Ecology

1.Gause, G. F. & Witt, A. A. Behavior of mixed populations and the problem of natural selection. Am. Nat. 69, 596–609 (1935).Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Hairston, N. G., Smith, F. E. & Slobodkin, L. B. Community structure, population control, and competition. Am. Nat. 94, 421–425 (1960).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Ayala, F. J. Experimental invalidation of the principle of competitive exclusion. Nature 224, 1076–1079 (1969).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Bengtsson, J. Interspecific competition increases local extinction rate in a metapopulation system. Nature 340, 713–715 (1989).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Bolnick, D. I. Intraspecific competition favours niche width expansion in Drosophila melanogaster. Nature 410, 463–466 (2001).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Collins, S. Competition limits adaptation and productivity in a photosynthetic alga at elevated CO2. Proc. Biol. Sci. 278, 247–255 (2011).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
7.Osmond, M. M. & de Mazancourt, C. How competition affects evolutionary rescue. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 368, 20120085 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Birch, L. C. Selection in Drosophila pseudoobscura in relation to crowding. Evolution 9, 389–399 (1955).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Martin, M. J., Perez-Tome, J. M. & Toro, M. A. Competition and genotypic variability in Drosophila melanogaster. Heredity 60, 119–123 (1988).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Harvey, J. A., Poelman, E. H. & Tanaka, T. Intrinsic inter- and intraspecific competition in parasitoid wasps. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 58, 333–351 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Pennacchio, F. & Strand, M. R. Evolution of developmental strategies in parasitic hymenoptera. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 51, 233–258 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Van Alphen, J. J. & Visser, M. E. Superparasitism as an adaptive strategy for insect parasitoids. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 35, 59–79 (1990).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Varaldi, J. et al. Infectious behavior in a parasitoid. Science 302, 1930–1930 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Dorn, S. & Beckage, N. E. Superparasitism in gregarious hymenopteran parasitoids: ecological, behavioural and physiological perspectives. Physiol. Entomol. 32, 199–211 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Gandon, S., Rivero, A. & Varaldi, J. Superparasitism evolution: adaptation or manipulation? Am. Nat. 167, E1–E22 (2006).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Speirs, D. C., Sherratt, T. N. & Hubbard, S. F. Parasitoid diets: does superparasitism pay? Trends Ecol. Evol. 6, 22–25 (1991).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Tracy Reynolds, K. & Hardy, I. C. Superparasitism: a non-adaptive strategy? Trends Ecol. Evol. 19, 347–348 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Pan, M., Liu, T. & Nansen, C. Avoidance of parasitized host by female wasps of Aphidius gifuensis (Hymenoptera: Braconidae): the role of natal rearing effects and host availability? Insect Sci. 25, 1035–1044 (2018).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Potting, R. P. J., Snellen, H. M. & Vet, L. E. M. Fitness consequences of superparasitism and mechanism of host discrimination in the stem borer parasitoid Cotesia flavipes. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 82, 341–348 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Mackauer, B. B. Influence of superparasitism on development rate and adult size in a solitary parasitoid wasp, Aphidius ervi. Funct. Ecol. 6, 302–307 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Keasar, T. et al. Costs and consequences of superparasitism in the polyembryonic parasitoid Copidosoma koehleri (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae). Ecol. Entomol. 31, 277–283 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Silva-Torres, C. S. A., Ramos, I. T., Torres, J. B. & Barros, R. Superparasitism and host size effects in Oomyzus sokolowskii, a parasitoid of diamondback moth. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 133, 65–73 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Wylie, H. G. Delayed development of Microctonus vittatae (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) in superparasitized adults of Phyllotreta cruciferae (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Can. Entomol. 115, 441–442 (1983).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.White, J. A. & Andow, D. A. Benefits of self-superparasitism in a polyembryonic parasitoid. Biol. Control 46, 133–139 (2008).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Yamada, Y. Y. & Sugaura, K. Evidence for adaptive self-superparasitism in the dryinid parasitoid Haplogonatopus atratus when conspecifics are present. Oikos 103, 175–181 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Varaldi, J., Fouillet, P., Bouletreau, M. & Fleury, F. Superparasitism acceptance and patch-leaving mechanisms in parasitoids: a comparison between two sympatric wasps. Anim. Behav. 69, 1227–1234 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Varaldi, J., Patot, S., Nardin, M. & Gandon, S. A virus-shaping reproductive strategy in a Drosophila parasitoid. Adv. Parasitol. 70, 333–363 (2009).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Carton, Y., Bouletreau, M., van Alphen, J. J. M. & van Lenteren, J. C. The Drosophila parasitic wasps. in The Genetics and Biology of Drosophila (eds Ashburner, M., Carson, H. L. & Thompson, J. N.) 347–394 (Academic Press, 1986).29.Kacsoh, B. Z., Lynch, Z. R., Mortimer, N. T. & Schlenke, T. A. Fruit flies medicate offspring after seeing parasites. Science 339, 947–950 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Krzemien, J. et al. Control of blood cell homeostasis in Drosophila larvae by the posterior signalling centre. Nature 446, 325–328 (2007).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Kraaijeveld, A. R. & Godfray, H. C. Trade-off between parasitoid resistance and larval competitive ability in Drosophila melanogaster. Nature 389, 278–280 (1997).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Hwang, R. Y. et al. Nociceptive neurons protect Drosophila larvae from parasitoid wasps. Curr. Biol. 17, 2105–2116 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Mortimer, N. T. et al. Parasitoid wasp venom SERCA regulates Drosophila calcium levels and inhibits cellular immunity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 9427–9432 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Huang, J. et al. Two novel venom proteins underlie divergent parasitic strategies between a generalist and a specialist parasite. Nat. Commun. 12, 234 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Martinson, E. O., Mrinalini, Kelkar, Y. D., Chang, C. H. & Werren, J. H. The evolution of venom by co-option of single-copy genes. Curr. Biol. 27, 2007–2013 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Jaffe, A. B. & Hall, A. Rho GTPases: biochemistry and biology. Annu. Rev. Cell. Dev. Biol. 21, 247–269 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Moon, S. Y. & Zheng, Y. Rho GTPase-activating proteins in cell regulation. Trends Cell Biol. 13, 13–22 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Xu, J. et al. RhoGAPs attenuate cell proliferation by direct interaction with p53 tetramerization domain. Cell Rep. 3, 1526–1538 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
39.Hinge, A. et al. p190-B RhoGAP and intracellular cytokine signals balance hematopoietic stem and progenitor cell self-renewal and differentiation. Nat. Commun. 8, 14382 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Werner, E. GTPases and reactive oxygen species: switches for killing and signaling. J. Cell Sci. 117, 143–153 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Bailey, A. P. et al. Antioxidant role for lipid droplets in a stem cell niche of Drosophila. Cell 163, 340–353 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Boguski, M. S. & McCormick, F. Proteins regulating Ras and its relatives. Nature 366, 643–654 (1993).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Rittinger, K. et al. Crystal structure of a small G protein in complex with the GTPase-activating protein rhoGAP. Nature 388, 693–697 (1997).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Simanshu, D. K., Nissley, D. V. & McCormick, F. RAS proteins and their regulators in human disease. Cell 170, 17–33 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Outreman, Y., Le Ralec, A., Plantegenest, M., Chaubet, B. & Pierre, J. S. Superparasitism limitation in an aphid parasitoid: cornicle secretion avoidance and host discrimination ability. J. Insect Physiol. 47, 339–348 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Hofsvang, T. Discrimination between unparasitized and parasitized hosts in hymenopterous parasitoids. Acta Entomol. Bohemosl 87, 161–175 (1990).
Google Scholar 
47.van Lenteren, J. C. in Semiochemicals: Their Role in Pest Control (eds Nordlund, D. A., Jones, R. L. & Lewis, W. J.) 153–179 (Wiley and Sons, 1981).48.Ganesalingam, V. K. Mechanism of discrimination between parasitized and unparasitized hosts by Venturia canescens (hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae). Entomol. Exp. Appl. 17, 36–44 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Hoffmeister, T. S. & Roitberg, B. D. To mark the host or the patch: decisions of a parasitoid searching for concealed host larvae. Evol. Ecol. 11, 145–168 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Agboka, K. et al. Self-, intra-, and interspecific host discrimination in Telenomus busseolae Gahan and T. isis Polaszek (Hymenoptera: Scelionidae), sympatric egg parasitoids of the African cereal stem borer Sesamia calamistis Hampson (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. Insect Behav. 15, 1–12 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Liang, Q., Jia, Y. & Liu, T. Self- and conspecific discrimination between unparasitized and parasitized green peach aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae), by Aphelinus asychis (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 110, 430–437 (2017).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
52.Gandon, S., Varaldi, J., Fleury, F. & Rivero, A. Evolution and manipulation of parasitoid egg load. Evolution 63, 2974–2984 (2009).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Hughes, D. P. & Libersat, F. Neuroparasitology of parasite-insect associations. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 63, 471–487 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Sberro, H. et al. Large-scale analyses of human microbiomes reveal thousands of small, novel genes. Cell 178, 1245–1259 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Zuzarte-Luis, V. & Mota, M. M. Parasite sensing of host nutrients and environmental cues. Cell Host Microbe 23, 749–758 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Cox, F. E. G. Parasites affect behavior of mice. Nature 294, 515–515 (1981).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Elya, C. et al. Robust manipulation of the behavior of Drosophila melanogaster by a fungal pathogen in the laboratory. eLife 7, e34414 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Hoover, K. et al. A gene for an extended phenotype. Science 333, 1401–140 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Mcallister, M. K. & Roitberg, B. D. Adaptive suicidal-behavior in pea aphids. Nature 328, 797–799 (1987).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Maure, F., Brodeur, J., Droit, A., Doyon, J. & Thomas, F. Bodyguard manipulation in a multipredator context: different processes, same effect. Behav. Process. 99, 81–86 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Mohan, P. & Sinu, P. A. Parasitoid wasp usurps its host to guard its pupa against hyperparasitoids and induces rapid behavioral changes in the parasitized host. PLoS ONE 12, e0178108 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
62.Muller, C. B. & Schmidhempel, P. Exploitation of cold temperature as defense against parasitoids in bumblebees. Nature 363, 65–67 (1993).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Noubade, R. et al. NRROS negatively regulates reactive oxygen species during host defence and autoimmunity. Nature 509, 235–239 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Louradour, I. et al. Reactive oxygen species-dependent Toll/NF-κB activation in the Drosophila hematopoietic niche confers resistance to wasp parasitism. eLife 6, e25496 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Sinenko, S. A., Shim, J. & Banerjee, U. Oxidative stress in the haematopoietic niche regulates the cellular immune response in. Drosoph. EMBO Rep. 13, 83–89 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Wang, Y. et al. Superoxide dismutases: dual roles in controlling ROS damage and regulating ROS signaling. J. Cell Biol. 217, 1915–1928 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Colinet, D. et al. Extracellular superoxide dismutase in insects: characterization, function, and interspecific variation in parasitoid wasp venom. J. Biol. Chem. 286, 40110–40121 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Colinet, D. et al. Extensive inter- and intraspecific venom variation in closely related parasites targeting the same host: the case of Leptopilina parasitoids of Drosophila. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 43, 601–611 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Carton, Y., Frey, F. & Nappi, A. Genetic determinism of the cellular immune reaction in Drosophila melanogaster. Heredity 69, 393–399 (1992).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Colinet, D., Schmitz, A., Depoix, D., Crochard, D. & Poirie, M. Convergent use of RhoGAP toxins by eukaryotic parasites and bacterial pathogens. PLoS Pathog. 3, 2029–2037 (2007).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Colinet, D. et al. The origin of intraspecific variation of virulence in an eukaryotic immune suppressive parasite. PLoS Pathog. 6, e1001206 (2010).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
72.Schlenke, T. A., Morales, J., Govind, S. & Clark, A. G. Contrasting infection strategies in generalist and specialist wasp parasitoids of Drosophila melanogaster. PLoS Pathog. 3, 1486–1501 (2007).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
73.Anderl, I. et al. Transdifferentiation and proliferation in two distinct hemocyte lineages in Drosophila melanogaster larvae after wasp infection. PLoS Pathog. 12, e1005746 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
74.Forbes, A. A. et al. Revisiting the particular role of host shifts in initiating insect speciation. Evolution 71, 1126–1137 (2017).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
75.Allio, R. et al. Genome-wide macroevolutionary signatures of key innovations in butterflies colonizing new host plants. Nat. Commun. 12, 354 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
76.Araújo, M. S., Bolnick, D. I. & Layman, C. A. The ecological causes of individual specialisation. Ecol. Lett. 14, 948–958 (2011).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
77.Svanbäck, R. & Bolnick, D. I. Intraspecific competition drives increased resource use diversity within a natural population. P. Roy. Soc. B-Biol. Sci. 274, 839–844 (2007).
Google Scholar 
78.Laskowski, K. L. & Bell, A. M. Competition avoidance drives individual differences in response to a changing food resource in sticklebacks. Ecol. Lett. 16, 746–753 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
79.Huang, J., Reilein, A. & Kalderon, D. Yorkie and Hedgehog independently restrict BMP production in escort cells to permit germline differentiation in the Drosophila ovary. Development 144, 2584–2594 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
80.Marçais, G. & Kingsford, C. A fast, lock-free approach for efficient parallel counting of occurrences of k-mers. Bioinformatics 27, 764–770 (2011).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
81.Koren, S. et al. Canu: scalable and accurate long-read assembly via adaptive k-mer weighting and repeat separation. Genome Res. 27, 722–736 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
82.Kolmogorov, M., Yuan, J., Lin, Y. & Pevzner, P. A. Assembly of long, error-prone reads using repeat graphs. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 540–546 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
83.Walker, B. J. et al. Pilon: an integrated tool for comprehensive microbial variant detection and genome assembly improvement. PLoS ONE 9, e112963 (2014).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
84.Parra, G., Bradnam, K. & Korf, I. CEGMA: a pipeline to accurately annotate core genes in eukaryotic genomes. Bioinformatics 23, 1061–1067 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
85.Waterhouse, R. M. et al. BUSCO applications from quality assessments to gene prediction and phylogenomics. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 35, 543–548 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
86.Jurka, J. et al. Repbase Update, a database of eukaryotic repetitive elements. Cytogenet Genome Res. 110, 462–467 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
87.Cantarel, B. L. et al. MAKER: an easy-to-use annotation pipeline designed for emerging model organism genomes. Genome Res. 18, 188–196 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
88.Li, H. Minimap2: pairwise alignment for nucleotide sequences. Bioinformatics 34, 3094–3100 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
89.Kim, D., Langmead, B. & Salzberg, S. L. HISAT: a fast spliced aligner with low memory requirements. Nat. Methods 12, 357–360 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
90.Pertea, M. et al. StringTie enables improved reconstruction of a transcriptome from RNA-seq reads. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 290–295 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
91.Werren, J. H. et al. Functional and evolutionary insights from the genomes of three parasitoid Nasonia species. Science 327, 343–348 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
92.Consortium, H. G. S. Insights into social insects from the genome of the honeybee Apis mellifera. Nature 443, 931–949 (2006).ADS 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
93.Geib, S. M., Liang, G. H., Murphy, T. D. & Sim, S. B. Whole genome sequencing of the braconid parasitoid wasp Fopius arisanus, an important biocontrol agent of pest tepritid fruit flies. G3-Genes Genom. Genet. 7, 2407–2411 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
94.Standage, D. S. et al. Genome, transcriptome and methylome sequencing of a primitively eusocial wasp reveal a greatly reduced DNA methylation system in a social insect. Mol. Ecol. 25, 1769–1784 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
95.Lindsey, A. R. et al. Comparative genomics of the miniature wasp and pest control agent Trichogramma pretiosum. BMC Biol. 16, 54 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
96.Stanke, M. et al. AUGUSTUS: ab initio prediction of alternative transcripts. Nucleic Acids Res. 34, W435–W439 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
97.Korf, I. Gene finding in novel genomes. BMC Biol. 5, 59 (2004).
Google Scholar 
98.Marchler-Bauer, A. et al. CDD: NCBI’s conserved domain database. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, D222–D226 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
99.Hunter, S. et al. InterPro: the integrative protein signature database. Nucleic Acids Res. 37, D211–D215 (2008).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
100.Patro, R., Duggal, G., Love, M. I., Irizarry, R. A. & Kingsford, C. Salmon provides fast and bias-aware quantification of transcript expression. Nat. Methods 14, 417–419 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
101.Corpet, F. Multiple sequence alignment with hierarchical clustering. Nucleic Acids Res. 16, 10881–10890 (1988).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
102.Stamatakis, A. RAxML version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics 30, 1312–1313 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
103.Birney, E., Clamp, M. & Durbin, R. GeneWise and genomewise. Genome Res. 14, 988–995 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
104.Livak, K. J. & Schmittgen, T. D. Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2(-Delta Delta C (T)) method. Methods 25, 402–408 (2001).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
105.Zhang, X. S., Wang, T., Lin, X. W., Denlinger, D. L. & Xu, W. H. Reactive oxygen species extend insect life span using components of the insulin-signaling pathway. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 7832–7840 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar  More

