Ecology

Download PDF

As a wildlife-conservation biologist studying climate change, I want to understand the evolving environment through the eyes of large animals. My work — usually in cold, remote places — involves finding animals, and ways to eat, sleep and be warm. I might be miserable, but I get insights that others cannot into what animals are doing.For about 15 years I’ve been interested in musk oxen (Ovibos moschatus), social herd animals that roamed with woolly mammoths. This picture was taken on Wrangel Island, off the northeast coast of Russia, when I was studying how musk oxen react to polar bears. Because polar ice is melting, more polar bears are hunting on land, and they’re known to have killed musk oxen. These herd animals typically don’t flee from predators such as grizzly bears. They tend to form huddles instead, and male musk oxen have killed grizzlies. Would they try to kill polar bears, too?To find out, I dressed as a polar bear, pulling a bear head on and placing a cape over a range finder, camera and data books. I was cold and nervous. I didn’t want to be killed by a charging musk ox — or by anything else. If some oxen charged, I’d throw off my costume and stand up straight, as I’m doing here; so far, that had stopped them. I’d also encountered a female polar bear with newborn cubs, but she’d left me alone. This picture is from the end of a session, and I’d lived another day. Whew!I learnt that musk oxen are more likely to flee from polar bears than from grizzlies. But during this trip to Russia, I was arrested — over a date error on my permits. In court, the only word I understood was ‘CIA’. I was let go, but banned from returning for three years, so I’m now studying the huemul (Hippocamelus bisulcus), an endangered species of deer that lives in the shadows of glaciers at the tip of South America. As glaciers recede, how will huemul populations respond?

Nature 597, 296 (2021)
doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02429-2

Related Articles

Tracking Chernobyl’s effects on wildlife

Chasing bats at dawn

To look after these birds is to ‘fall in love’ with them

Subjects

Careers

Climate change

Conservation biology

Latest on:

Careers

Diversity in science workforce an ‘economic imperative’
Career News 02 SEP 21

What makes us tick: lab leaders describe their research philosophies
Career Guide 01 SEP 21

In memory of a game-changing haematologist
Correspondence 31 AUG 21

Climate change

Freak US winters linked to Arctic warming
News 03 SEP 21

Policy, drought and fires combine to affect biodiversity in the Amazon basin
News & Views 01 SEP 21

The contribution of insects to global forest deadwood decomposition
Article 01 SEP 21

Jobs

PhD Project – High recovery and chemical-free desalination using advanced electrodialysis schemes

Wetsus Centre of Excellence for Sustainable Water Technology
Leeuwarden, Netherlands

PhD Project – Beyond chlorine: alternative sustainable compounds to remove biofilms in drinking water environments

Wetsus Centre of Excellence for Sustainable Water Technology
Leeuwarden, Netherlands

PhD Project – Sensing strategies for real-time, early warning monitoring of biofilm formation parameters in drinking water distribution systems

Wetsus Centre of Excellence for Sustainable Water Technology
Leeuwarden, Netherlands

Enhancing the local water cycle via evaporation for a sustainable water supply

Wetsus Centre of Excellence for Sustainable Water Technology
Leeuwarden, Netherlands

Nature Briefing
An essential round-up of science news, opinion and analysis, delivered to your inbox every weekday.

Email address

Yes! Sign me up to receive the daily Nature Briefing email. I agree my information will be processed in accordance with the Nature and Springer Nature Limited Privacy Policy.

