More stories

  • in

    Living in mixed species groups promotes predator learning in degraded habitats

    1.Turner, W. R. et al. Global conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Bioscience 57, 868–873. https://doi.org/10.1641/B571009 (2007).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    2.O’Connor, B., Bojinski, S., Roosli, C. & Schaepman, M. E. Monitoring global changes in biodiversity and climate essential as ecological crisis intensifies. Ecol. Inform. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2019.101033 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    3.Driscoll, D. A. et al. A biodiversity-crisis hierarchy to evaluate and refine conservation indicators. Nat. Ecol. Evolut. 2, 775–781. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0504-8 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    4.Mouillot, D. et al. Rare species support vulnerable functions in high-diversity ecosystems. PLoS. Biol. 11, 11. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001569 (2013).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    5.Hughes, T. P., Graham, N. A. J., Jackson, J. B. C., Mumby, P. J. & Steneck, R. S. Rising to the challenge of sustaining coral reef resilience. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 633–642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2010.07.011 (2010).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    6.Hughes, T. P. et al. Global warming transforms coral reef assemblages. Nature 556, 492 (2018).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    7.Säterberg, T., Sellman, S. & Ebenman, B. High frequency of functional extinctions in ecological networks. Nature 499, 468–470 (2013).ADS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    8.Valiente-Banuet, A. et al. Beyond species loss: The extinction of ecological interactions in a changing world. Funct. Ecol. 29, 299–307 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    9.Fontoura, L. et al. Climate-driven shift in coral morphological structure predicts decline of juvenile reef fishes. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 557–567. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14911 (2020).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    10.Chivers, D. P., McCormick, M. I., Allan, B. J. & Ferrari, M. C. O. Risk assessment and predator learning in a changing world: Understanding the impacts of coral reef degradation. Sci. Rep. 6, 32542 (2016).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    11.Downie, A. T. et al. Exposure to degraded coral habitat depresses oxygen uptake rate during exercise of a juvenile reef fish. Coral Reefs https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-021-02113-x (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    12.Ferrari, M. C. O., McCormick, M. I., Allan, B. J. & Chivers, D. P. Not equal in the face of habitat change: Closely related fishes differ in their ability to use predation-related information in degraded coral. Proc. R. Soc. B 284, 20162758 (2017).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    13.McCormick, M. I., Barry, R. P. & Allan, B. J. M. Algae associated with coral degradation affects risk assessment in coral reef fishes. Sci. Rep. 7, 12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-17197-1 (2017).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    14.Brown, G. E. & Chivers, D. P. in Fish cognition and behaviour (eds C. Brown, K. Laland, & J. Krause) 49–69 (Blackwell Scientific Publisher, 2006).15.Meuthen, D., Baldauf, S. A., Bakker, T. C. M. & Thunken, T. Neglected patterns of variation in phenotypic plasticity: Age- and sex-specific antipredator plasticity in a cichlid fish. Am. Nat. 191, 475–490. https://doi.org/10.1086/696264 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    16.Lonnstedt, O. M., McCormick, M. I., Meekan, M. G., Ferrari, M. C. O. & Chivers, D. P. Learn and live: Predator experience and feeding history determines prey behaviour and survival. Proc. R. Soc. B-Biol. Sci. 279, 2091–2098. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2011.2516 (2012).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    17.Ferrari, M. C. O. et al. School is out on noisy reefs: The effect of boat noise on predator learning and survival of juvenile coral reef fishes. Proc. R. Soc. B-Biol. Sci. 285, 8. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.0033 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    18.Chivers, D. P., McCormick, M. I., Mitchell, M. D., Ramasamy, R. A. & Ferrari, M. C. O. Background level of risk determines how prey categorize predators and non-predators. Proc. R. Soc. B 281, 20140355 (2014).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    19.Crane, A. L. & Ferrari, M. C. O. in Social learning theory: Phylogenetic considerations across animal, plant, and microbial taxa (ed K. B. Clark) 53–82 (Nova Science Publishers, 2013).20.Ferrari, M. C. O., Wisenden, B. D. & Chivers, D. P. Chemical ecology of predator–prey interactions in aquatic ecosystems: A review and prospectus. Can. J. Zool. 88, 698–724 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    21.Mirza, R. S. & Chivers, D. P. Are chemical alarm cues conserved within salmonid fishes?. J. Chem. Ecol. 27, 1641–1655 (2001).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    22.Brown, G. E., Adrian, J. C., Naderi, N. T., Harvey, M. C. & Kelly, J. M. Nitrogen oxides elicit antipredator responses in juvenile channel catfish, but not in convict cichlids or rainbow trout: Conservation of the ostariophysan alarm pheromone. J. Chem. Ecol. 29, 1781–1796 (2003).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    23.Pollock, M. S., Chivers, D. P., Mirza, R. S. & Wisenden, B. D. Fathead minnows, Pimephales promelas, learn to recognize chemical alarm cues of introduced brook stickleback, Culaea inconstans. Environ. Biol. Fishes 66, 313–319 (2003).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    24.Chivers, D. P., Brown, G. E. & Smith, R. J. F. Acquired recognition of chemical stimuli from pike, Esox lucius, by brook sticklebacks, Culaea inconstans (Osteichthyes, Gasterosteidae). Ethology 99, 234–242 (1995).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    25.Mitchell, M. D., Cowman, P. F. & McCormick, M. I. Chemical alarm cues are conserved within the coral reef fish family Pomacentridae. Plos One 7, e47428 (2012).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    26.Ferrari, M. C. O. et al. Intrageneric variation in antipredator responses of coral reef fishes affected by ocean acidification: implications for climate change projections on marine communities. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 2980–2986 (2011).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    27.Chivers, D. et al. Coral degradation alters predator odour signatures and influences prey learning and survival. Proc. R. Soc. B 286, 20190562 (2019).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    28.Ferrari, M. C. O., McCormick, M. I., Meekan, M. G. & Chivers, D. P. Background level of risk and the survival of predator-naive prey: Can neophobia compensate for predator naivety in juvenile coral reef fishes?. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 282, 20142197 (2015).
    Google Scholar 
    29.Stewart, B. D. & Beukers, J. S. Baited technique improves censuses of cryptic fish in complex habitats. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 197, 259–272 (2000).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    30.Hoey, A. S. & McCormick, M. I. in Proceedings of the 10th international coral reef symposium Vol. 1. 420–424 (2006).31.McCormick, M. I., Chivers, D. P., Allan, B. J. & Ferrari, M. C. O. Habitat degradation disrupts neophobia in juvenile coral reef fish. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 719–727 (2017).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    32.McCormick, M. I., Moore, J. A. Y. & Munday, P. L. Influence of habitat degradation on fish replenishment. Coral Reefs 29, 537–546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-010-0620-7 (2010).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    33.McCormick, M. I. Behaviourally mediated phenotypic selection in a disturbed coral reef environment. Plos One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0007096 (2009).Article 
    PubMed Central 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    34.White, J. R., Meekan, M. G. & McCormick, M. I. Individual consistency in the behaviors of newly-settled reef fish. PeerJ 3, e961 (2015).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    35.McCormick, M. I. & Weaver, C. J. It pays to be pushy: Intracohort interference competition between two reef fishes. Plos One 7, e42590 (2012).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    36.Wolf, N. G. Odd fish abandon mixed-species groups when threatened. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 17, 47–52 (1985).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    37.Usio, N., Konishi, M. & Nakano, S. Species displacement between an introduced and a ‘vulnerable’ crayfish: The role of aggressive interactions and shelter competition. Biol. Invasions 3, 179–185 (2001).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    38.Dargent, F., Torres-Dowdall, J., Scott, M. E., Ramnarine, I. & Fussmann, G. F. Can mixed-species groups reduce individual parasite load? A field test with two closely related poeciliid fishes (Poecilia reticulata and Poecilia picta). PloS One 8, e56789 (2013).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    39.Uetz, G. W. & Hieber, C. S. Group size and predation risk in colonial web-building spiders: Analysis of attack abatement mechanisms. Behav. Ecol. 5, 326–333 (1994).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    40.McCormick, M. I., Barry, R. P. & Allan, B. J. Algae associated with coral degradation affects risk assessment in coral reef fishes. Sci. Rep. 7, 16937 (2017).ADS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    41.Lecchini, D., Planes, S. & Galzin, R. Experimental assessment of sensory modalities of coral-reef fish larvae in the recognition of their settlement habitat. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 58, 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-004-0905-3 (2005).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    42.Lecchini, D., Planes, S. & Galzin, R. The influence of habitat characteristics and conspecifics on attraction and survival of coral reef fish juveniles. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 341, 85–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2006.10.006 (2007).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    43.Lecchini, D., Waqalevu, V. P., Parmentier, E., Radford, C. A. & Banaigs, B. Fish larvae prefer coral over algal water cues: Implications of coral reef degradation. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 475, 303–307. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps10094 (2013).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    44.O’Connor, J. J. et al. Sediment pollution impacts sensory ability and performance of settling coral-reef fish. Oecologia 180, 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-015-3367-6 (2016).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    45.Chivers, D. P. & Smith, R. J. F. Chemical alarm signalling in aquatic predator–prey systems: A review and prospectus. Ecoscience 5, 338–352 (1998).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    46.Wisenden, B. D. Olfactory assessment of predation risk in the aquatic environment. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 355, 1205–1208 (2000).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    47.Brown, G. E., Adrian, J. C., Smyth, E., Leet, H. & Brennan, S. Ostariophysan alarm pheromones: Laboratory and field tests of the functional significance of nitrogen oxides. J. Chem. Ecol. 26, 139–154 (2000).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    48.Bertucci, F. et al. Decreased retention of olfactory predator recognition in juvenile surgeon fish exposed to pesticide. Chemosphere 208, 469–475 (2018).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    49.Mitchell, M. D., McCormick, M. I., Ferrari, M. C. O. & Chivers, D. P. Coral reef fishes rapidly learn to identify multiple unknown predators upon recruitment to the reefs. Plos One 6, e15764 (2011).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    50.Palacios, M., Malerba, M. & McCormick, M. Multiple predator effects on juvenile prey survival. Oecologia 188, 417–427 (2018).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    51.Auster, P. J., Cortés, J., Alvarado, J. J. & Beita-Jiménez, A. Coordinated hunting behaviors of mixed-species groups of piscivores and associated species at Isla del Coco National Park (Eastern Tropical Pacific). Neotrop. Ichthyol. 17, e180165 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    52.Pandolfi, J. M. et al. Global trajectories of the long-term decline of coral reef ecosystems. Science 301, 955–958 (2003).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    53.Cheng, L. et al. 2018 Continues record global ocean warming. Adv. Atmos. Sci. 36, 249–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-019-8276-x (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    54.Lawton, J. H. & Brown, V. K. Redundancy in ecosystems Vol. 99 (Springer, 1993).
    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Why stem cells might save the northern white rhino

    OUTLOOK
    29 September 2021

    Why stem cells might save the northern white rhino

    Biologist Jeanne Loring explains how her work could bring endangered animal species back from the brink.