1.Milner AM, Khamis K, Battin TJ, Brittain JE, Barrand NE, Füreder L, et al. Glacier shrinkage driving global changes in downstream systems. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA. 2017;114:9770.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
2.Battin TJ, Wille A, Sattler B, Psenner R. Phylogenetic and functional heterogeneity of sediment biofilms along environmental gradients in a glacial stream. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2001;67:799–807.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
3.Wilhelm L, Singer GA, Fasching C, Battin TJ, Besemer K. Microbial biodiversity in glacier-fed streams. ISME J. 2013;7:1651.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
4.Ren Z, Gao H, Elser JJ, Zhao Q. Microbial functional genes elucidate environmental drivers of biofilm metabolism in glacier-fed streams. Sci Rep. 2017;7:12668.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
5.Dini-Andreote F, Stegen JC, van Elsas JD, Salles JF. Disentangling mechanisms that mediate the balance between stochastic and deterministic processes in microbial succession. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA. 2015;112:1326.
Google Scholar 
6.Stegen JC, Lin X, Fredrickson JK, Chen X, Kennedy DW, Murray CJ, et al. Quantifying community assembly processes and identifying features that impose them. ISME J. 2013;7:2069–79.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
7.Stegen JC, Lin X, Fredrickson JK, Konopka AE. Estimating and mapping ecological processes influencing microbial community assembly. Front Microbiol. 2015;6:370.8.Allen R, Hoffmann LJ, Larcombe MJ, Louisson Z, Summerfield TC. Homogeneous environmental selection dominates microbial community assembly in the oligotrophic South Pacific Gyre. Mol Ecol. 2020;29:4680–91.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
9.Li Y, Gao Y, Zhang W, Wang C, Wang P, Niu L, et al. Homogeneous selection dominates the microbial community assembly in the sediment of the Three Gorges Reservoir. Sci Tot Environ. 2019;690:50–60.CAS 

Google Scholar 
10.Zhang K, Shi Y, Cui X, Yue P, Li K, Liu X, et al. Salinity is a key determinant for soil microbial communities in a desert ecosystem. mSystems. 2019;4:e00225–18.11.Thrash CJ, Temperton B, Swan BK, Landry ZC, Woyke T, DeLong EF, et al. Single-cell enabled comparative genomics of a deep ocean SAR11 bathytype. ISME J. 2014;8:1440–51.PubMed 

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

Google Scholar 
13.Kent AG, Baer SE, Mouginot C, Huang JS, Larkin AA, Lomas MW, et al. Parallel phylogeography of Prochlorococcus and Synechococcus. ISME J. 2019;13:430–41.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
14.Brown MV, Furham JA. Marine bacterial microdiversity as revealed by internal transcribed spacer analysis. Aquat Microb Ecol. 2005;41:15–23.
Google Scholar 
15.Scanlan DJ, Ostrowski M, Mazard S, Dufresne A, Garczarek L, Hess WR, et al. Ecological genomics of marine picocyanobacteria. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2009;73:249.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
16.Yung C-M, Vereen MK, Herbert A, Davis KM, Yang J, Kantorowska A, et al. Thermally adaptive tradeoffs in closely related marine bacterial strains. Environ Microbiol. 2015;17:2421–9.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
17.Props R, Denef VJ. Temperature and nutrient levels correspond with lineage-specific microdiversification in the ubiquitous and abundant freshwater genus. Limnohabitans Appl Environ Microbiol. 2020;86:e00140–00120.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
18.Chase AB, Karaoz U, Brodie EL, Gomez-Lunar Z, Martiny AC, Martiny JBH. Microdiversity of an abundant terrestrial bacterium encompasses extensive variation in ecologically relevant traits. mBio. 2017;8:e01809–17.19.Choudoir MJ, Buckley DH. Phylogenetic conservatism of thermal traits explains dispersal limitation and genomic differentiation of Streptomyces sister-taxa. ISME J. 2018;12:2176–86.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

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

Google Scholar 
21.Cohan FM, Koeppel AF. The origins of ecological diversity in prokaryotes. Curr Biol. 2008;18:R1024–34.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
22.Larkin AA, Martiny AC. Microdiversity shapes the traits, niche space, and biogeography of microbial taxa. Environ Microbiol Rep. 2017;9:55–70.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
23.Fodelianakis S, Lorz A, Valenzuela-Cuevas A, Barozzi A, Booth JM, Daffonchio D. Dispersal homogenizes communities via immigration even at low rates in a simplified synthetic bacterial metacommunity. Nat Commun. 2019;10:1314.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
24.Duarte CM, Røstad A, Michoud G, Barozzi A, Merlino G, Delgado-Huertas A, et al. Discovery of Afifi, the shallowest and southernmost brine pool reported in the Red Sea. Sci Rep. 2020;10:910.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
25.Kohler TJ, Peter H, Fodelianakis S, Pramateftaki P, Styllas M, Tolosano M, et al. Patterns and drivers of extracellular enzyme activity in New Zealand glacier-fed streams. Front Microbiol. 2020;11:2922.
Google Scholar 
26.Amalfitano S, Fazi S. Recovery and quantification of bacterial cells associated with streambed sediments. J Microbiol Methods. 2008;75:237–43.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
27.Hammes F, Berney M, Wang Y, Vital M, Köster O, Egli T. Flow-cytometric total bacterial cell counts as a descriptive microbiological parameter for drinking water treatment processes. Water Res. 2008;42:269–77.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
28.Busi SB, Pramateftaki P, Brandani J, Fodelianakis S, Peter H, Halder R, et al. Optimised biomolecular extraction for metagenomic analysis of microbial biofilms from high-mountain streams. PeerJ. 2020;8:e9973.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
29.Klindworth A, Pruesse E, Schweer T, Peplies J, Quast C, Horn M, et al. Evaluation of general 16S ribosomal RNA gene PCR primers for classical and next-generation sequencing-based diversity studies. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41:e1.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
30.Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics. 2014;30:2114–20.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

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

Google Scholar 
32.Callahan BJ, McMurdie PJ, Rosen MJ, Han AW, Johnson AJA, Holmes SP. DADA2: High-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat Meth. 2016;13:581–3.CAS 

