Buchholz I, Jacobs J, Kollenberg M, Gerdts G, et al. Constitutive expression of the proteorhodopsin gene by a flavobacterium strain representative of the proteorhodopsin-producing microbial community in the North Sea. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2010;76:3187–97.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Iverson V, Morris RM, Frazar CD, Berthiaume CT, Morales RL, Armbrust EV. Untangling genomes from metagenomes: revealing an uncultured class of marine Euryarchaeota. Science 2012;335:587–90.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Yooseph S, Nealson KH, Rusch DB, McCrow JP, Dupont CL, Kim M, et al. Genomic and functional adaptation in surface ocean planktonic prokaryotes. Nature 2010;468:60–6.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wagner-Döbler I, Biebl H. Environmental biology of the marine Roseobacter lineage. Annu Rev Microbiol. 2006;60:255–80.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
West NJ, Obernosterer I, Zemb O, Lebaron P. Major differences of bacterial diversity and activity inside and outside of a natural iron‐fertilized phytoplankton bloom in the Southern Ocean. Environ Microbiol. 2008;10:738–56.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Luo H, Moran MA. Evolutionary ecology of the marine Roseobacter clade. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2014;78:573–87.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Simon M, Scheuner C, Meier-Kolthoff JP, Brinkhoff T, Wagner-Döbler I, Ulbrich M, et al. Phylogenomics of Rhodobacteraceae reveals evolutionary adaptation to marine and non-marine habitats. ISME J 2017;11:1483–99.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Jain C, Rodriguez-R LM, Phillippy AM, Konstantinidis KT, Aluru S. High throughput ANI analysis of 90K prokaryotic genomes reveals clear species boundaries. Nat Comm. 2018;9:1–8.Article 

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

Google Scholar 
Tindall BJ, Rosselló-Móra R, Busse H-J, Ludwig W, Kämpfer P. Notes on the characterization of prokaryote strains for taxonomic purposes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2010;60:249–66.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Cohan FM. What are bacterial species? Ann Rev Microbiol. 2002;56:457–87.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mende DR, Sunagawa S, Zeller G, Bork P. Accurate and universal delineation of prokaryotic species. Nat Meth. 2013;10:881–4.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Olm MR, Crits-Christoph A, Diamond S, Lavy A, Matheus Carnevali PB, Banfield JF. Consistent metagenome-derived metrics verify and delineate bacterial species boundaries. mSystems 2020;5:e00731–19.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Konstantinidis KT, Tiedje JM. Prokaryotic taxonomy and phylogeny in the genomic era: advancements and challenges ahead. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2007;10:504–9.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Delmont TO, Eren EM. Linking pangenomes and metagenomes: The Prochlorococcus metapangenome. PeerJ 2018;2018:e4320–e.Article 

Google Scholar 
Neidhardt F, Umbarger H Chemical composition of Escherichia coli. In: FC N, Curtiss R III, JL I, ECC L, KB L, B M, et al., editors. Escherichia coli and Salmonella typhimurium: Cellular and Molecular Biology. Washington DC: ASM Press; 1996. p. 13-6.Taniguchi Y, Choi PJ, Li G-W, Chen H, Babu M, Hearn J, et al. Quantifying E. coli proteome and transcriptome with single-molecule sensitivity in single cells. Science. 2010;329:533–8.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Rodríguez-Gijón A, Nuy JK, Mehrshad M, Buck M, Schulz F, Woyke T, et al. A genomic perspective across Earth’s microbiomes reveals that genome size in Archaea and Bacteria is linked to ecosystem type and trophic strategy. Front Microbiol. 2022;12:761869.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ryu K-S, Kim C, Kim I, Yoo S, Choi B-S, Park C. NMR application probes a novel and ubiquitous family of enzymes that alter monosaccharide configuration. J Biol Chem. 2004;279:25544–8.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Giachino A, Waldron KJ. Copper tolerance in bacteria requires the activation of multiple accessory pathways. Mol Microbiol. 2020;114:377–90.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wang X, Zhang Y, Ren M, Xia T, Chu X, Liu C, et al. Cryptic speciation of a pelagic Roseobacter population varying at a few thousand nucleotide sites. ISME J. 2020;14:3106–19.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Uchimiya M, Schroer W, Olofsson M, Edison AS, Moran MA. Diel investments in metabolite production and consumption in a model microbial system. ISME J. 2022;16:1306–17.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Cordero OX, Wildschutte H, Kirkup B, Proehl S, Ngo L, Hussain F, et al. Ecological populations of bacteria act as socially cohesive units of antibiotic production and resistance. Science 2012;337:1228–31.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Morris JJ, Lenski RE, Zinser ER. The Black Queen Hypothesis: evolution of dependencies through adaptive gene loss. mBio 2012;3:e00036–12.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Environmental data from CTD during the Fall 2016 ESP deployment in Monterey Bay, CA. Biological and Chemical Oceanography Data Management Office (BCO-DMO). 2019. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1575/1912/bco-dmo.756376.1.Environmental data from Niskin bottle sampling during the Fall 2016 ESP deployment in Monterey Bay. Biological and Chemical Oceanography Data Management Office (BCO-DMO). 2019. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1575/1912/bco-dmo.756413.1. More

McFall-Ngai, M. et al. Animals in a bacterial world, a new imperative for the life sciences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110, 3229–3236 (2013).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hammer, T. J., Sanders, J. G. & Fierer, N. Not all animals need a microbiome. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 366, fnz117 (2019).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Griffiths, S. M. et al. Host genetics and geography influence microbiome composition in the sponge Ircinia campana. J. Anim. Ecol. 88, 1684–1695 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Coleman-Derr, D. et al. Plant compartment and biogeography affect microbiome composition in cultivated and native Agave species. New Phytol. 209, 798–811 (2016).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Marzinelli, E. M. et al. Continental-scale variation in seaweed host-associated bacterial communities is a function of host condition, not geography. Environ. Microbiol. 17, 4078–4088 (2015).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wang, L., English, M. K., Tomas, F. & Mueller, R. S. Recovery and community succession of the Zostera marina Rhizobiome after transplantation. bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.20.052357 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Copeland, J. K., Yuan, L., Layeghifard, M., Wang, P. W. & Guttman, D. S. Seasonal community succession of the phyllosphere microbiome. Mol. Plant. Microbe. Interact. 28, 274–285 (2015).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Shi, S. et al. Successional trajectories of rhizosphere bacterial communities over consecutive seasons. MBio 6, e00746 (2015).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Shade, A., McManus, P. S. & Handelsman, J. Unexpected diversity during community succession in the apple flower microbiome. MBio 4, e00602 (2013).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Avena, C. V. et al. Deconstructing the bat skin microbiome: Influences of the host and the environment. Front. Microbiol. 7, 1753 (2016).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Rothschild, D. et al. Environment dominates over host genetics in shaping human gut microbiota. Nature 555, 210–215 (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Glasl, B., Smith, C. E., Bourne, D. G. & Webster, N. S. Disentangling the effect of host-genotype and environment on the microbiome of the coral Acropora tenuis. PeerJ 7, e6377 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Weigel, B. L. & Erwin, P. M. Effects of reciprocal transplantation on the microbiome and putative nitrogen cycling functions of the intertidal sponge, Hymeniacidon heliophila. Sci. Rep. 7, 43247 (2017).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Fuhrman, J. A., Cram, J. A. & Needham, D. M. Marine microbial community dynamics and their ecological interpretation. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 13, 133–146 (2015).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ziegler, M. et al. Coral bacterial community structure responds to environmental change in a host-specific manner. Nat. Commun. 10, 3092 (2019).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wagner, M. R. et al. Host genotype and age shape the leaf and root microbiomes of a wild perennial plant. Nat. Commun. 7, 12151 (2016).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kraft, N. J. B. et al. Community assembly, coexistence and the environmental filtering metaphor. Funct. Ecol. 29, 592–599 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Weiher, E. & Keddy, P. A. The assembly of experimental wetland plant communities. Oikos 73, 323–335 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cavender-Bares, J., Kitajima, K. & Bazzaz, F. A. Multiple trait associations in relation to habitat differentiation among 17 Floridian oak species. Ecol. Monogr. 74, 635–662 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cavender-Bares, J., Ackerly, D. D., Baum, D. A. & Bazzaz, F. A. Phylogenetic overdispersion in Floridian oak communities. Am. Nat. 163, 823–843 (2004).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Webb, C. O. Exploring the Phylogenetic structure of ecological communities: An example for rain forest trees. Am. Nat. 156, 145–155 (2000).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Webb, C. O., Ackerly, D. D., McPeek, M. A. & Donoghue, M. J. Phylogenies and community ecology. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 33, 475–505 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kembel, S. W. et al. Relationships between phyllosphere bacterial communities and plant functional traits in a neotropical forest. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, 13715–13720 (2014).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Burke, C., Steinberg, P., Rusch, D., Kjelleberg, S. & Thomas, T. Bacterial community assembly based on functional genes rather than species. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108, 14288–14293 (2011).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Martiny, J. B. H., Jones, S. E., Lennon, J. T. & Martiny, A. C. Microbiomes in light of traits: A phylogenetic perspective. Science https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac9323 (2015).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Goberna, M. & Verdú, M. Predicting microbial traits with phylogenies. ISME J. 10, 959–967 (2016).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Duarte, C. M. The future of seagrass meadows. Environ. Conserv. 29, 192–206 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fonseca, M. S., Fisher, J. S., Zieman, J. C. & Thayer, G. W. Influence of the seagrass, Zostera marina L., on current flow. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 15, 351–364 (1982).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Fonseca, M. S., Kenworthy, W. J. & Thayer, G. W. A low cost transplanting procedure for sediment stabilization and habitat development using eelgrass (Zostera marina). Wetlands 2, 138–151 (1982).Article 

