Ecology

1.Darwin, C. On the origin of species. (D. Appleton and Co., 1871). https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.28875.2.Thompson, J. N. Mutualistic webs of species. Science (80–) 312, 372–373 (2006).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Bronstein, J. L. The exploitation of mutualisms. Ecol. Lett. 4, 277–287 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Bshary, R. & Grutter, A. S. Experimental evidence that partner choice is a driving force in the payoff distribution among cooperators or mutualists: The cleaner fish case. Ecol. Lett. 5, 130–136 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Kiers, E. T., Rousseau, R. A., West, S. A. & Denison, R. F. Host sanctions and the legume–rhizobium mutualism. Nature 425, 78–81 (2003).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Heil, M., Barajas-Barron, A., Orona-Tamayo, D., Wielsch, N. & Svatos, A. Partner manipulation stabilises a horizontally transmitted mutualism. Ecol. Lett. 17, 185–192 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Hindsbo, O. Effects of Polymorphus (Acanthocephala) on colour and behaviour of Gammarus lacustris. Nature 238, 333 (1972).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Thomas, F., Renaud, F., de Meeus, T. & Poulin, R. Manipulation of host behaviour by parasites: Ecosystem engineering in the intertidal zone?. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 265, 1091–1096 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Thomas, F. et al. Do hairworms (Nematomorpha) manipulate the water seeking behaviour of their terrestrial hosts?. J. Evol. Biol. 15, 356–361 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Kadoya, E. Z., Ishii, H. S. & Williams, N. M. Host manipulation of bumble bee queens by Sphaerularia nematodes indirectly affects foraging of non-host workers. Ecology 96, 1361–1370 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Hojo, M. K., Pierce, N. E. & Tsuji, K. Lycaenid caterpillar secretions manipulate attendant ant behavior. Curr. Biol. 25, 2260–2264 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Poulin, R., Brodeur, J. & Moore, J. Parasite manipulation of host behaviour: Should hosts always lose?. Oikos 70, 479 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Heil, M. et al. Divergent investment strategies of Acacia myrmecophytes and the coexistence of mutualists and exploiters. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 106, 18091–18096 (2009).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Watanabe, S., Murakami, T., Yoshimura, J. & Hasegawa, E. Color polymorphism in an aphid is maintained by attending ants. Sci. Adv. 2, (2016).15.Watanabe, S., Yoshimura, J. & Hasegawa, E. Ants improve the reproduction of inferior morphs to maintain a polymorphism in symbiont aphids. Sci. Rep. 8, (2018).16.Sakata, H. Density-dependent predation of the ant Lasius niger (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) on two attended aphids Lachnus tropicalis and Myzocallis kuricola (Homoptera: Aphididae). Res. Popul. Ecol. (Kyoto) 37, 159–164 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Evans, P. D. Biogenic Amines in the insect nervous system. Adv. In Insect Phys. 15, 317–473 (1980).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Aonuma, H. & Watanabe, T. Octopaminergic system in the brain controls aggressive motivation in the ant Formica japonica. Acta Biol. Hung. 63, 63–68 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Stevenson, P. A., Dyakonova, V., Rillich, J. & Schildberger, K. Octopamine and experience-dependent modulation of aggression in crickets. J. Neurosci. 25, 1431–1441 (2005).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Kostowski, W. & Tarchalska, B. The effects of some drugs affecting brain 5-HT on the aggressive behaviour and spontaneous electrical activity of the central nervous system of the ant Formica rufa. Brain Res. 38, 143–149 (1972).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Szczuka, A. et al. The effects of serotonin, dopamine, octopamine and tyramine on behavior of workers of the ant Formica polyctena during dyadic aggression tests. Acta Neurobiol. Exp. (Wars) 73, 495–520 (2013).
Google Scholar 
22.Way, M. J. Mutualism between ants and honeydew-producing homoptera. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 8, 307–344 (1963).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Hafer-Hahmann, N. Behavior out of control: Experimental evolution of resistance to host manipulation. Ecol. Evol. 9, 7237–7245 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Martinez, J., Fleury, F. & Varaldi, J. Heritable variation in an extended phenotype: The case of a parasitoid manipulated by a virus. J. Evol. Biol. 25, 54–65 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Engelstädter, J. & Hurst, G. D. D. The ecology and evolution of microbes that manipulate host reproduction. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 40, 127–149 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Rosenthal, G. G. & Servedio, M. R. Chase-away sexual selection: Resistance to ‘resistance’. Evolution (N.Y.) 53, 296 (1999).
Google Scholar 
27.Woodring, J., Wiedemann, R., Fischer, M. K., Hoffmann, K. H. & Völkl, W. Honeydew amino acids in relation to sugars and their role in the establishment of ant-attendance hierarchy in eight species of aphids feeding on tansy (Tanacetum vulgare). Physiol. Entomol. 29, 311–319 (2004).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Stadler, B. & Dixon, A. F. G. Ecology and evolution of aphid-ant interactions. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 36, 345–372 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Tsuji, K. & Dobata, S. Social cancer and the biology of the clonal ant Pristomyrmex punctatus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Myrmecological News 15, 91–99 (2011).
Google Scholar 
30.Vellend, M. Conceptual synthesis in community ecology. Q. Rev. Biol. 85, 183–206 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Agawa, H. & Kawata, M. The effect of color polymorphism on mortality in the aphid Macrosiphoniella yomogicola. Ecol. Res. 10, 301–306 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Watanabe, S., Murakami, Y. & Hasegawa, E. Effects of attending ant species on the fate of colonies of an aphid, Macrosiphoniella yomogicola (Matsumura) (Homoptera: Aphididae), in an ant-aphid symbiosis. Entomol. News 128, 325 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Wada-Katsumata, A., Yamaoka, R. & Aonuma, H. Social interactions influence dopamine and octopamine homeostasis in the brain of the ant Formica japonica. J. Exp. Biol. 214, 1707–1713 (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Aonuma, H. & Watanabe, T. Changes in the content of brain biogenic amine associated with early colony establishment in the queen of the ant, formica japonica. PLoS One 7, (2012).35.Aonuma, H. Serotonergic control in initiating defensive responses to unexpected tactile stimuli in the trap-jaw ant Odontomachus kuroiwae. J. Exp. Biol. 223, jeb228874 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (2020).37.Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using {lme4}. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Venables, W. N. & Ripley, B. D. Modern Applied Statistics with S. (Springer, 2002).39.Hothorn, T. & Hornik, K. exactRankTests: Exact Distributions for Rank and Permutation Tests. (2019). More

1.Gaston, K. J. The Structure and Dynamics of Geographic Ranges (Oxford University Press, 2003).
Google Scholar 
2.Sexton, J. P., McIntyre, P., Angert, A. L. & Rice, K. J. Evolution and ecology of species range limits. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 40, 415–436 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Holt, R. D., Keitt, T. H., Lewis, M. A., Maurer, B. A. & Taper, M. L. Theoretical models of species’ borders: single species approaches. Oikos 108, 18–27 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Gaston, K. J. Geographic range limits: Achieving synthesis. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 276, 1395–1406 (2009).
Google Scholar 
5.Parmesan, C. et al. Empirical perspectives on species borders: From traditional biogeography to global change. Oikos 108, 58–75 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Travis, J. M. J. & Dytham, C. In Dispersal Ecology and Evolution (eds Clobert, J. et al.) 337–348 (Oxford University Press, 2012).Chapter 

Google Scholar 
7.Kirkpatrick, M. & Barton, N. H. Evolution of a species’ range. Am. Nat. 150, 1–23 (1997).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
8.Case, T. J. & Taper, M. L. Interspecific competition, environmental gradients, gene flow, and the coevolution of species’ borders. Am. Nat. 155, 583–605 (2000).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
9.Rahbek, C. The role of spatial scale and the perception of large-scale species-richness patterns. Ecol. Lett. 8, 224–239 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Hargreaves, A. L., Eckert, C. G. & Bailey, J. Evolution of dispersal and mating systems along geographic gradients. Implications for shifting ranges. Funct. Ecol. 28, 5–21 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Hille, S. M. & Cooper, C. B. Elevational trends in life histories. Revising the pace-of-life framework. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 90, 204–213 (2015).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
12.Boyle, W. A., Sandercock, B. K. & Martin, K. Patterns and drivers of intraspecific variation in avian life history along elevational gradients: A meta-analysis. Biol. Rev. 91, 469–482 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Badyaev, A. V. & Ghalambor, C. K. Evolution of life histories along elevational gradients: Trade-off between parental care and fecundity. Ecology 82, 2948–2960 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Bears, H., Martin, K. & White, G. C. Breeding in high-elevation habitat results in shift to slower life-history strategy within a single species. J. Anim. Ecol. 78, 365–375 (2009).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
15.Caro, L. M., Caycedo-Rosales, P. C., Bowie, R. C. K., Slabbekoorn, H. & Cadena, C. D. Ecological speciation along an elevational gradient in a tropical passerine bird?. J. Evol. Biol. 26, 357 (2013).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
16.Branch, C. L., Jahner, J. P., Kozlovsky, D. Y., Parchman, T. L. & Pravosudov, V. V. Absence of population structure across elevational gradients despite large phenotypic variation in mountain chickadees (Poecile gambeli). R. Soc. Open Sci. 4, 170057. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170057 (2017).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
17.Chamberlain, D. E. et al. The altitudinal frontier in avian climate impact research. Ibis 154, 205–209 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Hargreaves, A. L., Samis, K. E. & Eckert, C. G. Are species’ range limits simply niche limits writ large? A review of transplant experiments beyond the range. Am. Nat. 183, 157–173 (2014).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Graham, C. H., Silva, N. & Velásquez-Tibatá, J. Evaluating the potential causes of range limits of birds of the Colombian Andes. J. Biogeogr. 37, 1863–1875 (2010).
Google Scholar 
20.Popy, S., Bordignon, L. & Prodon, R. A weak upward elevational shift in the distributions of breeding birds in the Italian Alps. J. Biogeogr. 37, 57–67 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Chen, I.-C., Hill, J. K., Ohlemüller, R., Roy, D. B. & Thomas, C. D. Rapid range shifts of species associated with high levels of climate warming. Science 333, 1024–1026 (2011).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
22.Maggini, R. et al. Are Swiss birds tracking climate change?. Ecol. Model. 222, 21–32 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Pearce-Higgins, J. W. & Green, R. E. Climate Change and Birds: Impacts and Conservation Responses (Cambridge University Press, 2014).Book 

Google Scholar 
24.Knaus, P. et al. Schweizer Brutvogelatlas 2013–2016. Verbreitung und Bestandsentwicklung der Vögel in der Schweiz und im Fürstentum Liechtenstein (Schweizerische Vogelwarte, 2018).