Sign up More

We focused our research on countries/territories in Asia (specifically, Hong Kong SAR, Japan, Myanmar, Thailand and Vietnam) because COVID-19 had not spread much outside Asia at the time of data collection and the global effects were predominantly concentrated in East and Southeast Asia. Our five survey countries/territories were chosen because they all have relatively high levels of wildlife trade but also represent very different forms of trade (for example, the pet trade in Japan versus the wild-meat trade in Vietnam). Surveying respondents from markets with these different forms of trade thus allowed an examination of how the full variety of wildlife consumption types may be impacted by perceived disease risk. Budgetary constraints precluded the inclusion of further countries, although we believe those that were surveyed provide a valid snapshot of the main regional issues and patterns. The exception to this may be the exclusion of China, a key global player in the wildlife trade and the possible origin of the COVID-19 virus. Conducting research in China requires an extensive process to obtain permission that was not consistent with the opportunistic nature of our survey, which was mobilized quickly to target opinions from a snapshot view of an (at that time) emerging disease. Given the time-sensitive nature of the research, we were therefore unable to wait for the necessary permissions to include China in this survey.Our online survey was conducted between March 3–11, 2020 and surveyed 1,000 respondents in each of the five target countries/territories. We designed and translated our questionnaires with local experts to ensure questions were culturally appropriate, understandable and relevant. The survey was a quantitative data collection instrument that comprised 32 questions, lasted on average 8 minutes, and respondents were offered an incentive for participating. Respondents aged 18+ were invited via email from an online panel of over 2.5 million people in the target countries/territories, and could answer on any internet-capable device (for example smartphone, tablet, laptop) at their convenience. Only respondents aged 18 and over were eligible to take the survey, which was entirely voluntary. Any respondents working in advertising, public relations, marketing, market research or media industries were screened out to prevent possible bias. The email invite that was sent to participants did not specify the exact nature of the survey to avoid skewing the participants towards those that believed they know about the topic. Instead, the invite indicated that the questions would be about ‘consumption and shopping habits’. The panel is maintained by Toluna (https://tolunacorporate.com/), an online data collection group focused on providing high-quality market research data to clients in various business and non-business sectors. Toluna builds and maintains large online consumer panels to collect these data while adhering to stringent global and local guidelines for panel management and data quality, and is a member of the European Society for Opinion and Market Research (https://www.esomar.org).Toluna respects privacy and is committed to protecting personal data. Their privacy policy (https://tolunacorporate.com/legal/privacy-policy/) provides information on how Toluna collects and processes personal data, explains privacy rights and gives an overview of applicable legislation protecting the handling of personal information. Toluna only uses personal data when the law allows the data to be used.Respondents were asked demographic questions, and quotas based on the most recent census data for each country/territory were used to ensure the final sample profile was nationally representative of age and gender, except in Myanmar where internet access skewed online panel members to a younger male demographic. Specifically, participants were excluded once quotas on age and gender were filled, and again, participants working in advertising/public relations, marketing research or media were excluded from the survey as we believed these jobs could influence responses. Respondents were asked about societal, economic and environmental concerns, their perception of COVID-19 and their attitudes towards wildlife and wildlife consumption (Supplementary Methods). We also excluded respondents who stated that they were unsure whether they or anyone in their social circle had recently purchased wildlife products (n = 421), as well as an additional n = 39 respondents who were unable to answer survey questions that were later included as covariates in our models.Because of the potentially sensitive nature of wildlife consumption, we asked about past wildlife purchases indirectly, questioning respondents on whether anyone within their social circle, including themselves, had recently purchased wildlife products. Indirect questions can improve answer rates for questions that people may feel uncomfortable about answering honestly27. During the pandemic, respondents may have felt uncomfortable about revealing wildlife purchases, given links between wildlife consumption and COVID-19. Additionally, although most wildlife consumption is legal (with restrictions) in the markets surveyed, some is not, and researchers can be perceived as having interests contrary to that of the respondent. For less-sensitive questions on future wildlife consumption and changes in consumption resulting from COVID-19, we asked respondents for their own response rather than that of their social group.Previous studies have found a high correlation between an individual’s admission of using a wildlife product and their likelihood of being within a network of individuals who buy such products28, and suggested that this is linked to homophily in social networks, especially in Southeast Asia. The homophily principle states that people’s personal networks are homogeneous with regard to many socio-demographic, behavioural and intrapersonal characteristics29. Research on wildlife consumption in other Southeast Asian contexts suggests that social groups can be a motivator to begin or maintain consumption of wildlife products28,30. Our own previous research supports this, indicating a strong correlation between one’s own tiger and ivory purchases and knowing someone within one’s social circle who has purchased such products. Additionally and recognizing the homophily principle, behaviour change campaigns targeted at social networks rather than individuals per se are likely to achieve better results