Google Scholar 
33.Props R, Kerckhof F-M, Rubbens P, De Vrieze J, Hernandez-Sanabria E, Waegeman W, et al. Absolute quantification of microbial taxon abundances. ISME J. 2017;11:584–7.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
34.Bokulich NA, Kaehler BD, Rideout JR, Dillon M, Bolyen E, Knight R, et al. Optimizing taxonomic classification of marker-gene amplicon sequences with QIIME 2’s q2-feature-classifier plugin. Microbiome. 2018;6:90.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
35.DeSantis TZ, Hugenholtz P, Larsen N, Rojas M, Brodie EL, Keller K, et al. Greengenes, a chimera-checked 16S rRNA gene database and workbench compatible with ARB. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006;72:5069–72.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
36.Singer E, Bushnell B, Coleman-Derr D, Bowman B, Bowers RM, Levy A, et al. High-resolution phylogenetic microbial community profiling. ISME J. 2016;10:2020–32.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
37.Katoh K, Standley DM. MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: improvements in performance and usability. Mol Biol Evol. 2013;30:772–80.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
38.Stamatakis A. RAxML version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics. 2014;30:1312–3.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
39.Sievers F, Wilm A, Dineen D, Gibson TJ, Karplus K, Li W, et al. Fast, scalable generation of high-quality protein multiple sequence alignments using Clustal Omega. Mol Syst Biol. 2011;7:539–9.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
40.Foster ZSL, Sharpton TJ, Grünwald NJ. Metacoder: an R package for visualization and manipulation of community taxonomic diversity data. PLOS Comput Biol. 2017;13:e1005404.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
41.R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2014.42.Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Friendly M, Kindt R, Legendre P, McGlinn D, et al. vegan: Community ecology package. R package version 2.5-7. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan.43.Fodelianakis S, Moustakas A, Papageorgiou N, Manoli O, Tsikopoulou I, Michoud G, et al. Modified niche optima and breadths explain the historical contingency of bacterial community responses to eutrophication in coastal sediments. Mol Ecol. 2017;26:2006–18.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
44.Kembel SW, Cowan PD, Helmus MR, Cornwell WK, Morlon H, Ackerly DD, et al. Picante: R tools for integrating phylogenies and ecology. Bioinformatics. 2010;26:1463–4.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
45.Washburne AD, Silverman JD, Leff JW, Bennett DJ, Darcy JL, Mukherjee S, et al. Phylogenetic factorization of compositional data yields lineage-level associations in microbiome datasets. PeerJ. 2017;5:e2969.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
46.Washburne AD, Silverman JD, Morton JT, Becker DJ, Crowley D, Mukherjee S, et al. Phylofactorization: a graph partitioning algorithm to identify phylogenetic scales of ecological data. Ecol Monogr. 2019;89:e01353.
Google Scholar 
47.Gawor J, Grzesiak J, Sasin-Kurowska J, Borsuk P, Gromadka R, Górniak D, et al. Evidence of adaptation, niche separation and microevolution within the genus Polaromonas on Arctic and Antarctic glacial surfaces. Extremophiles. 2016;20:403–13.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
48.Sohm JA, Ahlgren NA, Thomson ZJ, Williams C, Moffett JW, Saito MA, et al. Co-occurring Synechococcus ecotypes occupy four major oceanic regimes defined by temperature, macronutrients and iron. ISME J. 2016;10:333–45.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
49.Tromas N, Taranu ZE, Castelli M, Pimentel JSM, Pereira DA, Marcoz R, et al. The evolution of realized niches within freshwater. Synechococcus Environ Microbiol. 2020;22:1238–50.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
50.Paradis E, Schliep K. ape 5.0: an environment for modern phylogenetics and evolutionary analyses in R. Bioinformatics. 2019;35:526–8.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
51.Cerqueira T, Barroso C, Froufe H, Egas C, Bettencourt R. Metagenomic signatures of microbial communities in deep-sea hydrothermal sediments of Azores Vent Fields. Microb Ecol. 2018;76:387–403.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
52.Osburn MR, LaRowe DE, Momper LM, Amend JP. Chemolithotrophy in the continental deep subsurface: Sanford underground research facility (SURF), USA. Front Microbiol. 2014;5:610.53.Tran P, Ramachandran A, Khawasik O, Beisner BE, Rautio M, Huot Y, et al. Microbial life under ice: Metagenome diversity and in situ activity of Verrucomicrobia in seasonally ice-covered Lakes. Environ Microbiol. 2018;20:2568–84.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
54.Vick-Majors TJ, Priscu JC, Amaral-Zettler LA. Modular community structure suggests metabolic plasticity during the transition to polar night in ice-covered Antarctic lakes. ISME J. 2014;8:778–89.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
55.Darcy JL, Lynch RC, King AJ, Robeson MS, Schmidt SK. Global distribution of Polaromonas phylotypes – evidence for a highly successful dispersal capacity. PloS ONE. 2011;6:e23742.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
56.Smith HJ, Foreman CM, Ramaraj T. Draft genome sequence of a metabolically diverse Antarctic supraglacial stream organism, Polaromonas sp. strain CG9_12, determined using Pacific Biosciences single-molecule real-time sequencing technology. Genome Announc. 2014;2:e01242–01214.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
57.Rime T, Hartmann M, Frey B. Potential sources of microbial colonizers in an initial soil ecosystem after retreat of an alpine glacier. ISME J. 2016;10:1625–41.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
58.Liu Q, Zhou Y-G, Xin Y-H. High diversity and distinctive community structure of bacteria on glaciers in China revealed by 454 pyrosequencing. Syst Appl Microbiol. 2015;38:578–85.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
59.Kalyuzhnaya MG, Bowerman S, Lara JC, Lidstrom ME, Chistoserdova L. Methylotenera mobilis gen. nov., sp. nov., an obligately methylamine-utilizing bacterium within the family Methylophilaceae. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2006;56:2819–23.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
60.Kane SR, Chakicherla AY, Chain PSG, Schmidt R, Shin MW, Legler TC, et al. Whole-genome analysis of the methyl tert-butyl ether-degrading Beta-Proteobacterium Methylibium petroleiphilum PM1. J Bacteriol. 2007;189:1931.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
61.Martineau C, Mauffrey F, Villemur R, Müller V. Comparative analysis of denitrifying activities of Hyphomicrobium nitrativorans, Hyphomicrobium denitrificans, and Hyphomicrobium zavarzinii. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2015;81:5003–14.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
62.Dieser M, Broemsen ELJE, Cameron KA, King GM, Achberger A, Choquette K, et al. Molecular and biogeochemical evidence for methane cycling beneath the western margin of the Greenland Ice Sheet. ISME J. 2014;8:2305–16.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
63.Michaud AB, Dore JE, Achberger AM, Christner BC, Mitchell AC, Skidmore ML, et al. Microbial oxidation as a methane sink beneath the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Nat Geosci. 2017;10:582–6.CAS 

Google Scholar 
64.Bendall ML, Stevens SLR, Chan L-K, Malfatti S, Schwientek P, Tremblay J, et al. Genome-wide selective sweeps and gene-specific sweeps in natural bacterial populations. ISME J. 2016;10:1589–601.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
65.Baker JM, Riester CJ, Skinner BM, Newell AW, Swingley WD, Madigan MT, et al. Genome sequence of Rhodoferax antarcticus ANT.BRT; a psychrophilic purple nonsulfur bacterium from an Antarctic microbial mat. Microorganisms. 2017;5:8.66.Crisafi F, Giuliano L, Yakimov MM, Azzaro M, Denaro R. Isolation and degradation potential of a cold-adapted oil/PAH-degrading marine bacterial consortium from Kongsfjorden (Arctic region). Rendiconti Lincei. 2016;27:261–70.
Google Scholar 
67.Zhong Z-P, Solonenko NE, Gazitúa MC, Kenny DV, Mosley-Thompson E, Rich VI, et al. Clean low-biomass procedures and their application to ancient ice core microorganisms. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:1094.68.Bai Y, Huang X, Zhou X, Xiang Q, Zhao K, Yu X, et al. Variation in denitrifying bacterial communities along a primary succession in the Hailuogou Glacier retreat area, China. PeerJ. 2019;7:e7356.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
69.Garcia-Lopez E, Rodriguez-Lorente I, Alcazar P, Cid C. Microbial communities in coastal glaciers and tidewater tongues of Svalbard archipelago, Norway. Front Mar Sci. 2019;5:512.70.Liu S, Wang H, Chen L, Wang J, Zheng M, Liu S, et al. Comammox Nitrospira within the Yangtze River continuum: community, biogeography, and ecological drivers. ISME J. 2020;14:2488–504.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
71.Harrold ZR, Skidmore ML, Hamilton TL, Desch L, Amada K, van Gelder W, et al. Aerobic and anaerobic thiosulfate oxidation by a cold-adapted, subglacial chemoautotroph. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2016;82:1486–95.CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
72.Franzetti A, Pittino F, Gandolfi I, Azzoni RS, Diolaiuti G, Smiraglia C, et al. Early ecological succession patterns of bacterial, fungal and plant communities along a chronosequence in a recently deglaciated area of the Italian Alps. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2020;96:10.73.Kohler TJ, Van Horn DJ, Darling JP, Takacs-Vesbach CD, McKnight DM. Nutrient treatments alter microbial mat colonization in two glacial meltwater streams from the McMurdo Dry Valleys, Antarctica. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2016;92:4.
Google Scholar 
74.Sawayama M, Suzuki T, Hashimoto H, Kasai T, Furutani M, Miyata N, et al. Isolation of a Leptothrix strain, OUMS1, from ocherous deposits in groundwater. Cur Microbiol. 2011;63:173–80.CAS 

Google Scholar 
75.Li Y, Cha Q-Q, Dang Y-R, Chen X-L, Wang M, McMinn A, et al. Reconstruction of the functional ecosystem in the high light, low temperature union glacier region, Antarctica. Front Microbiol. 2019;10.76.Cauvy-Fraunié S, Dangles O. A global synthesis of biodiversity responses to glacier retreat. Nat Ecol Evol. 2019;3:1675–85.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
77.Jorquera MA, Graether SP, Maruyama F. Editorial: bioprospecting and biotechnology of extremophiles. Front Bioeng Biotech. 2019;7:204.
Google Scholar 
78.Thompson JR, Pacocha S, Pharino C, Klepac-Ceraj V, Hunt DE, Benoit J, et al. Genotypic diversity within a natural coastal bacterioplankton population. Science. 2005;307:1311.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
79.Chase AB, Gomez-Lunar Z, Lopez AE, Li J, Allison SD, Martiny AC, et al. Emergence of soil bacterial ecotypes along a climate gradient. Environ Microbiol. 2018;11:4112–26.
Google Scholar 
80.Chafee M, Fernàndez-Guerra A, Buttigieg PL, Gerdts G, Eren AM, Teeling H, et al. Recurrent patterns of microdiversity in a temperate coastal marine environment. ISME J. 2018;12:237–52.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
81.Needham DM, Sachdeva R, Fuhrman JA. Ecological dynamics and co-occurrence among marine phytoplankton, bacteria and myoviruses shows microdiversity matters. ISME J. 2017;11:1614–29.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
82.Garcia-Garcia N, Tamames J, Linz AM, Pedros-Alio C, Puente-Sanchez F. Microdiversity ensures the maintenance of functional microbial communities under changing environmental conditions. ISME J. 2019;13:2969–83.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
83.Becraft ED, Wood JM, Rusch DB, Kühl M, Jensen SI, Bryant DA, et al. The molecular dimension of microbial species: 1. Ecological distinctions among, and homogeneity within, putative ecotypes of Synechococcus inhabiting the cyanobacterial mat of Mushroom Spring, Yellowstone National Park. Front Microbiol. 2015;6:590.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
84.Becraft ED, Cohan FM, Kühl M, Jensen SI, Ward DM. Fine-scale distribution patterns of Synechococcus ecological diversity in microbial mats of Mushroom Spring, Yellowstone National Park. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2011;77:7689–97.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
85.Koeppel A, Perry EB, Sikorski J, Krizanc D, Warner A, Ward DM, et al. Identifying the fundamental units of bacterial diversity: a paradigm shift to incorporate ecology into bacterial systematics. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA. 2008;105:2504.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
86.Stegen JC, Lin X, Konopka AE, Fredrickson JK. Stochastic and deterministic assembly processes in subsurface microbial communities. ISME J. 2012;6:1653–64.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
87.Zhou J, Ning D. Stochastic community assembly: does it matter in microbial ecology? Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2017;81:e00002–17.88.Ning D, Deng Y, Tiedje JM, Zhou J. A general framework for quantitatively assessing ecological stochasticity. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA. 2019;116:16892–8.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
89.Zhou J, Deng Y, Zhang P, Xue K, Liang Y, Van Nostrand JD, et al. Stochasticity, succession, and environmental perturbations in a fluidic ecosystem. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA. 2014;111:E836–45.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
90.Evans S, Martiny JBH, Allison SD. Effects of dispersal and selection on stochastic assembly in microbial communities. ISME J. 2017;11:176–85.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
91.Ning D, Yuan M, Wu L, Zhang Y, Guo X, Zhou X, et al. A quantitative framework reveals ecological drivers of grassland microbial community assembly in response to warming. Nat Commun. 2020;11:4717.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
92.Cohan FM. Systematics: the cohesive nature of bacterial species taxa. Curr Biol. 2019;29:169–72.
Google Scholar 
93.Jain C, Rodriguez-R LM, Phillippy AM, Konstantinidis KT, Aluru S. High throughput ANI analysis of 90K prokaryotic genomes reveals clear species boundaries. Nat Commun. 2018;9:5114.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
94.Callahan BJ, Grinevich D, Thakur S, Balamotis MA, Yehezkel TB. Ultra-accurate microbial amplicon sequencing with synthetic long reads. Microbiome. 2021;9:130.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
95.Matsuo Y, Komiya S, Yasumizu Y, Yasuoka Y, Mizushima K, Takagi T, et al. Full-length 16S rRNA gene amplicon analysis of human gut microbiota using MinION™ nanopore sequencing confers species-level resolution. BMC Microbiol. 2021;21:35.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
96.Nygaard AB, Tunsjø HS, Meisal R, Charnock C. A preliminary study on the potential of Nanopore MinION and Illumina MiSeq 16S rRNA gene sequencing to characterize building-dust microbiomes. Sci Rep. 2020;10:3209.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar  More

1.Bowman, D. M. J. S. et al. Vegetation fires in the Anthropocene. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 1, 500–515 (2020).ADS 

Google Scholar 
2.Abatzoglou, J. T., Williams, A. P. & Barbero, R. Global emergence of anthropogenic climate change in fire weather indices. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 326–336 (2019).ADS 

Google Scholar 
3.Huang, Y., Wu, S. & Kaplan, J. O. Sensitivity of global wildfire occurrences to various factors in the context of global change. Atmos. Environ. 121, 86–92 (2015).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
4.van Oldenborgh, G. J. et al. Attribution of the Australian bushfire risk to anthropogenic climate change. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 21, 941–960 (2021).ADS 

Google Scholar 
5.Ward, M. et al. Impact of 2019–2020 mega-fires on Australian fauna habitat. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1321–1326 (2020).
Google Scholar 
6.Kablick III, G. P., Allen, D. R., Fromm, M. D. & Nedoluha, G. E. Australian PyroCb smoke generates synoptic-scale stratospheric anticyclones. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47, e2020GL088101 (2020).ADS 