    Julianna Photopoulos

    Julianna Photopoulos

    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed
     Google Scholar

    Share on Twitter
    Share on Twitter

    Share on Facebook
    Share on Facebook

    Share via E-Mail
    Share via E-Mail

    Download PDF

    Stem-cell researcher Jeanne Loring in her laboratory at Scripps Research.Credit: Nelvin C. Cepeda/SDU-T/Zuma/eyevine

    Up to one million plant and animal species face extinction, many within decades, because of human activities. One of these is the northern white rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum cottoni). Only two individuals remain, both of them female, making the subspecies functionally extinct. Jeanne Loring, a stem-cell biologist and founding director of the Center for Regenerative Medicine at Scripps Research in La Jolla, California, spoke to Nature about how collecting and reprogramming stem cells could save this species and others from extinction.What does stem-cell research have to do with saving endangered animals?Induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells, which closely resemble embryonic stem cells, can develop into any tissue in the body, including sperm and eggs. The hope is to generate these reproductive cells from the reprogrammed stem cells of endangered animals, and use them in assisted captive-breeding programmes to rescue the species.How did you get involved in this work?My laboratory set out to make iPS cells from endangered animals in 2008, after we visited the San Diego Zoo Safari Park in California. The previous year, a team led by Shinya Yamanaka, who won a Nobel prize for the work, had become the first to make human iPS cells from skin cells called fibroblasts1, and we had immediately started making them too, to treat neurological diseases. The San Diego Zoo’s Institute for Conservation Research had been collecting and freezing fibroblasts from animals since the 1970s. The institute’s director of conservation genetics, Oliver Ryder, was thinking of using stem cells to try to treat musculoskeletal disorders, but nobody had created iPS cells from endangered species before.
    Part of Nature Outlook: Stem cells
    In 2011, my postdoctoral fellow Inbar Friedrich Ben-Nun was the first to reprogramme stem cells in two animals from endangered species: the northern white rhino and the drill monkey (Mandrillus leucophaeus)2. We’re now focused on saving the northern white rhino — Ryder’s favourite animal — but the techniques we are working on are going to become a standard way of rescuing species from extinction.When did this become a serious venture?Our endangered-species project mostly remained a hobby until 2015, when scientists and conservationists from around the world met in Vienna to explore how cell technologies might aid conservation. We seriously discussed the idea of using stem cells to rescue endangered species, and later published a rescue plan for the northern white rhino3. To begin with, embryos will be created from sperm and egg cells that were collected and stored. They’ll then be implanted into a surrogate mother, a southern white rhino (Ceratotherium simum simum). But we want to be able to create more sperm and eggs from iPS cells and implant them, too — and that’s where our team comes in.After the Vienna meeting, the San Diego Zoo invested in this idea. Staff there built a stem-cell lab and the Rhino Rescue Center, where they brought in six southern white rhinos from Africa, specifically to serve as surrogate mothers for embryos made from northern white rhinos’ cells. The animals should be compatible because southern white and northern white rhinos are closely related, and so have similar reproductive physiologies. A team of reproductive biologists led by Barbara Durrant is now working to perfect the techniques to fertilize eggs in vitro and transfer viable embryos into the southern white rhinos.What progress have you made in creating northern white rhinoceros iPS cells?When we first set out to make the cells from endangered animals, we assumed that human versions of the reprogramming genes would not work in a rhino. So we tried reprogramming the rhino’s fibroblasts with horse genes — the horse is one of the closest relatives of the rhino — but this failed. Surprisingly, the corresponding human genes did work, and we were able to generate pluripotent cells. However, we had used viral vectors to reprogramme the cells, and this has been shown to lead to tumours in mice, so it could not be used for reproduction purposes.After three years of tweaking the technique, we were able to perform the reprogramming without any genetic modification. It’s all trial and error — you just have to keep testing different combinations of variables. Earlier this year, we celebrated a milestone in our efforts to rescue the rhino: Marisa Korody’s lab at the San Diego Zoo was able to reprogramme frozen cells from nine northern white rhinos and two southern white females to become iPS cells4.

    Najin (right) and her daughter Fatu are the world’s only remaining northern white rhinos.Credit: Tony Karumba/AFP via Getty

    How do you hope to create gametes from iPS cells?The major effort now is to make eggs that can be fertilized with sperm collected from adult males. We’re following in the footsteps of other researchers who have had success, mainly with mice so far. For example, in 2016, Katsuhiko Hayashi and his team at Kyushu University in Fukuoka, Japan, artificially engineered egg cells from reprogrammed mouse skin cells, entirely in a dish, and these were used to birth pups that were healthy and fertile5.That technique required ovarian tissue to be co-cultured with the developing eggs to get them to mature, and it’s impossible to get that kind of tissue from rhinos without putting them at risk. But in July, the same team showed that it could make both egg cells and ovarian tissue from iPS cells, which was a huge improvement6.We are now trying to find an efficient way to make the precursors of gametes, known as primordial germ cells, from the iPS cells of northern white rhinos. We know it’s possible — we’ve seen it happen spontaneously in cultures of these iPS cells — but we need to learn how to generate more of them. And then we have to turn those germ cells into eggs and sperm — or at least, something like sperm. Typically, the process of in vitro fertilization (IVF) involves knocking the tail off a sperm cell and injecting the small head directly into the egg, so we might not need to make sperm with tails. The IVF process itself will need to be adapted, however, to the southern white rhino surrogates — we don’t know for sure that it will work as it does in humans, because it’s never been done before.What advantage is there to using stem-cell technology over other approaches, such as cloning?The San Diego Zoo has frozen fibroblasts from 12 northern white rhinos. We didn’t want to clone those animals, because we would still have only the same 12 individuals. But if we make gametes from them instead — sperm from males, eggs from females and, in theory, sperm from females — then we could make various combinations through IVF to get a new, genetically diverse pool of animals that will help the species to survive. We have found that there is sufficient diversity in combining that group of 12 to exceed the diversity of the current population of southern white rhinos.
    More from Nature Outlooks
    Another group, at the Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research in Berlin, is instead harvesting eggs from the two living animals in the hope that they can fertilize them and get new animals that way. I’m perfectly happy if that works, but the challenge is getting enough diversity in the population if you have eggs from only one or two animals.Have you encountered opposition to your iPS-cell-mediated approach?If I were doing this with humans there’d be a lot of debate, but with animals there is less. One criticism is that resources for conservation should be invested differently, for example in restoring natural habitats and educating people. One argument we hear is that there’s no purpose in rescuing a species that will be confined to zoos because of poaching. I don’t know how to stop people from hunting rhinos for their horns, but I will do what I can to try to save an animal that humans have forced into extinction.Are you confident that your work will help to save the northern white rhino?It saddens me that as we’ve made progress in the lab, these animals have been dying out. When we started this project there were 8 of them alive, and now there are only 2: Najin, aged 32, and her daughter Fatu, aged 21, who live in a protected park in Kenya. It’s possible that these last two survivors will be gone by the time we succeed. I hope that’s not the case, but we’re working with cells that have been harvested and frozen, so we can try to bring the species back to life if necessary.I can’t predict how long it will take to get there — things have happened much more slowly than I’d like. But I do hope that our efforts will pay off over the next 10 to 20 years. I want to see a new northern white rhino in my lifetime — before I become ‘extinct’!

    Nature 597, S18-S19 (2021)
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02626-zThis interview has been edited for length and clarity.This article is part of Nature Outlook: Stem cells, an editorially independent supplement produced with the financial support of third parties. About this content.

    References1.Takahashi, K. et al. Cell 131, 861–872 (2007).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    2.Ben-Nun, I. F. et al. Nature Methods 8, 829–831 (2011).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    3.Saragusty, J. et al. Zoo Biol. 35, 280–292 (2016).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    4.Korody, M. L. et al. Stem Cells Dev. 30, 177–189 (2021).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    5.Hikabe, O. et al. Nature 539, 299–303 (2016).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    6.Yoshino, T. et al. Science 373, eabe0237 (2021).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Download references

    Related Articles

    Stem cells

    Stem cells: highlights from research

    The promise and potential of stem cells in Parkinson’s disease

    Stem cells and spinal-cord injuries: an intricate issue

    The chimaera challenge

    The next frontier for human embryo research

    Stem-cell start-ups seek to crack the mass-production problem

    The rise of the assembloid

    Reversing blindness with stem cells

    Subjects

    Conservation biology

    Stem cells

    Zoology

    Latest on:

    Stem cells

    Stem cells
    Outlook 29 SEP 21

    Stem cells and spinal-cord injuries: an intricate issue
    Outlook 29 SEP 21

    Stem cells: highlights from research
    Outlook 29 SEP 21

    Zoology

    Flies sense the world while sleeping
    News & Views 29 SEP 21

    Solar-powered slugs have a bright reproductive future
    Research Highlight 28 SEP 21

    Bright lights at night scramble the sweet song of crickets
    Research Highlight 21 SEP 21

    Jobs

    Associate Professor

    Northwestern University (NU)
    Chicago, IL, United States

    Post Doctoral Training Fellow – Functional Genomics team

    Institute of Cancer Research (ICR)
    London, United Kingdom

    Assistant/Associate Professor in Cancer Disparities

    The University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP)
    El Paso, TX, United States

    Director of the Institute at Brown for Environment and Society (IBES)

    Brown University
    Providence, RI, United States More

  • in

    Protected-area targets could be undermined by climate change-driven shifts in ecoregions and biomes