Google Scholar 
25.Chamberlain, D. E., Fuller, R. J., Bunce, R. G. H., Duckworth, J. C. & Shrubb, M. Changes in the abundance of farmland birds in relation to the timing of agricultural intensification in England and Wales. J. Appl. Ecol. 37, 771–788 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Chamberlain, D. & Pearce-Higgins, J. Impacts of climate change on upland birds. Complex interactions, compensatory mechanisms and the need for long-term data. Ibis 155, 451–455 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Sergio, F. & Newton, I. Occupancy as a measure of territory quality. J. Anim. Ecol. 72, 857–865 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Fretwell, S. D. & Lucas, H. L. On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. Acta Biotheor. 19, 16–36 (1969).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Grüebler, M. U., Korner-Nievergelt, F. & von Hirschheydt, J. The reproductive benefits of livestock farming in barn swallows Hirundo rustica: Quality of nest site or foraging habitat?. J. Appl. Ecol. 47, 1340–1347 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Schaub, M. & von Hirschheydt, J. Effects of current reproduction on apparent survival, breeding dispersal, and future reproduction in barn swallows assessed by multistate capture-recapture models. J. Anim. Ecol. 78, 625–635 (2009).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Furrer, R. D. & Pasinelli, G. Empirical evidence for source-sink populations: A review on occurrence, assessments and implications. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 91, 782–795 (2016).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Plard, F., Turek, D., Grüebler, M. U. & Schaub, M. IPM2: Toward better understanding and forecasting of population dynamics. Ecol. Monogr. 8, e01364. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecm.1364 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Grüebler, M. U. & Naef-Daenzer, B. Fitness consequences of pre- and post-fledging timing decisions in a double-brooded passerine. Ecology 89, 2736–2745 (2008).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Grüebler, M. U., Morand, M. & Naef-Daenzer, B. A predictive model of the density of airborne insects in agricultural environments. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 123, 75–80 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Jenni-Eiermann, S., Glaus, E., Grüebler, M. U., Schwabl, H. & Jenni, L. Glucocorticoid response to food availability in breeding barn swallows (Hirundo rustica). Gen. Comp. Endocrinol. 155, 558–565 (2008).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
36.Schifferli, L., Grüebler, M. U., Meijer, H. A. J., Visser, G. H. & Naef-Daenzer, B. Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica parents work harder when foraging conditions are good. Ibis 156, 777–787 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Shields, W. M. Factors Affecting nest and site fidelity in Adirondack barn swallows (Hirundo rustica). Auk 101, 780–789 (1984).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Saino, N., Calza, S., Ninni, P. & Møller, A. P. Barn swallows trade survival against offspring condition and immunocompetence. J. Anim. Ecol. 68, 999–1009 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Turner, A. The Barn Swallow (T & A D Poyser, 2006).
Google Scholar 
40.Newton, I. The Migration Ecology of Birds 1st edn. (Academic Press, 2007).
Google Scholar 
41.Ambrosini, R. & Saino, N. Environmental effects at two nested spatial scales on habitat choice and breeding performance of barn swallow. Evol. Ecol. 24, 491–508 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Ambrosini, R. et al. The distribution and colony size of barn swallows in relation to agricultural land use. J. Appl. Ecol. 39, 524–534 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Evans, K. L., Bradbury, R. B. & Wilson, J. D. Selection of hedgerows by Swallows Hirundo rustica foraging on farmland: the influence of local habitat and weather. Bird Study 50, 8–14 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Newton, I. Population Limitation in Bird (Academic Press, 1998).
Google Scholar 
45.Paradis, E., Baillie, S. R., Sutherland, W. J. & Gregory, R. D. Patterns of natal and breeding dispersal in birds. J. Anim. Ecol. 67, 518–536 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Scandolara, C. et al. Context-, phenotype-, and kin-dependent natal dispersal of barn swallows (Hirundo rustica). Behav. Ecol. 25, 180–190 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Schaub, M., von Hirschheydt, J. & Grüebler, M. U. Differential contribution of demographic rate synchrony to population synchrony in barn swallows. J. Anim. Ecol. 84, 1530–1541 (2015).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Camfield, A. F., Pearson, S. F. & Martin, K. Life history variation between high and low elevation subspecies of horned larks Eremophila spp. J. Avian Biol. 41, 273–281 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Møller, A. P. Phenotype-dependent arrival time and its consequences in a migratory bird. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 35, 115–122 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Møller, A. P. Sexual Selection and the Barn Swallow (Oxford University Press, 1994).
Google Scholar 
51.Lerche-Jørgensen, M., Korner-Nievergelt, F., Tøttrup, A. P., Willemoes, M. & Thorup, K. Early returning long-distance migrant males do pay a survival cost. Ecol. Evol. 8, 11434–11449. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4569 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
52.Pulliam, H. R. On the relationship between niche and distribution. Ecol. Lett. 3, 349–361 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Pulliam, H. R. Sources, sinks, and population regulation. Am. Nat. 132, 652–661 (1988).Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Møller, A. P., de Lope, F. & Saino, N. Parasitism, immunity, and arrival date in a migratory bird, the barn swallow. Ecology 85, 206–219 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Huntley, B., Green, R. E., Collingham, Y. C. & Willis, S. G. A Climatic Atlas of European Breeding Birds (Lynx Edicions, 2007).
Google Scholar 
56.Scridel, D. et al. A review and meta-analysis of the effects of climate change on Holarctic mountain and upland bird populations. Ibis 160, 489–515 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Cormack, R. M. Estimates of survival from the sighting of marked animals. Biometrika 51, 429–438 (1964).MATH 
Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Jolly, G. Explicit estimates from capture-recapture data with both death and immigration-stochastic model. Biometrika 52, 225–247 (1965).MathSciNet 
PubMed 
MATH 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
59.Seber, G. A. F. A note on the multiple-recapture census. Biometrika 52, 249–259 (1965).MathSciNet 
PubMed 
MATH 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
60.Lebreton, J.-D., Burnham, K. P., Clobert, J. & Anderson, D. R. Modeling survival and testing biological hypotheses using marked animals: A unified approach with case studies. Ecol. Monogr. 62, 67–118 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Saino, N., Martinelli, R. & Romano, M. Ecological and phenological covariates of offspring sex ratio in barn swallows. Evol. Ecol. 22, 659–674 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
63.R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, 2017).64.Gelman, A. & Hill, J. Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models (Cambridge University Press, 2007).
Google Scholar  More

Understanding the ‘push’ and ‘pull’ influence of environment on the migration and sustainability of peoples in northern North America over the last millennia is arguably one of the most important elements of understanding how recent climate change may affect society and lead to genetic adaptations1,2. The timing of migration has often been associated with paleo- temperature reconstructions that link evidence of distinctive material culture3 as well as the impact of subsistence practices in areas where hunting camps were established4 with shifting conditions. For the Dorset people, who were reliant on ice-dependent species such as walrus5, climate may have served as a “push” factor that served as a mechanism for northern migration during periods of time such as the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA). Conversely, the Thule were able to take advantage of increased activity of belugas and narwhals during longer open-water seasons, and migrations associated with the Thule expansion (circa 1250 CE) may have followed this transition until cooling associated with the Little Ice Age in the fifteenth century3,6. The Sadlermiut of Southampton Island (Nunavut, Arctic Canada) have often been referred to as descendants of the Dorset culture7,8 even though recent genetic evidence suggests they were a long isolated Thule population9,10. Archaeological evidence of stone-carved tools for walrus hunting, which is much more related to Dorset cultural practices than Thule4,5, is a prominent feature of winter hunting camps concentrated on the eastern side of Southampton Island in proximity to polynyas and ample walrus hunting grounds. Small, shallow ponds that are widespread in this area were used as staging grounds for the cleaning and preparation of subsistence harvest, and serve as sedimentary archives of the past presence and influence of the Sadlermiut, and their cultural practices, on the landscape.High latitude freshwater ecosystems are often referred to as sentinels of environmental changes caused by climate variability and human activity11. Small and shallow lakes and ponds that characterize Arctic landscapes have a low resilience to buffer environmental change12,13,14, as well as catchment disturbances induced by prehistoric Inuit whalers15. Likewise, diffuse and point source disturbances can have disproportional effects due to the suboptimal environmental thresholds characteristic of biological communities of northern aquatic ecosystems16. Here, we show that a small subarctic pond in proximity of the archaeological site “Native Point” on Southampton Island evolved atypically after human activities initiated almost 800 years ago when Sadlermiut settled in the area. Our multi-proxy paleolimnological investigation uses geochemical and biological indicators to infer direct and indirect anthropogenic impacts. The lacustrine sediments collected from this site are highly sensitive environmental recorders that also allow us to pinpoint the first arrival of Sadlermiut culture, define their dietary shifts, and summarize the legacy of anthropogenic activities at “Native Point” since their first arrival.The legacy of the Sadlermiut on the environmentOne of the richest archaeological sites found in the Canadian Arctic, the “Native Point” site was occupied by the Sadlermiut ca. 1250–1325 CE until decimated by disease introduced by European whalers in 19033,4,5. The Sadlermiut village, referred to as the Tunermiut site4, consisted of numerous sod and winter houses that bordered a small shallow freshwater body (c. 20,000 m2), “Bung Stick Pond”. This site (Fig. 1A–C), and others in the well-known archaeological area of Native Point, offer a fascinating glimpse of an isolated society that evolved independently of modern-day Inuit and incorporated cultural elements of the Dorset peoples that vacated the area prior to the Thule migration10.Figure 1Bung Stick Pond and its catchment at Native Point, Southampton Island, Nunavut; (A) Aerial photo of Native Point (Orthoimage GéoBase, Natural Resources Canada), yellow circle—Bung Stick Pond; contains information licensed under the Open Government Licence—Canada; (B) Simplified geological map of Southampton Island17 and location of nine reference lakes and ponds; (Source: Geological Survey of Canada, “A” Series Map 1404A, 1977, 1 sheet, https://doi.org/10.4095/108900; contains information licensed under the Open Government Licence—Canada; georeferenced with Grass GIS 7.8.3; https://grass.osgeo.org/) (C) Photo of Bung Stick Pond facing northward, note scattered bones and antler fragments and partly paleozoic limestone gravel, informed consent for the publication of image has been obtained from Gabriel Bruce.Full size imageThe heavy influence of Sadlermiut families processing food and leaving the remains of butchered carcasses to degrade in the pond is both visible and likely the main contributing factor for the difference in water chemistry that persists until today (Fig. 2). Southampton Island is characterized by a short vegetation period, ultra-oligotrophic freshwater ecosystems, and low sedimentation rates18,19. As such, the lakes and ponds of the area have low nutrient concentrations (i.e. total N and P; see Fig. 2), and the concentration of ions is dependent on soluble bedrock geology in their catchment, basin evolution since the last glaciation, distance to shore, and inputs from wildlife14,18,20,21,22. Here, the water chemistry of our study site, Bung Stick Pond, is an order or magnitude higher in concentrations of nutrients and organic carbon than in other lakes and ponds investigated on Southampton Island during the sampling period (Fig. 2). The only other eutrophic systems known in the region are those affected by waterfowl colonies18. Furthermore, the pond is characterized by an unusual high alkalinity caused by the catchment’s surface geology, which consists of Paleozoic limestone.Figure 2Box and whiskers diagram of water chemistry of nine lakes and ponds sampled on Southampton Island compared to Bung Stick Pond (red circle) (see Fig. 1). Nutrient indicators (top row) and major ion concentrations (bottom row) in mg L−1.Full size imageThe arrival and harvesting practices of the SadlermiutThe sediment history collected from Bung Stick Pond offers the possibility to track the aquatic system’s evolution since the arrival of the Sadlermiut when the site was used by the community for butchering of the collected harvest (Fig. 3). There is little archaeological evidence to suggest that the diet of Sadlermiut contained fish or any plants4,5, and the pond’s littoral zone is littered with skulls/skeletons at the bottom (see Fig. 1C). The predominant role of marine resources in Sadlermiut culture is also mirrored by the stable isotope signal in their adult bone collagen measured from burials23,24,25 (Fig. 4). Similarly, the surplus of organic material from the decaying process of carcasses in or around Bung Stick Pond carried the species specific isotope signal in the sediment. In general, heavier isotopes of nitrogen are enriched in predators relative to its food, which leads to high values in top predators of a food web26,27,28,29,30. Carbon isotope ratios usually show much less trophic enrichment, however a secondary fractionation process causes a positive offset in bone collagen in relation to soft tissue26,27,28,29,30 and apparently sediment samples.Figure 3Nitrogen isotope analysis from paleo-Inuit harvesting sites and distinguishable phases at Bung Stick Pond cores. Inferred August air temperature based on chironomid remains from Southampton