Google Scholar 
7.Hirsch, E. & Koren, I. Record-breaking aerosol levels explained by smoke injection into the stratosphere. Science 371, 1269–1274 (2021).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
8.Schlosser, J. S. et al. Analysis of aerosol composition data for western United States wildfires between 2005 and 2015: Dust emissions, chloride depletion, and most enhanced aerosol constituents. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 122, 8951–8966 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
9.Barkley, A. E. et al. African biomass burning is a substantial source of phosphorus deposition to the Amazon, Tropical Atlantic Ocean, and Southern Ocean. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 16216–16221 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
10.Guieu, C., Bonnet, S., Wagener, T. & Loÿe-Pilot, M.-D. Biomass burning as a source of dissolved iron to the open ocean? Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L19608 (2005).ADS 

Google Scholar 
11.Ito, A. Mega fire emissions in Siberia: potential supply of bioavailable iron from forests to the ocean. Biogeosciences 8, 1679–1697 (2011).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
12.Abram, N. J., Gagan, M. K., McCulloch, M. T., Chappell, J. & Hantoro, W. S. Coral reef death during the 1997 Indian Ocean Dipole linked to Indonesian wildfires. Science 301, 952–955 (2003).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
13.Ito, A. et al. Pyrogenic iron: the missing link to high iron solubility in aerosols. Sci. Adv. 5, eaau7671 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
14.Jia, G. et al. in Climate Change and Land: an IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems Ch. 2 (IPCC, in the press).15.Jiang, Y. et al. Impacts of wildfire aerosols on global energy budget and climate: the role of climate feedbacks. J. Clim. 33, 3351–3366 (2020).ADS 

Google Scholar 
16.Bowman, D. et al. Wildfires: Australia needs national monitoring agency. Nature 584, 188–191 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
17.New WWF report: 3 billion animals impacted by Australia’s bushfire crisis. WWF https://www.wwf.org.au/news/news/2020/3-billion-animals-impacted-by-australia-bushfire-crisis#gs.ebzve2 (2020).18.van der Velde, I. R. et al. Vast CO2 release from Australian fires in 2019–2020 constrained by satellite. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03712-y (2021).19.National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report: 2018 (Australian Government, 2020); https://www.industry.gov.au/data-and-publications/national-greenhouse-gas-inventory-report-2018.20.Mahowald, N. M. et al. Aerosol impacts on climate and biogeochemistry. Annu. Rev. Environ. Res. 36, 45–74 (2011).
Google Scholar 
21.Boyd, P. W. et al. Mesoscale iron enrichment experiments 1993–2005: synthesis and future directions. Science 315, 612–617 (2007).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
22.Jickells, T. et al. Global iron connections between desert dust, ocean biogeochemistry, and climate. Science 308, 67–71 (2005).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
23.Martin, J. H. Glacial‐interglacial CO2 change: the iron hypothesis. Paleoceanography 5, 1–13 (1990).ADS 

Google Scholar 
24.Tagliabue, A. et al. Surface-water iron supplies in the Southern Ocean sustained by deep winter mixing. Nat. Geosci. 7, 314–320 (2014).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
25.Cassar, N. et al. The Southern Ocean biological response to aeolian iron deposition. Science 317, 1067–1070 (2007).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
26.Gabric, A. J., Cropp, R., Ayers, G. P., McTainsh, G. & Braddock, R. Coupling between cycles of phytoplankton biomass and aerosol optical depth as derived from SeaWiFS time series in the Subantarctic Southern Ocean. Geophys. Res. Lett. 29, 16-11–16-14 (2002).
Google Scholar 
27.Ardyna, M. et al. Hydrothermal vents trigger massive phytoplankton blooms in the Southern Ocean. Nat. Commun. 10, 2451 (2019).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
28.Duprat, L. P. A. M., Bigg, G. R. & Wilton, D. J. Enhanced Southern Ocean marine productivity due to fertilization by giant icebergs. Nat. Geosci. 9, 219–221 (2016).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
29.Bixby, R. J. et al. Fire effects on aquatic ecosystems: an assessment of the current state of the science. Freshwater Sci. 34, 1340–1350 (2015).
Google Scholar 
30.Inness, A. et al. The CAMS reanalysis of atmospheric composition. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 19, 3515–3556 (2019).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
31.Shafeeque, M., Sathyendranath, S., George, G., Balchand, A. N. & Platt, T. Comparison of seasonal cycles of phytoplankton chlorophyll, aerosols, winds and sea-surface temperature off Somalia. Front. Marine Sci. 4, 384 (2017).
Google Scholar 
32.Cassar, N. et al. The influence of iron and light on net community production in the Subantarctic and Polar Frontal zones. Biogeosciences 8, 227–237 (2011).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
33.Mitchell, B. G. & Holm-Hansen, O. Observations of modeling of the Antartic phytoplankton crop in relation to mixing depth. Deep Sea Res. Part A 38, 981–1007 (1991).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
34.Longo, A. F. et al. Influence of atmospheric processes on the solubility and composition of iron in Saharan dust. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 6912–6920 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
35.Meskhidze, N., Nenes, A., Chameides, W. L., Luo, C. & Mahowald, N. Atlantic Southern Ocean productivity: fertilization from above or below? Global Biogeochem. Cycles 21, GB2006 (2007).ADS 

Google Scholar 
36.Sarmiento, J. L., Slater, R. D., Dunne, J., Gnanadesikan, A. & Hiscock, M. R. Efficiency of small scale carbon mitigation by patch iron fertilization. Biogeosciences 7, 3593–3624 (2010).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
37.Brzezinski, M. A., Jones, J. L. & Demarest, M. S. Control of silica production by iron and silicic acid during the Southern Ocean Iron Experiment (SOFeX). Limnol. Oceanogr. 50, 810–824 (2005).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
38.Lovenduski, N. S. & Gruber, N. Impact of the Southern Annular Mode on Southern Ocean circulation and biology. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L11603 (2005).ADS 

Google Scholar 
39.Cai, W., Cowan, T. & Raupach, M. Positive Indian Ocean Dipole events precondition southeast Australia bushfires. Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L19710 (2009).ADS 

Google Scholar 
40.Chen, Y. et al. A pan-tropical cascade of fire driven by El Niño/Southern Oscillation. Nat. Climate Change 7, 906–911 (2017).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
41.Lim, E.-P. et al. Australian hot and dry extremes induced by weakenings of the stratospheric polar vortex. Nat. Geosci. 12, 896–901 (2019).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
42.Cai, W. et al. Increased frequency of extreme Indian Ocean Dipole events due to greenhouse warming. Nature 510, 254–258 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
43.Cropp, R. A. et al. The likelihood of observing dust-stimulated phytoplankton growth in waters proximal to the Australian continent. J. Mar. Syst. 117–118, 43–52 (2013).
Google Scholar 
44.Hamilton, D. S. et al. Impact of changes to the atmospheric soluble iron deposition flux on ocean biogeochemical cycles in the anthropocene. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 34, e2019GB006448 (2020).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
45.Duce, R. et al. Impacts of atmospheric anthropogenic nitrogen on the open ocean. Science 320, 893–897 (2008).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
46.Han, Y. et al. Asian inland wildfires driven by glacial-interglacial climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 5184–5189 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
47.van der Werf, G. R. et al. Global fire emissions estimates during 1997–2016. Earth Sys. Sci. Data 9, 697–720 (2017).ADS 

Google Scholar 
48.Orsi, A. H., Whitworth, T. & Nowlin, W. D. On the meridional extent and fronts of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current. Deep Sea Res. Part I 42, 641–673 (1995).
Google Scholar 
49.Sathyendranath, S. et al. An ocean-colour time series for use in climate studies: the experience of the Ocean-Colour Climate Change Initiative (OC-CCI). Sensors 19, 4285 (2019).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
50.Morcrette, J.-J. et al. Aerosol analysis and forecast in the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts Integrated Forecast System: forward modeling. J. Geophys. Res. Atmospheres 114, D06206 (2009).ADS 

Google Scholar 
51.Levy, R. C. et al. Exploring systematic offsets between aerosol products from the two MODIS sensors. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 11, 4073–4092 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
52.Benedetti, A. et al. Aerosol analysis and forecast in the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts Integrated Forecast System: 2. Data assimilation. J. Geophys. Res. 114, D13 (2009).
Google Scholar 
53.Kaiser, J. W. et al. Biomass burning emissions estimated with a global fire assimilation system based on observed fire radiative power. Biogeosciences 9, 527–554 (2012).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
54.Y. Bennouna et al. Validation Report of the CAMS Global Reanalysis of Aerosols and Reactive Gases, Years 2003–2019 (Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service, 2020).55.Ito, A. et al. Evaluation of aerosol iron solubility over Australian coastal regions based on inverse modeling: implications of bushfires on bioaccessible iron concentrations in the Southern Hemisphere. Prog. Earth Planet. Sci. 7, 42 (2020).ADS 

Google Scholar 
56.Khaykin, S. et al. The 2019/20 Australian wildfires generated a persistent smoke-charged vortex rising up to 35 km altitude. Commun. Earth Environ. 1, 22 (2020).57.Haëntjens, N., Boss, E. & Talley, L. D. Revisiting Ocean Color algorithms for chlorophyll a and particulate organic carbon in the Southern Ocean using biogeochemical floats. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 122, 6583–6593 (2017).ADS 

Google Scholar 
58.Boss, E. et al. The characteristics of particulate absorption, scattering and attenuation coefficients in the surface ocean; contribution of the Tara Oceans expedition. Methods Oceanogr. 7, 52–62 (2013).
Google Scholar 
59.de Boyer Montégut, C., Madec, G., Fischer, A. S., Lazar, A. & Iudicone, D. Mixed layer depth over the global ocean: an examination of profile data and a profile‐based climatology. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 109, C12003 (2004).ADS 

Google Scholar 
60.Dong, S., Sprintall, J., Gille, S. T. & Talley, L. Southern Ocean mixed-layer depth from Argo float profiles. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 113, C06013 (2008).ADS 

Google Scholar 
61.Cutter, G. A. et al. Sampling and Sample-handling Protocols for GEOTRACES Cruises, version 3.0 (2017).
Google Scholar 
62.Morton, P. L. et al. Methods for the sampling and analysis of marine aerosols: results from the 2008 GEOTRACES aerosol intercalibration experiment. Limnol. Oceanogr. Methods 11, 62–78 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
63.Perron, M. M. G. et al. Assessment of leaching protocols to determine the solubility of trace metals in aerosols. Talanta 208, 120377 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
64.Shelley, R. U., Landing, W. M., Ussher, S. J., Planquette, H. & Sarthou, G. Regional trends in the fractional solubility of Fe and other metals from North Atlantic aerosols (GEOTRACES cruises GA01 and GA03) following a two-stage leach. Biogeosciences 15, 2271–2288 (2018).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
65.Sanz Rodriguez, E. et al. Analysis of levoglucosan and its isomers in atmospheric samples by ion chromatography with electrospray lithium cationisation—triple quadrupole tandem mass spectrometry. J. Chromatogr. A 1610, 460557 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
66.McLennan, S. M. Relationships between the trace element composition of sedimentary rocks and upper continental crust. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 2, 1201 (2001).
Google Scholar 
67.Shelley, R. U. et al. Quantification of trace element atmospheric deposition fluxes to the Atlantic Ocean ( >40°N; GEOVIDE, GEOTRACES GA01) during spring 2014. Deep Sea Res. Part I 119, 34–49 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
68.Sholkovitz, E. R., Sedwick, P. N., Church, T. M., Baker, A. R. & Powell, C. F. Fractional solubility of aerosol iron: synthesis of a global-scale data set. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 89, 173–189 (2012).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
69.Stein, A. F. et al. NOAA’s HYSPLIT atmospheric transport and dispersion modeling system. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 96, 2059–2077 (2016).ADS 

Google Scholar 
70.Kalnay, E. et al. The NCEP/NCAR 40-year reanalysis project. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 77, 437–471 (1996).ADS 

Google Scholar 
71.Tatlhego, M., Bhattachan, A., Okin, G. S. & D’Odorico, P. Mapping areas of the Southern Ocean where productivity likely depends on dust‐delivered Iron. J. Geophys. Res. Atmospheres 125, e2019JD030926 (2020).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
72.Stein, A. F., Rolph, G. D., Draxler, R. R., Stunder, B. & Ruminski, M. Verification of the NOAA smoke forecasting system: model sensitivity to the injection height. Weather Forecast. 24, 379–394 (2009).ADS 

Google Scholar 
73.Behrenfeld, M. J. & Falkowski, P. G. Photosynthetic rates derived from satellite‐based chlorophyll concentration. Limnol. Oceanogr. 42, 1–20 (1997).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
74.Behrenfeld, M. J., Boss, E., Siegel, D. A. & Shea, D. M. Carbon-based ocean productivity and phytoplankton physiology from space. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 19, GB1006 (2005).ADS 