Google Scholar 
Moore, K. A. & Short, F. T. Zostera: Biology, ecology, and management. In Seagrasses: Biology, ecology and conservation (eds Larkum, A. W. D. et al.) 361–386 (Springer, 2006).
Google Scholar 
Fahimipour, A. K. et al. Global-scale structure of the eelgrass microbiome. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 83, e03391-16 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bengtsson, M. M. et al. Eelgrass leaf surface microbiomes are locally variable and highly correlated with epibiotic eukaryotes. Front. Microbiol. 8, 1312 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Cúcio, C., Engelen, A. H., Costa, R. & Muyzer, G. Rhizosphere microbiomes of European + seagrasses are selected by the plant, but are not species specific. Front. Microbiol. 7, 440 (2016).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Schenck, F. R., DuBois, K., Kardish, M. R., Stachowicz, J. J. & Hughes, A. R. The effect of warming on seagrass wasting disease depends on host genotypic identity and diversity. Ecology e3959 (2022).Beatty, D. S. et al. Predictable changes in eelgrass microbiomes with increasing wasting disease prevalence across 23° latitude in the Northeastern Pacific. mSystems 7, e0022422 (2022).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hughes, A. R., Stachowicz, J. J. & Williams, S. L. Morphological and physiological variation among seagrass (Zostera marina) genotypes. Oecologia 159, 725–733 (2009).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Randall Hughes, A. & Stachowicz, J. J. Seagrass genotypic diversity increases disturbance response via complementarity and dominance. J. Ecol. 99, 445–453 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Kamel, S. J., Hughes, A. R., Grosberg, R. K. & Stachowicz, J. J. Fine-scale genetic structure and relatedness in the eelgrass Zostera marina. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 447, 127–137 (2012).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Abbott, J. M., DuBois, K., Grosberg, R. K., Williams, S. L. & Stachowicz, J. J. Genetic distance predicts trait differentiation at the subpopulation but not the individual level in eelgrass Zostera marina. Ecol. Evol. 8, 7476–7489 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Sand-Jensen, K. Biomass, net production and growth dynamics in an eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) population in Vellerup Vig, Denmark. Ophelia 14, 185–201 (1975).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vacher, C. et al. The phyllosphere: Microbial jungle at the plant-climate interface. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 47, 1–24 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Miazaki, A. S., Gastauer, M. & Meira-Neto, J. A. A. Environmental severity promotes phylogenetic clustering in campo rupestre vegetation. Acta Bot. Brasilica 29, 561–566 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
DuBois, K., Williams, S. L. & Stachowicz, J. J. Previous exposure mediates the response of eelgrass to future warming via clonal transgenerational plasticity. Ecology 101, e03169 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Rüger, L. et al. Assembly patterns of the rhizosphere microbiome along the longitudinal root axis of maize (Zea mays L.). Front. Microbiol. 12, 614501 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Fitzpatrick, C. R. et al. Assembly and ecological function of the root microbiome across angiosperm plant species. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 115, E1157–E1165 (2018).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Fitzgerald, D. B., Winemiller, K. O., Sabaj Pérez, M. H. & Sousa, L. M. Seasonal changes in the assembly mechanisms structuring tropical fish communities. Ecology 98, 21–31 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Campbell, A. H., Marzinelli, E. M., Gelber, J. & Steinberg, P. D. Spatial variability of microbial assemblages associated with a dominant habitat-forming seaweed. Front. Microbiol. 6, 230 (2015).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Eriander, L., Infantes, E., Olofsson, M., Olsen, J. L. & Moksnes, P.-O. Assessing methods for restoration of eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) in a cold temperate region. J. Exp. Mar. Bio. Ecol. 479, 76–88 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhou, Y. et al. Restoring eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) habitats using a simple and effective transplanting technique. PLoS ONE 9, e92982 (2014).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Galushko, A. & Kuever, J. Desulfocapsaceae. Bergey’s Manual of Systematics of Archaea and Bacteria 1–6 Preprint at https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118960608.fbm00332 (2021).Waite, D. W. et al. Proposal to reclassify the proteobacterial classes Deltaproteobacteria and Oligoflexia, and the phylum Thermodesulfobacteria into four phyla reflecting major functional capabilities. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 70, 5972–6016 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Knoblauch, C., Sahm, K. & Jørgensen, B. B. Psychrophilic sulfate-reducing bacteria isolated from permanently cold arctic marine sediments: description of Desulfofrigus oceanense gen. nov., sp. nov., Desulfofrigus fragile sp. nov., Desulfofaba gelida gen. nov., sp. nov., Desulfotalea psychrophila gen. nov., sp. nov. and Desulfotalea arctica sp. nov.. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 49 Pt 4, 1631–1643 (1999).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Isaksen, M. F. & Teske, A. Desulforhopalus vacuolatus gen. nov., sp. nov., a new moderately psychrophilic sulfate-reducing bacterium with gas vacuoles isolated from a temperate estuary. Arch. Microbiol. 166, 160–168 (1996).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Song, J., Hwang, J., Kang, I. & Cho, J.-C. A sulfate-reducing bacterial genus, Desulfosediminicola gen. nov., comprising two novel species cultivated from tidal-flat sediments. Sci. Rep. 11, 19978 (2021).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Trevelline, B. K., Fontaine, S. S., Hartup, B. K. & Kohl, K. D. Conservation biology needs a microbial renaissance: a call for the consideration of host-associated microbiota in wildlife management practices. Proc. Biol. Sci. 286, 20182448 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Christian, N., Whitaker, B. K. & Clay, K. Microbiomes: Unifying animal and plant systems through the lens of community ecology theory. Front. Microbiol. 6, 869 (2015).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Zieman, J. C. Productivity in seagrasses: Methods and rates. In Handbook of Seagrass Biology: An ecosystem perspective (eds Phillips, R. C. & McRoy, C. P.) 87–116 (Garland STPM Press, 1980).
Google Scholar 
Dennison, W. C. Leaf production. Seagrass research methods, UNESCO, Paris 77–79 (1990).Walters, W. et al. Improved bacterial 16S rRNA gene (V4 and V4–5) and fungal internal transcribed spacer marker gene primers for microbial community surveys. mSystems 1, e00009-15 (2016).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Comeau, A. M., Douglas, G. M. & Langille, M. G. I. Microbiome Helper: A custom and streamlined workflow for microbiome research. mSystems 2, e00127-16 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Callahan, B. J. et al. DADA2: High-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat. Methods 13, 581–583 (2016).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Quast, C. et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: Improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, D590–D596 (2013).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wright, E. S. DECIPHER: Harnessing local sequence context to improve protein multiple sequence alignment. BMC Bioinform. 16, 322 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Price, M. N., Dehal, P. S. & Arkin, A. P. FastTree 2-approximately maximum-likelihood trees for large alignments. PLoS ONE 5, e9490 (2010).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Britton, T., Anderson, C. L., Jacquet, D., Lundqvist, S. & Bremer, K. Estimating divergence times in large phylogenetic trees. Syst. Biol. 56, 741–752 (2007).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
McMurdie, P. J. & Holmes, S. phyloseq: An R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PLoS ONE 8, e61217 (2013).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Paradis, E. & Schliep, K. ape 50: An environment for modern phylogenetics and evolutionary analyses in R. Bioinformatics 35, 526–528 (2019).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Silverman, J. D., Washburne, A. D., Mukherjee, S. & David, L. A. A phylogenetic transform enhances analysis of compositional microbiota data. Elife 6, 1–20 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
McMurdie, P. J. & Holmes, S. Waste not, want not: Why rarefying microbiome data is inadmissible. PLoS Comput. Biol. 10, e1003531 (2014).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Webb, C. O., Ackerly, D. D. & Kembel, S. W. Phylocom: Software for the analysis of phylogenetic community structure and trait evolution. Bioinformatics 24, 2098–2100 (2008).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Russel, J. Russel88/MicEco: v0.9.15. (2021). 10.5281/zenodo.4733747.Kembel, S. W. et al. Picante: R tools for integrating phylogenies and ecology. Bioinformatics 26, 1463–1464 (2010).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Friedman, J., Hastie, T. & Tibshirani, R. Regularization paths for generalized linear models via coordinate descent. J. Stat. Softw. 33, 1–22 (2010).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kahle, D. & Wickham, H. Ggmap: Spatial visualization with ggplot2. R J. 5, 144 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar  More