Island19. Earlier pronounced stable δ15N isotope record from sediment core tracingprehistoric Inuit whalers on Somerset Island15. Stable δ15N isotope record and TOC:TN-ratio from bulk sediment samples of core NP-3; iron (Fe) record from bulk sediment samples of core NP-2; selected relative abundance of chironomids of core NP-2, with Tanytarsus gracilentus (pale blue) and sum percentage of Paratanytarsus (dark blue); enumerated Daphnia ephippia (resting eggs) and Fabaeformiscandona harmsworthi (Ostracoda) valves of core NP-2 in individuals per cm3 with; adults (dark green), juveniles (pale green); interpreted activity phases I–IV at Native Point; sediment colors of age-corrected core NP-1.Full size imageFigure 4Relationship of δ13C and δ15N in organic material of sediment core NP-3 and bone collagen of the Sadlermiut and their potential diet. Circles indicate isotope excursion in organic material (sediment) in different time intervals; green (Phase 1):  1767 CE; triangles show isotope data from human skeletal remains (bone collagen) in Sadlermiut burials from Coltrain (up)23, (down)24,25; whisker plots indicate modern range of isotope composition in muscle and blubber tissue of mammals supposedly included in the Sadlermiut diet from Hudson Bay or the Canadian Arctic/reports26,27,28,29,30.Full size imageThe stratigraphic analysis of biological and geochemical indicators revealed four distinguishable phases that are attributable to the arrival and cultural practices of the Sadlermiut (Fig. 3). The reference condition of the pristine environment prior to Sadlermiut settlement (Phase 1; Fig. 3) is inferred by the low abundance of aquatic organisms (e.g., chironomids, cladocerans ephippia, ostracods) and δ15N values of around 8‰ at the base of the sediment core. During this time, the carbon:nitrogen ratio (TOC:TN) indicated mostly allochthonous inputs from the terrestrial environment31. An abrupt shift in geochemical indicators (Phase 2) suggests that the arrival of the Sadlermiut occurred between 1250 and 1300 CE. This period leads the earliest radiocarbon dated materials (1325 CE) found at the Sadlermiut heritage site4. Isotope analyses show a substantial increase in δ15N from about + 8 to + 19‰ (Fig. 3) and depletion of δ13C from about − 18 to − 21‰ (Fig.S2). Likewise, a decline in TOC:TN from 13 to 9 in bulk sediments indicates a large difference in the source of materials entering the lake and a sharp increase in aquatic production during this period32. Abnormally high iron concentrations were also observed starting from 1250 CE, potentially from blood washed into the system from butchered marine harvest.The onset of Phase 3 (~ 1400 CE) suggests that settlement of the Sadlermiut camp supplied less external materials to the lake basin and a shift in the harvest of the Sadlermiut from a diet primarily comprised of marine mammals (e.g., seals, whales), which are characterized by the heavier δ15N and depleted δ13C (see Figs. 3 & S2), to one dominated by a more terrestrial origin (i.e., caribou). The shift in isotopic indicators, including the decrease of TOC:TN, during Phase 3 is concurrent with loss of macrophyte habitat as inferred from the chironomid data, notably the reduction of Paratanytarsus from 35 to  2 (Table S5). The sediment concentrations of each of the metals showed major increases from pre-industrial (~ 1850) to modern times consistent with industrial air-borne pollution (Fig. 5). Ag and Zn increased beginning ~ 1750–1800, while Bi, Pb, Sb and Sn showed increases occurring after 1900. The most striking EF was for tin (Sn), which had a rapid rise in concentrations from about 1900 (Fig. 5) and an EF of 72. Other trace elements including As, Cd, Cu, and Se showed modest enrichment (EFs 1.6–1.9) in post-1900 horizons (Table S5). So far, there is only one reference in subarctic Hudson Bay region that significant anthropogenic enrichment of Pb in post-1900 horizons (EFs 2–5×) has occurred38. Enrichment of metals is better known from ice cores from the Devon Ice cap (Devon Island Nunavut, Arctic Canada), which are in good agreement or show higher EFs than observations in the NP2 core. Noteworthy are anthropogenic enrichment of As and Bi39, Sb40, Pb41, Ag and Thallium (Tl)42, which originate from urban and industrial areas and linked to coal combustion and metal smelting. The overall comparison of ice cap ice cores and NP-2 EFs suggests that the inputs of Ag, Bi, Pb, Sb, and Ag are influenced by long-range transport from Eurasian sources40,42. Historical profiles are not available for Sn in Arctic sediment, peat, or ice core archives. Elsewhere, peat cores in the UK record deposition of Sn from regional tin mining and smelting43.Figure 5Metal concentrations of industrial air-borne pollution in sediment core NP-2; concentrations in ppm; interpreted activity phases I–IV at Native Point; sediment colors of age-corrected core NP-1.Full size imageIn concert with recent anthropogenic deposition of contaminants, an eutrophication trend can be inferred from more abundant remains of aquatic microfauna (i.e., chironomids, cladocerans, and ostracods) in the uppermost lake sediments (Fig. 3). Likewise, the sediments are composed of highly organic material (mean 15 wt%), which accumulates toward the core top exceeding 30 wt% (Fig. 3).All these data indicate the extreme vulnerability and low resilience of small Arctic ponds as the effects of human activities at this site are still prevalent after more than 750 years. The sediment archive ipso facto records the influence of the Sadlermiut on the environment since their arrival and until the last of their population succumbed to disease in 1903. Furthermore, the continued contamination by airborne metal pollutants of remote Arctic landscapes since industrialisation is evident. More

The MTS proboscidean tracks and trackmakersRounded-to-elliptical tracks, with an axial length range from 9.6 to 54.5 cm (pes), were found mostly isolated and as manus-pes couples, or associated forming at least eight short trackways (see Table 1). They reveal good preservation in one 6-footprint trackway (see below), two converging trackways and some couples, showing anteriorly directed, wide, short and blunt toe impressions (Figs. 2, 3 and 4). Toe impressions are not commonly visible in elephant footprints9,13, (but see27), which attests to cases of exceptional preservation in Matalascañas tracks. Preservation as true tracks is identified through expulsion marginal rims (e.g., Fig. 4a, g) and possible ejecta (Fig. 3b,e). Large and flat sole surfaces sometimes show evidence of pockmarks23 (Fig. 4f).Table 1 Measurements of Proboscipeda tracks, ordered from smallest to largest in length.Full size tableFigure 2Proboscidean tracks (Proboscipeda panfamilia) attributed in the MTS to straight-tusked elephants. (a–h) Morphological features of small-sized tracks produced by calves and juveniles. Examples of manus impressions in (a) PAT/MTS/011a, (b) PAT/MTS/016 and (f) PAT/MTS/015x, and for further interpretation of (a) see Fig. 3; the latter two with drag marks made during the foot-off event. (c) and (g) PAT/MTS/002a,b: Manus-pes couple found isolated showing heteropody and different number of toe impressions (interpretation as left-side tracks by peak pressure deformation in the left side of the track according to27); interpretation in (c). (d) PAT/MTS/014 and (e) PAT/MTS/007a: Calf-sized pes with three toe impressions. (h) PAT/MTS/011 h: Badly preserved manus of a calf. Scale bar = 5 cm.Full size imageFigure 3Photograph, outline, high-resolution 3D and false-coloured 3D images of the PAT/MTS/0011a track representing the best preserved manus of a juvenile-sized Proboscipeda track. (a) and (c) From the photograph and high-resolution images, five toe impressions in the anterior part of the rounded track are clear (especially toes I–IV). (b) and (f) The false coloured images in orthogonal (b) and oblique angle views (f) highlight the deepening of the track fore- and outwards, thus revealing a peak pressure pattern typical of left forefoot (toes III–IV), as well as a possible ejecta mound in front of the track. The poorly evident and narrow expulsion rim developed around the track is the result of the high cohesiveness and plasticity of the clayey fine-sand substrate. (d) Contour map supporting previous interpretation. (e) The cross-section of the track details the anterior migration of the foot pressure during its rotation, creating a peak pressure in the foot-off event that is represented in the deepest part of the track. Scale bars are 10 cm.Full size imageFigure 4Large-sized Proboscipeda tracks attributed to P. antiquus adults. (a) to (d) PAT/MTS/001: Right manus showing clearly 5 toe impressions and the frontal and lateral displacement rims (morphological interpretation based on the orthogonal (b) and oblique (d) depth and contour (c) maps). (e) and (f) PAT/MTS/010e: Deeper manus with pockmarks; toe pad impressions indicated (I–III). (g) PAT/MTS/004a,b: large manus-pes couple where the hind foot deformed the fore foot during overstepping, and revealing a typical elephantine gait; the toe impressions in both tracks indicate the direction of movement. Scale bar = 10 cm.Full size imageIrrespective of the track size, pes are elliptical to sub-rounded, with the length axis larger than the width and manus are circular or elliptical, with the width axis larger than the length (Figs. 2c and 4d, g for small and large size tracks, respectively). The safest way to differentiate between pes and manus is through the orientation of the track provided by the toe impressions, or by the orientation of the longer axis in trackways. When arranged in trackways, manus-pes couples show the typical elephantine gait, showing a short pace resulting from the fore- and hind feet on the same side swinging forward simultaneously below the body, as it is known from modern elephant gait28. In some cases, the partial impression of a pes overstepping the proximal part of a manus can be seen (Fig. 2c, g). Based on similar preservational style and opposing directions of movement without overlapping at the meeting point, a converging pair of trackways was apparently produced contemporaneously by an adult and a rather small juvenile. Sharp edges of the toe impressions indicate the presence of nails. These are found mostly in well preserved, smaller-sized tracks (Fig. 2a, d, e) because nails are commonly worn down in adult elephants and not always shown in their tracks13. These morphological features allow us to attribute the MTS trackways to the ichnospecies Proboscipeda panfamilia used previously for describing, among other tracksites, those tracks attributed confidently to the straight-tusked elephant Palaeoloxodon antiquus in the paleogeographical context of southern Europe11,14 (see supplementary Table S1).Manus-pes couples, when showing overstepping, were not considered in Table 1 (Fig. 2c, g). Overstepping depends on the speed of walking; at faster speeds the overstepping is only partial or there is no overstepping; elephants maintain the footfall pattern at all speeds, shifting toward a calculated 25% phase offset between limbs as they increase speed28 (Fig. 2g). The smallest tracks usually do not show overstepping possibly because of the greater activity, with longer pace and stride lengths, demonstrated by calves and juveniles when compared to adults. Manus or pes showing a large width-length ratio (below 0.80–0.96 sensu25) were not considered for the estimates since they represent slippage.Younger elephants have more pliable skin and musculature than adults. Also, the greater expansion and distribution of the weight in heavier adult animals is enough to reduce or negate toe impressions in some types of sediments, such as compacted substrates24,29. Interpreting the sedimentological data for the paleosol where MTS was developed15,17,30, suggests a drying clayey-sandy substrate14 that was still plastic enough to absorb the impact of the limbs during the locomotion of the elephants (presence of expulsion rims and absence of radial pressure cracks), and preserving, in many cases, the morphological details of the feet in good condition (Figs. 2a, 3, 4a; see Fig. 2h for a badly preserved example).Ichnological inference about the height, body mass and age of Palaeoloxodon antiquus in the MTSSeveral methods have been proposed for estimating the height at the shoulders for proboscideans, and the relationship between body mass and age with shoulder height 1,31,32. A linear relationship between foot length and shoulder height was confirmed by Lee and Moss33 from extant elephants and compared with fossil examples by Pasenko24. Pes length has been especially used in studies as an indicator of shoulder height21,34,35,36. Among Asian elephants, manus circumference has been shown to have a similar predictive relationship with shoulder height33. These parameters were determined for each isolated track (or representative track in a trackway), including manus and pes (Table 1), using equations previously proposed31,33 (see Methods). A similar approach has been applied to mammoth track studies in North America21,27, where modern ontogenetic and body-mass data has been used to provide age and size estimates from fossil tracks.From the skeletal record, sexual dimorphism of P. antiquus was observed to be more accentuated than in extant elephants, especially in terms of size differences1. During the first 10 years of life, both male and female African bush elephant foot lengths increase rapidly, with the fastest growth shown in the first two years for calves33,37. In P. antiquus, males would have continued to grow until their fifties according to bone data1, while females would have been much smaller as result of energy expenditure with reproduction, flattening the growth curve just after puberty. That is why the equations of Lee and Moss33 that discriminates the shoulder height from tracks for males and females have been applied. However, by comparison with the study of Marano and Palombo32 (based on the progress of eruption and degree of wear of teeth compared to extant elephants), and the body mass correlation of Larramendi et al.1 for calculating the age of P. antiquus, our MTS ages obtained from the application of the regression curve of Lee and Moss33 are underestimated and must be analysed as minimum age approximations for track lengths corresponding to adolescent and adult animals, especially for males. The obtained estimations from tracks are subject to a level of uncertainty related to biotic and abiotic factors that can distort the data (i.e., taphonomy) as it happens also with the calculations taken from skeletal proportions. Therefore, McNeil et al.21 even included data from frozen mammoth carcasses on the growth curve of Lee and Moss33 for correcting size discrepancies along ontogeny. For P. antiquus, our best data for comparison comes, however, from the flesh reconstructions1.Ontogenetic implicationsBased on the best fossil site found for this species in Europe, corresponding to 70 individual Palaeoloxodon antiquus specimens recovered in Geiseltal, Germany, Larramendi et al.1 developed the best reconstruction, so far, of the life appearance of this species and discussed size, body mass, ontogeny and sexual dimorphism. The Neumark-Nord bone site may be contemporary or slightly older than MTS, corresponding to late Middle Pleistocene-to-Eemian interglacial period1. The authors found that the body mass of P. antiquus males was up to three times more that of male Asian elephants and twice that of extant male African bush elephants. The large size determined for straight-tusked elephants (with an estimated  > 400 cm shoulder height in the flesh and body mass of 13 tonnes) and a later complete epiphyseal-diaphyseal fusion of limb bones (not yet totally fused at an estimated age of 47 years), in comparison with extant elephants, suggests that this species had a longer lifespan of 80 years or more1. Sexual dimorphism of P. antiquus was observed to be more accentuated than in extant elephants, with females generally not exceeding 300 cm at the shoulders with an estimated weight of not more than 5.5 tonnes, while males continued to grow until their fifties1. Males in extant elephant species grow more rapidly than females after puberty (i.e., around 7 years in age), which are affected by a trade-off between growth and reproduction. Under normal nutritional conditions, the growth rate is generally higher in males than females leading to a marked difference in size between sexes at already around 10 years in age33,37,38,39.The ontogenetic variation in growth projected for the MTS, when compared to what we known from extant proboscideans, is expressed in the track size distribution plot, with the definition of five age classes (Fig. 5; see also Table 1): calves under 2 years in age (when extant elephants experience fastest growth rates in both sexes), juveniles between 2 and 7 years in age (up to when elephant females reach their sexual maturity and therefore experience a strong reduction of growth rate in comparison to males), 7–15 years in age which include pre-puberty males and young female adults, over 15 years in age and  More