Google Scholar 
75.Westberry, T., Behrenfeld, M. J., Siegel, D. A. & Boss, E. Carbon-based primary productivity modeling with vertically resolved photoacclimation. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 22, GB2024 (2008).ADS 

Google Scholar 
76.Silsbe, G. M., Behrenfeld, M. J., Halsey, K. H., Milligan, A. J. & Westberry, T. K. The CAFE model: a net production model for global ocean phytoplankton. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 30, 1756–1777 (2016).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
77.Laws, E. A., D’Sa, E. & Naik, P. Simple equations to estimate ratios of new or export production to total production from satellite‐derived estimates of sea surface temperature and primary production. Limnol. Oceanogr. Methods 9, 593–601 (2011).
Google Scholar 
78.Dunne, J. P., Armstrong, R. A., Gnanadesikan, A. & Sarmiento, J. L. Empirical and mechanistic models for the particle export ratio. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 19, GB4026 (2005).ADS 

Google Scholar 
79.Li, Z. & Cassar, N. Satellite estimates of net community production based on O2/Ar observations and comparison to other estimates. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 30, 735–752 (2016).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
80.Siegel, D. A. et al. Global assessment of ocean carbon export by combining satellite observations and food‐web models. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 28, 181–196 (2014).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
81.Marshall, G. J. Trends in the Southern Annular Mode from observations and reanalyses. J. Climate 16, 4134–4143 (2003).ADS 

Google Scholar 
82.Saji, N. H. & Yamagata, T. Possible impacts of Indian Ocean Dipole mode events on global climate. Climate Res. 25, 151–169 (2003).ADS 

Google Scholar  More

The Thau lagoon dataThe measurement campaign concerned four wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) in the Thau lagoon area in France, serving the cities of Sète, Pradel-Marseillan, Frontignan and Mèze. The measurements were obtained by using digital PCR20 (dPCR) to estimate the concentration of SARS-CoV-2 virus in samples taken weekly from 2020-05-12 to 2021-01-12. We provide further details about the measurement method in the “Methods” section.Figure 1Concentrations of SARS-CoV-2 (genome units per litre in logarithmic scale) from four WWTPs in Thau lagoon, measured weekly with dPCR technology from May 12th 2020 to January 12th, 2021. Note that there are some missing points.Full size imageFigure 1 shows the outcomes in a logarithmic scale over a nine months period. We summarise now their main features.

1.

An exponential phase starts simultaneously in Mèze and Frontignan WWTPs in early June.

2.

The genome units concentration curves in these two places reach, again simultaneously, a plateau. It has stayed essentially stable or slightly decreasing since then.

3.

The evolution at Sète and Pradel-Marseillan remarkably followed the previous two zones in a parallel way, with a two weeks lag. The measurements at Sète and Pradel-Marseillan continued to grow linearly (recall that this is in log scale, thus exponentially in linear scale), while the Mèze and Frontignan figures have stabilised ; then, after two weeks, they too stabilised at a plateau with roughly the same value as for the other two towns.

4.

The measurements seem to show a tendency to increase over the very last period.

The epidemiological model with heterogeneity and natural variability of population behaviourThe appearance of such plateaus and shoulders need not be explained either by psychological reactions or by public health policy effects. Indeed, the regulations were roughly constant during the measurement campaign and awareness or fatigue effects do not seem to have altered the dynamics over this long period of time. Witness to this is the fact that two groups of towns saw the same evolution, but two weeks apart one from the other. To understand this phenomena we propose a new model.Given the complexity and multiplicity of behavioural factors favouring the spread of the epidemic, we assume that the transmission rate involves a normalised variable (a in (0,1)) that defines an aggregated indicator of risky behaviour within the susceptible population. Thus, we represent the heterogeneity of individual behaviours with this variable. We take a as an implicit parameter that we do not seek to calculate. The classical SIR model is macroscopic and the type of model we discuss here can be viewed as intermediate between macroscopic and microscopic.The initial distribution of susceptible individuals (S_0(a)) in the framework of a SIR-type compartmental description of the epidemic can be reasonably taken as a decreasing function of a. We take the infection transmission rate (a mapsto beta (a)) to be an increasing function of a. In the Supplementary Information (SI) Appendix, the reader will find a more general version of this model involving a probability kernel of transition from one state to another. The model here can be derived as a limiting case of that more general version.Likewise, the behaviour of individuals usually changes from one day to another21. Many factors are at work in this variability: social imitation, public health campaigns, opportunities, outings, the normal variations of activity (e.g. work from home certain days and use of public transportation and work in office on others) etc. Therefore, the second key feature of our model is variability of such behaviours: variations of the population density for a given a do not only come from individuals becoming infected and leaving that compartment but also results from individuals moving from one state a to another21. In the simplest version of the model, variability is introduced as a diffusion term in the dynamics of susceptible individuals.The modelWe denote by S(t, a) the density of individuals at time t associated with risk parameter a, by I(t) the total number of infected, and by R(t) the number of removed individuals. We are then led to the following system:$$begin{aligned} frac{{partial S(t,a)}}{{partial t}} & = d{mkern 1mu} frac{{partial ^{2} S(t,a)}}{{partial a^{2} }} – beta (a)S(t,a)frac{{I(t)}}{N} \ frac{{{text{d}}I(t)}}{{{text{d}}t}} & = frac{{I(t)}}{N}{mkern 1mu} intlimits_{0}^{1} beta (a)S(t,a);da – gamma I(t), \ frac{{{text{d}}R(t)}}{{{text{d}}t}} = & gamma I(t), \ end{aligned}$$
(1)
where (gamma) denotes the inverse of typical duration (in days) of the disease and d a positive diffusion coefficient. System (1) is supplemented with initial conditions$$begin{aligned} S(0,a) = S_0(a), quad I(0) = I_0, quad hbox {and} quad R(0) = 0, end{aligned}$$
(2)
and with zero flux condition in a at (a=0, 1). In the “Methods” section below, we discuss the relation of this model with other current works.A more general modelIn a more general version of our model, we can consider the population of infected as also structured by the parameter a. The equations are as before but now we keep track of the class a in the infected population. The mechanism here is that a susceptible individual from class a can be infected by infectious from any class I(t, b) but then gives rise to an individual I(t, a) of the same parent class. We also assume that there is a diffusion of the infected behaviours. We denote by ({mathfrak {B}}(a,b)) the transmission rate of S(t, a) by I(t, b). For simplicity and because it is natural, we will assume that it is of the form$$begin{aligned} {mathfrak {B}}(a,b)= beta (a) beta (b) end{aligned}$$where (beta) is as before. For full generality, we can also envision multi-dimensional parameters (ain {mathbb {R}}^d), with (a_iin (0,1)). We are then led to the system:$$begin{aligned} frac{{partial S(t,a)}}{{partial t}} & = d;Delta _{a} S(t,a) – S(t,a)frac{{beta (a)}}{N}intlimits_{0}^{1} beta (b)I(t,b);db \ frac{{partial I(t,a)}}{{partial t}} & = d^{prime}Delta _{a} I(t,a) + S(t,a)frac{{beta (a)}}{N}intlimits_{0}^{1} beta (b)I(t,b)db – gamma I(t,a), \ frac{{{text{d}}R(t)}}{{{text{d}}t}} & = gamma intlimits_{0}^{1} I (t,b){mkern 1mu} db, \ end{aligned}$$
(3)
In the SI we write further, more general, forms of this model, with ({mathfrak {B}}(a,b)) and more general diffusion of behaviours, that can include jumps or non-local variations. The type of models we discuss here may also shed light on the initial phase of the epidemic. We plan to investigate these questions in future work.Patterns generated by the modelIn the next section, we will discuss how the model fits the data observed in the Thau lagoon measurements. But before that, we start by showing that the above model (1) can generate the different patterns we mentioned. For this we rely on numerical simulations without fitting real data. And indeed we obtain plateaus, shoulders, and oscillations. The latter can be interpreted as epidemic rebounds.The key parameter here is the diffusion coefficient d, which controls the amplitude of behavioural variability (see Fig. 2). Large values of d rapidly yield homogenised behaviours, leading to classical SIR-like dynamics of infectious individuals. For very small values of d, the system also has a simple dynamics, in the sense that I(t) has a unique maximum, and therefore has no rebounds. We derive this in the limit (d=0) for which we show in the SI that there are neither plateaus nor rebounds.For some intermediate range of the parameter d, plateaus may appear after an exponential growth, like in the initial phase of the SIR model. A small amplitude oscillation, called “shoulder”, precedes a temporary stabilisation on a plateau, followed by a large time convergence to zero of infectious population. We also show that for small enough d, time oscillations of the infectious population curve, i.e. epidemic rebounds, may be generated by Model (1). Such oscillations also appear after a plateau, in a similar way to what one can see in observations.Simulations in Fig. 2 illustrate the various patterns obtained on the dynamics of infected population as a function of the diffusion parameter. For small enough d, in the top left graph of Fig. 2, one can see oscillations of the fraction of infectious individuals. These oscillations cannot be achieved in the classical SIR model. In fact, the two lower graphs of that figure, for somewhat larger values of d, exhibit the SIR model outcomes. Indeed, for sufficiently large d, the system becomes rapidly homogeneous (i.e. constant with respect to a). Yet, such oscillations are standard in the dynamics of actual epidemics, like the current Covid-19 pandemic. The intermediate value of d, represented in the upper right corner of Fig. 2 shows the typical onset of a plateau at a rather high value of I. Note that this plateau is preceded by a first small dip and then a characteristic “shoulder-like” oscillation.Figure 2Model behaviour depending on diffusion parameter values: infected rate dynamics in logarithmic scale. From left to right and then top to bottom, graphs are associated with (d=10^{-5}), (d=5times 10^{-5}), (d=10^{-3}) and (d=5times 10^{-3}) (in (day^{-1}) unit).Full size imageSecondary epidemic peaks are of lower amplitude than the first one, as shown in the top graphs of Fig. 2. This empirical observation leads us to conjecture that, at least in many cases, it is a general property of this model (with (beta) independent of time). This property would then reflect a kind of dissipative nature of Model (1). It is natural to surmise that a change of behaviours in time may generate oscillations with higher secondary peaks. Such changes result for instance from lifting social distancing measures or from fatigue effects in the population.We illustrate this with numerical simulations in Fig. 3. We assume a collective time modulation of the (beta (a)) transmission profile. That is, we replace (beta (a)) by (beta (a)varphi (t)) for some time dependent function (varphi), the other parameters are the same as in the simulations shown in Fig. 2. We look at the effect of a “lockdown exit” type effect. Then, (varphi (t)) takes two constant values, 1 from (t=0) to (t={1000}) and 1.2 after (t={1100}). In between, that is, for (tin ({1000}, {1100})), (varphi (t)) changes linearly from the value 1 to 1.2.Figure 3Multiple epidemic rebounds: susceptible individuals are divided into 50 discrete groups in the case where relaxation of social distancing measures starts on Day (t=1000) and ends up on Day (t=1100). The fraction of infected individuals in the population is represented in the left graph in logarithmic scale and in linear scale in the right graph.Full size imageOne can clearly see a secondary peak with higher amplitude than the first one. Note that after this peak, a third one occurs, with a lower amplitude than the second one. This third peak happens in the regime when (beta) is again constant in time.The effect of variantsAnother important factor that yields secondary peaks with higher amplitudes is the appearance of variants. Consider the situation with two variants. We denote by (I_1(t)) and (I_2(t)) the corresponding infected individuals. The first variant, which we call the historical strain, is associated with (beta _1) and (I_1(0)) and starts at (t=0). The variant strain corresponds to (beta _2) and (I_2) and starts at Day (t=1000). In this situation, the system (1) is extended by the following system:$$begin{aligned} frac{{partial S(t,a)}}{{partial t}} & = d{mkern 1mu} frac{{partial ^{2} S(t,a)}}{{partial a^{2} }} – left( {beta _{1} (a)I_{1} (t) + beta _{2} (a)I_{2} (t)} right)frac{{S(t,a)}}{N}, \ frac{{{text{d}}I_{2} (t)}}{{{text{d}}t}} & = frac{{I_{2} (t)}}{N}{mkern 1mu} intlimits_{0}^{1} {beta _{2} } (a)S(t,a){mkern 1mu} da – gamma _{2} I_{2} (t), \ frac{{{text{d}}I_{1} (t)}}{{{text{d}}t}} & = frac{{I_{1} (t)}}{N}{mkern 1mu} intlimits_{0}^{1} {beta _{1} } (a)S(t,a){mkern 1mu} da – gamma _{1} I_{1} (t) \ frac{{{text{d}}R(t)}}{{{text{d}}t}} & = gamma _{1} I_{2} (t) + gamma _{1} I_{2} (t), \ end{aligned}$$
(4)
The total infected population is (I(t)=I_1(t)+I_2(t)). Figure 4 shows a simulation of this system. Before the onset of the second variant, i.e. for (t< 1000), we observe a peak, followed by a small shoulder and a downward tilted plateau. The second variant corresponds to a higher transmission coefficient: namely, we take here (beta _2(a) equiv frac{3}{2} beta _1(a)). When it appears at time (t=1000), initially there is no effect, because the initial number of infectious with variant 2 is very small. Then, there is an exponential growth caused by this second variant gaining strength. The secondary peak is then higher than the first one. A very small shoulder precedes another stabilisation on a downward plateau.Figure 4 also shows the dynamics of fractions of infected with each one of the variants. Note that the infectious with variant 1 very rapidly all but disappear at the onset of the second exponential growth phase. One might have expected that the historical strain would be gradually replaced by the new strain, merely tilting further downward the plateau. But that does not happen. Thus, it is remarkable that the historical strain gets nearly wiped out at the very beginning of the second exponential growth.Figure 4Multiple epidemic rebounds due to a variant virus: susceptible individuals are divided into 50 discrete groups in the case where a new variant appears at Day (t=1000). The transmission rate (beta _2) is taken as (beta _2(a) = 1.5 , beta _1(a)), (d=0.0002), (gamma _1=0.1) and (gamma _2= 0.05). The fraction of infected individuals in the population is represented in the left graph in logarithmic scale. The total infected population is represented in linear scale in the right graph (black curve), variant 1 in red and variant 2 in green.Full size imageApplication to the Thau lagoon measurementsModel (1) describes the dynamics of the fraction of infectious in the population, that is (t mapsto I(t)/N). Therefore, we need to derive this fraction from the wastewater measurements. To this end, we use an “effective proportionality coefficient” between the two quantities. This coefficient itself is derived from the measurements (compare Section “SARS-CoV-2 concentration measurement from wastewater with digital PCR” in the “Methods” part below). Calibration of model (1) also requires fitting the values of (gamma), the profiles (a mapsto beta (a)) and the initial distribution of susceptible individuals in terms of a.We carried this procedure and the resulting fitted curve is displayed in Fig. 5. Note that the outcome correctly captures the shoulder and plateau patterns.Figure 5Calibrated model on Sète area: blue dots are measures of SARS-CoV-2 genome units and black curve represents the total infected individuals as an output of the model discretized into (n_g=20) groups in a. Initial distribution of susceptible individuals and (beta) function are taken as described in supplementary information. Parameters d and (gamma) are taken as follows: (d=2.5 times 10^{-4}) (day^{-1}), and (gamma =0.1) (day^{-1}).Full size imageThe underlying dynamics of the rate of susceptible individuals is given in Fig. 6 below for (n_g=20) groups. The lower curve illustrates the competition phenomenon between diffusion and sink term due to new infections, depending on the level of risk a of each state.Figure 6Calibrated model on Sète WWTP: density of susceptible individuals of each group for (n_g=20). The densities of susceptible of each group is represented in colour curves as functions of time. The curves are ordered from top to bottom according to increasing a. The resulting average total susceptible population is represented in black. Susceptible individuals of highest a trait, which are represented in the bottom light blue curve exhibit a non monotonic behaviour.Full size image More