    1.Rockström, J. et al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472–475 (2009).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    2.Pecl, G. T. et al. Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. Science 355, eaai9214 (2017).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    3.IPCC. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2014. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group I to IPCC AR5. (Cambridge University Press, 2014).4.Bruner, A. G., Gullison, R. E., Rice, R. E. & da Fonseca, G. A. B. Effectiveness of parks in protecting tropical biodiversity. Science 291, 125 LP–125128 (2001).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    5.Gray, C. L. et al. Local biodiversity is higher inside than outside terrestrial protected areas worldwide. Nat. Commun. 7, 12306 (2016).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    6.Watson, J. E. M. et al. Set a global target for ecosystems. Nature 578, 360–362 (2020).7.Dinerstein, E. et al. A global deal for nature: guiding principles, milestones, and targets. Sci. Adv. 5, eaaw2869 (2019).8.Griscom, B. W. et al. Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114, 11645 LP–11611650 (2017).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    9.Keith, D. A. et al. The IUCN red list of ecosystems: motivations, challenges, and applications. Conserv. Lett. 8, 214–226 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    10.Beyer, H. L., Venter, O., Grantham, H. S. & Watson, J. E. M. Substantial losses in ecoregion intactness highlight urgency of globally coordinated action. Conserv. Lett. 13, 1–9 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    11.Dinerstein, E. et al. An ecoregion-based approach to protecting half the terrestrial realm. BioScience 67, 534–545 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    12.Chauvenet, A. L. M. et al. To achieve big wins for terrestrial conservation, prioritize protection of ecoregions closest to meeting targets. One Earth 2, 479–486 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    13.Wilson, E. O. Half Earth: Our Planets Fight for Life (W.W. Norton and Company, 2016).14.Polak, T. et al. Efficient expansion of global protected areas requires simultaneous planning for species and ecosystems. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2, 150107 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    15.Visconti, B. P. et al. Protected area targets post-2020. Science 364, 239–241 (2019).CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    16.Hoffmann, S., Irl, S. D. H. & Beierkuhnlein, C. Predicted climate shifts within terrestrial protected areas worldwide. Nat. Commun. 10, 4787 (2019).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    17.Finsinger, W., Giesecke, T., Brewer, S. & Leydet, M. Emergence patterns of novelty in European vegetation assemblages over the past 15 000 years. Ecol. Lett. 20, 336–346 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    18.Fordham, D. A. et al. Using paleo-archives to safeguard biodiversity under climate change. Science 369 (2020).19.Jackson, S. T. Vegetation, environment, and time: the origination and termination of ecosystems. J. Veg. Sci. 17, 549–557 (2006).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    20.Hoffmann, S. & Beierkuhnlein, C. Climate change exposure and vulnerability of the global protected area estate from an international perspective. Divers. Distrib. 26, 1496–1509 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    21.Garcia, R. A., Cabeza, M., Rahbek, C. & Araujo, M. B. Multiple dimensions of climate change and their implications for biodiversity. Science 344, 1247579–1247579 (2014).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    22.Abatzoglou, J. T., Dobrowski, S. Z. & Parks, S. A. Multivariate climate departures have outpaced univariate changes across global lands. Sci. Rep. 10 (2020).23.Heubes, J. et al. Modelling biome shifts and tree cover change for 2050 in West Africa: Biome shifts and tree cover change in West Africa. J. Biogeogr. 38, 2248–2258 (2011).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    24.Scholze, M., Knorr, W., Arnell, N. W. & Prentice, I. C. A climate-change risk analysis for world ecosystems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 103, 13116–13120 (2006).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    25.Salazar, L. F. & Nobre, C. A. Climate change and thresholds of biome shifts in Amazonia: CLIMATE CHANGE AND AMAZON BIOME SHIFTS. Geophys. Res. Lett. 37, n/a–n/a (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    26.Yu, D., Liu, Y., Shi, P. & Wu, J. Projecting impacts of climate change on global terrestrial ecoregions. Ecol. Indic. 103, 114–123 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    27.Iwamura, T., Guisan, A., Wilson, K. A. & Possingham, H. P. How robust are global conservation priorities to climate change? Glob. Environ. Change 23, 1277–1284 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    28.Littlefield, C. E., Krosby, M., Michalak, J. L. & Lawler, J. J. Connectivity for species on the move: supporting climate-driven range shifts. Front. Ecol. Environ. 17, 270–278 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    29.McGuire, J. L., Lawler, J. J., McRae, B. H., Nuñez, T. A. & Theobald, D. M. Achieving climate connectivity in a fragmented landscape. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113, 7195 LP–7197200 (2016).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    30.CBD. Zero Draft of post-2020 biodiversity framework. Secr. Conv. Biol. Divers. 1–14 (2020).31.Elsen, P. R., Monahan, W. B., Dougherty, E. R. & Merenlender, A. M. Keeping pace with climate change in global terrestrial protected areas. Sci. Adv. 6 (2020).32.Batllori, E., Parisien, M. A., Parks, S. A., Moritz, M. A. & Miller, C. Potential relocation of climatic environments suggests high rates of climate displacement within the North American protection network. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 3219–3230 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    33.Hole, D. G. et al. Projected impacts of climate change on a continent-wide protected area network. Ecol. Lett. 12, 420–431 (2009).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    34.Corlett, R. T. & Tomlinson, K. W. Climate change and edaphic specialists: irresistible force meets immovable object? Trends Ecol. Evol. 35, 367–376 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    35.Svenning, J. C. et al. The influence of interspecific interactions on species range expansion rates. Ecography 37, 1198–1209 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    36.Urban, M. C., Zarnetske, P. L. & Skelly, D. K. Moving forward: dispersal and species interactions determine biotic responses to climate change. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1297, 44–60 (2013).
    Google Scholar 
    37.Alagador, D., Cerdeira, J. O. & Araújo, M. B. Shifting protected areas: scheduling spatial priorities under climate change. J. Appl. Ecol. 51, 703–713 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    38.Araujo. Climate Change and Spatial Conservation Planning. Spatial Conservation Prioritization: Quantitative Methods and Computational Tools (Oxford Univ. Press, 2009).39.Woodward, F. I. Climate and Plant Distribution (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1987).40.Stephenson, N. L. Climatic control of vegetation distribution: the role of the water balance. Am. Nat. 135, 649–670 (1990).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    41.Burke, K. D. et al. Differing climatic mechanisms control transient and accumulated vegetation novelty in Europe and eastern North America. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 374, 20190218 (2019).42.Williams, J. W., Jackson, S. T. & Kutzbach, J. E. Projected distributions of novel and disappearing climates by 2100 AD. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104, 5738 LP–5735742 (2007).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    43.OECD. The post-2020 biodiversity framework: targets, indicators and measurability implications at global and national level. (2019).44.Carroll, C. & Noss, R. F. Rewilding in the face of climate change. Conserv. Biol. 00, 1–13 (2020).
    Google Scholar 
    45.Lovejoy, T. E. & Hannah, L. Avoiding the climate failsafe point. Sci. Adv. 4 (2018).46.Kennedy, C. M., Oakleaf, J. R., Theobald, D. M., Baruch‐Mordo, S. & Kiesecker, J. Managing the middle: a shift in conservation priorities based on the global human modification gradient. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 811–826 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    47.Kier, G. et al. A global assessment of endemism and species richness across island and mainland regions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 106, 9322–9327 (2009).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    48.Franklin, J. F. & Lindenmayer, D. B. Importance of matrix habitats in maintaining biological diversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 106, 349–350 (2009).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    49.Galán-Acedo, C. et al. The conservation value of human-modified landscapes for the world’s primates. Nat. Commun. 10, 152 (2019).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    50.Boesing, A. L., Nichols, E. & Metzger, J. P. Biodiversity extinction thresholds are modulated by matrix type. Ecography 41, 1520–1533 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    51.Carroll, C., Lawler, J. J., Roberts, D. R. & Hamann, A. Biotic and climatic velocity identify contrasting areas of vulnerability to climate change. PLoS ONE 10, e0140486 (2015).52.Hamann, A., Roberts, D. R., Barber, Q. E., Carroll, C. & Nielsen, S. E. Velocity of climate change algorithms for guiding conservation and management. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 997–1004 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    53.Dobrowski, S. Z. & Parks, S. A. Climate change velocity underestimates climate change exposure in mountainous regions. Nat. Commun. 7 (2016).54.Parks, S. A., Carroll, C., Dobrowski, S. Z. & Allred, B. W. Human land uses reduce climate connectivity across North America. Glob. Change Biol. 26 (2020).55.Carroll, C., Parks, S. A., Dobrowski, S. Z. & Roberts, D. R. Climatic, topographic, and anthropogenic factors determine connectivity between current and future climate analogs in North America. Glob. Change Biol. 24 (2018).56.Vos, C. C. et al. Adapting landscapes to climate change: examples of climate-proof ecosystem networks and priority adaptation zones. J. Appl. Ecol. 45, 1722–1731 (2008).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    57.Hannah, L. et al. Fine-grain modeling of species’ response to climate change: holdouts, stepping-stones, and microrefugia. Trends Ecol. Evol. 29, 390–397 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    58.Fitzpatrick, M. C. & Dunn, R. R. Contemporary climatic analogs for 540 North American urban areas in the late 21st century. Nat. Commun. 10, 614 (2019).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    59.Beale, C. M., Lennon, J. J., Yearsley, J. M., Brewer, M. J. & Elston, D. A. Regression analysis of spatial data. Ecol. Lett. 13, 246–264 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    60.Dormann, C. et al. Methods to account for spatial autocorrelation in the analysis of species distributional data: a review. Ecography 30, 609–628 (2007).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    61.Mahony, C. R., Cannon, A. J., Wang, T. & Aitken, S. N. A closer look at novel climates: new methods and insights at continental to landscape scales. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 3934–3955 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    62.Fitzpatrick, M. C. et al. How will climate novelty influence ecological forecasts? Using the quaternary to assess future reliability. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 3575–3586 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    63.Mahony, C. R., MacKenzie, W. H. & Aitken, S. N. Novel climates: trajectories of climate change beyond the boundaries of British Columbia’s forest management knowledge system. For. Ecol. Manag. 410, 35–47 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    64.Olson, D. M. et al. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on earth: a new global map of terrestrial ecoregions provides an innovative tool for conserving biodiversity. BioScience 51, 933–938 (1998).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    65.Smith, J. R. et al. A global test of ecoregions. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1889–1896 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    66.Stephenson, N. L. Actual evapotranspiration and deficit: biologically meaningful correlates of vegetation distribution across spatial scales. J. Biogeogr. 25, 855–870 (1998).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    67.Corlett, R. T. & Westcott, D. A. Will plant movements keep up with climate change? Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 482–488 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    68.Svenning, J. C. & Sandel, B. Disequilibrium vegetation dynamics under future climate change. Am. J. Bot. 100, 1266–1286 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    69.Davis, K. T. et al. Wildfires and climate change push low-elevation forests across a critical climate threshold for tree regeneration. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 116, 6193–6198 (2019).70.Rodriguez Mega, E. Apocalypic fires are ravaging the worlds largest tropical wetland. Nature 586, 20–21 (2020).71.van Oldenborgh, G. J. et al. Attribution of the Australian bushfire risk to anthropogenic climate change. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2020-69 (2020).72.Wintle, B. A. et al. Global synthesis of conservation studies reveals the importance of small habitat patches for biodiversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 116, 909 LP–909914 (2019).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    73.Taylor, P. G. et al. Temperature and rainfall interact to control carbon cycling in tropical forests. Ecol. Lett. 20, 779–788 (2017).74.Parks, S. A. et al. How will climate change affect wildland fire severity in the western US? Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 035002 (2016).75.Abatzoglou, J. T., Dobrowski, S. Z., Parks, S. A. & Hegewisch, K. C. TerraClimate, a high-resolution global dataset of monthly climate and climatic water balance from 1958–2015. Sci. Data 5 (2018).76.Friedlingstein, P. et al. Uncertainties in CMIP5 climate projections due to carbon cycle feedbacks. J. Clim. 27, 511–526 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    77.Mitchell, T. D. Pattern scaling: an examination of the accuracy of the technique for describing future climates. Clim. Change 60, 217–242 (2003).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    78.Qin, Y. et al. Agricultural risks from changing snowmelt. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 459–465 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    79.Bowman, J., Jaeger, J. A. G. & Fahrig, L. Dispersal distance of mammal is proportional to home range size. Ecology 83, 2049–2055 (2002).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    80.Smith, A. M. & Green, D. Dispersal and the metapopulation paradigm in amphibian ecology and conservation: are all amphibian populations metapopulations? Ecography 28, 110–128 (2005).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    81.Sutherland, G., Harestad, A. S., Price, K. & Lertzman, K. Scaling of natal dispersal distances in terrestrial birds and mammals. Conserv. Ecol. 4 (2000).82.Olson, D. M. et al. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on earth: a new global map of terrestrial ecoregions provides an innovative tool for conserving biodiversity. BioScience 51, 933–938 (2001).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    83.Michalak, J. L., Lawler, J. J., Roberts, D. R. & Carroll, C. Distribution and protection of climatic refugia in North America. Conserv. Biol. 32, 1414–1425 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Genetic purging in captive endangered ungulates with extremely low effective population sizes