than non-targeted campaigns. Changing perceptions of acceptability is a key aspect of social marketing and is used in the social mobilization domain of social and behaviour change communications, which has become a popular framework for reducing demand for illegally traded wildlife products31. Influencing people within a wildlife consumer’s social network may therefore have a higher rate of efficacy than attempting to influence the perceptions of individuals who do not know any consumers of wildlife.We used hierarchical Bayesian regression models to assess relationships between socio-demographic explanators and our three response variables: (1) self-reported recent wildlife consumption, (2) change in wildlife consumption as a result of COVID-19 and (3) anticipated future wildlife consumption. Explanatory variables included 22 non-collinear variables in six categories: basic demographics, awareness and level of worry of COVID-19, COVID-19 personal impacts, support for and effectiveness of wildlife market closures, international travel habits and general attitudes towards global issues (Supplementary Table 1). Aside from household income (measured in US dollars per year), age (midpoint of year categories from the survey question) and education (ordinal, reflecting increasing level of schooling), all other variables were categorical; those with more than two categories were collapsed into dummy variables. Income, age and education were standardized and included to investigate whether a person’s general socio-economic status affects wildlife consumption. General attitudes towards global issues were expected to reflect aspects of respondents’ political tendencies, while travel habits were included to test the hypothesis that those who travel internationally more habitually are, and will be, more frequent consumers of wildlife. Questions regarding awareness and impacts of COVID-19, and concern about future disease epidemics, were asked to determine how the pandemic may be shaping wildlife consumption. Finally, support and perceived effectiveness of wildlife market closures were included as predictor variables since this measure has been suggested as a strong policy lever to reduce wildlife consumption.The general structure of all three models was as follows:$$y_{ij}sim {{{mathrm{Bernoulli}}}}left( {theta _{ij}} right)$$
(1)
$${mathrm{logit}}left( theta right) = alpha + {{u}_1} + {beta} {mathbf{X}} + {{u}_2}{mathbf{Z}}$$
(2)
This model allowed both coefficients and intercepts to vary across countries (that is, a ‘random-slope random-intercept’ model). In equation (1), yij is whether or not individual i in country j reported wildlife consumption, modelled as a Bernoulli trial with probability θij. The logit transformation of θ (equation 2) is a linear function of parameters α and u1 (the fixed intercept term and a vector of the country-specific intercept terms, respectively), as well as a vector of fixed regression coefficients β and a vector of country-specific regression coefficients u2, with X and Z being the corresponding design matrices32. For α and β, we used an improper flat prior over the real numbers, while the group level parameters u1 and u2 were assumed to arise from a multivariate normal distribution with mean 0 and unknown covariance matrix. The covariance matrix was parameterized by a correlation matrix having a Lewandowski–Kurowicka–Joe prior, and a standard deviation with half-Student t prior with three degrees of freedom32.For the three dependent variables, we evaluated the predictive power of a model containing all 22 variables, as well as six subset models, using Watanabe–Akaike Information Criterion and leave-one-out cross-validation33. Each of these six subset models contained all explanatory variables except for those within one of the six categories described above (for example, all explanatory variables except those relating to international travel habits, all explanatory variables except those relating to support for wildlife market closures). We used this model-comparison approach to test whether any of these categories of explanatory variable were more or less important in explaining wildlife consumption; if particular categories of variable are stronger predictors of wildlife consumption, this could help inform where future conservation interventions should focus on. Watanabe–Akaike Information Criterion and leave-one-out cross-validation are both measures of model predictive accuracy (both use log predictive density as the utility function or comparison metric) and have been suggested as useful metrics for Bayesian model selection33. We interpreted variable coefficients whose 95% Bayesian credible intervals did not contain 0 as providing strong evidence for the impact of that variable on the outcome in each of the three models for self-reported wildlife consumption (that is, recent, future and changes due to COVID-19). Models were estimated using the R statistical computing software34, in particular the package brms32, with four chains of 1,000 iterations each, a 500-iteration warm-up period, and with successful convergence verified by confirming that R-hat statistical values were less than or equal to 1.01 (ref. 22).We used the Bayesian hierarchical model of anticipated future wildlife consumption and generated predicted probabilities of future consumption for our sample population (Fig. 2, grey bars). We then predicted future consumption probabilities for a hypothetical behaviour-change intervention (Fig. 2, coloured bars). This intervention was simulated by setting the ‘medical impact’ variable to zero for all individuals, and by assigning all individuals into the ‘aware lots’ and ‘support very likely’ categories for questions related to level of awareness of COVID-19 and level of support for government closure of domestic wildlife markets, respectively. All other variables for individuals were held at the levels recorded in the surveys. We considered the difference between these two predicted probabilities as the impact of the hypothetical behaviour-change intervention, which we examined at the level of the country/territory and within education, age, income and gender demographic classes. Strong evidence for the effectiveness of this hypothetical intervention among countries and demographic classes was suggested where Bayesian credible intervals around the mean predicted difference were less than zero (Supplementary Table 3).Reporting SummaryFurther information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article. More