1.Estes, J. A. et al. Trophic downgrading of planet earth. Science 333, 301–306 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
2.DeLong, J. P. et al. The body size dependence of trophic cascades. Am. Nat. 185, https://doi.org/10.1086/679735 (2015).3.Ellner, S. P. et al. Habitat structure and population persistence in an experimental community. Nature 412, 538–543 (2001).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Lin Jiang & Peter J., Morin Predator diet Breadth Influences the relative importance of bottom-up and top-down control of prey biomass and diversity. Am. Nat. 165, 350–363 (2005).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Johnke, J. et al. Multiple micro-predators controlling bacterial communities in the environment. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 27, 185–190 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Suttle, C. A. Marine viruses: major players in the global ecosystem. Nat. Rev. Micro 5, 801–812 (2007).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Pernthaler, J. Predation on prokaryotes in the water column and its ecological implications. Nat. Rev. Micro 3, 537–546 (2005).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Rotem, O. et al. in The Prokaryotes: Deltaproteobacteria and 740 Epsilonproteobacteria (eds Rosenberg, R. et al.) 3–17 (Springer, 2014).9.Chen, H., Athar, R., Zheng, G. & Williams, H. N. Prey bacteria shape the community structure of their predators. ISME J. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2011.4 (2011).10.Koval, S. F. et al. Bdellovibrio exovorus sp. nov., a novel predator of Caulobacter crescentus. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol 63, 146–151 (2012).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
11.Jurkevitch, E., Minz, D., Ramati, B. & Barel, G. Prey range characterization, ribotyping, and diversity of soil and rhizosphere Bdellovibrio spp. isolated on phytopathogenic bacteria. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 66, 2365–2371 (2000).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Kadouri, D. E., To, K., Shanks, R. M. Q. & Doi, Y. Predatory bacteria: a potential ally against multidrug-resistant gram-negative pathogens. PLoS ONE 8, e63397 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Williams, H. N. et al. Halobacteriovorax, an underestimated predator on bacteria: potential impact relative to viruses on bacterial mortality. ISME J. 10, 491–499 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Feng, S. et al. Predation by Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus significantly reduces viability and alters the microbial community composition of activated sludge flocs and granules. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 93, fix020–fix020 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
15.Chauhan, A., Cherrier, J. & Williams, H. N. Impact of sideways and bottom-up control factors on bacterial community succession over a tidal cycle. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 4301–4306 (2009).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Kandel, P. P., Pasternak, Z., van Rijn, J., Nahum, O. & Jurkevitch, E. Abundance, diversity and seasonal dynamics of predatory bacteria in aquaculture zero discharge systems. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 89, 149–161 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Li, N. & Williams, H. 454 Pyrosequencing reveals diversity of Bdellovibrio and like organisms in fresh and salt water. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 107, 305–311 (2015).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Daims, H., Taylor, M. W. & Wagner, M. Wastewater treatment: a model system for microbial ecology. Trends Biotechnol. 24, 483–489 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Dolinšek, J., Lagkouvardos, I., Wanek, W., Wagner, M. & Daims, H. Interactions of nitrifying bacteria and heterotrophs: identification of a Micavibrio-like putative predator of Nitrospira spp. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 79, 2027–2037 (2013).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
20.Yu, R., Zhang, S., Chen, Z. & Li, C. Isolation and application of predatory Bdellovibrio-and-like organisms for municipal waste sludge biolysis and dewaterability enhancement. Front. Env. Sci. Eng. 11, 10 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
21.Pineiro, S. et al. Niche partition of Bacteriovorax operational taxonomic units along salinity and temporal gradients in the chesapeake bay reveals distinct estuarine strains. Microb. Ecol. 65, 652–660 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
22.Cohen, Y. et al. Bacteria and microeukaryotes are differentially segregated in sympatric wastewater microhabitats. Environ. Microbiol. 21, 1757–1770 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
23.Mahmoud, K. K., McNeely, D., Elwood, C. & Koval, S. F. Design and performance of a 16S rRNA-targeted oligonucleotide probe for detection of members of the genus Bdellovibrio by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 73, 7488–7493 (2007).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Albertsen, M., Karst, S. M., Ziegler, A. S., Kirkegaard, R. H. & Nielsen, P. H. Back to basics – the influence of DNA extraction and primer choice on phylogenetic analysis of activated sludge communities. PLOS ONE 10, e0132783 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
25.Welsh, R. M. et al. Bacterial predation in a marine host-associated microbiome. ISME J. 10, 1540–1544 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
26.Chow, C.-E. T., Kim, D. Y., Sachdeva, R., Caron, D. A. & Fuhrman, J. A. Top-down controls on bacterial community structure: microbial network analysis of bacteria, T4-like viruses and protists. ISME J. 8, 816–829 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
27.Newman, M. E. J. Modularity and community structure in networks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 8577–8582 (2006).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Ju, F. & Zhang, T. Bacterial assembly and temporal dynamics in activated sludge of a full-scale municipal wastewater treatment plant. ISME J. 9, 683–695 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
29.Tudor, J. J. & Conti, S. F. Characterization of bdellocysts of Bdellovibrio sp. J. Bacteriol. 131, 314–322 (1977).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Eloe-Fadrosh, E. A., Ivanova, N. N., Woyke, T. & Kyrpides, N. C. Metagenomics uncovers gaps in amplicon-based detection of microbial diversity. Nat. Microbiol. 1, 15032 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Parks, D. H. et al. Recovery of nearly 8,000 metagenome-assembled genomes substantially expands the tree of life. Nat. Microbiol. 2, 1533–1542 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
32.Williams, H. N. The recovery of high numbers of bdellovibrios from the surface water microlayer. Can. J. Microbiol. 33, 572–575 (1987).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Liu, L., Yang, J., Yu, Z. & Wilkinson, D. M. The biogeography of abundant and rare bacterioplankton in the lakes and reservoirs of China. ISME J https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2015.29 (2015).34.Wilén, B.-M., Jin, B. & Lant, P. The influence of key chemical constituents in activated sludge on surface and flocculating properties. Water Res. 37, 2127–2139 (2003).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
35.Phuong, K., Kakii, K. & Nikata, T. Intergeneric coaggregation of non-flocculating Acinetobacter spp. isolates with other sludge-constituting bacteria. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 107, 394–400 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
36.Kadouri, D. & O’Toole, G. A. Susceptibility of biofilms to Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus attack. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71, 4044–4051 (2005).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Im, H., Dwidar, M. & Mitchell, R. J. Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus HD100, a predator of Gram-negative bacteria, benefits energetically from Staphylococcus aureus biofilms without predation. ISME J. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-018-0154-5 (2018).38.Feng, S., Tan, C. H., Cohen, Y. & Rice, S. A. Isolation of Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus from a tropical wastewater treatment plant and predation of mixed species biofilms assembled by the native community members. Environ. Microbiol. 18, 3923–3931 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Rice, T. D., Williams, H. N. & Turng, B. F. Susceptibility of bacteria in estuarine environments to autochthonous bdellovibrios. Microb. Ecol. 35, 256–264 (1998).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Szabó, E. et al. Comparison of the bacterial community composition in the granular and the suspended phase of sequencing batch reactors. AMB Express 7, 168 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Wilén, B.-M., Jin, B. & Lant, P. Impacts of structural characteristics on activated sludge floc stability. Water Res. 37, 3632–3645 (2003).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
42.Hahn, M. W. & Hofle, M. G. Flagellate predation on a bacterial model community: interplay of size-selective grazing, specific bacterial cell size, and bacterial community composition. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 65, 4863–4872 (1999).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Kadouri, D., Venzon, N. C. & O’Toole, G. A. Vulnerability of pathogenic biofilms to Micavibrio aeruginosavorus. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 73, 605–614 (2007).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Dashiff, A., Junka, R., Libera, M. & Kadouri, D. Predation of human pathogens by the predatory bacteria Micavibrio aeruginosavorus and Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus. J. Appl. Microbiol. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2010.04900.x (2011).45.Winder, M. Photosynthetic picoplankton dynamics in Lake Tahoe: temporal and spatial niche partitioning among prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells. J. Plankton Res. 31, 1307–1320 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Dini-Andreote, F. et al. Dynamics of bacterial community succession in a salt marsh chronosequence: evidences for temporal niche partitioning. ISME J 8, 1989 (2014).47.Kelley, J., Turng, B., Williams, H. & Baer, M. Effects of temperature, salinity, and substrate on the colonization of surfaces in situ by aquatic bdellovibrios. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 63, 84–90 (1997).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Thingstad, T. A theoretical approach to structuring mechanisms in the pelagic food web. Hydrobiologia 363, 59–72 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Shapiro, O. H., Kushmaro, A. & Brenner, A. Bacteriophage predation regulates microbial abundance and diversity in a full-scale bioreactor treating industrial wastewater. ISME J. 4, 327–336 (2009).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Dwidar, M., Nam, D. & Mitchell, R. J. Indole negatively impacts predation by Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus and its release from the bdelloplast. Environ. Microbiol. 17, 1009–1022 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
51.Mun, W. et al. Cyanide production by chromobacterium piscinae shields it from Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus HD100 predation. mBio https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.01370-17 (2017).52.Sathyamoorthy, R. et al. To hunt or to rest: prey depletion induces a novel starvation survival strategy in bacterial predators. ISME J. 15, 109–123 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
53.Winter, C., Bouvier, T., Weinbauer, M. G. & Thingstad, T. F. Trade-Offs between competition and defense specialists among unicellular planktonic organisms: the “Killing the Winner” hypothesis revisited. Microbiol. Molec. Biol. Rev. 74, 42–57 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Chanyi, R. M., Ward, C., Pechey, A. & Koval, S. F. To invade or not to invade: two approaches to a prokaryotic predatory life cycle. Can. J. Microbiol. 59, 273–279 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
55.Lu, F. & Cai, J. The protective effect of Bdellovibrio-and-like organisms (BALO) on tilapia fish fillets against Salmonella enterica ssp. enterica serovar Typhimurium. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 51, 625–631 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
56.Peura, S., Bertilsson, S., Jones, R. I. & Eiler, A. Resistant microbial cooccurrence patterns inferred by network topology. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 81, 2090–2097 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Meerburg, F. A. et al. High-rate activated sludge communities have a distinctly different structure compared to low-rate sludge communities, and are less sensitive towards environmental and operational variables. Water Res. 100, 137–145 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