    We have analyzed the inbreeding-purging process in four captive populations of different ungulate species with effective sizes ranging 4–40 and with available pedigrees as well as survival and productivity records. This allows us to explore the role of inbreeding and purging in determining the evolution of fitness traits in a range of scenarios relevant in the context of conservation.In A. lervia (Ne ≈ 4), purging is expected only for the most severely deleterious alleles (those giving dNe  > 1, which implies d  > 0.25 as, for example, in completely recessive alleles with deleterious homozygous disadvantage s  > 0.5). Thus, it could be that purging has not been detected for this species because such severely deleterious alleles had been purged during the demographic decline in the wild, before the foundation of the captive population. This would be consistent with the low and non-significant inbreeding load estimated in this species. It is also possible that these estimates are non-significant due to the relatively small number of individuals available.G. cuvieri and N. dama have significant initial inbreeding loads that, adding up the direct and maternal components, is about 1.25 in both cases, which is on the order of other estimates published for captive populations (Ralls et al. 1988). Since in both species Ne  > 10, purging should be efficient against less severely deleterious alleles than in A. lervia (d  > 0.1). Purging is detected for both species with very low P values. This result is in agreement with Moreno et al. (2015), who suggested that purging had occurred in G. cuvieri as they found an increased juvenile survival parallel to an increased inbreeding coefficient. The relative contribution of severe and mild deleterious effects to the inbreeding load of populations is under a scientific debate with direct implications in conservation biology (Ralls et al. 2020, Kyriazis et al. 2021, Pérez-Pereira et al. 2021). The large d estimates obtained in our analysis indicate that a substantial fraction of the initial inbreeding load is being purged under modest effective population sizes, implying that such substantial fraction is due to relatively severe deleterious mutations in these two populations. As far as we are aware, these are the first estimates of this purging parameter obtained in managed, non-experimental populations. Previous estimates of d were obtained in D. melanogaster bottlenecked populations, first for egg-to-pupae viability in lines with Ne = 6 or 12 under noncompetitive conditions (d = 0.09, Bersabé and García-Dorado 2013), and second in lines with higher Ne ≈ 40–50 under more competitive conditions, giving a larger estimate of d, of the order of that estimated in these two ungulate endangered species (d ≈ 0.3, López-Cortegano et al. 2016).Regarding G. dorcas, given its larger population size, purging is expected even against alleles with mild recessive component of the deleterious effect (d  > 0.025). However, although a significant (if modest) inbreeding load was estimated, no significant purging was detected. Nevertheless, the number of equivalent complete generations by the end of the pedigree (EqG = 7) was smaller than our proposed minimum number of generations required to detect purging (tm = 10). This suggests that, due to the large size of this population, more generations are needed to detect purging.The results above support the use of tm to get an approximate idea about when a pedigree is too shallow for purging to be detected. Should the number of generations available be larger than tm, IP predictions could additionally be computed to search the d values that can be expected to produce detectable purging. Supplementary Fig. S3 shows that the true number of generations required to detect purging becomes increasingly larger than tm for alleles with smaller d values, as they suffer weaker purging each time they are exposed in homozygosis. The tm approach helps to understand the failure of many studies to detect purging. Such is the case of the extensive meta-analyses on 119 zoo populations by Boakes et al. (2007), where the median Ne value was 22.6 while the median number of generations was t = 3 meaning that, for most species, at least 5 more generations were needed before purging could be detectable. On the contrary, and in agreement with this tm approach, purging was experimentally detected in lines of D. melanogaster with Ne = 43 (i.e., tm ≈ 10) where, after an initial period of inbreeding depression, fitness experienced a substantial recovery beginning between generations 10 and 20 (López-Cortegano et al. 2016).A reason why detecting purging in captive populations is challenging is that a fitness rebound can also be due to adaptation to captive conditions or to environmental effects, such as those derived from improved husbandry (Clifford et al. 2007). In fact, this might have been the case in Speke’s gazelle breeding program, where the observed rebound of fitness was first ascribed to purging (Templeton and Read 1984, 1998), while Kalinowski et al. (2000) suggested that husbandry improvements could also be responsible for these findings. Our estimates of d and δ, however, are based on the association between the fitness trait and purged inbreeding at the individual level (Wi, gi) which, in our data, is mainly expressed within cohorts while average survival showed little variation through time. In addition, the analyses included temporal factors (YOB or POM) that should have removed confounding effects from adaptation to captivity or improved husbandry. Therefore, adaptive processes or time-dependent environmental factors are not expected to have biased our IP estimates.For productivity, the estimates of inbreeding load were high (overall inbreeding load ~5, P value  More

  • in

    Nutritional resources of the yeast symbiont cultivated by the lizard beetle Doubledaya bucculenta in bamboos