1.Kannenberg, S. A., Schwalm, C. R. & Anderegg, W. R. L. Ghosts of the past: how drought legacy effects shape forest functioning and carbon cycling. Ecol. Lett. 23, 891–901 (2020).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
2.Padisak, J. Seasonal succession of phytoplankton in a large shallow lake (Balaton, Hungary)—a dynamic approach to ecological memory, its possible role and mechanisms. J. Ecol. 80, 217–230 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Power, D. A. et al. What can ecosystems learn? Expanding evolutionary ecology with learning theory. Biol. Direct 10, 69 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Falkowski, P. G., Fenchel, T. & Delong, E. F. The microbial engines that drive Earth’s biogeochemical cycles. Science 320, 1034–1039 (2008).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
5.Reichstein, M. et al. Climate extremes and the carbon cycle. Nature 500, 287 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
6.Seneviratne, S. I. et al. Changes in climate extremes and their impacts on the natural physical environment. In Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (eds. Field, C.B. et al.) 109–230 (Cambridge University Press, 2017).7.Pappas, C., Mahecha, M. D., Frank, D. C., Babst, F. & Koutsoyiannis, D. Ecosystem functioning is enveloped by hydrometeorological variability. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1263–1270 (2017).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
8.Hawkes, C. V. & Keitt, T. H. Resilience vs. historical contingency in microbial responses to environmental change. Ecol. Lett. 18, 612–625 (2015).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
9.Johnstone, J. F. et al. Changing disturbance regimes, ecological memory, and forest resilience. Front. Ecol. Environ. 14, 369–378 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Ochoa‐Hueso, R. et al. Drought consistently alters the composition of soil fungal and bacterial communities in grasslands from two continents. Glob. Chang. Biol. 24, 2818–2827 (2018).11.Bastida, F. et al. Differential sensitivity of total and active soil microbial communities to drought and forest management. Glob. Chang. Biol. 23, 4185–4203 (2017).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
12.Evans, S. E., Wallenstein, M. D. & Burke, I. C. Is bacterial moisture niche a good predictor of shifts in community composition under long-term drought? Ecology 95, 110–122 (2014).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
13.de Vries, F. T. et al. Soil bacterial networks are less stable under drought than fungal networks. Nat. Commun. 9, 3033 (2018).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
14.Rousk, J., Smith, A. R. & Jones, D. L. Investigating the long-term legacy of drought and warming on the soil microbial community across five European shrubland ecosystems. Glob. Chang. Biol. 19, 3872–3884 (2013).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
15.Kaisermann, A., de Vries, F. T., Griffiths, R. I. & Bardgett, R. D. Legacy effects of drought on plant–soil feedbacks and plant–plant interactions. New Phytol. 215, 1413–1424 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
16.Fuchslueger, L. et al. Drought history affects grassland plant and microbial carbon turnover during and after a subsequent drought event. J. Ecol. 104, 1453–1465 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