58.de Celis, M. et al. Tuning up microbiome analysis to monitor WWTPs’ biological reactors functioning. Sci. Rep. 10, 1–8 (2020).ADS 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
59.Hashimoto, T., Diedrich, D. L. & Conti, S. F. Isolation of a bacteriophage for Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus. J. Virol. 5, 87–98 (1970).Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Varon, M. & Levisohn, R. Three-membered parasitic systems: a bacteriophage, Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus, and Escherichia coli. J. Virol. 9, 519–525 (1972).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Johnke, J., Boen–igk, J., Harms, H. & Chatzinotas, A. Killing the killer: predation between protists and predatory bacteria. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 364, fnx089–fnx089 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
62.Johnke, J. et al. A generalist protist predator enables coexistence in multitrophic predator–prey systems containing a phage and the bacterial predator Bdellovibrio. Front. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2017.00124 (2017).63.Berleman, J. E., Chumley, T., Cheung, P. & Kirby, J. R. Rippling is a predatory behavior in Myxococcus xanthus. J. Bacteriol. 188, 5888–5895 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Shimkets, L. J. Social and developmental biology of myxobacteria. Microbiol. Rev. 54, 473–501 (1990).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Friman, V.-P. & Buckling, A. Phages can constrain protist predation-driven attenuation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa virulence in multienemy communities. ISME J. 8, 1820 (2014).66.Matassa, S., Verstraete, W., Pikaar, I. & Boon, N. Autotrophic nitrogen assimilation and carbon capture for microbial protein production by a novel enrichment of hydrogen-oxidizing bacteria. Water Res. 101, 137–146 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
67.Semblante, G. U. et al. The role of microbial diversity and composition in minimizing sludge production in the oxic-settling-anoxic process. Sci. Tot. Environ. 607–608, 558–567 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
68.Xia, Y., Kong, Y., Thomsen, T. R. & Halkjær Nielsen, P. Identification and ecophysiological characterization of epiphytic protein-hydrolyzing saprospiraceae (“Candidatus Epiflobacter” spp.) in activated sludge. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 74, 2229–2238 (2008).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Niu, T. et al. Effects of dissolved oxygen on performance and microbial community structure in a micro-aerobic hydrolysis sludge in situ reduction process. Water Res. 90, 369–377 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
70.Ju, F., Xia, Y., Guo, F., Wang, Z. & Zhang, T. Taxonomic relatedness shapes bacterial assembly in activated sludge of globally distributed wastewater treatment plants. Environ. Microbiol. 16, 2421–2432 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Günther, S. et al. Correlation of community dynamics and process parameters as a tool for the prediction of the stability of wastewater treatment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 84–92 (2012).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
72.Nettmann, E. et al. Development of a flow-fluorescence in situ hybridization protocol for the analysis of microbial communities in anaerobic fermentation liquor. BMC Microbiol. 13, 278–278 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
73.Kim, J. M. et al. Analysis of the fine-scale population structure of “Candidatus accumulibacter phosphatis” in enhanced biological phosphorus removal sludge, using fluorescence In Situ hybridization and flow cytometric sorting. Appl. Environl. Microbiol. 76, 3825–3835 (2010).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
74.Wallner, G., Erhart, R. & Amann, R. Flow cytometric analysis of activated sludge with rRNA-targeted probes. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 61, 1859–1866 (1995).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
75.Pasternak, Z. et al. In and out: an analysis of epibiotic vs periplasmic bacterial predators. ISME J. 8, 625–635 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
76.Spencer, S. J. et al. Massively parallel sequencing of single cells by epicPCR links functional genes with phylogenetic markers. ISME J. 10, 427–436 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
77.Pernthaler, J. & Amann, R. Fate of heterotrophic microbes in pelagic habitats: focus on populations. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 69, 440–461 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
78.Jurkevitch, E. In The Ecology of Predation at the Microscale (eds Mitchell, R. J.) 37–64 (Springer, 2020).79.Delmont, T. O. et al. Accessing the soil metagenome for studies of microbial diversity. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 77, 1315–1324 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
80.Green, S. J., Venkatramanan, R. & Naqib, A. Deconstructing the polymerase chain reaction: understanding and correcting bias associated with primer degeneracies and primer-template mismatches. PloS ONE 10, e0128122 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
81.Schloss, P. D. et al. Introducing Mothur: open-source, platform-independent, community-supported software for describing and comparing microbial communities. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 75, 7537–7541 (2009).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
82.Quast, C. et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res 41, D590–D596 (2012).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
83.Huse, S. M., Welch, D. M., Morrison, H. G. & Sogin, M. L. Ironing out the wrinkles in the rare biosphere through improved OTU clustering. Environ. Microbiol. 12, 1889–1898 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
84.Edgar, R. C., Haas, B. J., Clemente, J. C., Quince, C. & Knight, R. UCHIME improves sensitivity and speed of chimera detection. Bioinformatics 27, 2194–2200 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
85.Yarza, P. et al. Uniting the classification of cultured and uncultured bacteria and archaea using 16S rRNA gene sequences. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 12, 635 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

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

Google Scholar 
87.Mather, P. Computational Methods of Multivariate Analysis in Physical Geography (J Wiley and Sons, 1976).88.Berry, K. J. & Mielke, P. W. Computation of exact probability values for multi-response permutation procedures (MRPP). Commun. Stat. – Simul. Comput. 13, 417–432 (1984).MathSciNet 
Article 

Google Scholar 
89.Edgar, R. C. MUSCLE: a multiple sequence alignment method with reduced time and space complexity. BMC Bioinf. 5, 113 (2004).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
90.Tamura, K., Stecher, G., Peterson, D., Filipski, A. & Kumar, S. MEGA6: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 6.0. Mol Biol Evol https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mst197 (2013).91.Kendall, M. G. Rank Correlation Methods 2nd edn, (Hafner, 1955).92.Bastian, M., Heymann, S. & Jacomy, M. Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. Icwsm 8, 361–362 (2009).
Google Scholar 
93.Sathyamoorthy, R. et al. Bacterial predation under changing viscosities. Environ. Microbiol. 21, 2997–3010 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
94.Jurkevitch, E. In Current Protocols in Microbiology (ed Coico, R. et al.) (John Wiley and Sons, 2012).95.Whelan, J. A., Russell, N. B. & Whelan, M. A. A method for the absolute quantification of cDNA using real-time PCR. J. Immunol. Methods 278, 261–269 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
96.Nakatsuji, T. et al. The microbiome extends to subepidermal compartments of normal skin. Nat. Commun. https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2441 (2013).97.Van Essche, M. et al. Development and performance of a quantitative PCR for the enumeration of Bdellovibrionaceae. Environ. Microbiol. Rep. 1, 228–233 (2009).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
98.Zheng, G., Wang, C., Williams, H. N. & Pineiro, S. A. Development and evaluation of a quantitative real-time PCR assay for the detection of saltwater. Bacteriovorax. Environ. Microbiol. 10, 2515–2526 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
99.Liu, Z. et al. Neutral mechanisms and niche differentiation in steady-state insular microbial communities revealed by single cell analysis. Environ. Microbiol. 21, 164–181 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
100.Amann, R. I. et al. Combination of 16S rRNA-targeted oligonucleotide probes with flow cytometry for analyzing mixed microbial populations. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 56, 1919–1925 (1990).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
101.Cichocki, N. et al. Bacterial mock communities as standards for reproducible cytometric microbiome analysis. Nat. Protoc. 15, 2788–2812 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar  More

1.Perry, A. L., Low, P. J., Ellis, J. R. & Reynolds, J. D. Climate change and distribution shifts in marine fishes. Science 308, 1912–1915 (2005).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Nye, J. A., Link, J. S., Hare, J. A. & Overholtz, W. J. Changing spatial distribution of fish stocks in relation to climate and population size on the Northeast United States continental shelf. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 393, 111–129 (2009).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Fodrie, F. J., Heck, K. L. Jr., Powers, S. P., Graham, W. M. & Robinson, K. L. Climate-related, decadal-scale assemblage changes of seagrass-associated fishes in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Glob. Change Biol. 16, 48–59 (2010).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Pinsky, M. L., Worm, B., Fogarty, M. J., Sarmiento, J. L. & Levin, S. A. Marine taxa track local climate velocities. Science 341, 1239–1242 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Free, C. M. et al. Impacts of historical warming on marine fisheries production. Science 363, 979–983 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
6.Simpson, S. D. et al. Continental shelf-wide response of a fish assemblage to rapid warming of the sea. Curr. Biol. 21, 1565–1570 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
7.Pecl, G. T. et al. Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: Impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. Science 355 (2017).8.Poloczanska, E. S. et al. Responses of marine organisms to climate change across oceans. Front. Mar. Sci. 3, 62 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Oswald, S. A. & Arnold, J. M. Direct impacts of climatic warming on heat stress in endothermic species: seabirds as bioindicators of changing thermoregulatory constraints. Integr. Zool. 7, 121–136 (2012).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
10.Boyles, J. G., Seebacher, F., Smit, B. & McKechnie, A. E. Adaptive thermoregulation in endotherms may alter responses to climate change. Integr. Comp. Biol. 51, 676–690 (2011).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
11.Khaliq, I., Hof, C., Prinzinger, R., Böhning-Gaese, K. & Pfenninger, M. Global variation in thermal tolerances and vulnerability of endotherms to climate change. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 281, 20141097 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Gibson-Reinemer, D. K., Sheldon, K. S. & Rahel, F. J. Climate change creates rapid species turnover in montane communities. Ecol. Evol. 5, 2340–2347 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Pörtner, H.-O. et al. Climate induced temperature effects on growth performance, fecundity and recruitment in marine fish: developing a hypothesis for cause and effect relationships in Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) and common eelpout (Zoarces viviparus). Cont. Shelf Res. 21, 1975–1997 (2001).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Neuheimer, A., Thresher, R., Lyle, J. & Semmens, J. Tolerance limit for fish growth exceeded by warming waters. Nat. Clim. Chang. 1, 110–113 (2011).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Pörtner, H.-O. Climate variations and the physiological basis of temperature dependent biogeography: systemic to molecular hierarchy of thermal tolerance in animals. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A Mol. Integr. Physiol. 132, 739–761 (2002).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
16.Buckley, L. B., Hurlbert, A. H. & Jetz, W. Broad-scale ecological implications of ectothermy and endothermy in changing environments. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 21, 873–885 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Loarie, S. R. et al. The velocity of climate change. Nature 462, 1052–1055 (2009).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
18.Burrows, M. T. et al. The pace of shifting climate in marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Science 334, 652–655 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
19.Przeslawski, R., Falkner, I., Ashcroft, M. B. & Hutchings, P. Using rigorous selection criteria to investigate marine range shifts. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 113, 205–212 (2012).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Sunday, J. M. et al. Species traits and climate velocity explain geographic range shifts in an ocean-warming hotspot. Ecol. Lett. 18, 944–953 (2015).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
21.MacLeod, C. D. Global climate change, range changes and potential implications for the conservation of marine cetaceans: a review and synthesis. Endanger. Species Res. 7, 125–136 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Sydeman, W., Poloczanska, E., Reed, T. & Thompson, S. Climate change and marine vertebrates. Science 350, 772–777 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
23.Bowen, W. Role of marine mammals in aquatic ecosystems. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 158, 74 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Williams, T. M., Estes, J. A., Doak, D. F. & Springer, A. M. Killer appetites: assessing the role of predators in ecological communities. Ecology 85, 3373–3384 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Roman, J. et al. Whales as marine ecosystem engineers. Front. Ecol. Environ. 12, 377–385 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Neutel, A.-M., Heesterbeek, J. A. & de Ruiter, P. C. Stability in real food webs: weak links in long loops. Science 296, 1120–1123 (2002).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
27.Bascompte, J., Melián, C. J. & Sala, E. Interaction strength combinations and the overfishing of a marine food web. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 102, 5443–5447 (2005).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Macnab, B. K. The Physiological Ecology of Vertebrates: A View from Energetics (Cornell University Press, 2002).