    Insects and bamboosFive internodes (length: mean ± SD = 44.8 ± 1.1 cm, n = 5; diameter in the middle part of internodes: 21.4 ± 0.8 mm, n = 5) of five living mature culms of P. simonii bamboo were sampled at Kawaminami, Miyazaki Prefecture, Japan [32°9′ N, 131°29′ E] on 6 June, 2019. Per internode, four semi-cylindrical strips (ca. 15 × 2 cm) were made and stored at − 25 °C until use.To obtain fungus-free larvae of D. bucculenta, we sampled five beetle eggs from P. simonii bamboo obtained at Toyota, Aichi Prefecture, Japan [35°9′ N, 137°13′ E] on 9 May, 2019 in the laboratory from ovipositing females collected at Kawaminami on 10 and 11 April, 2019. The eggs were immersed in 99.5% ethanol for 10 s followed by 70% ethanol for 10 s for surface sterilization and then individually placed on potato dextrose agar (PDA) (Difco, Detroit, MI, USA) plates. The plates were incubated at 25 °C in the dark until 30 days after larval hatching to confirm the absence of the formation of yeast or other microbial colonies. Consequently, all five larvae hatched successfully and aseptically.The bamboo used in this study was morphologically identified using the literature29. This is native to the study areas and no other host bamboo species are distributed there29. Therefore, no voucher specimen of this bamboo has been deposited in a publicly available herbarium. No specific permits were required for the described field studies. The location is not privately-owned or protected in any way. The field studies did not involve endangered or protected species. All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals and plants were followed. This study is reported in accordance with ARRIVE guidelines.Component analyses of bamboo tissuesFor YP and LP, the yeast W. anomalus originating from D. bucculenta in Kawaminami (strain: DBL05Kawaminami) was cultured on a 9-cm PDA plate to obtain enough biomass for further experiments. Afterwards, yeast cells were suspended in ca. 10 mL of sterilized water, and were inoculated on the inner surface of the autoclaved internode strips using an autoclaved tissue paper immersed with the yeast suspension. For LP, additionally, the fungus-free 2nd instar larvae (weight: mean ± SD = 2.4 ± 0.4 mg, n = 5) were individually placed on the yeast-inoculated strips. Each of these yeast-inoculated and yeast-and-larva-inoculated strips was then put in a sterilized test tube (3.0 cm in diameter and 20 cm tall) with moistened cotton placed at the bottom. Each of the test tubes was covered with a sterilized polypropylene cap, sealed with Parafilm Sealing Film (Pechiney Plastic Packaging, Chicago, IL, USA) on which three small holes were made using a fire-sterilized insect pin to avoid oxygen shortage, and individually put in a plastic zipper bag. These yeasts and insects were incubated at 25 °C in the dark for 47 days for YP (n = 5), and 47 (n = 4) and 73 (n = 1) days until these larvae reached adulthood for LP (adult elytral length: mean ± SD = 9.2 ± 0.4 mm, n = 5). Microbial contamination was invisible to the naked eye.For FP, YP and LP, the inner surface (up to 0.3 mm in thickness, dry weight: 336 to 935 mg) of a strip was sampled using a small U-shaped gouge. In the case of FX, first, the pith of a strip was completely removed, and then xylem tissue (up to 0.5 mm in thickness, dry weight: 729 to 872 mg) was sampled using a small U-shaped gouge. These tissues were individually sampled from five strips derived from five different internodes for each tissue type.Samples were extracted by aqueous ethanol and hydrolyzed by sulfuric acid with reference to the literature30,31,32 as follows. Four types of samples were freeze-dried and pulverized using a rotor-speed mill (Fritsch, PULVERISETTE 14, 0.2 mm mesh). About 80 mg of powdered sample was extracted using 5-mL 80% ethanol aqueous solution (aq.) at 63 °C three times. The volume of the extracts was adjusted to 25 mL, filtered, and analyzed using ion exchange chromatography measurements (extractable sugar analysis). Their extracted residues were hydrolyzed using sulfuric acid as follows: 50-mg samples were immersed in 1.64-g 72% sulfuric acid aq. at 30 °C for 2 h, boiled in 39.4-g 3% sulfuric acid aq. for 4 h, and filtered to collect sulfuric acid residues as sulfuric acid lignin fractions. The volumes of the filtrates were fixed to 100 mL, passed through a sulfuric acid-removing filter (DIONEX OnGuard IIA), and submitted to ion exchange chromatography measurements (structural sugar analysis). For the uronic acid measurements, the sulfuric acid-removing filter was not used.Ion exchange chromatography measurements were conducted using a DIONEX ICS-3000 apparatus. The measurement conditions were as follows: column, CarboPac PA-1 (2.0 mm I.D. × 250 mm L, Dionex corp.); flow rate, 0.3 mL min−1; column temperature, 30 °C; injection volume, 25 µL; eluent, H2O (solvent A), 100 mM NaOHaq. (solvent B), aqueous solution containing 100 mM NaOH and 1.0 M CH3COONa (solvent C), and aqueous solution containing 100 mM NaOH and 150 mM CH3COONa (solvent D). The gradient conditions for monomers, dimers, and uronic acids were as follows: for monomers, with a gradient of B 0.5% C 0% 45 min, C 100% 10 min, B 100% 10 min, B 0.5% C 0% 20 min; for dimers, with a gradient of B 50% C 0% 50 min, C 100% 10 min, B 100% 10 min, B 50% C 0% 15 min; for uronic acids, with a gradient of D 100% 10 min. These extraction, hydrolysis, and measurement procedures were conducted using n = 5 samples. For the structural sugars, their yield was calculated as the dehydrated state. The values of other extractives % were calculated by the subtraction of total extractable sugars % from total extractives %.Elemental analysis (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen) was conducted by 2400 CHNS Organic Elemental Analyzer (PerkinElmer Japan, Yokohama, Japan). About 1-mg dried samples were burned completely and the produced CO2, H2O, and N2 (after reduction of NOx species) gasses were quantified by a thermal conductivity detector.Means of components of bamboo tissues were compared among tissue types using the Steel–Dwass test after the Kruskal–Wallis test. Calculations were performed using R 3.5.133.Carbon assimilation testThe yeast W. anomalus (DBL05Kawaminami) was cultured aerobically in 20 mL of yeast nitrogen base (YNB) (Difco) containing 0.5% glucose at 25 °C in the dark for 2 days with shaking at 85 rpm. The culture media were centrifuged and cell pellets were suspended in sterile water, in which the OD600 was adjusted to 0.10. Fifty μL of the cell suspension was added into a tube (2 mL) with 1 mL of each of 14 different media containing YNB and one of the following carbon sources: d-glucose, d-galactose, d-mannose, d-xylose, l-arabinose, d-fructose, d-galacturonic acid, d-glucuronic acid, sucrose, cellobiose, starch from corn, xylan from corn, carboxymethyl cellulose, and no carbon source (n = 5 to 6). The concentration of each carbon source was 0.5 g L−1, except for xylan at 1.5 g L−1. The tubes were shaken at 85 rpm and incubated at 25 °C in the dark for 7 days. Afterwards, the presence of visible pellets of yeasts and OD600 were recorded to determine the growth of the strain. The degree of assimilation was scored according to the presence of the pellets and the difference in the turbidity increase (ΔOD600) between culture media containing no and a given carbon source as follows: no growth (without a pellet, ΔOD600  More

  • in

    A doubling of stony coral cover on shallow forereefs at Carrie Bow Cay, Belize from 2014 to 2019

    1.Hughes, T. et al. Coral reefs in the Anthropocene. Nature 546, 82–90 (2017).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    2.Moberg, F. & Folke, C. Ecological goods and services of coral reef ecosystems. Ecol. Econ. 29, 215–233 (1999).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    3.Brander, L. M., Van Beukering, P. & Cesar, H. S. The recreational value of coral reefs: A meta-analysis. Ecol. Econ. 63, 209–218 (2007).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    4.Jackson, J. B. et al. Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 293, 629–637 (2001).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    5.Bruno, J. F., Sweatman, H., Precht, W. F., Selig, E. R. & Schutte, V. G. Assessing evidence of phase shifts from coral to macroalgal dominance on coral reefs. Ecology 90, 1478–1484 (2009).PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    6.Hughes, T. Catastrophes, phase shifts, and large-scale degradation of a Caribbean Coral Reef. Science 265, 1547–1551 (1994).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    7.Hughes, T. P., Bellwood, D. R., Folke, C. S., McCook, L. J. & Pandolfi, J. M. No-take areas, herbivory and coral reef resilience. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 1–3 (2007).PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    8.Gardner, T. A., Côté, I. M., Gill, J. A., Grant, A. & Watkinson, A. R. Long-term region-wide declines in Caribbean corals. Science 301, 958–960 (2003).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    9.Edgar, G. J. et al. Reef Life Survey: Establishing the ecological basis for conservation of shallow marine life. Biol. Conserv. 252, 108855 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    10.Chabanet, P., Bigot, L., Garnier, R., Tessier, E. & Moyne-Picard, M. Coral reef monitoring at Reunion island (Western Indian Ocean) using the GCRMN method. Proc. 9th Int. Coral Reef Symp. 2, 873–878 (2000).
    Google Scholar 
    11.Lang, J. C., Marks, K. W., Kramer, P. A., Kramer, P. R. & Ginsburg, R. N. AGRRA Protocols Version 5.4. (2010).12.Cortés, J. et al. The CARICOMP network of Caribbean Marine Laboratories (1985–2007): History, key findings, and lessons learned. Front. Mar. Sci. 5, 519 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    13.Dethier, M. N., Graham, E. S., Cohen, S. & Tear, L. M. Visual versus random-point percent cover estimations: ‘objective’ is not always better. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 96, 93–100 (1993).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    14.Beijbom, O., Edmunds, P. J., Kline, D. I., Mitchell, B. G. & Kriegman, D. Automated annotation of coral reef survey images. In 2012 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition 1170–1177 (IEEE, 2012).15.Beijbom, O. et al. Towards automated annotation of benthic survey images: Variability of human experts and operational modes of automation. PloS One 10, e0130312 (2015).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    16.Williams, I. D. et al. Leveraging automated image analysis tools to transform our capacity to assess status and trends of coral reefs. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 222 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    17.Roelfsema, C. et al. Benthic and coral reef community field data for Heron Reef, Southern Great Barrier Reef, Australia, 2002–2018. Sci. Data 8, 1–7 (2021).MathSciNet 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    18.Gonzalez-Rivero, M. et al. Monitoring of coral reefs using artificial intelligence: A feasible and cost-effective approach. Remote Sens. 12, 489 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    19.Cairns, S. D. Stony corals (Cnidaria: Hydrozoa, Scleractinia) of Carrie Bow Cay, Belize. Smithson. Contrib. Mar. Sci. 21, 271–302 (1982).
    Google Scholar 
    20.Rutzler, K. & Macintyre, I. G. The Atlantic Barrier Reef Ecosystem at Carrie Bow Cay, Belize, 1: Structure and Communities (Smithsonian Institution Press, 1982). https://doi.org/10.5479/si.01960768.12.539.Book 

    Google Scholar 
    21.Rutzler, K. Caribbean coral reef ecosystems: Thirty-five years of smithsonian marine science in Belize. In Proceedings of the Smithsonian Marine Science Symposium (2009).22.McField, M. et al. Mesoamerican Reef Report Card. (2020).23.Cox, C. E. et al. Genetic testing reveals some mislabeling but general compliance with a ban on herbivorous fish harvesting in Belize. Conserv. Lett. 6, 132–140 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    24.Pebesma, E. J. & Bivand, R. S. Classes and methods for spatial data in R. R News 5, 9–13 (2005).
    Google Scholar 
    25.Pebesma, E. Simple features for R: Standardized support for spatial vector data. R J. 10, 439–446 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    26.R Core Team. A language and environment for statistical computing. (2020).27.Althaus, F. et al. A standardised vocabulary for identifying benthic biota and substrata from underwater imagery: The CATAMI classification scheme. PLoS One 10, e0141039 (2015).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    28.Goatley, C. H., Bonaldo, R. M., Fox, R. J. & Bellwood, D. R. Sediments and herbivory as sensitive indicators of coral reef degradation. Ecol. Soc. 21(1), 29 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    29.Connell, S., Foster, M. & Airoldi, L. What are algal turfs? Towards a better description of turfs. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 495, 299–307 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    30.Lozada-Misa, P., Schumacher, B. D. & Vargas-Angel, B. Analysis of benthic survey images via CoralNet: A summary of standard operating procedures and guidelines. Pacific
    Islands Fish. Sci. Cent. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv. https://doi.org/10.7289/V5%2FAR-PIFSC-H-17-02 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    31.Obura, D. & Grimsditch, G. Resilience Assessment of Coral Reefs: Assessment Protocol for Coral Reefs, Focusing on Coral Bleaching and Thermal Stress (Citeseer, 2009).
    Google Scholar 
    32.Broeke, J., Pérez, J. M. M., & Pascau, J. Image processing with ImageJ. (Packt Publishing Ltd, 2015).
    Google Scholar 
    33.Wood, S. N. Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R (CRC Press, 2017).MATH 
    Book 