RESEARCH HIGHLIGHT
03 March 2023

Human hunt at least 19% of bat species worldwide — especially flying foxes, which can have wingspans of 1.5 metres. More

Beer, C. et al. Terrestrial gross carbon dioxide uptake: global distribution and covariation with climate. Science 329, 834–838 (2010).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Badgley, G., Field, C. B. & Berry, J. A. Canopy near-infrared reflectance and terrestrial photosynthesis. Sci. Adv.3, e1602244 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Chapin, F. S. III Effects of plant traits on ecosystem and regional processes: a conceptual framework for predicting the consequences of global change. Ann. Bot. 91, 455–463 (2003).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Chu, C. et al. Does climate directly influence NPP globally? Global Chan. Biol. 22, 12–24 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yao, Y. et al. Spatiotemporal pattern of gross primary productivity and its covariation with climate in China over the last thirty years. Global Chan. Biol. 24, 184–196 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fang, J., Lutz, J. A., Wang, L., Shugart, H. H. & Yan, X. Using climate-driven leaf phenology and growth to improve predictions of gross primary productivity in North American forests. Global Chan. Biol. 26, 6974–6988 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fernández-Martínez, M. et al. The role of climate, foliar stoichiometry and plant diversity on ecosystem carbon balance. Global Chan. Biol. 26, 7067–7078 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Migliavacca, M. et al. The three major axes of terrestrial ecosystem function. Nature 598, 468–472 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Reichstein, M., Bahn, M., Mahecha, M. D., Kattge, J. & Baldocchi, D. D. Linking plant and ecosystem functional biogeography. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111, 13697–13702 (2014).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Funk, J. L. et al. Revisiting the Holy Grail: using plant functional traits to understand ecological processes. Biol. Rev. 92, 1156–1173 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lavorel, S. & Garnier, É. Predicting changes in community composition and ecosystem functioning from plant traits: revisiting the Holy Grail. Fun. Ecol. 16, 545–556 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Enquist, B. J. et al. in Advances in Ecological Research 52 (eds Samraat P, Guy W, & Anthony I. D) 249–318 (Academic Press, 2015).Garnier, E. et al. Plant functional markers capture ecosystem properties during secondary succession. Ecology 85, 2630–2637 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Enquist, B. J. et al. Assessing trait-based scaling theory in tropical forests spanning a broad temperature gradient. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 26, 1357–1373 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fyllas, N. M. et al. Solar radiation and functional traits explain the decline of forest primary productivity along a tropical elevation gradient. Ecol. Lett. 20, 730–740 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Van der Plas, F. et al. Plant traits alone are poor predictors of ecosystem properties and long-term ecosystem functioning. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1602–1611 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ali, A., Yan, E.-R., Chang, S. X., Cheng, J.-Y. & Liu, X.-Y. Community-weighted mean of leaf traits and divergence of wood traits predict aboveground biomass in secondary subtropical forests. Sci. Total Environ. 574, 654–662 (2017).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Yang, J., Cao, M. & Swenson, N. G. Why Functional Traits Do Not Predict Tree Demographic Rates. Trend Ecol. Evol. 33, 326–336 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Šímová, I. et al. The relationship of woody plant size and leaf nutrient content to large-scale productivity for forests across the Americas. J. Ecol. 107, 2278–2290 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, Y. et al. Leaf size of woody dicots predicts ecosystem primary productivity. Ecol. Lett. 23, 1003–1013 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
He, N. et al. Ecosystem Traits Linking Functional Traits to Macroecology. Trend. Ecol. Evol. 34, 200–210 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rubio, V. E., Zambrano, J., Iida, Y., Umaña, M. N. & Swenson, N. G. Improving predictions of tropical tree survival and growth by incorporating measurements of whole leaf allocation. J. Ecol. 109, 1331–1343 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Drake, J. E. et al. Increases in the flux of carbon belowground stimulate nitrogen uptake and sustain the long-term enhancement of forest productivity under elevated CO2. Ecol. Lett. 14, 349–357 (2011).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hilty, J., Muller, B., Pantin, F. & Leuzinger, S. Plant growth: the What, the How, and the Why. New Phytol. 232, 25–41 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Xia, J. et al. Joint control of terrestrial gross primary productivity by plant phenology and physiology. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112, 2788–2793 (2015).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Suding, K. N. et al. Scaling environmental change through the community-level: A trait-based response-and-effect framework for plants. Global Chan. Biol. 14, 1125–1140 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu, C., Li, Y., Yan, P. & He, N. How to Improve the Predictions of Plant Functional Traits on Ecosystem Functioning? Front. Plant Sci. 12, 622260 (2021).Reich, P. B., Walters, M. B. & Ellsworth, D. S. From tropics to tundra: global convergence in plant functioning. Proc. Natl. Acad. of Sci. 94, 13730–13734 (1997).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Reich, P. B. The world-wide ‘fast–slow’ plant economics spectrum: a traits manifesto. J. Ecol. 102, 275–301 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Monteith, J. L. Climate and the efficiency of crop production in Britain. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. B. Biol. Sci. 281, 277–294 (1977).
Google Scholar 
Garnier, E. Resource capture, biomass allocation and growth in herbaceous plants. Trend. Ecol. Evol. 6, 126–131 (1991).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Farnsworth, K. D., Albantakis, L. & Caruso, T. Unifying concepts of biological function from molecules to ecosystems. Oikos 126, 1367–1376 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, R. et al. Biodiversity alleviates the decrease of grassland multifunctionality under grazing disturbance: A global meta-analysis. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 31, 155–167 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jing, X. et al. The links between ecosystem multifunctionality and above-and belowground biodiversity are mediated by climate. Nat. Commun. 6, 1–8 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Peters, M. K. et al. Climate–land-use interactions shape tropical mountain biodiversity and ecosystem functions. Nature 568, 88–92 (2019).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hu, W. et al. Aridity-driven shift in biodiversity–soil multifunctionality relationships. Nat. Commun. 12, 1–15 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jing, X. et al. The influence of aboveground and belowground species composition on spatial turnover in nutrient pools in alpine grasslands. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 31, 486–500 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jing, X. et al. Above-and belowground complementarity rather than selection drives tree diversity-productivity relationships in European forests. Funct Ecol. 35, 1756–1767 (2021).He, N. et al. Predicting ecosystem productivity based on plant community traits. Trend. Plant Sci. 28, 43–53 (2023).Maynard, D. S. et al. Global relationships in tree functional traits. Nat. Commun. 13, 1–12 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Michaletz, S. T., Kerkhoff, A. J. & Enquist, B. J. Drivers of terrestrial plant production across broad geographical gradients. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 27, 166–174 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shipley, B. Net assimilation rate, specific leaf area and leaf mass ratio: which is most closely correlated with relative growth rate? A meta-analysis. Funct. Ecol. 20, 565–574 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Violle, C. et al. Let the concept of trait be functional! Oikos 116, 882–892 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jucker, T., Bouriaud, O. & Coomes, D. A. Crown plasticity enables trees to optimize canopy packing in mixed-species forests. Funct. Ecol. 29, 1078–1086 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
McGill, B. J. Matters of Scale. Science 328, 575 (2010).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Penuelas, J. et al. Increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations correlate with declining nutritional status of European forests. Communi. Biol. 3, 1–11 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Weemstra, M. et al. Towards a multidimensional root trait framework: a tree root review. New Phytol. 211, 1159–1169 (2016).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Oehri, J., Schmid, B., Schaepman-Strub, G. & Niklaus, P. A. Biodiversity promotes primary productivity and growing season lengthening at the landscape scale. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114, 10160–10165 (2017).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

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

Google Scholar 
Diaz, S. et al. The global spectrum of plant form and function. Nature 529, 167–171 (2015).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Liu, Y. et al. The optimum temperature of soil microbial respiration: Patterns and controls. Soil Biol. Biochem. 121, 35–42 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zhao, N. et al. Coordinated pattern of multi-element variability in leaves and roots across Chinese forest biomes. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 25, 359–367 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, J. et al. C: N: P stoichiometry in China’s forests: From organs to ecosystems. Funct. Ecol. 32, 50–60 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Karger, D. N. et al. Climatologies at high resolution for the earth’s land surface areas. Sci. Data 4, 1–20 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dirk Nikolaus, K. et al. Climatologies at high resolution for the earth’s land surface areas. EnviDat. https://doi.org/10.16904/envidat.332 (2021).Kerkhoff, A. J., Enquist, B. J., Elser, J. J. & Fagan, W. F. Plant allometry, stoichiometry and the temperature-dependence of primary productivity. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 14, 585–598 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wright, I. J. et al. Global climatic drivers of leaf size. Science 357, 917–921 (2017).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, Y. et al. A global moderate resolution dataset of gross primary production of vegetation for 2000-2016. Sci. Data 4, 170165 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Jolliffe, I. T. & Cadima, J. Principal component analysis: a review and recent developments. Philos. Trans. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 374, 20150202 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wieczynski, D. J. et al. Climate shapes and shifts functional biodiversity in forests worldwide. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 116, 587–592 (2019).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lefcheck, J. S. piecewiseSEM: Piecewise structural equation modelling in r for ecology, evolution, and systematics. Method Ecol. Evol. 7, 573–579 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bürkner, P.-C. Advanced bayesian multilevel modeling with the R Package brms. R J. 10, 395–411 (2018).Bürkner, P.-C. brms: An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. J. Stat. Software 80, 1–28 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vehtari, A., Gelman, A. & Gabry, J. Practical Bayesian model evaluation using leave-one-out cross-validation and WAIC. Stat. Comput. 27, 1413–1432 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vehtari, A. et al. loo: Efficient leave-one-out cross-validation and WAIC for Bayesian models. R package version 2, 1003 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Gabry, J. & Mahr, T. bayesplot: Plotting for Bayesian models. R package version 1 (2017).Mac Nally, R. & Walsh, C. J. Hierarchical partitioning public-domain software. Biodivers. Conserv. 13, 659 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Murray, K. & Conner, M. M. Methods to quantify variable importance: implications for the analysis of noisy ecological data. Ecology 90, 348–355 (2009).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Yan, P., He, N., Yu, K., Xu, L. & Van Meerbeek, K. Integrating multiple functional traits to predict ecosystem productivity. figshare (2023). Dataset. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.22081634.v1. More