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

Google Scholar 
18.de Nijs, E. A., Hicks, L. C., Leizeaga, A., Tietema, A. & Rousk, J. Soil microbial moisture dependences and responses to drying–rewetting: the legacy of 18 years drought. Glob. Chang. Biol. 25, 1005–1015 (2019).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
19.Fuchslueger, L., Bahn, M., Fritz, K., Hasibeder, R. & Richter, A. Experimental drought reduces the transfer of recently fixed plant carbon to soil microbes and alters the bacterial community composition in a mountain meadow. New Phytol. 201, 916–927 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
20.Mooshammer, M., Wanek, W., Zechmeister-Boltenstern, S. & Richter, A. Stoichiometric imbalances between terrestrial decomposer communities and their resources: mechanisms and implications of microbial adaptations to their resources. Front. Microbiol. 5, 22 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Waring, B. G., Weintraub, S. R. & Sinsabaugh, R. L. Ecoenzymatic stoichiometry of microbial nutrient acquisition in tropical soils. Biogeochemistry 117, 101–113 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Sinsabaugh, R. L. et al. Stoichiometry of soil enzyme activity at global scale. Ecol. Lett. 11, 1252–1264 (2008).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
23.Douglas, G. M. et al. PICRUSt2 for prediction of metagenome functions. Nat. Biotechnol. 38, 685–688, (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Csonka, L. N. Physiological and genetic responses of bacteria to osmotic stress. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 53, 121–147 (1989).CAS 

Google Scholar 
25.Whitfield, G. B., Marmont, L. S. & Howell, P. L. Enzymatic modifications of exopolysaccharides enhance bacterial persistence. Front. Microbiol. 6, 471 (2015).26.Byrd, M. S. et al. Genetic and biochemical analyses of the Pseudomonas aeruginosa Psl exopolysaccharide reveal overlapping roles for polysaccharide synthesis enzymes in Psl and LPS production. Mol. Microbiol. 73, 622–638 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
27.El Zoeiby, A., Sanschagrin, F. & Levesque, R. C. Structure and function of the Mur enzymes: development of novel inhibitors. Mol. Microbiol. 47, 1–12 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
28.Lebre, P. H., De Maayer, P. & Cowan, D. A. Xerotolerant bacteria: surviving through a dry spell. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 15, 285–296 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
29.Delgado-Baquerizo, M. et al. Microbial diversity drives multifunctionality in terrestrial ecosystems. Nat. Commun. 7, 10541 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Hughes, T. P. et al. Ecological memory modifies the cumulative impact of recurrent climate extremes. Nat. Clim. Chang. 9, 40–43 (2019).31.Seidl, R., Donato, D. C., Raffa, K. F. & Turner, M. G. Spatial variability in tree regeneration after wildfire delays and dampens future bark beetle outbreaks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 13075–13080 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Hillebrand, H. & Kunze, C. Meta-analysis on pulse disturbances reveals differences in functional and compositional recovery across ecosystems. Ecol. Lett. 23, 575–585 (2020).33.Meisner, A., Jacquiod, S., Snoek, B. L., ten Hooven, F. C. & van der Putten, W. H. Drought legacy effects on the composition of soil fungal and prokaryote communities. Front. Microbiol. 9, 294 (2018).34.Bardgett, R. D. & Caruso, T. Soil microbial community responses to climate extremes: resistance, resilience and transitions to alternative states. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 375, 20190112 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Isobe, K., Bouskill, N. J., Brodie, E. L., Sudderth, E. A. & Martiny, J. B. H. Phylogenetic conservation of soil bacterial responses to simulated global changes. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 375, 20190242 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Barberán, A., Caceres Velazquez, H., Jones, S. & Fierer, N. Hiding in plain sight: mining bacterial species records for phenotypic trait information. mSphere 2, e00237–17 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Bouskill, N. J. et al. Pre-exposure to drought increases the resistance of tropical forest soil bacterial communities to extended drought. ISME J. 7, 384 (2012).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