    Google Scholar 
    34.Fasiolo, M., Nedellec, R., Goude, Y. & Wood, S. N. Scalable visualization methods for modern generalized additive models. J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 29, 78–86 (2020).MathSciNet 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    35.Oksanen, J. et al. Community ecology package. R Package Version 2, (2013).36.Arnold, S. N. & Steneck, R. S. Settling into an increasingly hostile world: The rapidly closing ‘“Recruitment Window”’ for corals. PLoS One. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028681 (2011).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    37.Mumby, P. J. & Harborne, A. R. Marine reserves enhance the recovery of corals on Caribbean reefs. PLoS One 5, e8657 (2010).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    38.Adam, T. C., Burkepile, D. E., Ruttenberg, B. I. & Paddack, M. J. Herbivory and the resilience of Caribbean coral reefs: Knowledge gaps and implications for management. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 520, 1–20 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    39.Suchley, A., McField, M. D. & Alvarez-Filip, L. Rapidly increasing macroalgal cover not related to herbivorous fishes on Mesoamerican reefs. PeerJ 4, e2084 (2016).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    40.Arnold, S. N., Steneck, R. S. & Mumby, P. J. Running the gauntlet: Inhibitory effects of algal turfs on the processes of coral recruitment. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 414, 91–105 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    41.Box, S. J. & Mumby, P. J. Effect of macroalgal competition on growth and survival of juvenile Caribbean corals. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 342, 139–149 (2007).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    42.Williams, I. & Polunin, N. Large-scale associations between macroalgal cover and grazer biomass on mid-depth reefs in the Caribbean. Coral Reefs 19, 358–366 (2001).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    43.Newman, M. J., Paredes, G. A., Sala, E. & Jackson, J. B. Structure of Caribbean coral reef communities across a large gradient of fish biomass. Ecol. Lett. 9, 1216–1227 (2006).PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    44.Mumby, P. J., Steneck, R. S., Roff, G. & Paul, V. J. Marine reserves, fisheries ban, and 20 years of positive change in a coral reef ecosystem. Conserv. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13738 (2021).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    45.Aronson, R., Precht, W., Toscano, M. & Koltes, K. The 1998 bleaching event and its aftermath on a coral reef in Belize. Mar. Biol. 141, 435–447 (2002).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    46.Green, D. H., Edmunds, P. J. & Carpenter, R. C. Increasing relative abundance of Porites astreoides on Caribbean reefs mediated by an overall decline in coral cover. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 359, 1–10 (2008).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    47.Roff, G., Joseph, J. & Mumby, P. J. Multi-decadal changes in structural complexity following mass coral mortality on a Caribbean reef. Biogeosciences 17, 5909–5918 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    48.Graham, N. & Nash, K. The importance of structural complexity in coral reef ecosystems. Coral Reefs 32, 315–326 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    49.Aronson, R. B. & Precht, W. F. White-band disease and the changing face of Caribbean coral reefs. Ecol. Etiol. New. Emerg. Mar. Dis. 159, 25–38 (2001).
    Google Scholar 
    50.Aronson, R. B., Macintyre, I. G., Precht, W. F., Murdoch, T. J. & Wapnick, C. M. The expanding scale of species turnover events on coral reefs in Belize. Ecol. Monogr. 72, 233–249 (2002).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    51.McField, M. et al. Status of the Mesoamerican Reef after the 2005 coral bleaching event. Status Caribb. Coral Reefs Bleach. Hurric. In 45–60 (2005).52.Arias-González, J. E. et al. A coral-algal phase shift in Mesoamerica not driven by changes in herbivorous fish abundance. PLoS One 12, e0174855 (2017).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    53.Miller, S. Automatically Annotating 175,000+ Images with the CoralNet API. CoralNet (Accessed 23 August 2021); https://coralnet.ucsd.edu/blog/automatically-annotating-175000-images-with-the-coralnet-api/ (2020).54.Muller, E. M., Sartor, C., Alcaraz, N. I. & van Woesik, R. Spatial epidemiology of the stony-coral-tissue-loss disease in Florida. Front. Mar. Sci. 7, 163 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    55.Alvarez-Filip, L., Estrada-Saldívar, N., Pérez-Cervantes, E., Molina-Hernández, A. & González-Barrios, F. J. A rapid spread of the stony coral tissue loss disease outbreak in the Mexican Caribbean. PeerJ 7, e8069 (2019).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    56.Weil, E. et al. Spread of the new coral disease “SCTLD” into the Caribbean: implications for Puerto Rico. Reef Encount. 34, 38–43 (2019).
    Google Scholar 
    57.Heres, M. M., Farmer, B. H., Elmer, F. & Hertler, H. Ecological consequences of Stony Coral Tissue Loss Disease in the Turks and Caicos Islands. Coral Reefs 40, 609–624 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    58.Walton, C. J., Hayes, N. K. & Gilliam, D. S. Impacts of a regional, multi-year, multi-species coral disease outbreak in Southeast Florida. Front. Mar. Sci. 5, 323 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Persistence of plant-mediated microbial soil legacy effects in soil and inside roots

    1.Berendsen, R. L., Pieterse, C. M. J. & Bakker, P. A. H. M. The rhizosphere microbiome and plant health. Trends Plant Sci. 17, 478–486 (2012).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    2.Philippot, L., Raaijmakers, J. M., Lemanceau, P. & Putten, W. Hvander Going back to the roots: the microbial ecology of the rhizosphere. Nat. Rev. Microbiol 11, 789–799 (2013).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    3.Bais, H. P., Weir, T. L., Perry, L. G., Gilroy, S. & Vivanco, J. M. The role of root exudates in rhizosphere interactions with plants and other organisms. Annu Rev. Plant Biol. 57, 233–266 (2006).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    4.De Long, J. R., Fry, E. L., Veen, G. F. & Kardol, P. Why are plant–soil feedbacks so unpredictable, and what to do about it? Funct. Ecol. 33, 118–128 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    5.Meisner, A., De Deyn, G. B., de Boer, W. & van der Putten, W. H. Soil biotic legacy effects of extreme weather events influence plant invasiveness. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 110, 9835–9838 (2013).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    6.Kostenko, O., van de Voorde, T. F. J., Mulder, P. P. J., van der Putten, W. H. & Bezemer, T. M. Legacy effects of aboveground-belowground interactions. Ecol. Lett. 15, 813–821 (2012).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    7.Heinen, R. et al. Plant community composition steers grassland vegetation via soil legacy effects. Ecol. Lett. 23, 973–982 (2020).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    8.Semchenko, M. et al. Fungal diversity regulates plant-soil feedbacks in temperate grassland. Sci. Adv. 4, eaau4578 (2018).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    9.Cordovez, V., Dini-Andreote, F., Carrión, V. J. & Raaijmakers, J. M. Ecology and evolution of plant microbiomes. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 73, 69–88 (2019).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    10.Bennett, J. A. & Klironomos, J. Mechanisms of plant–soil feedback: interactions among biotic and abiotic drivers. New Phytol. 222, 91–96 (2019).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    11.van der Putten, W. H. et al. Plant–soil feedbacks: the past, the present and future challenges. J. Ecol. 101, 265–276 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    12.Bever, J. D., Platt, T. G. & Morton, E. R. Microbial population and community dynamics on plant roots and their feedbacks on plant communities. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 66, 265–283 (2012).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    13.Petermann, J. S., Fergus, A. J. F., Turnbull, L. A. & Schmid, B. Janzen-connell effects are widespread and strong enough to maintain diversity in grasslands. Ecology 89, 2399–2406 (2008).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    14.Cortois, R., Schröder‐Georgi, T., Weigelt, A., van der Putten, W. H. & De Deyn, G. B. Plant–soil feedbacks: role of plant functional group and plant traits. J. Ecol. 104, 1608–1617 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    15.Bezemer, T. M., Jing, J., Bakx‐Schotman, J. M. T. & Bijleveld, E.-J. Plant competition alters the temporal dynamics of plant-soil feedbacks. J. Ecol. 106, 2287–2300 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    16.Kardol, P., Deyn, G. B. D., Laliberté, E., Mariotte, P. & Hawkes, C. V. Biotic plant–soil feedbacks across temporal scales. J. Ecol. 101, 309–315 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    17.Dudenhöffer, J.-H., Ebeling, A., Klein, A.-M. & Wagg, C. Beyond biomass: Soil feedbacks are transient over plant life stages and alter fitness. J. Ecol. 106, 230–241 (2018).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    18.Elger, A., Lemoine, D. G., Fenner, M. & Hanley, M. E. Plant ontogeny and chemical defence: older seedlings are better defended. Oikos. 118, 767–773 (2009).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    19.Nelson, E. B. The seed microbiome: origins, interactions, and impacts. Plant Soil 422, 7–34 (2018).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    20.Wei, Z. et al. Initial soil microbiome composition and functioning predetermine future plant health. Sci. Adv. 5, eaaw0759 (2019).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    21.Rosenblueth, M. & Martínez-Romero, E. Bacterial endophytes and their interactions with hosts. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 19, 827–837 (2006).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    22.Lundberg, D. S. et al. Defining core Arabidopsis thaliana root microbiome. Nature 488, 86–90 (2012).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    23.Gaiero, J. R. et al. Inside the root microbiome: bacterial root endophytes and plant growth promotion. Am. J. Bot. 100, 1738–1750 (2013).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    24.Rodriguez, R. J. Jr, Arnold, J. F. W. & Redman, A. E. Fungal endophytes: diversity and functional roles. New Phytol. 182, 314–330 (2009).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