AffiliationsPhysics of Living Systems Group, Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USAMartina Dal Bello, Hyunseok Lee, Akshit Goyal & Jeff GoreAuthorsMartina Dal BelloHyunseok LeeAkshit GoyalJeff GoreCorresponding authorsCorrespondence to
Martina Dal Bello or Jeff Gore. More

1.Diaz, S. et al. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on earth points to the need for transformative change. Science 366, eaax3100 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
2.Jones, K. R. et al. Area requirements to safeguard Earth’s marine species. One Earth 2, 188–196 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Dulvy, N. K. et al. Extinction risk and conservation of the world’s sharks and rays. Elife 3, e00590 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.IUCN. International Union for Conservation of Nature Annual Report 2018. (Gland, Switzerland, 2018).5.Walker, T. I., Hudson, R. J. & Gason, A. S. Catch evaluation of target, by-product and by-catch species taken by gillnets and longlines in the shark fishery of south-eastern Australia. J. Northwest Atlantic Fishery Sci. 35, 505–530 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Braccini, M., Van Rijn, J. & Frick, L. High post-capture survival for sharks, rays and chimaeras discarded in the main shark fishery of Australia?. PLoS ONE 7(1–9), e32547 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Sumpton, W. D., Taylor, S. M., Gribble, N. A., McPherson, G. & Ham, T. Gear selectivity of large-mesh nets and drumlines used to catch sharks in the Queensland shark control program. Afr. J. Mar. Sci. 33, 37–43 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Broadhurst, M. K. & Cullis, B. R. Mitigating the discard mortality of non-target, threatened elasmobranchs in bather-protection gillnets. Fisheries Res. 222, 105435 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Stevens, J. D. & Wayte, S. E. Case study: The bycatch of pelagic sharks in Australia’s tuna longline fisheries. In Sharks of the Open Ocean; Biology, Fisheries and Conservation (eds Camhi, M. D. et al.) 260–267 (Blackwell Publishing, 2009).
Google Scholar 
10.Roff, G. et al. The ecological role of sharks on coral reefs. Trends Ecol. Evol. 31(5), 395–407 (2016).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Roff, G., Brown, C. J., Priest, M. A. & Mumby, P. J. Decline of coastal apex shark populations over the past half century. Commun. Biol. 1, 223 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Raoult, V., Broadhurst, M. K., Peddemors, V. M., Williamson, J. E. & Gaston, T. F. Resource use of great hammerhead sharks (Sphyrna mokarran) off eastern Australia. J. Fish Biol. 95, 1430–1440 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Raoult, V. et al. Predicting geographic ranges of marine animal populations using stable isotopes: A case study of great hammerhead sharks in eastern Australia. Front. Mar. Sci. 7, 594636 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Chapman, D. D. & Gruber, S. H. A further observation of the prey-handling behavior of the great hammerhead shark, Sphyrna mokarran: Predation upon the spotted eagle ray, Aetobatus narinari. Bull. Mar. Sci. 70, 947–952 (2002).
Google Scholar 
15.Cliff, G. Sharks caught in the protective gill nets off KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. 8. The great hammerhead shark Sphyrna mokarran (Rüppell). S. Afr. J. Mar. Sci. 15, 105–114 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Strong, W. R., Snelson, F. F. & Gruber, S. H. Hammerhead shark predation on stingrays: An observation of prey handling on Sphyrna mokarran. Copeia 3, 836–840 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Mourier, J., Planes, S. & Buray, N. Trophic interactions at the top of the coral reef food chain. Coral Reefs 32, 285–285 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Roemer, R. P., Gallagher, A. J. & Hammerschlag, N. Shallow water tidal flat use and associated specialized foraging behavior of the great hammerhead shark (Sphyrna mokarran). Mar. Freshw. Behav. Physiol. 49, 235–249 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Gallagher, A. J. & Klimley, A. P. The biology and conservation status of the large hammerhead shark complex: The great, scalloped and smooth hammerheads. Rev. Fish Biol. Fisheries 28, 777–794 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Barry, K. P., Condrey, R. E., Driggers, W. B. & Jones, C. M. Feeding ecology and growth of neonate and juvenile blacktip sharks Carcharhinus limbatus in the Timbalier-Terrebone Bay complex, LA, U.S.A. J. Fish Biol. 73, 650–662 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Tavares, R. Occurrence, diet and growth of juvenile blacktip sharks, Carcharhinus limbatus, from Los Roques Archipelago National Park, Venezuela. Carib. J. Sci. 44, 291–302 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Plumlee, J. D. & Wells, R. J. D. Feeding ecology of three coastal shark species in the northwest Gulf of Mexico. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 550, 163–174 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Young, J. W. et al. The trophodynamics of marine top predators: Current knowledge, recent advances and challenges. Deep Sea Res. Part II 113, 170–187 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Leigh, S. C., Papastamatiou, Y. & German, D. P. The nutritional physiology of sharks. Rev. Fish Biol. Fisheries 27, 561–585 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Amundsen, P.-A. & Sánchez-Hernández, J. Feeding studies take guts—critical review and recommendations of methods for stomach contents analysis in fish. J. Fish Biol. 95, 1364–1373 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Alberdi, A. et al. Promises and pitfalls of using high-throughput sequencing for diet analysis. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 19, 327–348 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Nielsen, J. M., Clare, E. L., Hayden, B., Brett, M. T. & Kratina, P. Diet tracing in ecology: Method comparison and selection. Methods Ecol. Evol. 9, 278–291 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Pompanon, F. et al. Who is eating what: diet assessment using next generation sequencing. Mol. Ecol. 21, 1931–1950 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Deagle, B. E. et al. Counting with DNA in metabarcoding studies: How should we convert sequence reads to dietary data?. Mol. Ecol. 28, 391–406 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Taberlet, P., Bonin, A., Zinger, L. & Coissac, E. Environmental DNA for Biodiversity Research and Monitoring (Oxford University Press, 2018).
Google Scholar 
31.Barbato, M., Kovacs, T., Coleman, M., Broadhurst, M. & de Bruyn, M. Metabarcoding of stomach-content analyses: Comparing tissue and ethanol preservative-derived DNA. Ecol. Evol. 9(5), 2678–2687 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Berry, O. et al. Comparison of morphological and DNA metabarcoding analyses of diets in exploited marine fishes. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 540, 167–181 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Bessey, C. et al. DNA metabarcoding assays reveal a diverse prey assemblage for Mobula rays in the Bohol Sea, Philippines. Ecol. Evol. 9(5), 2459–2474 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Clarke, L. J., Trebilco, R., Walters, A., Polanowski, A. M. & Deagle, B. E. DNA-based diet analysis of mesopelagic fish from the southern Kerguelen Axis. Deep Sea Res. Part II Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 174, 104494 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
35.Sousa, L. L. et al. DNA barcoding identifies a cosmopolitan diet in the ocean sunfish. Sci. Rep. 6, 28762 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Takahashi, M. et al. Partitioning of diet between species and life history stages of sympatric and cryptic snappers (Lutjanidae) based on DNA metabarcoding. Sci. Rep. 10(1), 1–13 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
37.Yoon, T.-H. et al. Metabarcoding analysis of the stomach contents of the Antarctic Toothfish (Dissostichus mawsoni) collected in the Antarctic Ocean. PeerJ 5, e3977 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Clare, E. L. Molecular detection of trophic interactions: emerging trends, distinct advantages, significant considerations and conservation applications. Evol. Appl. 7, 1144–1157 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Varennes, Y.-D., Boyer, S. & Wratten, S. D. Un-nesting DNA Russian dolls: The potential for constructing food webs using residual DNA in empty aphid mummies. Mol. Ecol. 23, 3925–3933 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Miya, M. et al. MiFish, a set of universal PCR primers for metabarcoding environmental DNA from fishes: detection of more than 230 subtropical marine species. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2(7), 150088 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Berry, T. E. et al. DNA metabarcoding for diet analysis and biodiversity: A case study using the endangered Australian sea lion (Neophoca cinerea). Ecol. Evol. 7(14), 5435–5453 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Zhan, A. et al. High sensitivity of 454 pyrosequencing for detection of rare species in aquatic communities. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4, 558–565 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Edgar, R. C. Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics 26(19), 2460–2461 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Frøslev, T. G. et al. Algorithm for post-clustering curation of DNA amplicon data yields reliable biodiversity estimates. Nat. Commun. 8(1), 1–11 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
45.Mousavi-Derazmahalleh, M., Stott, A., Lines, R., Peverley, G., Nester, G., Simpson, T., Zawierta, M., De La Pierre, M., Bunce, M., & Christophersen, C. eDNAFlow, an automated, reproducible and scalable workflow for analysis of environmental DNA (eDNA) sequences exploiting Nextflow and Singularity. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 21, 1697–1704 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
46.Venables, W. N. & Ripley, B. D. Modern Applied Statistics with S 4th edn. (Springer, 2002).MATH 
Book 

Google Scholar 
47.R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/ (2017).48.Oksanen, J., et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.5-7. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan (2020).49.Compagno, L. J. V. Sharks of the Order Carcharhiniformes (Princeton University Press, 1988).
Google Scholar 
50.Johnsen, P. B. & Teeter, J. H. Behavioral responses of the bonnethead shark (Sphyrna tiburo) to controlled olfactory stimulation. Mar. Behav. Phys. 11, 283–291 (1985).Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Nakaya, K. Hydrodynamic function of the head in the hammerhead sharks (Elasmobranchii: Sphyrinidae). Copeia 2, 330–336 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Leray, M., Agudelo, N., Mills, S. C. & Meyer, C. P. Effectiveness of annealing blocking primers versus restriction enzymes for characterization of generalist diets: unexpected prey revealed in the gut contents of two coral reef fish species. PLoS ONE 8(4), e58076 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Leray, M., Meyer, C. P. & Mills, S. C. Metabarcoding dietary analysis of coral dwelling predatory fish demonstrates the minor contribution of coral mutualists to their highly partitioned, generalist diet. PeerJ 3, e1047 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Van Zinnicq Bergmann, M. P. M. et al. Elucidating shark diets with DNA metabarcoding from cloacal swabs. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 21, 1056–1067 (2021).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar  More