38.Taketani, R. G. et al. Dry season constrains bacterial phylogenetic diversity in a semi-arid rhizosphere system. Microb. Ecol. 73, 153–161 (2017).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
39.Naylor, D., DeGraaf, S., Purdom, E. & Coleman-Derr, D. Drought and host selection influence bacterial community dynamics in the grass root microbiome. ISME J. 11, 2691 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Xu, L. et al. Drought delays development of the sorghum root microbiome and enriches for monoderm bacteria. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, E4284–E4293 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Taniguchi, T., Kitajima, K., Douhan, G. W., Yamanaka, N. & Allen, M. F. A pulse of summer precipitation after the dry season triggers changes in ectomycorrhizal formation, diversity, and community composition in a Mediterranean forest in California, USA. Mycorrhiza 28, 665–677 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Ren, C. et al. Responses of soil total microbial biomass and community compositions to rainfall reductions. Soil Biol. Biochem. 116, 4–10 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Furze, J. R. et al. Resistance and resilience of root fungal communities to water limitation in a temperate agroecosystem. Ecol. Evol. 7, 3443–3454 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Deveautour, C., Donn, S., Power, S. A., Bennett, A. E. & Powell, J. R. Experimentally altered rainfall regimes and host root traits affect grassland arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal communities. Mol. Ecol. 27, 2152–2163 (2018).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
45.Averill, C., Turner, B. L. & Finzi, A. C. Mycorrhiza-mediated competition between plants and decomposers drives soil carbon storage. Nature 505, 543–545 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
46.Dijkstra, F. A., He, M., Johansen, M. P., Harrison, J. J. & Keitel, C. Plant and microbial uptake of nitrogen and phosphorus affected by drought using 15N and 32P tracers. Soil Biol. Biochem. 82, 135–142 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Kakumanu, M. L., Ma, L. & Williams, M. A. Drought-induced soil microbial amino acid and polysaccharide change and their implications for C–N cycles in a climate change world. Sci. Rep. 9, 10968 (2019).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
48.Sleator, R. D. & Hill, C. Bacterial osmoadaptation: the role of osmolytes in bacterial stress and virulence. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 26, 49–71 (2002).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
49.Warren, C. R. Response of osmolytes in soil to drying and rewetting. Soil Biol. Biochem. 70, 22–32 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Bouskill, N. J. et al. Belowground response to drought in a tropical forest soil. I. Changes in microbial functional potential and metabolism. Front. Microbiol. 7, 525 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
51.Flemming, H.-C. et al. Biofilms: an emergent form of bacterial life. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 14, 563 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
52.Malik, A. A. et al. Drought and plant litter chemistry alter microbial gene expression and metabolite production. ISME J. 14, 2236–2247 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Nunan, N., Raynaud, X. & Schmidt, H. The ecology of heterogeneity: soil bacterial communities and C dynamics. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 375, 20190249 (2020).54.Li, J. et al. Predictive genomic traits for bacterial growth in culture versus actual growth in soil. ISME J. 13, 2162–2172 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Maestre, F. T. et al. Plant species richness and ecosystem multifunctionality in global drylands. Science 335, 214–218 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Grigulis, K. et al. Relative contributions of plant traits and soil microbial properties to mountain grassland ecosystem services. J. Ecol. 101, 47–57 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Lau, J. A. & Lennon, J. T. Rapid responses of soil microorganisms improve plant fitness in novel environments. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 14058–14062 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