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

    Google Scholar 
    26.Fitzpatrick, C. R. et al. Ecological role of the angiosperm root microbiome. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 115, E1157–E1165 (2018).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    27.Hardoim, P. R., van Overbeek, L. S. & Elsas, J. Dvan Properties of bacterial endophytes and their proposed role in plant growth. Trends Microbiol. 16, 463–471 (2008).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    28.Bulgarelli, D. et al. Revealing structure and assembly cues for Arabidopsis root-inhabiting bacterial microbiota. Nature 488, 91–95 (2012).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    29.Hannula, S. E., Zhu, F., Heinen, R. & Bezemer, T. M. Foliar-feeding insects acquire microbiomes from the soil rather than the host plant. Nat. Commun. 10, 1–9 (2019).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    30.Sikes, B. A., Hawkes, C. V. & Fukami, T. Plant and root endophyte assembly history: interactive effects on native and exotic plants. Ecology 97, 484–493 (2016).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    31.Bezemer, T. M. et al. Plant species and functional group effects on abiotic and microbial soil properties and plant–soil feedback responses in two grasslands. J. Ecol. 94, 893–904 (2006).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    32.van de Voorde, T. F., van der Putten, W. H. &  Bezemer, T. M. Intra‐and interspecific plant–soil interactions, soil legacies and priority effects during old‐field succession. J. Ecol. 99, 945–953 (2011).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    33.Hannula, S. E. et al. Time after time: temporal variation in the effects of grass and forb species on soil bacterial and fungal communities. mBio 10, e02635–19 (2019).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    34.Mendes, R., Garbeva, P. & Raaijmakers, J. M. The rhizosphere microbiome: significance of plant beneficial, plant pathogenic, and human pathogenic microorganisms. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 37, 634–663 (2013).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    35.Ampt, E. A., van Ruijven, J., Raaijmakers, J. M., Termorshuizen, A. J. & Mommer, L. Linking ecology and plant pathology to unravel the importance of soil-borne fungal pathogens in species-rich grasslands. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 154, 141–156 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    36.Allison, S. D. & Martiny, J. B. H. Resistance, resilience, and redundancy in microbial communities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 105, 11512–11519 (2008).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    37.Rousk, J. & Bååth, E. Fungal biomass production and turnover in soil estimated using the acetate-in-ergosterol technique. Soil Biol. Biochem. 39, 2173–2177 (2007).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    38.Phillips, M. L. et al. Fungal community assembly in soils and roots under plant invasion and nitrogen deposition. Fungal Ecol. 40, 107–117 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    39.Carini, P., Marsden, P. & Leff, J. E. A. Relic DNA is abundant in soil and obscures estimates of soil microbial diversity. Nat. Microbiol. 2, 16242 (2017).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    40.Hannula, S. E., Morrien, E., van der Putter, W. H. & de Boer, W. Rhizosphere fungi actively assimilating plant-derived carbon in a grassland soil. Fungal Ecol. 48, 100988 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    41.Kulmatiski, A., Beard, K. H., Stevens, J. R. & Cobbold, S. M. Plant–soil feedbacks: a meta‐analytical review. Ecol. Lett. 11, 980–992 (2008).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    42.Dassen, S. et al. Differential responses of soil bacteria, fungi, archaea and protists to plant species richness and plant functional group identity. Mol. Ecol. 26, 4085–4098 (2017).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    43.Hannula, S. E. et al. Structure and ecological function of the soil microbiome affecting plant–soil feedbacks in the presence of a soil‐borne pathogen. Environ. Microbiol. 22, 660–676 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    44.Francioli, D. et al. Plant functional group drives the community structure of saprophytic fungi in a grassland biodiversity experiment. Plant Soil https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-020-04454-y (2020).45.Craine, J., Froehle, J., Tilman, D., Wedin, D. & Chapin, F. S. III The relationships among root and leaf traits of 76 grassland species and relative abundance along fertility and disturbance gradients. Oikos 93, 274–285 (2001).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    46.Tjoelker, M., Craine, J. M., Wedin, D., Reich, P. B. & Tilman, D. Linking leaf and root trait syndromes among 39 grassland and savannah species. New Phytol. 167, 493–508 (2005).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    47.Herz, K. et al. Linking root exudates to functional plant traits. PLoS ONE 13, e0204128 (2018).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    48.Huberty, M., Choi, Y. H., Heinen, R. & Bezemer, T. M. Above-ground plant metabolomic responses to plant–soil feedbacks and herbivory. J. Ecol. 108, 1703–1712 (2020).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    49.Edwards, J. et al. Structure, variation, and assembly of the root-associated microbiomes of rice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 112, E911–E920 (2015).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    50.Jones, D. L., Nguyen, C. & Finlay, R. D. Carbon flow in the rhizosphere: carbon trading at the soil–root interface. Plant Soil 321, 5–33 (2009).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    51.Hannula, S. E. et al. Shifts in rhizosphere fungal community during secondary succession following abandonment from agriculture. ISME J. 11, 2294–2304 (2017).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    52.Koyama, A., Maherali, H. & Antunes, P. M. Plant geographic origin and phylogeny as potential drivers of community structure in root‐inhabiting fungi. J. Ecol. 107, 1720–1736 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    53.Wemheuer, F., Wemheuer, B., Daniel, R. & Vidal, S. Deciphering bacterial and fungal endophyte communities in leaves of two maple trees with green islands. Sci. Rep. 9, 1–14 (2019).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    54.Ma, H. et al. Steering root microbiomes of a commercial horticultural crop with plant-soil feedbacks. Appl. Soil Ecol. 150, 103468 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    55.Suárez-Moreno, Z. R. et al. Plant-growth promotion and biocontrol properties of three streptomyces spp. isolates to control bacterial rice pathogens. Front. Microbiol. 10, 290 (2019).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    56.Treseder, K. K. The extent of mycorrhizal colonization of roots and its influence on plant growth and phosphorus content. Plant Soil 371, 1–13 (2013).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    57.Liang, M. et al. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi counteract the Janzen-Connell effect of soil pathogens. Ecology 96, 562–574 (2015).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    58.Teste, F. P., Veneklaas, E. J., Dixon, K. W. & Lambers, H. Complementary plant nutrient-acquisition strategies promote growth of neighbour species. Funct. Ecol. 28, 819–828 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    59.Mommer, L. et al. Lost in diversity: the interactions between soil-borne fungi, biodiversity and plant productivity. New Phytol. 218, 542–553 (2018).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    60.Hassani, M. A., Durán, P. & Hacquard, S. Microbial interactions within the plant holobiont. Microbiome 6, 58 (2018).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    61.De Long, J. R. et al. How plant–soil feedbacks influence the next generation of plants?. Ecol. Res. 36, 32–44 https://doi.org/10.1111/1440-1703.12165 (2021).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    62.Tedersoo, L. et al. Shotgun metagenomes and multiple primer pair-barcode combinations of amplicons reveal biases in metabarcoding analyses of fungi. MycoKeys 10, 1–43 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    63.Caporaso, J. G. et al. Ultra-high-throughput microbial community analysis on the Illumina HiSeq and MiSeq platforms. ISME J. 6, 1621–1624 (2012).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    64.Parada, A. E., Needham, D. M. & Fuhrman, J. A. Every base matters: assessing small subunit rRNA primers for marine microbiomes with mock communities, time series and global field samples. Environ. Microbiol. 18, 1403–1414 (2016).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    65.Apprill, A., McNally, S., Parsons, R. & Weber, L. Minor revision to V4 region SSU rRNA 806R gene primer greatly increases detection of SAR11 bacterioplankton. Aquat. Micro. Ecol. 75, 129–137 (2015).Article 

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

    Google Scholar 
    67.Gweon, H. S. et al. PIPITS: an automated pipeline for analyses of fungal internal transcribed spacer sequences from the Illumina sequencing platform. Methods Ecol. Evol. 6, 973–980 (2015).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

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

    Google Scholar 
    69.Nguyen, N. H. et al. FUNGuild: an open annotation tool for parsing fungal community datasets by ecological guild. Fungal Ecol. 20, 241–248 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    70.Paulson, J. N., Stine, O. C., Bravo, H. C. & Pop, M. Robust methods for differential abundance analysis in marker gene surveys. Nat. Methods 10, 1200–1202 (2013).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    71.Weiss, S. et al. Normalization and microbial differential abundance strategies depend upon data characteristics. Microbiome 5, 27 (2017).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    72.Oksanen, J. et al. Vegan: Ordination Methods, Diversity Analysis And Other Functions For Community And Vegetation Ecologists (Community Ecol Package Vegan, 2013).73.Benjamini, Y. & Hochberg, Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Methodol. 57, 289–300 (1995).MathSciNet 
    MATH 

    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Phenotypic plasticity and a new small molecule are involved in a fungal-bacterial interaction