1.Nyakeri, E. M., Mwirichia, R. & Boga, H. Isolation and characterization of enzyme-producing bacteria from Lake Magadi, an extreme soda lake in Kenya. J. Microbiol. Exp. 6(2), 57–68 (2018).
Google Scholar 
2.Grant, W. D. Alkaline environments and biodiversity. In Extremophiles (eds Gerday, E. C. & Glansdorff, N.) (UNESCO, Eolss Publishers, 2006).
Google Scholar 
3.Jones, B. E. & Grant, W. D. Microbial diversity and ecology of alkaline environments. In Adaptation to Exotic Environments (ed. Seckbach, J.) 177–190 (Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000).
Google Scholar 
4.Antony, C. P. et al. Microbiology of Lonar Lake and other soda lakes. J. Int. Soc. Microb. Ecol. 7(3), 468–476 (2013).
Google Scholar 
5.Boros, E. & Kolpakova, M. A review of the defining chemical properties of soda lakes and pans: An assessment on a large geographic scale of Eurasian inland saline surface waters. PLoS ONE 13(8), e0202205 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
6.Grant, W. D. & Jones, B. E. Bacteria, archaea and viruses of soda lakes. In Soda lakes of East Africa (ed. Schagerl, M.) 97–148 (Springer p, 2016).
Google Scholar 
7.Lanzén, A. et al. Surprising prokaryotic and eukaryotic diversity, community structure and biogeography of Ethiopian soda lakes. PLoS ONE 8(8), e72577 (2013).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
8.Asao, M., Pinkart, H. C. & Madigan, M. T. Diversity of extremophilic purple phototrophic bacteria in Soap Lake, a Central Washington (USA) Soda Lake. Environ. Microbiol. 13(8), 2146–2157 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
9.Kulp, T. R. et al. Dissimilatory arsenate and sulfate reduction in sediments of two hypersaline, arsenic-rich soda lakes: Mono and Searles Lakes, California. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 72(10), 6514–6526 (2006).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Sorokin, D. Y. & Kuenen, J. G. Chemolithotrophic haloalkaliphiles from soda lakes. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 52(3), 287–295 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Groth, I. et al. Bogoriella caseilytica gen. nov., sp. Nov., a new alkaliphilic actinomycete from a soda lake in Africa. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 47(3), 788–794 (1997).CAS 

Google Scholar 
12.Glombitza, C. et al. Sulfate reduction controlled by organic matter availability in deep sediment cores from the saline, alkaline Lake Van (Eastern Anatolia, Turkey). Front. Microbiol. 4, 1–11 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Bilgili, A. et al. Van Gölü’nden avlanan inci kefali örneklerinde arsenik düzeyleri. Turk. J. Vet. Anim. Sci. 23(2), 367–371 (1999).MathSciNet 

Google Scholar 
14.Kremer, B., Kaźmierczak, J. & Kempe, S. Authigenic replacement of cyanobacterially precipitated calcium carbonate by aluminium-silicates in giant microbialites of Lake Van (Turkey). Sedimentology 66(1), 285–304 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Reimer, A., Landmann, G. & Kempe, S. Lake Van, Eastern Anatolia, hydrochemistry and history. Aquat. Geochem. 15(1–2), 195–222 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Tomonaga, Y. et al. Porewater salinity reveals past lake-level changes in Lake Van, the Earth’s largest soda lake. Sci. Rep. 7(1), 1–10 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Pecoraino, G., Dlessandro, W. & Inguaggiato, S. The other side of the coin: Geochemistry of alkaline lakes in volcanic areas. In Volcanic Lakes (eds Rouwet, D. et al.) 219–237 (Springer, 2015).Chapter 

Google Scholar 
18.Kaden, H. et al. Impact of lake level change on deep-water renewal and oxic conditions in deep saline Lake Van. Turkey. Water Resour. Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009WR008555 (2010).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Landmann, G. & Kempe, S. Annual deposition signal versus lake dynamics: Microprobe analysis of Lake Van (Turkey) sediments reveals missing varves in the period 11.2–10.2 ka BP. Facies 51(1–4), 135–145 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Degens, E. T. et al. A geological study of Lake Van, eastern Turkey. Geol. Rundsch. 73(2), 701–734 (1984).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Duckworth, A. W. et al. Phylogenetic diversity of soda lake alkaliphiles. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 19(3), 181–191 (1996).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Sorokin, D. Y. et al. Microbial diversity and biogeochemical cycling in soda lakes. Extremophiles 18(5), 791–809 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Zargar, K. et al. Identification of a novel oxidase gene, arxA, in the haloalkaliphilic, arsenite-oxidizing bacterium Alkalilimnicola echrlichii strain MLHE-1. J. Bacteriol. 192, 3755–3762 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Zargar, K. et al. ArxA, a new clade of arsenite oxidase within the DMSO reductase family of molybdenum oxidoreductases. Environ. Microbiol. 14(7), 1635–1645 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Zorz, J. K. et al. A shared core microbiome in soda lakes separated by large distances. Nat. Commun. 10(1), 1–10 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Matyugina, E. & Belkova, N. Distribution and diversity of microbial communities in meromictic soda Lake Doroninskoe (Transbaikalia, Russia) during winter. Chin. J. Oceanol. Limn. 33(6), 1378 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Liu, D. et al. Use of PCR primers derived from a putative transcriptional regulator gene for species-specific determination of Listeria monocytogenes. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 91, 297–304 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Camacho, C. et al. BLAST+: Architecture and applications. BMC Bioinform. 10, 421 (2009).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
29.Ionescu, D. et al. Microbial and chemical characterization of underwater fresh water springs in the Dead Sea. PLoS ONE 7, e38319 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Klindworth, A. et al. Evaluation of general 16S ribosomal RNA gene PCR primers for classical and next-generation sequencing-based diversity studies. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, e1 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Ondov, B. et al. Interactive metagenomic visualization in a web browser. BMC Bioinform. 12, 385 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Pruesse, E. et al. SINA: Accurate high throughput multiple sequence alignment of ribosomal RNA genes. Bioinformatics 28(14), 1823–1829 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