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

Google Scholar 
59.Huang, S. et al. Autotrophic and heterotrophic soil respiration responds asymmetrically to drought in a subtropical forest in the Southeast China. Soil Biol. Biochem. 123, 242–249 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
60.López-Ballesteros, A. et al. Enhancement of the net CO2 release of a semiarid grassland in SE Spain by rain pulses. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 121, 52–66 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
61.Schimel, J. P. Life in dry soils: effects of drought on soil microbial communities and processes. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 49, 409–432 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Canarini, A., Kaiser, C., Merchant, A., Richter, A. & Wanek, W. Root exudation of primary metabolites: mechanisms and their roles in plant responses to environmental stimuli. Front. Plant Sci. 10, 157 (2019).63.de Vries, F. T. et al. Changes in root-exudate-induced respiration reveal a novel mechanism through which drought affects ecosystem carbon cycling. New Phytol. 224, 132–145 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
64.Teste, F. P. et al. Plant-soil feedback and the maintenance of diversity in Mediterranean-climate shrublands. Science 355, 173–176 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
65.Hu, L. et al. Root exudate metabolites drive plant-soil feedbacks on growth and defense by shaping the rhizosphere microbiota. Nat. Commun. 9, 2738 (2018).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
66.Canarini, A., Merchant, A. & Dijkstra, F. A. Drought effects on Helianthus annuus and Glycine max metabolites: from phloem to root exudates. Rhizosphere 2, 85–97 (2016).67.Canarini, A. & Dijkstra, F. A. Dry-rewetting cycles regulate wheat carbon rhizodeposition, stabilization and nitrogen cycling. Soil Biol. Biochem. 81, 195–203 (2015).68.Morecroft, M. D. et al. Changing precipitation patterns alter plant community dynamics and succession in an ex-arable grassland. Funct. Ecol. 18, 648–655 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Strickland, M. S., Osburn, E., Lauber, C., Fierer, N. & Bradford, M. A. Litter quality is in the eye of the beholder: initial decomposition rates as a function of inoculum characteristics. Funct. Ecol. 23, 627–636 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Allison, S. D. et al. Microbial abundance and composition influence litter decomposition response to environmental change. Ecology 94, 714–725 (2013).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
71.Walker, T. W. N. et al. A systemic overreaction to years versus decades of warming in a subarctic grassland ecosystem. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 101–108 (2020).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
72.Ogle, K. et al. Quantifying ecological memory in plant and ecosystem processes. Ecol. Lett. 18, 221–235 (2015).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
73.Bahn, M., Knapp, M., Garajova, Z., Pfahringer, N. & Cernusca, A. Root respiration in temperate mountain grasslands differing in land use. Glob. Chang. Biol. 12, 995–1006 (2006).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
74.Bahn, M. et al. Soil respiration at mean annual temperature predicts annual total across vegetation types and biomes. Biogeosciences 7, 2147 (2010).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
75.Schmitt, M., Bahn, M., Wohlfahrt, G., Tappeiner, U. & Cernusca, A. Land use affects the net ecosystem CO2 exchange and its components in mountain grasslands. Biogeosciences 7, 2297 (2010).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
76.Estiarte, M. et al. Few multiyear precipitation–reduction experiments find a shift in the productivity–precipitation relationship. Glob. Chang. Biol. 22, 2570–2581 (2016).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
77.Spohn, M., Klaus, K., Wanek, W. & Richter, A. Microbial carbon use efficiency and biomass turnover times depending on soil depth—Implications for carbon cycling. Soil Biol. Biochem. 96, 74–81 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
78.Manzoni, S., Taylor, P., Richter, A., Porporato, A. & Ågren, G. I. Environmental and stoichiometric controls on microbial carbon-use efficiency in soils. New Phytol. 196, 79–91 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
79.Schinner, F., Öhlinger, R., Kandeler, E., Margesin, R. & Kaiser, P. Methods in soil biology. Bull. Inst. Pasteur 4, 311–312 (1996).
Google Scholar 
80.Kuo, S. Phosphorus. In Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 3 (eds. Sparks, D. L. et al.) Ch. 32, 869–919 (SSSA, 1996).81.Vance, E. D., Brookes, P. C. & Jenkinson, D. S. An extraction method for measuring soil microbial biomass C. Soil Biol. Biochem. 19, 703–707 (1987).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
82.Brookes, P. C., Landman, A., Pruden, G. & Jenkinson, D. S. Chloroform fumigation and the release of soil nitrogen: a rapid direct extraction method to measure microbial biomass nitrogen in soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 17, 837–842 (1985).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
83.Doyle, A., Weintraub, M. N. & Schimel, J. P. Persulfate digestion and simultaneous colorimetric analysis of carbon and nitrogen in soil extracts. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 68, 669–676 (2004).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
84.Kandeler, E. & Gerber, H. Short-term assay of soil urease activity using colorimetric determination of ammonium. Biol. Fertil. Soils 6, 68–72 (1988).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
85.Hood-Nowotny, R., Umana, N. H.-N., Inselbacher, E., Oswald- Lachouani, P. & Wanek, W. Alternative methods for measuring inorganic, organic, and total dissolved nitrogen in soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 74, 1018–1027 (2010).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
86.Jones, D. L., Owen, A. G. & Farrar, J. F. Simple method to enable the high resolution determination of total free amino acids in soil solutions and soil extracts. Soil Biol. Biochem. 34, 1893–1902 (2002).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
87.Prommer, J. et al. Biochar decelerates soil organic nitrogen cycling but stimulates soil nitrification in a temperate arable field trial. PLoS ONE 9, e86388 (2014).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
88.Kaiser, C., Frank, A., Wild, B., Koranda, M. & Richter, A. Negligible contribution from roots to soil-borne phospholipid fatty acid fungal biomarkers 18:2ω6,9 and 18:1ω9. Soil Biol. Biochem. 42, 1650–1652 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
89.Kaiser, C. et al. Belowground carbon allocation by trees drives seasonal patterns of extracellular enzyme activities by altering microbial community composition in a beech forest soil. New Phytol. 187, 843–858 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
90.Olsson, P. A. Signature fatty acids provide tools for determination of the distribution and interactions of mycorrhizal fungi in soil. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 29, 303–310 (1999).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
91.Ngosong, C., Gabriel, E. & Ruess, L. Use of the signature fatty acid 16:1ω5 as a tool to determine the distribution of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in soil. J. Lipids 2012, 236807 (2012).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
92.Quideau, S. A. et al. Extraction and analysis of microbial phospholipid fatty acids in soils. J. Vis. Exp. 2016, 54360 (2016).93.García-Orenes, F., Morugán-Coronado, A., Zornoza, R., Cerdà, A. & Scow, K. Changes in soil microbial community structure influenced by agricultural management practices in a mediterranean agro-ecosystem. PLoS ONE 8, e80522–e80522 (2013).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
94.Herbold, C. et al. A flexible and economical barcoding approach for highly multiplexed amplicon sequencing of diverse target genes. Front. Microbiol. 6, 731 (2015).95.Apprill, A., McNally, S., Parsons, R. & Weber, L. Minor revision to V4 region SSU rRNA 806R gene primer greatly increases detection of SAR11 bacterioplankton. Aquat. Microb. Ecol. 75, 129–137 (2015).Article 