We performed data acquisition, processing, analysis and visualization using Python23 version 3.8 with the packages Numpy24, Pandas25, Geopandas26, Matplotlib27, Selenium, Beautiful Soup28, SciPy14 and scikit-learn29. The functions used for specific tasks are explicitly mentioned to allow validation and replication studies.Data acquisition and processingHuman PUUV-incidenceHantavirus disease has been notifiable in Germany since 2001. The Robert Koch Institute collects anonymized data from the local and state public health departments and offers via the SurvStat application2 a freely available, limited version of its database for research and informative purposes. We retrieved the reported laboratory-confirmed human PUUV-infections (({text{n}}=text{11,228}) from 2006 to 2021, status: 2022-02-07). From the attributes available for each case, we retrieved the finest temporal and spatial resolution, i.e., the week and the year of notification, together with the district (named “County” in the English version of the SurvStat interface).To avoid bias through underreporting, our dataset was limited to PUUV-infections since 2006. The years 2006–2021 contain 91.9% of the total cases from 2001 to 2021. Human PUUV-incidence was calculated as the number of infections per 100,000 people, by using population data from Eurostat30. For each year, we used the population reported for the January 1 of that year. The population for 2020 was also used for 2021.In the analysis, we only included districts where the total infections were (ge {20}) and the maximum annual incidence was (ge {2}) in the period 2006–2021. The spatial information about the infections provided by the SurvStat application refers to the district where the infection was reported. Therefore, in most of the cases, the reported district corresponds to the residence of the infected person, which may differ from the district of infection. To compensate partially for differences between the reported place of residence and the place of infection, we combined most of the urban districts with their surrounding rural district. The underlying assumption was that most infections reported in urban districts occurred in the neighboring or surrounding rural district. In addition, some urban and rural districts have the same health department. Supplementary Table 1 lists the combined districts.Weather dataFrom the German Meteorological Service31 we retrieved grids of the following monthly weather parameters over Germany from 2004 to 2021: mean daily air temperature—Tmean, minimum daily air temperature—Tmin, and maximum daily air temperature—Tmax (all temperatures are the monthly averages of the corresponding daily values, in 2 m height above ground, in °C); total precipitation in mm—Pr, total sunshine duration in hours—SD, mean monthly soil temperature in 5 cm depth under uncovered typical soil of location in °C—ST, and soil moisture under grass and sandy loam in percent plant useable water—SM. The dataset version for Tmean, Tmin, Tmax, Pr, and SD was v1.0; for ST and SM the dataset version was 0. × . The spatial resolution was 1 × 1 km2.The data acquisition was performed with the Selenium package. The processing was based on the geopandas package26 using a geospatial vector layer for the district boundaries of Germany32. Each grid was processed to obtain the average value of the parameter over each district. We first used the function within to define a mask based on the grid centers contained in the district; we then applied this mask to the grid. In this method, called “central point rasterizing”33, each rectangle of the grid was assigned to a single district, the one that contained its center. The typical processing error was estimated to be about 1%, which agrees with the rasterizing error reported by Bregt et al.33; we consider that most likely this error is significantly less than the uncertainties of the grids themselves, caused by calculation, interpolation, and erroneous or missing observations.Data structureOur analysis was performed at the district level based on the annual infections, acquired by aggregating the weekly cases. From each monthly weather parameter, we created 24 records, for all months of the two previous years. Each observation in our dataset characterized one district in one year. Its target was acquired by transforming the annual incidence, as described in the following section. Each observation comprised all 168 available predictors from the weather parameters (7 parameters × 24 months), thereafter called “variables”. The notation for the naming of the variables follows the format Vx__, where “Vx” can be V1 or V2 that corresponds to one or two years before, respectively;  is the abbreviation of the weather parameter (see previous subsection: “Weather data”); and  is the numerical value of the month, i.e., from 1 to 12.The observations for combined districts retained the label of the rural district. For their infections and populations, we aggregated the individual values, and recalculated the incidence. For their weather variables, we assigned the mean values weighted by the area of each district.Target transformationTo consider the effects that drive the occurrence of high district-relative incidence, we discretized the incidence at the district level. The incidence scaled at its maximum value for each district showed extreme values for minima and maxima. About 49% of all observations were in the range [0, 0.1) and 8% in the range [0.9, 1] (Fig. 5). Therefore, we specifically selected to discretize the scaled incidence with two bins, i.e., to binarize it.Figure 5Histograms of the annual PUUV incidence from 2006 to 2021, scaled to its maximum value for each of the selected districts. Left: Raw incidence. Right: Log-transformed incidence, according to Eq. (6).Full size imageWe first applied a log-transformation to the incidence values34, described in Eq. (6).$${text{Log – incidence}} = log_{10} left( {{text{incidence}} + 1} right)$$
(6)
The addition of a positive constant ensured a noninfinite value for zero incidence, with 1 selected so that the log-incidence is nonnegative, and a zero incidence was transformed into a zero log-incidence. This transformation aimed to increase the influence of nonzero incidence values; values that are not pronounced, but still hint at a nonzero infection risk. Its effect is demonstrated in the right plot of Fig. 5, where the positive skewness of the original data is reduced, i.e., low incidence values are spread to higher values, resulting to more uniform bin heights in the range [0.05, 0.95] after the transformation. Formally, in this case the log-transformation achieves a more uniform distribution for the non-extreme incidence values.For the binarization, we performed unsupervised clustering of the log-transformed incidence, separately for each district, applying the function KBinsDiscretizer of the scikit-learn package29. Our selected strategy was the k-means clustering with two bins, because it does not require a pre-defined threshold, and it can operate with the same fixed number of bins for every district, by automatically adjusting the cluster centroids accordingly.Classification methodWe concentrated only on those variable combinations that led to a linear decision boundary for the classification of our selected target. We selected support vector machines (SVM)35 with a linear kernel, because they combine high performance with low model complexity, in that they return the decision boundary as a linear equation of the variables. In addition, SVM is geometrically motivated36 and expected to be less prone to outliers and overfitting than other machine-learning classification algorithms, such as the logistic regression. For the complete modelling process, the regularization parameter C was set to 1, that is the default value in the applied SVC method of the scikit-learn package29, and the weights for both risk classes were also set to 1.Feature selectionOur aim was to use the smallest possible number of weather parameters as variables for a classification model with sufficient performance. To identify the optimal variable combination, we first applied an SVM with a linear kernel for all 2-variable combinations of the monthly weather variables from V2 and V1, i.e., 168 variables (7 weather parameters × 2 years × 12 months). Only for this step, the variables were scaled to their minimum and maximum values, which significantly reduced the processing time. For all the following steps, the scaler was omitted, because the unscaled support vectors were required for the final model. From the total 14,028 models for each unique pair ((frac{168!}{2!cdot left(168-2right)!})), we kept the 100 models with the best F1-score, i.e., of the harmonic mean of sensitivity and precision, and counted the occurrences of each year-month combination in the variables. The best F1-score was 0.752 for the pair (V1_Tmean_9 and V2_Tmax_4); and the best sensitivity was 83% for the pair (V2_Tmax_9 and V1_ST_9).The year-month combinations with more than 10% occurrences were: V1_9 (September of the previous year, with 49% occurrences), V2_9 (September of two years before, with 12%) and V2_4 (April of two years before, with 10%). To avoid sets with highly correlated variables, we formed 3-variable combinations, with exactly one variable from each year-month combination (threefold Cartesian product). From the total 343 models (73 combinations, i.e., 7 weather parameters for 3 year-month combinations), we selected the model with the best sensitivity and at least 70% precision, i.e., the variable set (V2_ST_4, V2_SD_9, and V1_ST_9). We consider that the criteria for this selection are not particularly crucial; and we expect comparable performance for most variable sets with a high F1-score, because the variables for each dimension of the Cartesian product were highly correlated. The eight variable sets with at least 70% precision and at least 80% sensitivity are shown in Supplementary Table 2.The SVM classifier has two hyperparameters: the regularization parameter C and the class weights. By decreasing C, the decision boundary becomes softer and more misclassifications are allowed. On the other hand, increasing the high-risk class weight, the misclassifications of high-risk observations are penalized higher, which is expected to increase the sensitivity and decrease the precision. The simultaneous adjustment of both hyperparameters ensures that the resulting model has the optimal performance with respect to the preferred metric. However, in order to avoid overfitting, we considered redundant a further model optimization with these two hyperparameters. For completeness, we examined SVM models for different values of the hyperparameters and found that the global maximum for the F1-score is in the region of 0.001 for C and 1.5 for the high-risk class weight. Our selected values C = 1 and high-risk class weight equal to 1 give the second best F1-score, which is a local maximum with comparable performance, mostly insensitive to the selection of C from the range [0.2, 5.5].The addition of a fourth variable from V1_6 (June of the previous year) resulted in a model with higher sensitivity but lower precision and specificity (for V1_Pr_6). The highest F1-score was achieved for the quadruple (V2_ST_4, V2_SD_9, V1_ST_9, V1_Pr_6). Because of the increased complexity without significant improvement in the performance, we considered unnecessary a further expansion of our variable triplet. More