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

Google Scholar 
34.Rognes, T. et al. Vsearch: A versatile open source tool for metagenomics. Peer J. 4, e2584 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Hammer, Ø., Harper, D. A. & Ryan, P. D. Past: Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol. Electron. 4(1), 1–9 (2001).
Google Scholar 
36.Duckworth, A. W. et al. Halomonas magadii sp. Nov., a new member of the genus Halomonas, isolated from a soda lake of the East African Rift Valley. Extremophiles 4(1), 53–60 (2000).MathSciNet 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
37.Xin, H. et al. Natronobacterium nitratireducens sp. nov., a aloalkaliphilic archaeon isolated from a soda lake in China. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 51(5), 1825–1829 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
38.Joshi, A. et al. Nitrincola tapanii sp. nov., a novel alkaliphilic bacterium from An Indian Soda Lake. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 70(2), 1106–1111 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
39.Menes, R. J. et al. Bacillus natronophilus sp. nov., an alkaliphilic bacterium isolated from a soda lake. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 70(1), 562–568 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
40.Vavourakis, C. D. et al. A metagenomics roadmap to the uncultured genome diversity in hypersaline soda lake sediments. Microbiome. 6(1), 1–18 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Yigit, A. et al. Determination of water quality by ion characterization of Van Lake Water. Iğdır Univ. J. Inst. Sci. Tech. 7(4), 169–179. https://doi.org/10.21597/jist.2017.210 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Bilgili, A. et al. The natural quality of Van Lake and the levels of some heavy metals in grey mullet (Chalcalburus tariehi, Pallas 1811) samples taken from this lake. Ankara Üniv Vet Fak Dergisi 42, 445–450 (1995).
Google Scholar 
43.Demir Yetis, A. & Ozguven, A. Investigation of heavy metal pollution in surface waters of the Van Lake Edremit coast. Uludağ Univ. J. Fac. Eng. 25(2), 831–847. https://doi.org/10.17482/uumfd.752460 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Ersoy Omeroglu, E. & Karaboz, I. Characterization and arsenic-tolerance potential of Halomonas sp. from Van Lake, Turkey. VI Congress of Macedonian Microbiologists With International Participation, 30 May–6 June, Abstract Book, pp. 200–201 (2018).45.Ersoy Omeroglu, E. Evaluation of arsenic pollution and the effect of arsenic on Branchybacterium paraconglomeratum in Van Lake. 1st World Conference On Sustaninable Life Sciences WOCOLS 2019, 30 June–7 July, Abstract Book, p. 17 (2019).46.Reimer, A. Hydrochemie und Geochemie der Sedimente und Porenwa¨sser des hochalkalinen Van Sees in der Osttu¨rkei. Dissertation, Facult Geosci Univ Hamburg, 136 pp, unpublished, (1995).47.Kempe, S. et al. Largest known microbialites discovered in Lake Van, Turkey. Nature 349, 605–608 (1991).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Kazmierczak, J. & Kempe, S. Modern terrestrial analogues for the carbonate globules in Martian meteorite ALH84001. Naturwissenschaften 90, 167–172 (2003).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
49.Lopez-Garcia, P. et al. Bacterial diversity and carbonate precipitation in the microbialites of the highly alkaline Lake Van, Turkey. Extremophiles 9, 263–274 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
50.Poyraz, N. & Mutlu, M. B. Characterization of microbial populations of Lake Van by 16S metagenomics study. ESTUJST-A. 9(1), 80–88 (2020).
Google Scholar 
51.Poyraz, N. & Mutlu, B. M. Alkaliphilic bacterial diversity of Lake Van/Turkey. Biological Biodivers. Conserv. 10(1), 92–103 (2017).
Google Scholar 
52.Sen, F. et al. Endemic fish species of Van Lake basin. YYU J. Agr. Sci. 28, 63–70 (2018).
Google Scholar 
53.Danulat, E. & Kempe, S. Nitrogenous waste excretion at extremely alkaline pH: The story of Chalcalburnus tarichi (Cyprinidae), endemic to Lake Van, Eastern Turkey. Fish Physiol. Biochem. 9, 377–386 (1992).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Bostanci, D. & Polat, N. Age and growth of Alburnus tarichi (Güldenstädt, 1814): An endemic fish species of Lake Van (Turkey). J. Appl. Ichthyol. 27, 1346–1349 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Burger, J. et al. Armenian Gull (Larus armenicus). Handbook of the Birds of the World Alive, Lynx Edicions, Barcelona (2015).56.Oremland, R. S. et al. Methanogenesis in Big Soda Lake, Nevada: An alkaline, moderately hypersaline desert lake. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 43, 462–468 (1982).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Iversen, N. et al. Big Soda Lake (Nevada): 3: Pelagic methanogenesis and anaerobic methane oxidation. Limnol. Oceanogr. 32, 804–814 (1987).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Oremland, R. S. et al. The microbial arsenic cycle in Mono Lake, California. FEMS Microb. Ecol. 48, 15–27 (2004).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Sorokin, D. Y. et al. Microbial thiocyanate utilization under highly alkaline conditions. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 67, 528–538 (2001).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Sorokin, D. Y. et al. Thioalkalimicrobium aerophilum gen. nov., sp. nov. and Thioalkalimicrobium sibiricum sp. nov., and Thioalkalivibrio versutus gen. nov., sp. nov., Thioalkalivibrio nitratis sp. nov. and Thioalkalivibrio denitrificans sp. nov., novel obligately alkaliphilic and obligately chemolithoautotrophic sulfur-oxidizing bacteria from soda lakes. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 51, 565–580 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Sorokin, D. Y. et al. Thioalkalivibrio thiocyanooxidans sp. nov. and Thioalkalivibrio paradoxus sp. nov., novel alkaliphilic, obligately autotrophic, sulfur-oxidizing bacteria from the soda lakes able to grow with thiocyanate. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 52, 657–664 (2002).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Gorlenko, V. M. et al. Ectothiorhodospira variabilis sp. nov., an alkaliphilic and halophilic purple sulfur bacterium from soda lakes. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 69, 558–564 (2009).
Google Scholar 
63.Mwirichia, R. et al. Bacterial diversity in the haloalkaline Lake Elmenteita, Kenya. Curr. Microbiol. 62, 209–221 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Mesbah, N. M. et al. Novel and unexpected prokaryotic diversity in water and sediments of the alkaline, hypersaline lakes of the Wadi an Natrun, Egypt. Microbial Ecol. 54, 598–616 (2007).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Flandroy, L. et al. The impact of human activities and lifestyles on the interlinked microbiota and health of humans and of ecosystems. Sci. Total Environ. 627, 1018–1038 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Deshmukh, K. B. et al. Bacterial diversity of Lonar soda lake of India. Indian J. Microbiol. 51, 107–111 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Zhao, D. et al. Abundant taxa and favorable pathways in the microbiome of soda-saline lakes in Inner Mongolia. Front. Microbiol. 11, 1740 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Lavrentyeva, E. V. et al. Prokaryotic diversity in the biotopes of the Gudzhirganskoe saline lake (Barguzin Valley, Russia). Mikrobiologiya 89, 359–368 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
69.Glaring, M. A. et al. Microbial diversity in a permanently cold and alkaline environment in Greenland. PLoS ONE 10, e0124863 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
70.Tavormina, P. L. et al. Methyloprofundus sedimenti gen. nov., sp. nov., an obligate methanotroph from ocean sediment belonging to the ‘deep sea-1’clade of marine methanotrophs. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 65(1), 251–259 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
71.Sorokin, D. Y. et al. Dethiobacter alkaliphilus gen. nov. sp. nov., and Desulfurivibrio alkaliphilus gen. nov. sp. nov.: Two novel representatives of reductive sulfur cycle from soda lakes. Extremophiles 12, 431–439 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
72.Holmes, D. E. et al. Potential role of a novel psychrotolerant member of the family Geobacteraceae, Geopsychrobacter electrodiphilus gen. nov., sp. nov., in electricity production by a marine sediment fuel cell. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 70, 6023–6030 (2005).ADS 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
73.Pikuta, E. V. et al. Proteocatella sphenisci gen. nov., sp. nov., a psychrotolerant, spore-forming anaerobe isolated from penguin guano. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 59, 2302–2307 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
74.Stams, A. J. M. & Hansen, T. A. Fermentation of glutamate and other compounds by Acidaminobacter hydrogenoformans gen. nov. sp. nov., an obligate anaerobe isolated from black mud: Studies with pure cultures and mixed cultures with sulfate-reducing and methanogenic bacteria. Arch. Microbiol. 137, 329–337 (1984).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
75.Finegold, S. M. et al. Anaerofustis stercorihominis gen. nov., sp. nov., from human feces. Anaerobe 10, 41–45 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
76.Matthies, C. et al. Anaerovorax odorimutans gen. nov., sp. nov., a putrescine-fermenting, strictly anaerobic bacterium. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 50, 1591–1594 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
77.Higashiguchi, D. T. et al. Pilibacter termitis gen. nov., sp. nov., a lactic acid bacterium from the hindgut of the Formosan subterranean termite (Coptotermes formosanus). Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 56, 15–20 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
78.Labrenz, M. et al. Roseibaca ekhonensis gen. nov., sp. nov., an alkalitolerant and aerobic bacteriochlorophyll a-producing alphaproteobacterium from hypersaline Ekho Lake. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 59, 1935–1940 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
79.Sorokin, D. Y. et al. Nitriliruptor alkaliphilus gen. nov., sp. nov., a deep-lineage haloalkaliphilic actinobacterium from soda lakes capable of growth on aliphatic nitriles, and proposal of Nitriliruptoraceae fam. Nov. and Nitriliruptorales ord. nov. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 59, 248–253 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
80.Shahinpei, A. et al. Salinispirillum marinum gen. nov., sp. nov., a haloalkaliphilic bacterium in the family “Saccharospirillaceae”. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 64, 3610–3615 (2014).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
81.Munson, M. A. et al. Buchnera gen. nov. and Buchnera aphidicola sp. nov., a taxon consisting of the mycetocyte-associated, primary endosymbionts of aphids. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 41, 566–568 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.United Nations Environment Programme. Making Peace With Nature (Tech. Rep, United Nations Environment Programme, 2021).2.Newbold, T. et al. Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520, 45–50. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14324 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
3.Urban, M. C. Accelerating extinction risk from climate change. Science. (80-. ) 348, 571–573. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa4984 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Rosenberg, K. V. et al. Decline of the North American avifauna. Science. (80-. ) 366, 120–124. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw1313 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Jetz, W., Wilcove, D. S. & Dobson, A. P. Projected impacts of climate and land-use change on the global diversity of birds. PLoS Biol. 5, 1211–1219. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050157 (2007).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Abrahamczyk, S. & Renner, S. S. The temporal build-up of hummingbird/plant mutualisms in North America and temperate South America. BMC Evol. Biol.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-015-0388-z (2015).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
7.Grant, V. & Grant, K. A. A Hummingbird-Pollinated Species of Boraginaceae in the Arizona Flora. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 66, 917–919. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.66.3.917 (1970).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
8.Ratto, F. et al. Global importance of vertebrate pollinators for plant reproductive success: A meta-analysis. Front. Ecol. Environ. 16, 82–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1763 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.McGuire, J. A. et al. Molecular phylogenetics and the diversification of hummingbirds. Curr. Biol. 24, 910–916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.03.016 (2014).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
10.Sauer, J. R., Link, W. A., Fallon, J. E., Pardieck, K. L. & Ziolkowski, D. J. The North American breeding bird survey 1966–2011: Summary analysis and species accounts. N. Am. Fauna 79, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.3996/nafa.79.0001 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Bairlein, F. Migratory birds under threat. Science (80-. ). 354, 547–548. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah6647 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Battey, C. J. Ecological release of the Anna’s Hummingbird during a Northern range expansion. Am. Nat. 194, 306–315. https://doi.org/10.1086/704249 (2019).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
13.Clark, C. J. EBird records show substantial growth of the Allen’s Hummingbird (Selasphorus sasin sedentarius) population in urban Southern California. Condor 119, 122–130. https://doi.org/10.1650/CONDOR-16-153.1 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Sleeter, B. M. et al. Land-cover change in the conterminous United States from 1973 to 2000. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 733–748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.03.006 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Gallant, A. L., Loveland, T. R., Sohl, T. L. & Napton, D. E. Using an ecoregion framework to analyze land-cover and land-use dynamics. Environ. Manag.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-003-0145-3 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Williamson, S. L. A Field Guide to Hummingbirds of North America (Peterson Field Guide Series) (Houghton Mifflin Company, 2002).
Google Scholar 
17.Panjabi, A. O. et al. Avian Conservation Assessment Database Handbook Version 2021. Tech. Rep. (Partners in Flight Technical Series, Bird Conservancy of the Rockies, 2021).
Google Scholar 
18.Gillespie, C., Contreras-Martinez, S., Bishop, C. & Alexander, J. Rufous Hummingbird: State of the Science and Conservation : simplebooklet.com. Tech. Rep., (Western Hummingbird Partnership, 2020).19.International Union for Conservation of Nature. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. Tech. Rep. (IUCN Species Survival Commission, 2001).
Google Scholar 
20.Lehikoinen, A. Climate change, phenology and species detectability in a monitoring scheme. Popul. Ecol. 55, 315–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10144-012-0359-9 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Massimino, D., Harris, S. J. & Gillings, S. Phenological mismatch between breeding birds and their surveyors and implications for estimating population trends. J. Ornithol. 162, 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-020-01821-5 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.McGrath, L. J., van Riper III, C. & Fontaine, J. J. Flower power: Tree flowering phenology as a settlement cue for migrating birds. J. Anim. Ecol. 78, 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2008.01464.x (2009).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
23.Jones, T. & Cresswell, W. The phenology mismatch hypothesis: Are declines of migrant birds linked to uneven global climate change?. J. Anim. Ecol. 79, 98–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2009.01610.x (2010).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
24.Courter, J. R. Changes in spring arrival dates of rufous hummingbirds (Selasphorus rufus) In Western North America in the past century. Wilson J. Ornithol. 129, 535–544. https://doi.org/10.1676/16-133.1 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Rooney, T. Deer impacts on forest ecosystems: A North American perspective. Forestry 74, 201–208. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/74.3.201 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Côté, S. D., Rooney, T. P., Tremblay, J.-P., Dussault, C. & Waller, D. M. Ecological impacts of deer overabundance. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 35, 113–147. https://doi.org/10.2307/annurev.ecolsys.35.021103.30000006 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Decalesta, D. S. Effect of white-tailed deer on songbirds within managed forests in Pennsylvania. J. Wildl. Manag. 58, 711–718 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.English, S. G. et al. Neonicotinoid pesticides exert metabolic effects on avian pollinators. Sci. Rep. 11, 2914. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-82470-3 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
29.Bishop, C. A. et al. Determination of neonicotinoids and butenolide residues in avian and insect pollinators and their ambient environment in Western Canada (2017, 2018). Sci. Total Environ. 737, 139386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139386 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
30.Graves, E. E. et al. Analysis of insecticide exposure in California hummingbirds using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 26, 15458–15466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-04903-x (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Hill, G. E., Sargent, R. R. & Sargent, M. B. Recent change in the winter distribution of Rufous Hummingbirds. Auk 115, 240–245. https://doi.org/10.2307/4089135 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Smith, A. C. & Edwards, B. P. M. North American Breeding Bird Survey status and trend estimates to inform a wide range of conservation needs, using a flexible Bayesian hierarchical generalized additive model. Condor 123, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1093/ornithapp/duaa065 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Wilson, S. et al. Prioritize diversity or declining species? Trade-offs and synergies in spatial planning for the conservation of migratory birds in the face of land cover change. Biol. Conserv. 239, 108285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108285 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Toledo-Aceves, T., Meave, J. A., González-Espinosa, M. & Ramírez-Marcial, N. Tropical montane cloud forests: Current threats and opportunities for their conservation and sustainable management in Mexico. J. Environ. Manag. 92, 974–981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.11.007 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Hansen, M. C. et al. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science (80-. ). 342, 850–853. https://doi.org/10.1126/SCIENCE.1244693 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Westerling, A. L. Increasing western US forest wildfire activity: Sensitivity to changes in the timing of spring. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.https://doi.org/10.1098/RSTB.2015.0178 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Neeraja, U. V., Rajendrakumar, S., Saneesh, C. S., Dyda, V. & Knight, T. M. Fire alters diversity, composition, and structure of dry tropical forests in the Eastern Ghats. Ecol. Evol. 11, 6593–6603. https://doi.org/10.1002/ECE3.7514 (2021).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
38.Courter, J. R., Johnson, R. J., Bridges, W. C. & Hubbard, K. G. Assessing migration of Ruby-throated Hummingbirds (Archilochus colubris) at broad spatial and temporal scales at broad spatial and temporal scales. Auk 130, 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1525/auk.2012.12058 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Greig, E. I., Wood, E. M. & Bonter, D. N. Winter range expansion of a hummingbird is associated with urbanization and supplementary feeding. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.0256 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Jepson, W. L. & Hickman, J. C. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of California (University of California Press, 1993).
Google Scholar 
41.Scarfe, A. & Finlay, J. C. Rapid second nesting by Anna’s Hummingbird near its Northern breeding limit. West. Birds 32, 131–133 (2001).
Google Scholar 
42.Bibby, C. J., Burgess, N. D. & Hill, D. A. Bird Census Techniques (Academic Press, 1992).
Google Scholar 
43.Thogmartin, W. E. et al. A review of the population estimation approach of the North American landbird conservation plan. Auk 123, 892–904. https://doi.org/10.1093/auk/123.3.892 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Carter, M. F., Hunter, W. C., Pashley, D. N. & Rosenberg, K. V. Setting conservation priorities for landbirds in the United States: The partners in flight approach. Auk 117, 541–548. https://doi.org/10.1093/auk/117.2.541 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Sauer, J. R. & Link, W. A. Analysis of the North American breeding bird survey using hierarchical models. Auk 128, 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1525/auk.2010.09220 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Sauer, J. R., Niven, D. K., Pardieck, K. L., Ziolkowski, D. J. & Link, W. A. Expanding the North American Breeding Bird Survey analysis to include additional species and regions. J. Fish Wildl. Manag. 8, 154–172. https://doi.org/10.3996/102015-JFWM-109 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Stanton, J. C., Blancher, P., Rosenberg, K. V., Panjabi, A. O. & Thogmartin, W. E. Estimating uncertainty of North American landbird population sizes. Avian Conserv. Ecol.https://doi.org/10.5751/ACE-01331-140104 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Schuster, R. et al. Optimizing the conservation of migratory species over their full annual cycle. Nat. Commun.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09723-8 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
49.Johnston, A. et al. Abundance models improve spatial and temporal prioritization of conservation resources. Ecol. Appl. 25, 1749–1756. https://doi.org/10.1890/14-1826.1 (2015).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
50.Robbins, C., Bystrak, D. & Geissler, P. The Breeding Bird Survey: Its First Fifteen Years, 1965–1979. Tech. Rep. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1986).51.R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 4.0.3) [Computer software] (2020).52.Smith, A. C., Hudson, M.-A., Aponte, V. & Francis, C. North American Breeding Bird Survey—Canadian Trends Website. Data-version 2017 (2019).53.Edwards, B. P. M. & Smith, A. C. bbsBayes: An R package for hierarchical Bayesian analysis of North American breeding bird survey data. J. Open Res. Softw.https://doi.org/10.5334/JORS.329 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
54.North American Bird Conservation Initiative. Bird Conservation Region Descriptions. Tech. Rep. (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000).
Google Scholar  More