Google Scholar 
29.Robinson, R. A. et al. Climate change and migratory species (2005).30.Worthy, G. A. & Edwards, E. F. Morphometric and biochemical factors affecting heat loss in a small temperate cetacean (Phocoena phocoena) and a small tropical cetacean (Stenella attenuata). Physiol. Zool., 432–442 (1990).31.Koopman, H. N. Phylogenetic, ecological, and ontogenetic factors influencing the biochemical structure of the blubber of odontocetes. Mar. Biol. 151, 277–291 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Adamczak, S. K., Pabst, D. A., McLellan, W. A. & Thorne, L. H. Do bigger bodies require bigger radiators? Insights into thermal ecology from closely related marine mammal species and implications for ecogeographic rules. J. Biogeogr. 47, 1193–1206 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Silber, G. K. et al. Projecting marine mammal distribution in a changing climate. Front. Mar. Sci. 4, 413 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Kaschner, K., Tittensor, D. P., Ready, J., Gerrodette, T. & Worm, B. Current and future patterns of global marine mammal biodiversity. PLoS ONE 6, e19653 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Salvadeo, C. J., Lluch-Belda, D., Gómez-Gallardo, A., Urbán-Ramírez, J. & MacLeod, C. D. Climate change and a poleward shift in the distribution of the Pacific white-sided dolphin in the northeastern Pacific. Endanger. Species Res. 11, 13–19 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Kovacs, K. M., Lydersen, C., Overland, J. E. & Moore, S. E. Impacts of changing sea-ice conditions on Arctic marine mammals. Mar. Biodivers. 41, 181–194 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.MacLeod, C. D. et al. Climate change and the cetacean community of north-west Scotland. Biol. Cons. 124, 477–483 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Higdon, J. W. & Ferguson, S. H. Loss of Arctic sea ice causing punctuated change in sightings of killer whales (Orcinus orca) over the past century. Ecol. Appl. 19, 1365–1375 (2009).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Evans, P. G. & Hammond, P. S. Monitoring cetaceans in European waters. Mammal Rev. 34, 131–156 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Kaschner, K., Quick, N. J., Jewell, R., Williams, R. & Harris, C. M. Global coverage of cetacean line-transect surveys: status quo, data gaps and future challenges. PLoS ONE 7, e44075 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Taylor, B. L., Martinez, M., Gerrodette, T., Barlow, J. & Hrovat, Y. N. Lessons from monitoring trends in abundance of marine mammals. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 23, 157–175 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Pyenson, N. D. The high fidelity of the cetacean stranding record: insights into measuring diversity by integrating taphonomy and macroecology. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 278, 3608–3616 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Leeney, R. H. et al. Spatio-temporal analysis of cetacean strandings and bycatch in a UK Wsheries hotspot. Biodivers. Conserv. 17, 2323–2338 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Lambert, E. et al. Quantifying likely cetacean range shifts in response to global climatic change: implications for conservation strategies in a changing world. Endanger. Species Res. 15, 205–222 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Poloczanska, E. S. et al. Global imprint of climate change on marine life. Nat. Clim. Chang. 3, 919–925 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Pershing, A. J. et al. Slow adaptation in the face of rapid warming leads to collapse of the Gulf of Maine cod fishery. Science 350, 809–812 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
47.Nawojchik, R., St. Aubin, D. J. & Johnson, A. Movements and dive behavior of two stranded, rehabilitated long-finned pilot whales (Globicephala melas) in the northwest Atlantic. Mar. Mammal Sci. 19, 232–239 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Bloch, D. et al. Short-term movements of long-finned pilot whales Globicephala melas around the Faroe Islands. Wildl. Biol. 9, 47–8 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Hayes, S., Josephson, E., Maze‐Foley, K. & Rosel, P. US Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico marine mammal stock assessments–2019. NOAA Tech Memo NMFS‐NE 264 (2020).50.Gannon, D., Read, A., Craddock, J., Fristrup, K. & Nicolas, J. Feeding ecology of long-finned pilot whales Globicephala melas in the western North Atlantic. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. Oldendorf 148, 1–10 (1997).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Harden Jones, F. R. In Animal migration. Soc. Exp. Biol. Sem. Ser. 13 (ed. Aidley, D. J.) 139–165 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1981).
Google Scholar 
52.Alerstam, T., Hedenström, A. & Åkesson, S. Long-distance migration: evolution and determinants. Oikos 103, 247–260 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Heide-Jørgensen, M. P. et al. Diving behaviour of long-finned pilot whales Globicephala melas around the Faroe Islands. Wildl. Biol. 8, 307–313 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Baird, R. W., Borsani, J. F., Hanson, M. B. & Tyack, P. L. Diving and night-time behavior of long-finned pilot whales in the Ligurian Sea. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 237, 301–305 (2002).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Adamczak, S. K., McLellan, W. A., Read, A. J., Wolfe, C. L. & Thorne, L. H. The impact of temperature at depth on estimates of thermal habitat for short‐finned pilot whales. Mar. Mammal Sci. (2020).56.Jorda, G. et al. Ocean warming compresses the three-dimensional habitat of marine life. Nat. Ecol. Evolut. 4, 109–114 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Burrows, M. T. et al. Ocean community warming responses explained by thermal affinities and temperature gradients. Nat. Clim. Chang. 9, 959–963 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Kleisner, K. M. et al. The effects of sub-regional climate velocity on the distribution and spatial extent of marine species assemblages. PLoS ONE 11, e0149220 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
59.Kleisner, K. M. et al. Marine species distribution shifts on the US Northeast Continental Shelf under continued ocean warming. Prog. Oceanogr. 153, 24–36 (2017).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Kavanaugh, M. T., Rheuban, J. E., Luis, K. M. & Doney, S. C. Thirty-three years of ocean benthic warming along the US northeast continental shelf and slope: Patterns, drivers, and ecological consequences. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 122, 9399–9414 (2017).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Grady, J. M. et al. Metabolic asymmetry and the global diversity of marine predators. Science 363 (2019).62.Williams, T. M. et al. The diving physiology of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). III. Thermoregulation at depth. J. Exp. Biol. 202, 2763–2769 (1999).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
63.Pabst, D. A., Rommel, S. A. & McLELLAN, W. A. The emergence of whales 379–397 (Springer, 1998).Book 

Google Scholar 
64.McNab, B. K. Short-term energy conservation in endotherms in relation to body mass, habits, and environment. J. Therm. Biol 27, 459–466 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Yeates, L. C. & Houser, D. S. Thermal tolerance in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). J. Exp. Biol. 211, 3249–3257 (2008).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
66.Saba, V. S. et al. Enhanced warming of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean under climate change. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans (2016).67.Kenney, R. D., Scott, G. P., Thompson, T. J. & Winn, H. E. Estimates of prey consumption and trophic impacts of cetaceans in the USA northeast continental shelf ecosystem. J. Northwest Atl. Fish. Sci. 22, 155–171 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Read, A. J. & Brownstein, C. R. Considering other consumers: fisheries, predators, and Atlantic herring in the Gulf of Maine. Conserv. Ecol. 7, 2 (2003).
Google Scholar 
69.Overholtz, W. & Link, J. Consumption impacts by marine mammals, fish, and seabirds on the Gulf of Maine-Georges Bank Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) complex during the years 1977–2002. ICES J. Mar. Sci. J. Conseil 64, 83–96 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Smith, L. A., Link, J. S., Cadrin, S. X. & Palka, D. L. Consumption by marine mammals on the Northeast US continental shelf. Ecol. Appl. 25, 373–389 (2015).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Estes, J. A., Tinker, M. T., Williams, T. M. & Doak, D. F. Killer whale predation on sea otters linking oceanic and nearshore ecosystems. Science 282, 473–476 (1998).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Pace, M. L., Cole, J. J., Carpenter, S. R. & Kitchell, J. F. Trophic cascades revealed in diverse ecosystems. Trends Ecol. Evol. 14, 483–488 (1999).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
73.Myers, R. A., Baum, J. K., Shepherd, T. D., Powers, S. P. & Peterson, C. H. Cascading effects of the loss of apex predatory sharks from a coastal ocean. Science 315, 1846–1850 (2007).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
74.Durant, J. M., Hjermann, D. Ø., Ottersen, G. & Stenseth, N. C. Climate and the match or mismatch between predator requirements and resource availability. Clim. Res. (CR) 33, 271–283 (2007).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
75.Schweiger, O., Settele, J., Kudrna, O., Klotz, S. & Kühn, I. Climate change can cause spatial mismatch of trophically interacting species. Ecology 89, 3472–3479 (2008).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
76.Both, C., Van Asch, M., Bijlsma, R. G., Van Den Burg, A. B. & Visser, M. E. Climate change and unequal phenological changes across four trophic levels: constraints or adaptations?. J. Anim. Ecol. 78, 73–83 (2009).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
77.Evans, K. et al. Periodic variability in cetacean strandings: links to large-scale climate events. Biol. Let. 1, 147–150 (2005).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
78.Overholtz, W., Hare, J. & Keith, C. Impacts of interannual environmental forcing and climate change on the distribution of Atlantic mackerel on the US Northeast continental shelf. Mar. Coastal Fish. 3, 219–232 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
79.Roper, C., Lu, C. & Vecchione, M. A revision of the systematics and distribution of Illex species (Cephalopoda: Ommastrephidae). Smithsonian Contrib. Zool., 405–424 (1998).80.Brodziak, J. & Hendrickson, L. An analysis of environmental effects on survey catches of squids Loligo pealei and Illex illecebrosus in the northwest Atlantic. Fish. Bull. 97, 9–24 (1999).
Google Scholar 
81.Henderson, M. E., Mills, K. E., Thomas, A. C., Pershing, A. J. & Nye, J. A. Effects of spring onset and summer duration on fish species distribution and biomass along the Northeast United States continental shelf. Rev. Fish Biol. Fisheries 27, 411–424 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
82.Sosebee, K. A. & Cadrin, S. X. A historical perspective on the abundance and biomass of northeast demersal complex stocks from NMFS and Massachusetts inshore bottom trawl surveys, 1963–2002. (2006).83.Brito-Morales, I. et al. Climate velocity can inform conservation in a warming world. Trends Ecol. Evol. 33, 441–457 (2018).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
84.Burrows, M. T. et al. Geographical limits to species-range shifts are suggested by climate velocity. Nature 507, 492–495 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
85.García Molinos, J., Schoeman, D. S., Brown, C. J. & Burrows, M. T. VoCC: an r package for calculating the velocity of climate change and related climatic metrics. Methods Ecol. Evolut. 10, 2195–2202 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.Huai, J. J. Dynamics of resilience of wheat to drought in Australia from 1991–2010. Sci. Rep. 7, 9532 (2017).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
2.Li, M., Peterson, C. A., Tautges, N. E., Scow, K. M. & Gaudin, A. C. M. Yields and resilience outcomes of organic cover crop, and conventional practices in a Mediterranean climate. Sci. Rep. 9, 12283 (2019).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
3.Keersmaecker, W. D. et al. A model quantifying global vegetation resistance and resilience to short-term climate anomalies and their relationship with vegetation cover. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 24, 539–548 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Griffith, G. P. et al. Ecological resilience of Arctic marine food webs to climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 868–872 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.You, N. S., Meng, J. J. & Zhu, L. K. Sensitivity and resilience of ecosystems to climate variability in the semi-arid to hyper-arid areas of Northern China: a case study in the Heihe River Basin. Ecol. Res. 33, 161–174 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Reijers, V. C. et al. Resilience of beach grasses along a biogeomorphic successive gradient: resource availability vs. clonal integration. Oceologia https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-019-04568-w (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Chambers, J. C. et al. Resilience to stress and disturbance, and resistance to Bromus tectorum L. invasion in clod desert shrublands of western North America. Ecosystems 17, 360–375 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Driessen, M. M. Fire resilience of a rare, freshwater crustacean in a fire-prone ecosystem and the implications for fire management. Austral Ecol. 44, 1030–1039 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Ren, H., Lu, H. F., Li, Y. D. & Wen, Y. G. Vegetation restoration and its research advancement in Southern China. J. Trop. Subtrop. Bot. 27(5), 469–480 (2019).