Purvis, A., Gittleman, J. L., Cowlishaw, G. & Mace, G. M. Predicting extinction risk in declining species. Proc. R. Soc. B 267, 1947–1952 (2000).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Crooks, K. R. Relative sensitivities of mammalian carnivores to habitat fragmentation. Conserv. Biol. 16, 488–502 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fahrig, L. Non-optimal animal movement in human-altered landscapes. Funct. Ecol. 21, 1003–1015 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fahrig, L. & Rytwinski, T. Effects of roads on animal abundance: An empirical review and synthesis. Ecol. Soc. 14, 21 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lowry, H., Lill, A. & Wong, B. B. M. Behavioural responses of wildlife to urban environments. Biol. Rev. 88, 537–549 (2013).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Sévêque, A., Gentle, L. K., López-Bao, J. V., Yarnell, R. W. & Uzal, A. Human disturbance has contrasting effects on niche partitioning within carnivore communities. Biol. Rev. 95, 1689–1705 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Woodroffe, R. & Ginsberg, J. R. Edge effects and the extinction of populations inside protected areas. Science 1979(280), 2126–2128 (1998).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Dressel, S., Sandström, C. & Ericsson, G. A meta-analysis of studies on attitudes toward bears and wolves across Europe 1976–2012. Conserv. Biol. 29, 565–574 (2015).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Owen, D. & Pemberton, D. Tasmanian Devil: A Unique and Threatened Animal (Allen & Unwin, 2005).
Google Scholar 
Yirga, G. et al. Adaptability of large carnivores to changing anthropogenic food sources: diet change of spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta) during Christian fasting period in northern Ethiopia. J. Anim. Ecol. 81, 1052–1055 (2012).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Knight, R. L. & Kawashima, J. Y. Responses of raven and red-tailed hawk populations to linear right-of-ways. J. Wildl. Manag. 57, 266–271 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wilmers, C. C., Stahler, D. R., Crabtree, R. L., Smith, D. W. & Getz, W. M. Resource dispersion and consumer dominance: Scavenging at wolf- and hunter-killed carcasses in Greater Yellowstone, USA. Ecol. Lett. 6, 996–1003 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lambertucci, S. A., Speziale, K. L., Rogers, T. E. & Morales, J. M. How do roads affect the habitat use of an assemblage of scavenging raptors?. Biodivers. Conserv. 18, 2063–2074 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Šálek, M., Kreisinger, J., Sedláček, F. & Albrecht, T. Do prey densities determine preferences of mammalian predators for habitat edges in an agricultural landscape?. Landsc. Urban Plan. 98, 86–91 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bateman, P. W. & Fleming, P. A. Big city life: Carnivores in urban environments. J. Zool. 287, 1–23 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Auman, H. J., Meathrel, C. E. & Richardson, A. Supersize me: Does anthropogenic food change the body condition of silver gulls? A comparison between urbanized and remote, non-urbanized areas. Waterbirds 31, 122–126 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Coon, C. A. C., Nichols, B. C., McDonald, Z. & Stoner, D. C. Effects of land-use change and prey abundance on the body condition of an obligate carnivore at the wildland-urban interface. Landsc. Urban Plan. 192, 103648 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Beckmann, J. P. & Berger, J. Using black bears to test ideal-free distribution models experimentally. J. Mammal. 84, 594–606 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fedriani, J. M., Fuller, T. K. & Sauvajot, R. M. Does availability of anthropogenic food enhance densities of omnivorous mammals? An example with coyotes in southern California. Ecography 24, 325–331 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Prange, S., Gehrt, S. D. & Wiggers, E. P. Influences of anthropogenic resources on raccoon (Procyon lotor) movements and spatial distribution. J. Mammal. 85, 483–490 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tucker, M. A., Santini, L., Carbone, C. & Mueller, T. Mammal population densities at a global scale are higher in human-modified areas. Ecography 44, 1–13 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Blanco, G., Lemus, J. A. & García-Montijano, M. When conservation management becomes contraindicated: Impact of food supplementation on health of endangered wildlife. Ecol. Appl. 21, 2469–2477 (2011).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Fischer, J. R., Stallknecht, D. E., Luttrell, M. P., Dhondt, A. A. & Converse, K. A. Mycoplasmal conjunctivitis in wild songbirds: The spread of a new contagious disease in a mobile host population. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 3, 69–72 (1997).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Brittingham, M. C. & Temple, S. A. A survey of avian mortality at winter feeders. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 14, 445–450 (1986).
Google Scholar 
Hivert, L. G. et al. High blood lead concentrations in captive Tasmanian devils (Sarcophilus harrisii): A threat to the conservation of the species?. Aust. Vet. J. 96, 442–449 (2018).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Carrete, M., Donázar, J. A. & Margalida, A. Density-dependent productivity depression in pyrenean bearded vultures: Implications for conservation. Ecol. Appl. 16, 1674–1682 (2006).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bozek, C. K., Prange, S. & Gehrt, S. D. The influence of anthropogenic resources on multi-scale habitat selection by raccoons. Urban Ecosyst. 10, 413–425 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jones, J. D. et al. Supplemental feeding alters migration of a temperate ungulate. Ecol. Appl. 24, 1769–1779 (2014).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Šálek, M., Drahníková, L. & Tkadlec, E. Changes in home range sizes and population densities of carnivore species along the natural to urban habitat gradient. Mamm. Rev. 45, 1–14 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Newsome, D. & Rodger, K. To feed or not to feed: a contentious issues in wildlife tourism. In Too Close for Comfort: Contentious Issues in Human-Wildlife Encounters (ed. Lunney, D.) 255–270 (Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, 2008).Chapter 