    Synergy between S. cerevisiae and R. etli in biofilm formationWhen S. cerevisiae Mat α Σ1278h and R.etli CE3 were grown in minimal medium with low glucose concentrations (0.1%), these species adhered to abiotic surfaces to form biofilms (Fig. 1). Interestingly, R. etli and S. cerevisiae formed a mixed biofilm whose biomass was ~ 3 times greater than that of either single-species biofilm (Fig. 1a). In addition, at 24 h, the number of colony-forming units (CFU)/cm2 of R. etli CE3 in the mixed biofilm was higher than that in the pure biofilm (Supplementary Fig. 1). Confocal laser scanning microscopy of biofilms stained with the Live/Dead Kit (propidium iodide and SYTO9) showed that in the mixed biofilm, the yeast cells formed patches, and the bacterial cells covered most of the surface (Fig. 1b). In contrast, monospecies biofilms of R. etli and S. cerevisiae had lower structural complexity and contained a greater (80%) number of dead cells, and their individual densities were lower than their populations in the mixed biofilm (Fig. 1b). These results suggest that in mixed biofilms, S. cerevisiae promotes bacterial growth.Figure 1The interaction between S. cerevisiae and Rhizobium etli CE3 results in the formation of a structurally complex and more productive biofilm in terms of biomass. (a) Biofilm formation of R. etli CE3 and S. cerevisiae Σ1278h Mat α and biofilm growth over time in minimal dextrose medium. The data are representative of 3 independent experiments +/− the S.D. values. (b) Top view and cross section of confocal micrographs of the S. cerevisiae-R. etli mixed biofilm and the single-species biofilms. Magnification 40 × . The images are representative of 3 independent experiments. Biofilms were developed on glass microscope slides and stained with a LIVE/DEAD viability kit. Red fluorescence indicates dead cells, and live cells are colored green. Images were acquired 24 h after inoculation.Full size image
    S. cerevisiae secretes dicarboxylic acids that promote R. etli growth and biofilm formationWe found that the R. etli colonies that grew close to S. cerevisiae on solid glucose minimal medium were larger than those growing far from yeast colony (Fig. 2).Figure 2Yeast cells produce dicarboxylic acids that promote the growth of R. etli. (a) R. etli growth in coculture with S. cerevisiae BY4741 mutants (aco1Δ, fum1Δ, sdh1Δ and mdh1Δ) that accumulate dicarboxylic acids and a BY4741 strain with blockade of the aerobic respiratory chain (rho-). (b) Test on solid medium showing that S. cerevisiae BY4741 (*) secretes compounds that promote bacterial growth (  >). In contrast, BY4741 rho- cells (ρ), which do not produce dicarboxylic acids, do not promote the growth of R. etli CE3. R. etli CE3 cells were spread over MMD agar, and yeast cells were spotted in the center. (c) Top view of light micrographs of dual-species biofilms; S. cerevisiae (arrowhead) and R. etli (arrow). Biofilms were developed on glass microscope slides and stained with crystal violet. Magnification 20 × . The images are representative of 3 independent experiments. (d) Growth of R. etli strains in coculture with S. cerevisiae BY4741. The growth of the rhizobium strains was estimated at 24 h. R. etli CE3 strains: wild-type (wt), dctA- containing an empty expression plasmid (dctA-) and dctA- containing a plasmid expressing dctA (dctA-/dctA). The data are representative of 3 independent experiments +/− the S.D. values.Full size imageWe used a visual growth promotion assay on solid medium to screen for S. cerevisiae knockout strains (YKO library) that influenced bacterial growth. 159 yeast mutants were unable to promote R. etli CE3 growth (Supplementary Table 3). In general, these mutants were defective in mitochondrial function. Interestingly, we found that 5 strains with mutations in genes coding for enzymes involved in the TCA cycle showed an enhanced ability to promote bacterial growth compared to that of the wild-type strain (Fig. 2a).To determine how the S. cerevisiae mutants may affect the fungal-bacterial interaction, we analyzed factors that may be altered in mutants with mitochondrial function defects and a compromised TCA cycle.We compared the production of TCA intermediates between the wild-type and mutant yeast strains. Mutants defective in mitochondrial function (mef1Δ, gep5Δ, sdh2Δ, ppa2Δ, imp1Δ, cox7Δ, cyc1Δ and cyc2Δ) produced low amounts of tricarboxylic acids (Supplementary Fig. 2a). In contrast, the aconitase mutant (aco1Δ) produced 60% more citrate and succinate; the fumarase mutant (fum1Δ) resulted in fumarate accumulation; the succinate dehydrogenase mutants (sdh1Δ and sdh4Δ) produced 80% more succinate; and the mitochondrial malate dehydrogenase mutant (mdh1Δ) produced 60% more malate and succinate (Supplementary Fig. 2b). These results suggested that the large quantities of tricarboxylic acids secreted by the mutant yeast played a role in promoting bacterial growth in the cocultures.We analyzed the biomass of mixed biofilms formed by yeast cells defective in mitochondrial function (Σ1278B petit mutant). The ability of the wild-type and the petit mutant strains to form a monospecies biofilm was similar (Supplementary Fig. 3). In contrast, the mixed biofilm formed by yeast cells defective in mitochondrial function was significantly lower in biomass than that formed by the wild-type yeast strain (Fig. 2c). Also, Σ1278B petit mutant produced low amounts of tricarboxylic acids (Supplementary Fig. 2a).We next measured the biomass of the mixed biofilm formed by S. cerevisiae and a Rhizobium mutant unable to take up C4-dicarboxylic acids (dctA-). This evaluation revealed that C4-dicarboxylate uptake by R. etli is necessary to form mixed biofilms with high biomass (Fig. 2d).A symbiotic plasmid is involved in the phenotypic plasticity of R. etli.
    The genome of Rhizobium etli CE3 is composed of a chromosome and 6 plasmids (pA, pB, pC, pD, PE and pF)11. To determine whether elements encoded by these replicons can participate in the establishment of commensalism, we evaluated the formation of biofilms by yeast and R. etli strains lacking these replicons12. We found that lack of pA, pB, pC or pF did not affect the ability of bacteria to coexist with yeast (Fig. 3a). Interestingly, a strain cured of plasmids pA-/pD- could not coexist with S. cerevisiae to form a mixed biofilm and obtain the benefits provided by the fungus (Fig. 3a).Figure 3Plasmids pA and pD encode proteins performing functions that are necessary for the coexistence of bacterial cells with yeast. Growth of R. etli strains in biofilms with S. cerevisiae S1278B. (a) Growth in mixed biofilms of R. etli strains lacking the plasmids; pA, pB, pC, pF and in one case of two plasmids, pA-/pD-. The growth of the rhizobia strains was assessed at 24 h. (b) Scheme of the genes contained in a cosmid that partially complements the growth of the pA-/pD- strain in mixed biofilms. Here, 3, 2 and only one gene was amplified to generate the plasmids AD1, AD2 and AD3, respectively, as indicated in the figure. (c) Growth of R. etli strains in mixed biofilms. Strains AD1 and AD2 are R. etli pA-/pD- cells that carried plasmids AD1 and AD2, respectively. The growth of rhizobium strains in mixed biofilms was estimated at 24 h. The data are representative of 3 independent experiments +/− the S.D. values.Full size imageTo determine the genetic elements from the symbiotic plasmid involved in the interaction with yeast, we complemented the R. etli pA-/pD- strain with a cosmid library containing fragments of partial digestion (EcoRI) of the R. etli CE3 genome13. We found that a cosmid containing 9 ORFs from plasmid pD (GenBank: U80928.5) partially restored the ability of R. etli pA-/pD- to form a mixed biofilm (Fig. 3b). This cosmid contains 7 insertion sequences (IS) and a predicted operon encoding a probable peptide pheromone/bacteriocin exporter (RHE_PD00332) and a probable bacteriocin/lantibiotic ABC transporter (RHE_PD00333) (Fig. 3b).The complete operon or only the ABC transporter gene, including its endogenous promoter and terminator regions, was cloned into plasmid pBBR1MCS-3, and the resultant plasmids were named AD1, AD2 and AD32, respectively (Supplementary table 1 and 2). We found that complementation with the complete operon (plasmid AD2) partially restored the ability of R. etli pA-/pD- to form a mixed biofilm with yeast (Fig. 3c). In contrast, complementing with the RHE_PD00332 gene (plasmid AD3) does not restore the phenotype. It is necessary to complement only with the RHE_PD00333 gene to determine if its product is involved in the phenotypic plasticity of R. etli. These results suggest that the ABC transporter gene (RHE_PD00333) is involved in the fungal-bacteria interaction.
    S. cerevisiae produces a small molecule that affects R. etli growthTo determine how S. cerevisiae affects the growth of R. etli pA-/pD- (Fig. 4a), we evaluated the inhibitory activity of methanol extracts of S. cerevisiae culture supernatants.Figure 4S. cerevisiae s1278B produces a small molecule that only affects the growth of R. etli strains that do not harbor the symbiotic plasmid and plasmid A. (a) S. cerevisiae and R. etli strains were inoculated in close proximity onto MMD soft agar. R. etli pA-/pD- grew, forming a swarm far from the yeast colony. (b) Inhibition of R. etli pA-/pD- growth by 5 µg/mL of a purified compound from the yeast supernatant, which we named Sc2A. (c) Proposed molecular structure of Sc2A.Full size imageInterestingly, we found that the methanol extract inhibited R. etli pA-/pD- growth but had no activity against wild-type R. etli (Fig. 4b). We investigated the chemical constituents of the S. cerevisiae culture supernatants. After succesive organic solvent extractions, the methanolic extract was fractionated by HPLC and 8 fractions were obtained. Each fraction was tested for its determine its effect on the growth of R. etli pA-/pD-. Only a fraction with the ability to inhibit the growth of R. etli pA-/pD- was identified. This resulted in ~ 90% pure sophoroside, judging by its appearance as a dominant peak in the mass spectra obtained by Fast Atom Bombardment Mass Spectroscopy (FAB). As a result, a new sophoroside with bacteriostatic activity, named Sc2A, was isolated (Fig. 4c). The structure of Sc2A was elucidated by a combination of extensive spectroscopic analyses, including 2D NMR and HR-MS.Sc2A was isolated as a crystalline powder with a positive optical rotation ([α]D25 + 13.7°, c0.58, H2O). The molecular formula of Sc2A was determined to be C30H50O24 from its positive-mode FAB data (m/z 794.26 [M + H]+), which was consistent with the 13C NMR data. RMN1H (CD3OD, 400 MHz) data for Sc2A: δ 5.1 d (J = 3.6 Hz), 4.4 d (J = 8 Hz), 4.23 dd (J = 9, 4.8 Hz), 3.79 t (J = 10.8, 14.4 Hz), 3.73 m, 3.67 m, 3.639 m, 3.63 dd (J = 8, 9.2 Hz), 3.53 dd (J = 5.6, 5.2 Hz), 3.36 dd (J = 3.6, 4 Hz), 3.31 dd (J = 8, 8 Hz), 3.10 dd (J = 8, 7.6 Hz), 2.77 dd (J = 4.4, 6.8 Hz), 2.61 m, 2.46 m, 2.33 m, 2.12 m. RMN13C-DEPT (CD3OD, 400 MHz) data for Sc2A: δ 181.2 (C), 175.9 (C), 98.1(CH), 93.8 (CH), 78.05 (CH), 78.02 (CH), 76.30 (CH), 74.92 (CH), 73.80 (CH), 73.11 (CH), 71.78 (CH), 71.72 (CH), 64.37 (CH2), 62.87 (CH2),62.72 (CH2), 57.24 (CH), 30.70 (CH2), 26.19 (CH2), 28.21 (CH2).The IR spectrum of Sc2A displayed characteristic absorptions of 3416.34 cm-1 (O–H), 1642.10 (C = O), 1405.44 (C–OH), 1242.93 (C–O–C), 1040.36 (C-H), and 598.48 (O-C-O).Sc2A possesses a sophorose linked by 2,5 hexanedione to another molecule of sophorose (Fig. 4c).Sc2A induces the expression of genes involved in symbiosisExpression from the nifH and fixA promoters was studied in R. etli monocultures and cocultures with yeast by monitoring GUS activity in living cells. Cells were grown on solid PY-D medium for 1 day, and monitoring of GUS expression showed that the nifH promoter was strongly induced when R. etli was grown with yeast in liquid medium and on solid medium (Fig. 5).Figure 5The expression of Rhizobium etli genes involved in symbiosis is induced in cocultures with yeast or by exposure to the small molecule Sc2A. (a) Activity of different R. etli promoters in monoculture (Re) or in coculture with yeast (+ Sc). Cells were cultured for 24 h in 1 ml of PY-D in 1.5-mL tubes. The tubes were kept closed to generate an environment with a low oxygen concentration. (b) Activity of the nifH promoter in R. etli cells grown alone (Re) or in coculture with yeast (+ Sc) on PY-D agar. (c) Effect of Sc2A on the expression of the nodA gene in R. etli cells grown in liquid culture. Cells stimulated with the flavonoid naringenin were included as a positive induction control. The data are representative of 3 independent experiments +/− the S.D. values.Full size imageAt the beginning of the symbiosis, the legume roots exude flavonoids, which induces in R. etli the expression of a group of genes (nod) involved in the synthesis of lipochitooligosaccharides, also called nodulation factors (NFs). Recognition of NFs by the host plant triggers both rhizobial infection and initiation of nodule organogenesis14. NodA protein is involved in N-acylation of the chitooligosaccharide backbone of NFs. Given the participation of nodA in the interaction of R. etli with a eukaryote, we decided to evaluate the expression of this gene in response to exposure to 5 µg/mL of Sc2A (this concentration is similar to that found in cocultures). We found that Sc2A induces the expression of nodA (Fig. 5c). However, the levels of induction of nodA were moderated compared to the values obtained upon naringenin induction (Fig. 5c). More