Google Scholar 
10.Yan, H. M., Zhan, J. Y. & Zhang, T. Review of ecosystem resilience research progress. Prog. Geogr. 31(3), 303–314 (2012).
Google Scholar 
11.Zhan, J. Y., Yan, H. M., Deng, X. Z. & Zhang, T. Assessment of forest ecosystem resilience in Lianhua County of Jiangxi Province. J. Nat. Resour. 27(8), 1304–1315 (2012).
Google Scholar 
12.Pérez-Girón, J. C., Álvarez-Álvarez, P., Díaz-Valera, E. R. & Lopes, D. M. M. Influence of climate variations on primary production indicators and on the resilience of forest ecosystems in a future scenario of climate change: application to sweet chestnut agroforestry systems in the Iberian Peninsula. Ecol. Indic. 113, 106199 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Meng, Y. Y. et al. Analysis of ecological resilience to evaluate the inherent maintenance capacity of a forest ecosystem using a dense Landsat time series. Ecol. Inform. 57, 101064 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Han, L. et al. Species composition, community structure, and floristic characteristics of desert riparian forest community along the mainstream of Tarim River. Plant Sci. J. 37(3), 324–336 (2019).
Google Scholar 
15.Zhou, H. H. et al. Climate change may accelerate the decline of desert riparian forest in the lower Tarim River, Northwestern China: evidence from tree-rings of Populus euphratica. Ecol. Indic. 111, 105997 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Aini, A. et al. Analysis of stakeholders’ cognition on desert riparian forest ecosystem services in the lower reaches of Tarim River, China. Res. Soil Water Conserv. 23(1), 205–209 (2016).
Google Scholar 
17.Li, Y. Q., Chen, Y. N., Zhang, Y. Q. & Xia, Y. Rehabilitating China’s largest inland river. Conserv. Biol. 23(3), 531–536 (2009).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Dai, J. S. Evaluation of eco-environment and socio-economic benefits on comprehensive reclamation projects on the Tarim River Basin. Doctoral Dissertation of Xinjiang Agricultural University (2015).19.Han, L., Wang, H. Z., Niu, J. L., Wang, J. Q. & Liu, W. Y. Response of Populus euphratica communities in a desert riparian forest to the groundwater level gradient in the Tarim River Basin. Acta Ecol. Sin. 37, 6836–6846 (2017).
Google Scholar 
20.Yang, G. & Guo, Y. P. The change and prospect of vegetation in the end of the lower reaches of Tarim River after ecological water delivery. J. Desert Res. 24(2), 167–172 (2004).
Google Scholar 
21.Yan, H. M., Zhan, J. Y. & Zhang, T. Resilience of forest ecosystems and its influencing factors. Procedia Environ. Sci. 10, 2201–2206 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Abenayake, C. C., Mikami, Y., Matsuda, Y. & Jayasinghe, A. Ecosystem service-based composite indicator for assessing community resilience to floods. Environ. Dev. 27, 34–46 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Maestas, J. D., Campbell, S. B., Chambers, J. C., Pellant, M. & Miller, R. F. Tapping soil survey information for rapid assessment of sagebrush ecosystem resilience and resistance. Rangelands 38(3), 120–128 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Ponce-Campos, G. E. et al. Ecosystem resilience despite large-scale altered hydroclimatic conditions. Nature 494, 349–352 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Frazier, A. E., Renschler, C. S. & Miles, S. B. Evaluating post-disaster ecosystem resilience using MODIS GPP data. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinform. 21, 43–52 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Kahiluoto, H. et al. Decline in climate resilience of European wheat. PNAS 116(1), 123–128 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Li, X. Y. et al. Temporal trade-off between gymnosperm resistance and resilience increases forest sensitivity to extreme drought. Nat. Ecol. Evolut. 4, 1075–1083 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Li, C. H., Zhou, M., Wang, Y. T., Zhu, T. B., Sun, H., Yin, H. H., Cao, H. J., Han, H. Y. Inter-annual variations of vegetation net primary productivity and their spatial-temporal contribution and climate driving in arid Northwest China: a case study of Hexi Corridor. Chin. J. Ecol. (2020).29.Song, J. et al. A global database of plant production and carbon exchange from global change manipulative experiments. Sci. Data 7, 1–7 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
30.Yang, G. et al. Research progress of ecosystem resilience assessment. Zhejiang Agric. Sci. 60(3), 508–513 (2019).
Google Scholar 
31.Liu, J. Z. & Chen, Y. N. Analysis on converse succession of plant communities at the lower reaches of Tarim River. Arid Land Geogr. 25(3), 231–236 (2002).
Google Scholar 
32.Chen, X., Bao, A. M., Wang, X. P., Guli, J. P. E. & Huang, Y. Recent ecological effectiveness assessment of integrated management projects in the Tarim River. Bull. Chin. Acad. Sci. 32(1), 20–28 (2017).
Google Scholar 
33.Zhao, H., Yan, L. & Ji, F. The dynamics of land utilization in the upper reaches of Tarim River. J. Arid Land Resour. Environ. 15(4), 40–43 (2001).
Google Scholar 
34.Sun, F., Wang, Y. & Chen, Y. N. Dynamics of desert-oasis ecotone and its influencing factors in the Tarim Basin. Chin. J. Ecol. 39(10), 1–11 (2020).
Google Scholar 
35.Xu, G. H. A genetic explanation of the recent changes of ecological environment in the Tarim River Basin, southern Xinjiang. Xinjiang Meteorol. 28–31 (2005).36.Kamkin, A. & Lozinsky, I. Mechanically Gated Channels and Their Regulation (Springer, 2012).Book 

Google Scholar 
37.Feyisa, K. et al. Effects of enclosure management on carbon sequestration, soil properties and vegetation attributes in East African rangelands. CATENA 159, 9–19 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Wang, G. H., Ren, Y. J. & Gou, Q. Q. The changes of soil physical and chemical property during the enclosure process in a typical desert oasis ecotone of the Hexi Corridor in northwestern China. J. Desert Res. 40(2), 222–231 (2020).
Google Scholar 
39.Xu, H. L., Ye, M. & Li, J. M. Changes in groundwater levels and the response of natural vegetation to the transfer of water to the lower reaches of the Tarim River. J. Environ. Sci. 19(10), 1199–1207 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Zhang, P. F., Guli, J., Bao, A. M., Meng, F. H. & Guo, H. Ecological effects evaluation for short term planning of the Tarim River. Arid Land Geogr. 40(1), 156–164 (2017).
Google Scholar 
41.Gulimire, H., Wang, G. Y., Zhang, Y., Liu, Q. Q. & Su, L. T. Influence mechanisms of intermittent ecological water conveyance on groundwater level and vegetation in arid land. Arid Land Geogr. 41(4), 726–733 (2018).
Google Scholar 
42.Guo, H. W., Xu, H. L. & Ling, H. B. Study of ecological water transfer mode and ecological compensation scheme of the Tarim River Basin in dry years. J. Nat. Resour. 32(10), 1705–1717 (2017).
Google Scholar 
43.Wu, T. Z., Ding, J., Guan, W. K., Ruan, C. J. & Guan, Y. Populus euphratica forest replacement and photosynthetic characteristics in Tarim Populus euphratica national nature reserve. Prot. For. Sci. Technol. 8, 1–4 (2020).
Google Scholar 
44.Zhu, C. G., Aikeremu, A., Li, W. H. & Zhou, H. H. Ecosystem restoration of Populus euphratica forest under the ecological water conveyance in the lower reaches of Tarim River. Arid Land Geography, 44(3), 629–636 (2021).
Google Scholar 
45.Chen, Y. N. Study on Eco-hydrological Problems of the Tarim River Basin in Xinjiang (Science Press, 2010).