Google Scholar 
Tucker, M. A. et al. Moving in the anthropocene: Global reductions in terrestrial mammalian movements. Science 1979(359), 466–469 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Polis, G. A., Anderson, W. B. & Holt, R. D. Toward an integration of landscape and food web ecology: The dynamics of spatially subsidized food webs. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 28, 289–316 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
Prange, S. & Gehrt, S. D. Changes in mesopredator-community structure in response to urbanization. Can. J. Zool. 82, 1804–1817 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rodewald, A. D., Kearns, L. J. & Shustack, D. P. Anthropogenic resource subsidies decouple predator–prey relationships. Ecol. Appl. 21, 936–943 (2011).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Cortés-Avizanda, A., Jovani, R., Carrete, M. & Donázar, J. A. Resource unpredictability promotes species diversity and coexistence in an avian scavenger guild: A field experiment. Ecology 93, 2570–2579 (2012).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Arrondo, E., Cortés-Avizanda, A. & Donázar, J. A. Temporally unpredictable supplementary feeding may benefit endangered scavengers. Ibis 157, 648–651 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Smith, J. A., Thomas, A. C., Levi, T., Wang, Y. & Wilmers, C. C. Human activity reduces niche partitioning among three widespread mesocarnivores. Oikos 127, 890–901 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
de León, L. F. et al. Urbanization erodes niche segregation in Darwin’s finches. Evol. Appl. 12, 1329–1343 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Manlick, P. J. & Pauli, J. N. Human disturbance increases trophic niche overlap in terrestrial carnivore communities. PNAS 117, 26842–26848 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Blair, R. B. Land use and avian species diversity along an urban gradient. Ecol. Appl. 6, 506–519 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dettori, E. E. et al. Distribution and diet of recovering Eurasian otter (Lutra lutra) along the natural-to-urban habitat gradient (river Segura, SE Spain). Urban Ecosyst. 24, 1221–1230 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
McKinney, M. L. Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biol. Conserv. 127, 247–260 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Guiler, E. R. Temporal and spatial distribution of the Tasmanian Devil, Sarcophilus harrisii (Dasyuridae: Marsupialia). Pap. Proc. R. Soc. Tasman 116, 153–163 (1982).
Google Scholar 
Patton, A. H. et al. A transmissible cancer shifts from emergence to endemism in Tasmanian devils. Science (1979) 370, eabb9772 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cunningham, C. X. et al. Quantifying 25 years of disease-caused declines in Tasmanian devil populations: Host density drives spatial pathogen spread. Ecol. Lett. 24, 958–969 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Rose, R. K., Pemberton, D. A., Mooney, N. J. & Jones, M. E. Sarcophilus harrisii (Dasyuromorphia: Dasyuridae). Mamm. Species 49, 1–17 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Guiler, E. R. Observations on the Tasmanian devil, Sarcophilus harrisii (Marsupialia: Dasyuridae) I. Numbers, home range, movements and food in two populations. Aust. J. Zool. 18, 49–62 (1970).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jones, M. E. & Barmuta, L. A. Diet overlap and relative abundance of sympatric dasyurid carnivores: A hypothesis of competition. J. Anim. Ecol. 67, 410–421 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pemberton, D. et al. The diet of the Tasmanian Devil, Sarcophilus harrisii, as determined from analysis of scat and stomach contents. Pap. Proc. R. Soc. Tasman. 142, 13–22 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Rogers, T. L., Fox, S., Pemberton, D. & Wise, P. Sympathy for the devil: Captive-management style did not influence survival, body-mass change or diet of Tasmanian devils 1 year after wild release. Wildl. Res. 43, 544–552 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Andersen, G. E., Johnson, C. N., Barmuta, L. A. & Jones, M. E. Dietary partitioning of Australia’s two marsupial hypercarnivores, the Tasmanian devil and the spotted-tailed quoll, across their shared distributional range. PLoS ONE 12, e0188529 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Department of Primary Industries Parks Water and Environment. Recovery Plan for the Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) (2010).Brown, O. J. F. Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) extinction on the Australian mainland in the mid-Holocene: multicausality and ENSO intensification. Alcheringa Aust. J. Palaeontol. 30, 49–57 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lewis, A. C., Hughes, C. & Rogers, T. L. Effects of intraspecific competition and body mass on diet specialization in a mammalian scavenger. Ecol. Evol. 12, e8338 (2022).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Andersen, G. E., McGregor, H. W., Johnson, C. N. & Jones, M. E. Activity and social interactions in a wide-ranging specialist scavenger, the Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii), revealed by animal-borne video collars. PLoS ONE 15, e0230216 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Jones, M. E. Road upgrade, road mortality and remedial measures: Impacts on a population of eastern quolls and Tasmanian devils. Wildl. Res. 27, 289–296 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jones, M. E. & Barmuta, L. A. Niche differentiation among sympatric australian dasyurid carnivores. J. Mammal. 81, 434–447 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Andersen, G. E., Johnson, C. N., Barmuta, L. A. & Jones, M. E. Use of anthropogenic linear features by two medium-sized carnivores in reserved and agricultural landscapes. Sci. Rep. 7, 11624 (2017).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hamede, R. K., McCallum, H. & Jones, M. Seasonal, demographic and density-related patterns of contact between Tasmanian devils (Sarcophilus harrisii): Implications for transmission of devil facial tumour disease. Austral. Ecol. 33, 614–622 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kitchener, A. & Harris, S. From Forest to Fjaeldmark: Descriptions of Tasmania’s Vegetation (Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Tasmania, 2013).
Google Scholar 
Wiggins, N. L. & Bowman, D. M. J. S. Macropod habitat use and response to management interventions in an agricultural—Forest mosaic in north-eastern Tasmania as inferred by scat surveys. Wildl. Res. 38, 103–113 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hobday, A. J. & Minstrell, M. L. Distribution and abundance of roadkill on Tasmanian highways: Human management options. Wildl. Res. 35, 712–726 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hingston, A. B. Impacts of logging on autumn bird populations in the southern forests of Tasmania. Pap. Proc. R. Soc. Tasman. 134, 19–28 (2000).
Google Scholar 
Taylor, R. J. Notes on the diet of the carnivorous mammals of the Upper Henty River Region, western Tasmania. Pap. Proc. R. Soc. Tasman. 120, 7–10 (1986).
Google Scholar 
Hall-Aspland, S., Rogers, T., Canfield, R. & Tripovich, J. Food transit times in captive leopard seals (Hydrurga leptonyx). Polar Biol. 34, 95–99 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bell, O. et al. Age-related variation in the trophic characteristics of a marsupial carnivore, the Tasmanian devil Sarcophilus harrisii. Ecol. Evol. 10, 7861–7871 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bell, O. et al. Isotopic niche variation in Tasmanian devils Sarcophilus harrisii with progression of devil facial tumor disease. Ecol. Evol. 11, 8038–8053 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bearhop, S., Adams, C. E., Waldron, S., Fuller, R. A. & MacLeod, H. Determining trophic niche width: A novel approach using stable isotope analysis. J. Anim. Ecol. 73, 1007–1012 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Layman, C. A. et al. Applying stable isotopes to examine food-web structure: An overview of analytical tools. Biol. Rev. 87, 545–562 (2012).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Crawford, K., McDonald, R. A. & Bearhop, S. Applications of stable isotope techniques to the ecology of mammals. Mamm. Rev. 38, 87–107 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bender, M. M., Rouhani, I., Vines, H. M. & Black, C. C. Jr. 13C/12C ratio changes in crassulacean acid metabolism plants. Plant Physiol. 52, 427–430 (1973).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
O’Leary, M. H. Carbon isotope fractionation in plants. Phytochemistry 20, 553–567 (1981).Article 

Google Scholar 
Farquhar, G. D., O’Leary, M. H. & Berry, J. A. On the relationship between carbon isotope discrimination and the intercellular carbon dioxide concentration in leaves. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 9, 121–137 (1982).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cernusak, L. A. et al. Environmental and physiological determinants of carbon isotope discrimination in terrestrial plants. New Phytol. 200, 950–965 (2013).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
NSW Parliamentary Counsel. Animal Research Act 1985 (NSW Parliamentary Counsel, 1985).
Google Scholar 
National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia). Australian Code for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes (National Health and Medical Research Council, 2013).
Google Scholar 
du Sert, N. P. et al. Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0. PLoS Biol. 18, e3000411 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Environmental Systems Research Institute. ArcGIS Desktop Version 10.8.1. https://www.esri.com/en-us/arcgis/products/arcgis-desktop/overview (2020).Tasmanian Vegetation Monitoring and Mapping Program. TASVEG 4.0. Natural Values Conservation Branch, Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment thelist.tas.gov.au/app/content/data/geo-meta-data-record?detailRecordUID=b5c7a079-14bc-4b3c-af73-db7585d34cdd (2020).Land Tasmania. LIST Land Tenure. Land Tasmania thelist.tas.gov.au/app/content/data/geo-meta-data-record?detailRecordUID=9b8bf099-d668–433d-981b-a0f8f964f827 (2015).Hickey, J. E. & Wilkinson, G. R. The development and current implementation of silvicultural pratices in native forests in Tasmania. Aust. For. 62, 245–254 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Whiteley, S. B. Calculating the sustainable yield of Tasmania’s State forests. Tasforests 11, 23–34 (1999).
Google Scholar 
Pemberton, D. Social Organisation and Behaviour of the Tasmanian devil, Sarcophilus harrisii (University of Tasmania, 1990).
Google Scholar 
Attard, M. R. G., Lewis, A. C., Wroe, S., Hughes, C. & Rogers, T. L. Whisker growth in Tasmanian devils (Sarcophilus harrisii) and applications for stable isotope studies. Ecosphere 12, e03846 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
von Bertalanffy, L. Quantitative laws in metabolism and growth. Q. Rev. Biol. 32, 217–231 (1957).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rogers, T. L., Fung, J., Slip, D., Steindler, L. & O’Connell, T. C. Calibrating the time span of longitudinal biomarkers in vertebrate tissues when fine-scale growth records are unavailable. Ecosphere 7, e01449 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Qi, H., Coplen, T. B., Geilmann, H., Brand, W. A. & Böhlke, J. K. Two new organic reference materials for δ13C and δ15N measurements and a new value for the δ13C of NBS 22 oil. Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom. 17, 2483–2487 (2003).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Qi, H. et al. A new organic reference material, l-glutamic acid, USGS41a, for δ13C and δ15N measurements—A replacement for USGS41. Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom. 30, 859–866 (2016).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bond, A. L. & Hobson, K. A. Reporting stable-isotope ratios in ecology: Recommended terminology. Guidel. Best Pract. Waterbirds 35, 324–331 (2012).
Google Scholar 
O’Connell, T. C. & Hedges, R. E. M. Investigations into the effect of diet on modern human hair isotopic values. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 108, 409–425 (1999).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Jackson, A. L., Inger, R., Parnell, A. C. & Bearhop, S. Comparing isotopic niche widths among and within communities: SIBER—Stable Isotope Bayesian Ellipses in R. J. Anim. Ecol. 80, 595–602 (2011).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing Version 4.2.0. https://www.r-project.org/ (2022).Bartoń, K. MuMIn: Multi-model inference. R Package Version 1.47.1. https://cran.r-project.org/package=MuMIn (2022).Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach (Colorado Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, 2002).MATH 

Google Scholar 
Stock, B. C. et al. Analyzing mixing systems using a new generation of Bayesian tracer mixing models. PeerJ 6, e5096 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Stock, B. C. & Semmens, B. X. MixSIAR: Bayesian Mixing Models in R. R Package Version 3.1.12. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1209993 (2022).Plummer, M., Stukalov, A. & Denwood, M. rjags: Bayesian graphical models using MCMC. R Package Version 4-13. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/rjags/rjags.pdf (2022).Newsome, S. D. et al. Variation in δ13C and δ15N diet–vibrissae trophic discrimination factors in a wild population of California sea otters. Ecol. Appl. 20, 1744–1752 (2010).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Brooks, T. M. et al. Habitat loss and extinction in the hotspots of biodiversity. Conserv. Biol. 16, 909–923 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fahrig, L. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 34, 487–515 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pardini, R., Nichols, E. & Püttker, T. Biodiversity response to habitat loss and fragmentation. Encycl. Anthr. 3, 229–239 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Koch, A., Munks, S. & Driscoll, D. The use of hollow-bearing trees by vertebrate fauna in wet and dry Eucalyptus obliqua forest, Tasmania. Wildl. Res. 35, 727–746 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Donázar, J. A., Cortés-Avizanda, A. & Carrete, M. Dietary shifts in two vultures after the demise of supplementary feeding stations: consequences of the EU sanitary legislation. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 56, 613–621 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Carbone, C., Teacher, A. & Rowcliffe, J. M. The costs of carnivory. PLoS Biol. 5, e22 (2007).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Tucker, M. A., Ord, T. J. & Rogers, T. L. Revisiting the cost of carnivory in mammals. J. Evol. Biol. 29, 2181–2190 (2016).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Carbone, C., Mace, G. M., Roberts, S. C. & Macdonald, D. W. Energetic constraints on the diet of terrestrial carnivores. Nature 402, 286–288 (1999).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Fisher, D. O. & Dickman, C. R. Body size-prey relationships in insectivorous marsupials: Tests of three hypotheses. Ecology 74, 1871–1883 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ruxton, G. D. & Houston, D. C. Obligate vertebrate scavengers must be large soaring fliers. J. Theor. Biol. 228, 431–436 (2004).Article 
ADS 
MathSciNet 
PubMed 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Pemberton, D. & Renouf, D. A field-study of communication and social-behavior of the Tasmanian devil at feeding sites. Aust. J. Zool. 41, 507–526 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pye, R. J. et al. A second transmissible cancer in Tasmanian devils. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 113, 374–379 (2016).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
James, S. et al. Tracing the rise of malignant cell lines: Distribution, epidemiology and evolutionary interactions of two transmissible cancers in Tasmanian devils. Evol. Appl. 12, 1772–1780 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hawkins, C. E. et al. Emerging disease and population decline of an island endemic, the Tasmanian devil Sarcophilus harrisii. Biol. Conserv. 131, 307–324 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pearse, A.-M. & Swift, K. Transmission of devil facial-tumour disease. Nature 439, 549 (2006).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wood, S. W., Hua, Q. & Bowman, D. M. J. S. Fire-patterned vegetation and the development of organic soils in the lowland vegetation mosaics of south-west Tasmania. Aust. J. Bot. 59, 126–136 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kohn, M. J. Carbon isotope compositions of terrestrial C3 plants as indicators of (paleo)ecology and (paleo)climate. PNAS 107, 19691–19695 (2010).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Mayer, M., Ullmann, W., Sunde, P., Fischer, C. & Blaum, N. Habitat selection by the European hare in arable landscapes: The importance of small-scale habitat structure for conservation. Ecol. Evol. 8, 11619–11633 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Barker, R. & Vestjens, W. Food of Australian Birds 1. Non-Passerines (CSIRO Publishing, 1989).Book 

Google Scholar 
Thomas, D. G. The bird community of Tasmanian temperate rainforest. Ibis 122, 298–306 (1980).Article 

Google Scholar 
DeVault, T. L., Rhodes, O. E. Jr. & Shivik, J. A. Scavenging by vertebrates: Behavioral, ecological, and evolutionary perspectives on an important energy transfer pathway in terrestrial ecosystems. Oikos 102, 225–234 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
DPIPWE. Annual Statewide Spotlight Surveys, Tasmania 2020/2021. Nature Conservation Report 21/2. (2021).Nguyen, H. K. D., Fielding, M. W., Buettel, J. C. & Brook, B. W. Habitat suitability, live abundance and their link to road mortality of Tasmanian wildlife. Wildl. Res. 46, 236–246 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Pianka, E. R. Niche overlap and diffuse competition. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 71, 2141–2145 (1974).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Chesson, P. Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 31, 343–366 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tokeshi, M. Species Coexistence: Ecological and Evolutionary Perspectives. (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009).Grinnell, J. Geography and evolution. Ecology 5, 225–229 (1924).Article 

Google Scholar 
Roughgarden, J. Resource partitioning among competing species—A coevolutionary approach. Theor. Popul. Biol. 9, 388–424 (1976).Article 
MathSciNet 
CAS 
PubMed 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Syme, J., Kiszka, J. J. & Parra, G. J. Dynamics of cetacean mixed-species groups: A review and conceptual framework for assessing their functional significance. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 1–19 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stensland, E., Angerbjörn, A. & Berggren, P. Mixed species groups in mammals. Mamm. Rev. 33, 205–223 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cords, M. & Würsig, B. A Mix of Species: Associations of Heterospecifics Among Primates and Dolphins. in Primates and Cetaceans: Field Research and Conservation of Complex Mammalian Societies (eds. Yamagiwa, J. & Karczmarski, L.) 409–431 (Springer, 2014). doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-54523-1_21.Goodale, E., Beauchamp, G. & Ruxton, G. D. Mixed-Species Groups of Animals: Behavior, Community Structure, and Conservation. (Academic Press, 2017).Krause, J. & Ruxton, G. D. Living in Groups. Oxford Series in Ecology and Evolution (Oxford University Press, 2002).Heymann, E. W. & Buchanan-Smith, H. M. The behavioural ecology of mixed-species troops of callitrichine primates. Biol. Rev. 75, 169–190 (2000).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Sridhar, H. & Guttal, V. Friendship across species borders: factors that facilitate and constrain heterospecific sociality. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 373, 1–9 (2018).Greenberg, R. Birds of many feathers: The formation and structure of mixed-species flocks of forest birds. in On the Move: How and Why Animals Travel in groups (eds. Boinski, S. & Gerber, P. A.) 521–558 (University of Chicago Press, 2000).Waser, P. M. ‘Chance’ and mixed-species associations. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 15, 197–202 (1984).Article 

Google Scholar 
Whitesides, G. H. Interspecific associations of Diana monkeys, Cercopithecus diana, in Sierra Leone, West Africa: biological significance or chance?. Anim. Behav. 37, 760–776 (1989).Article 

Google Scholar 
Waser, P. M. Primate polyspecific associations: Do they occur by chance?. Anim. Behav. 30, 1–8 (1982).Article 