Google Scholar 
46.Halik, U., Aishan, T., Betz, F., Kurban, A. & Rouzi, A. Effectiveness and challenges of ecological engineering for desert riparian forest restoration along China’s largest inland river. Ecol. Eng. 127, 11–22 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Xinjiang Morning News. In the past three years, the area of the Populus euphratica forest reserve in the Tarim River Basin has increased by 569.95 km2. https://www.sohu.com/a/308626663_100034331?sec=wd (2019).48.China News Service. Ecological water transfer for desert vegetation in lower reaches of Konqi River in Xinjiang. https://news.sina.com.cn/o/2020-02-22/doc-iimxyqvz4945915.shtml (2020). More

Research cruisesThis dataset consists of sequence data from 4 separate cruises: ARK-XXVII/1 (PS80)—17th June to 9th July 2012; Stratiphyt-II— April to May 2011; ANT-XXIX/1 (PS81)—1st to 24th November 2012 and ANT-XXXII/2 (PS103)—16th December 2016 to 3rd February 2017 and covers a transect of the Atlantic Ocean from Greenland to the Weddell Sea (71.36°S to 79.09°N) (Supplementary Table 1). In order to study the composition, distribution and activity of microbial communities in the upper ocean across the broadest latitudinal ranges possible, samples have been collected during four field campaigns as shown in Fig. 1A. The first collection of samples was collected in the North Atlantic Ocean from April to May 2011 by Dr. Willem van de Poll of the University of Groningen, Netherlands and Dr. Klaas Timmermans of the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research. The second set of samples was collected in the Arctic Ocean from June to July 2012, and the third set of samples was collected in the South Atlantic Ocean from October to November 2012. Both of which were collected by Dr. Katrin Schmidt of the University of East Anglia. The final set of samples was collected in the Antarctic Ocean from December 2016 to January 2017 by Dr. Allison Fong of the Alfred-Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven, Germany.SamplingWater samples from the Arctic Ocean and South Atlantic Ocean expeditions were collected using 12 L Niskin bottles (Rosette sampler with an attached Sonde (CTD, conductivity, temperature, depth) either at the chlorophyll maximum (10–110 m) and/or upper of the ocean (0–10 m). As soon as the rosette sampler was back on board, water samples were immediately transferred into plastic containers and transported to the laboratory. All samples were accompanied by measurements on salinity, temperature, sampling depth and silicate, nitrate, phosphate concentration (Supplementary Table 1). Water samples were pre-filtered with a 100 μm mesh to remove larger organisms and subsequently filtered onto 1.2 μm polycarbonate filters (Isopore membrane, Millipore, MA, USA). All filters were snap frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at −80 °C until further analysis.Water samples from the North Atlantic Ocean cruise were also taken with 12 L Niskin bottles attached to a Rosette sampler with a Sonde. However, these samples were filtered onto 0.2 μm polycarbonate filters (Isopore membrane, Millipore, MA, USA) without pre-filtration but snap frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at −80 °C as the other samples.Water samples from the Southern Ocean cruise were taken with 12 L Niskin bottles attached to an SBE911plus CTD system equipped with 24 Niskin samplers. These samples were filtered onto 1.2 μm polycarbonate membrane filters (Merck Millipore, Germany) in a container cooled to 4 °C and snap frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at −80 °C as the other samples. Environmental data recorded at the time of sampling can be found in Supplementary Table 1.DNA extractions: Arctic Ocean and South Atlantic Ocean samplesDNA was extracted with the EasyDNA Kit (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA) with modification to optimise DNA quantity and quality. Briefly, cells were washed off the filter with pre-heated (65 °C) Solution A and the supernatant was transferred into a new tube with one small spoon of glass beads (425–600 μm, acid washed) (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA). Samples were vortexed three times in intervals of 3 s to break the cells. RNase A was added to the samples and incubated for 30 min at 65 °C. The supernatant was transferred into a new tube and Solution B was added followed by a chloroform phase separation and an ethanol precipitation step. DNA was pelleted by centrifugation and washed several times with isopropanol, air dried and suspended in 100 μL TE buffer (10 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.5, 1 mM EDTA, pH 8.0). Samples were snap frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at −80 °C until sequencing.DNA extractions: North Atlantic Ocean samplesNorth Atlantic Ocean samples were extracted with the ZR-Duet™DNA/RNA MiniPrep kit (Zymo Research, Irvine, USA) allowing simultaneous extraction of DNA and RNA from one sample filter. Briefly, cells were washed from the filters with DNA/RNA Lysis Buffer and one spoon of glass beads (425–600 μm, Sigma-Aldrich, MO, USA) was added. Samples were vortexed quickly and loaded onto Zymno-Spin™IIIC columns. The columns were washed several times and DNA was eluted in 60 μmL, DNase-free water. Samples were snap frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at −80 °C until sequencing.DNA extractions: Southern Ocean samplesDNA from the Southern Ocean samples was extracted with the NucleoSpin Soil DNA extraction kit (Macherey‐Nagel) following the manufacturer’s instructions. Briefly, cells were washed from the filters with DNA Lysis Buffer and into a lysis tube containing glass beads was added. Samples were disrupted by bead beating for 2 × 30 s interrupted by 1 min cooling on ice and loaded onto the NucleoSpin columns. The columns were washed three times and DNA was eluted in 50 μL, DNase-free water. Samples were stored at −20 °C until further processing.Amplicon sequencing of 16S and 18S rDNAAll extracted DNA samples were sequenced and pre-processed by the Joint Genome Institute (JGI) (Department of Energy, Berkeley, CA, USA). iTAG amplicon sequencing was performed at JGI with primers for the V4 region of the 16S (FW(515F): GTGCCAGCMGCCGCGGTAA; RV(806R): GGACTACNVGGGTWTCTAAT)49 and 18S (FW(565F): CCAGCASCYGCGGTAATTCC; RV(948R): ACTTTCGTTCTTGATYRA)50. (Supplementary Table 6) rRNA gene (on an Illumina MiSeq instrument with a 2 × 300 base pairs (bp) read configuration51. 18S sequences were pre-processed, this consisted of scanning for contamination with the tool Duk (US Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute (JGI), 2017,a) and quality trimming of reads with cutadapt52. Paired end reads were merged using FLASH53 with a max mismatch set to 0.3 and min overlap set to 20. A total of 54 18S samples passed quality control after sequencing. After read trimming, there was an average of 142,693 read pairs per 18S sample with an average length of 367 bp and 2.8 Gb of data over all samples.16S sequences were pre-processed, this consisted of merging the overlapping read pairs using USEARCH’s merge pairs54 with the parameter minimum number of differences (merge max diff pct) set to 15.0 into unpaired consensus sequences. Any reads that could not be merged are discarded. JGI then applied the tool USEARCH’s search oligodb tool with the parameters mean length (len mean) set to 292, length standard deviation (len stdev) set to 20, primer trimmed max difference (primer trim max diffs) set to 3, a list of primers and length filter max difference (len filter max diffs) set to 2.5 to ensure the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) primers were located with the correct direction and inside the expected spacing. Reads that did not pass this quality control step were discarded. With a max expected error rate (max exp err rate) set to 0.02, JGI evaluated the quality score of the reads and those with too many expected errors were discarded. Any identical sequence was de-duplicated. These are then counted and sorted alphabetically for merging with other such files later. A total of 57 × 16S samples passed quality control after sequencing. There was an average 393,247 read pairs per sample and an average base length of 253 bp for each sequence with a total of 5.6 Gb.RNA extractions: Arctic Ocean and Atlantic samplesRNA from the Arctic and Atlantic Ocean samples was extracted using the Direct-zol RNA Miniprep Kit (Zymo Research, USA). Briefly, cells were washed off the filters with Trizol into a tube with one spoon of glass beads (425–600 μm, Sigma-Aldrich, MO, USA). Filters were removed and tubes bead beaten for 3 min. An equal volume of 95% ethanol was added, and the solution was transferred onto Zymo-Spin™ IICR Column and the manufacturer instructions were followed. Samples were treated with DNAse to remove DNA impurities, snap frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at −80 °C until sequencing.RNA extractions: Southern OceanRNA from the Southern Ocean samples was extracted using the QIAGEN RNeasy Plant Mini Kit (QIAGEN, Germany) following the manufacturer’s instructions with on-column DNA digestion. Cells were broken by bead beating like for the DNA extractions before loading samples onto the columns. Elution was performed with 30 µm RNase-free water. Extracted samples were snap frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at −80 °C until sequencing.Metatranscriptome sequencingAll samples were sequenced and pre-processed by the U.S. Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute (JGI). Metatranscriptome sequencing was performed on an Illumina HiSeq-2000 instrument27. A total of 79 samples passed quality control after sequencing with 19.87 Gb of sequence read data over all samples for analysis. This comprised a total of 34,241,890 contigs, with an average length of 503 and an average GC% of 51%. This resulted in 36354419 of non-redundant genes detected.JGI employed their suite of tools called BBTools55 for preprocessing the sequences. First, the sequences were cleaned using Duk a tool in the BBTools suite that performs various data quality procedures such as quality trimming and filtering by kmer matching. In our dataset, Duk identified and removed adaptor sequences, and also quality trimmed the raw reads to a phred score of Q10. In Duk the parameters were; kmer-trim (ktrim) was set to r, kmer (k) was set to 25, shorter kmers (mink) set to 12, quality trimming (qtrim) was set to r, trimming phred (trimq) set to 10, average quality below (maq) set to 10, maximum Ns (maxns) set to 3, minimum read length (minlen) set to 50, the flag “tpe” was set to t, so both reads are trimmed to the same length and the “tbo” flag was set to t, so to trim adaptors based on pair overlap detection. The reads were further filtered to remove process artefacts also using Duk with the kmer (k) parameter set to 16.BBMap55 is another a tool in the BBTools suite, that performs mapping of DNA and RNA reads to a database. BBMap aligns the reads by using a multi-kmer-seed-and-extend approach. To remove ribosomal RNA reads, the reads were aligned against a trimmed version of the SILVA database using BBMap with parameters set to; minratio (minid) set to 0.90, local alignment converter flag (local) set to t and fast flag (fast) set to t. Also, any human reads identified were removed using BBMap.BBmerge56 is a tool in the BBTools suite that performs the merging of overlapping paired end reads (Bushnell, 2017). For assembling the metatranscriptome, the reads were first merged with the tool BBmerge, and then BBNorm was used to normalise the coverage so as to generate a flat coverage distribution. This type of operation can speed up assembly and can even result in an improved assembly quality.Rnnotator52 was employed for assembling the metatranscriptome samples 1–68. Rnnotator assembles the transcripts by using a de novo assembly approach of RNA-Seq data and it accomplishes this without a reference genome52. MEGAHIT57 was employed for assembling the metatranscriptome samples 69–82. The tool BBMap was used for reference mapping, the cleaned reads were mapped to metagenome/isolate reference(s) and the metatranscriptome assembly.Metatranscriptome analysisJGI performed the functional analysis on the metatranscriptomic dataset. JGI’s annotation system is called the Metagenome Annotation Pipeline (MAP) (v4.15.2)27. JGI used HMMER 3.1b258 and the Pfam v3059 database for the functional analysis of our metatranscriptomic dataset. This resulted in 11,205,641 genes assigned to one or more Pfam domain. This resulted in 8379 Pfam functional assignments and their gene counts across the 79 samples. The files were further normalised by applying hits per million.18S rDNA analysisA reference dataset of 18S rRNA gene sequences that represent algae taxa was compiled for the construction of the phylogenetic tree by retrieving sequences of algae and outgroups taxa from the SILVA database (SSUREF 115)60 and Marine Microbial Eukaryote Transcriptome Sequencing Project (MMETSP) database61. The algae reference database consists of 1636 species from the following groups: Opisthokonta, Cryptophyta, Glaucocystophyceae, Rhizaria, Stramenopiles, Haptophyceae, Viridiplantae, Alveolata, Amoebozoa and Rhodophyta. A diagram of the 18S classification pipeline can be found in Supplementary Fig. 1. In order to construct the algae 18S reference database, we first retrieved all eukaryotic species from the SILVA database with a sequence length of  > = 1500 base pairs (bp) and converted all base letters of U to T. Under each genus, we took the first species to represent that genus. Using a custom written script (https://github.com/SeaOfChange/SOC/blob/master/get_ref_seqs.pl), the species of interest (as stated above) were selected from the SILVA database, classified with NCBI taxa IDs and a sequence information file produced that describes each of the algae sequences by their sequence ID and NCBI species ID. Taxonomy from the NCBI database, eukaryote sequences from the SILVA database and a list of algal taxa including outgroups were used as input for the script. This information was combined with the MMETSP database excluding duplications.The algae reference database was clustered to remove closely related sequences with CD-HIT (4.6.1)62 using a similarity threshold of 97%. Using ClustalW (2.1)63 we aligned the reference sequences with the addition of the parameter iteration numbers set to 5. The alignment was examined by colour coding each species to their groups and visualising in iTOL64. It was observed that a few species were misaligning to other groups and these were then deleted using Jalview65. The resulting alignment was tidied up with TrimAL (1.1)66 by applying parameters to delete any positions in the alignment that have gaps in 10% or more of the sequence, except if this results in less than 60% of the sequence remaining. A maximum likelihood phylogenetic reference tree and statistics file based on our algae reference alignment was constructed by employing RaxML (8.0.20)67 with a general time reversible model of nucleotide substitution along with the GAMMA model of rate heterogeneity. For a description of the lineages of all species back to the root in the algae reference database, the taxa IDs were submitted for each species to extract a subset of the NCBI taxonomy with the NCBI taxtastic tool (0.8.4)68 Based on the algae reference multiple sequence alignment, with HMMER3 (3.1B1)69 a Profile HMM was created. A pplacer reference package using taxtastic was generated, which produced an organized collection of all the files and taxonomic information into one directory. With the reference package, a SQLite database was created using pplacer’s Reference Package PReparer (rppr). With hmmalign, the query sequences were aligned to the reference set and created a combined Stockholm format alignment. Pplacer (re-aligned to the reference set and created a combined Stockholm format alignment. Pplacer (1.1)70 was used to place the query sequences on the phylogenetic reference tree by means of the reference alignment according to a maximum likelihood model70 The place files were converted to CSV with pplacer’s guppy tool; in order to easily take those with a maximum likelihood score of  > = 0.5 and counted the number of reads assigned to each classification. This resulted in 6,053,291 reads that were taxonomically assigned being taken for analysis.Normalisation of 18S rDNA gene copy number18S rDNA gene copy number vary widely among eukaryotes. In order to create an estimate of abundances of the species in the samples the data had to be normalised. Previous work has explored the link between copy number and genome size71. However, there is not a single database of 18S rDNA gene copy numbers for eukaryote species. In order to address this, gene copy number and related genome sizes of 185 species across the eukaryote tree was investigated and plotted (Supplementary Fig. 2, Supplementary Table 4)68,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79. Based on the log transformed data, a significant correlation with a R2 of 0.55 with a p-value  More