Google Scholar 
Alexander, R. D. The evolution of social behavior. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 5, 325–383 (1974).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kasozi, H. & Montgomery, R. A. Variability in the estimation of ungulate group sizes complicates ecological inference. Ecol. Evol. 10, 6881–6889 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Syme, J., Kiszka, J. J. & Parra, G. J. How to define a dolphin ‘group’? Need for consistency and justification based on objective criteria. Ecol. Evol. 12, 1–18 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hutchinson, J. M. C. & Waser, P. M. Use, misuse and extensions of ‘ideal gas’ models of animal encounter. Biol. Rev. 82, 335–359 (2007).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gotelli, N. J. Null model analysis of species co-occurrence patterns. Ecology 81, 2606–2621 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Astaras, C., Krause, S., Mattner, L., Rehse, C. & Waltert, M. Associations between the drill (Mandrillus leucophaeus) and sympatric monkeys in Korup National Park. Cameroon. Am. J. Primatol. 73, 127–134 (2011).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Mammides, C., Chen, J., Goodale, U. M., Kotagama, S. W. & Goodale, E. Measurement of species associations in mixed-species bird flocks across environmental and human disturbance gradients. Ecosphere 9, 1–14 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ovaskainen, O., Abrego, N., Halme, P. & Dunson, D. Using latent variable models to identify large networks of species-to-species associations at different spatial scales. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 549–555 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pollock, L. J. et al. Understanding co-occurrence by modelling species simultaneously with a Joint Species Distribution Model (JSDM). Methods Ecol. Evol. 5, 397–406 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Warton, D. I. et al. So Many variables: Joint modeling in community ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 766–779 (2015).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ovaskainen, O. et al. How to make more out of community data? A conceptual framework and its implementation as models and software. Ecol. Lett. 20, 561–576 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ovaskainen, O. & Abrego, N. Joint Species Distribution Modelling. (Cambridge University Press, 2020). https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108591720.Blanchet, F. G., Cazelles, K. & Gravel, D. Co-occurrence is not evidence of ecological interactions. Ecol. Lett. 23, 1050–1063 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Haak, C. R., Hui, F. K., Cowles, G. W. & Danylchuk, A. J. Positive interspecific associations consistent with social information use shape juvenile fish assemblages. Ecology 101, 1–16 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bastianelli, G., Wintle, B. A., Martin, E. H., Seoane, J. & Laiolo, P. Species partitioning in a temperate mountain chain: Segregation by habitat vs. interspecific competition. Ecol. Evol. 7, 2685–2696 (2017).Aspin, T. & House, A. Alpha and beta diversity and species co-occurrence patterns in headwaters supporting rare intermittent-stream specialists. Freshw. Biol. n/a, (2022).Astarloa, A. et al. Identifying main interactions in marine predator-prey networks of the Bay of Biscay. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 76, 2247–2259 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Parra, G. J. Resource partitioning in sympatric delphinids: space use and habitat preferences of Australian snubfin and Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins. J. Anim. Ecol. 75, 862–874 (2006).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Parra, G. J., Wojtkowiak, Z., Peters, K. J. & Cagnazzi, D. Isotopic niche overlap between sympatric Australian snubfin and humpback dolphins. Ecol. Evol. 12, 1–11 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kiszka, J. J. et al. Ecological niche segregation within a community of sympatric dolphins around a tropical island. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 433, 273–288 (2011).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Bearzi, M. Dolphin sympatric ecology. Mar. Biol. Res. 1, 165–175 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zaeschmar, J. R. et al. Occurrence of false killer whales (Pseudorca crassidens) and their association with common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) off northeastern New Zealand. Mar. Mammal Sci. 30, 594–608 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Elliser, C. R. & Herzing, D. L. Long-term interspecies association patterns of Atlantic bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, and Atlantic spotted dolphins, Stenella frontalis, in the Bahamas. Mar. Mammal Sci. 32, 38–56 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kiszka, J. J., Perrin, W. F., Pusineri, C. & Ridoux, V. What drives island-associated tropical dolphins to form mixed-species associations in the southwest Indian Ocean?. J. Mammal. 92, 1105–1111 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brown, A. M., Bejder, L., Cagnazzi, D., Parra, G. J. & Allen, S. J. The north west cape, Western Australia: A potential hotspot for Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins Sousa chinensis?. Pacific Conserv. Biol. 18, 240–246 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Allen, S. J., Cagnazzi, D., Hodgson, A. J., Loneragan, N. R. & Bejder, L. Tropical inshore dolphins of north-western Australia: Unknown populations in a rapidly changing region. Pacific Conserv. Biol. 18, 56–63 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Palmer, C., Parra, G. J., Rogers, T. & Woinarski, J. Collation and review of sightings and distribution of three coastal dolphin species in waters of the Northern Territory. Australia. Pacific Conserv. Biol. 20, 116–125 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Corkeron, P. J. Aspects of the Behavioral Ecology of Inshore Dolphins Tursiops truncatus and Sousa chinensis in Moreton Bay, Australia. in The Bottlenose Dolphin (eds. Leatherwood, S. & Reeves, R.) 285–293 (Elsevier, 1990). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-440280-5.50018-4.Haughey, R. et al. Distribution and habitat preferences of Indo-Pacific Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops aduncus) inhabiting coastal waters with mixed levels of protection. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 1–20 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hanf, D., Hodgson, A. J., Kobryn, H., Bejder, L. & Smith, J. N. Dolphin distribution and habitat suitability in North Western Australia: Applications and Implications of a Broad-Scale, Non-targeted Dataset. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 1–18 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hunt, T. N., Allen, S. J., Bejder, L. & Parra, G. J. Identifying priority habitat for conservation and management of Australian humpback dolphins within a marine protected area. Sci. Rep. 10, 1–14 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hunt, T. N. Demography, habitat use and social structure of Australian humpback dolphins (Sousa sahulensis) around the North West Cape, Western Australia: Implications for conservation and management. PhD Thesis, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia. (Flinders University, 2018).Cassata, L. & Collins, L. B. Coral reef communities, habitats, and substrates in and near sanctuary zones of Ningaloo marine park. J. Coast. Res. 241, 139–151 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
CALM MPRA. Management plan for the Ningaloo Marine Park and Muiron Islands Marine Management Area 2005–2015. (2005).Hunt, T. N. et al. Demographic characteristics of Australian humpback dolphins reveal important habitat toward the southwestern limit of their range. Endanger. Species Res. 32, 71–88 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mann, J. Behavioral sampling methods for cetaceans: A review and critique. Mar. Mammal Sci. 15, 102–122 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Python Software Foundation. Python Language Reference, version 3.8.0. at https://www.python.org/ (2016).QGIS Development Team. QGIS Geographic Information System, version 3.8.3 Zanzibar. at http://qgis.osgeo.org (2019).Zanardo, N., Parra, G., Passadore, C. & Möller, L. Ensemble modelling of southern Australian bottlenose dolphin Tursiops sp. distribution reveals important habitats and their potential ecological function. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 569, 253–266 (2017).Hanberry, B. B. Finer grain size increases effects of error and changes influence of environmental predictors on species distribution models. Ecol. Inform. 15, 8–13 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gottschalk, T. K., Aue, B., Hotes, S. & Ekschmitt, K. Influence of grain size on species–habitat models. Ecol. Modell. 222, 3403–3412 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N. & Elphick, C. S. A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods Ecol. Evol. 1, 3–14 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Passadore, C., Möller, L. M., Diaz-Aguirre, F. & Parra, G. J. Modelling dolphin distribution to inform future spatial conservation decisions in a marine protected area. Sci. Rep. 8, 1–14 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Parra, G. J., Schick, R. & Corkeron, P. J. Spatial distribution and environmental correlates of Australian snubfin and Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins. Ecography (Cop.) 29, 396–406 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Conrad, O. et al. System for Automated Geoscientific Analyses (SAGA) v. 2.1.4. Geosci. Model Dev. 8, 1991–2007 (2015).R Core Team. R version 3.6.1. at https://www.r-project.org/ (2019).RStudio Team. RStudio: Integrated Develpment for R. at http://rstudio.com/ (2019).Dormann, C. F. et al. Collinearity: A review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography (Cop.) 36, 27–46 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tikhonov, G. et al. Joint species distribution modelling with the r-package Hmsc. Methods Ecol. Evol. 11, 442–447 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Gelman, A. & Rubin, D. B. Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Stat. Sci. 7, 457–472 (1992).Article 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Pearce, J. & Ferrier, S. Evaluating the predictive performance of habitat models developed using logistic regression. Ecol. Modell. 133, 225–245 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tjur, T. Coefficients of determination in logistic regression models—A new proposal: The coefficient of discrimination. Am. Stat. 63, 366–372 (2009).Article 
MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Syme, J. The behavioural ecology of mixed-species groups of delphinids. PhD Thesis, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia. (Flinders University, 2023).Wang, J. Y. Bottlenose Dolphin, Tursiops aduncus, Indo-Pacific Bottlenose Dolphin. in Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (eds. Würsig, B., Thewissen, J. G. M. & Kovacs, K. M.) 125–130 (Elsevier, 2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-804327-1.00073-X.Parra, G. J. & Jefferson, T. A. Humpback Dolphins. in Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (eds. Würsig, B., Thewissen, J. G. M. & Kovacs, K. M.) 483–489 (Elsevier, 2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-804327-1.00153-9.Dröge, E., Creel, S., Becker, M. S. & M’soka, J. Spatial and temporal avoidance of risk within a large carnivore guild. Ecol. Evol. 7, 189–199 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Browning, N. E., Cockcroft, V. G. & Worthy, G. A. J. Resource partitioning among South African delphinids. J. Exp. Mar. Bio. Ecol. 457, 15–21 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kiszka, J. J., Méndez-Fernandez, P., Heithaus, M. R. & Ridoux, V. The foraging ecology of coastal bottlenose dolphins based on stable isotope mixing models and behavioural sampling. Mar. Biol. 161, 953–961 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Saayman, G. S. & Tayler, C. K. The socioecology of humpback dolphins (Sousa sp.). in Behavior of Marine Animals Current Perspectives in Research Volume 3: Cetaceans (eds. Winn, H. E. & Olla, B. L.) 165–226 (Springer, 1979).Gowans, S. & Whitehead, H. Distribution and habitat partitioning by small odontocetes in the Gully, a submarine canyon on the Scotian Shelf. Can. J. Zool. 73, 1599–1608 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
Clua, E. Mixed-species feeding aggregation of dolphins, large tunas and seabirds in the Azores. Aquat. Living Resour. 14, 11–18 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Quérouil, S. et al. Why do dolphins form mixed-species associations in the azores?. Ethology 114, 1183–1194 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Heithaus, M. R. & Dill, L. M. Food availability and tiger shark predation risk influence bottlenose dolphin habitat use. Ecology 83, 480–491 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar  More