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

Google Scholar 
97.White, T. J., Bruns, T., Lee, S. & Taylor, J. Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics. PCR Protocols: A Guide to Methods and Applications 315–322 (Academic Press, 1990).98.Paymaneh, Z., Sarcheshmehpour, M., Bukovská, P. & Jansa, J. Could indigenous arbuscular mycorrhizal communities be used to improve tolerance of pistachio to salinity and/or drought? Symbiosis 79, 269–283 (2019).99.Smith, D. P. & Peay, K. G. Sequence depth, not PCR replication, improves ecological inference from next generation DNA sequencing. PLoS ONE 9, e90234 (2014).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
100.Tedersoo, L. & Lindahl, B. Fungal identification biases in microbiome projects. Environ. Microbiol. Rep. 8, 774–779 (2016).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
101.Krüger, M., Stockinger, H., Krüger, C. & Schüßler, A. DNA‐based species level detection of Glomeromycota: one PCR primer set for all arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. New Phytol. 183, 212–223 (2009).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

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

Google Scholar 
103.Bengtsson‐Palme, J. et al. Improved software detection and extraction of ITS1 and ITS 2 from ribosomal ITS sequences of fungi and other eukaryotes for analysis of environmental sequencing data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4, 914–919 (2013).
Google Scholar 
104.Edgar, R. C., Haas, B. J., Clemente, J. C., Quince, C. & Knight, R. UCHIME improves sensitivity and speed of chimera detection. Bioinformatics 27, 2194–2200 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
105.Wang, Q., Garrity, G. M., Tiedje, J. M. & Cole, J. R. Naive Bayesian classifier for rapid assignment of rRNA sequences into the new bacterial taxonomy. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 73, 5261–5267 (2007).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

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

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

Google Scholar 
108.Deshpande, V. et al. Fungal identification using a Bayesian classifier and the Warcup training set of internal transcribed spacer sequences. Mycologia 108, 1–5 (2016).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
109.R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Core Team, 2017).110.McMurdie, P. J. & Holmes, S. phyloseq: An R Package for Reproducible Interactive Analysis and Graphics of Microbiome Census Data. PLoS ONE 8, e61217 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
111.Chen, L. et al. GMPR: a robust normalization method for zero-inflated count data with application to microbiome sequencing data. PeerJ 6, e4600–e4600 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
112.Love, M. I., Huber, W. & Anders, S. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biol. 15, 550 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
113.Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (Springer, 2016).114.Kozak, M. & Piepho, H. What’s normal anyway? Residual plots are more telling than significance tests when checking ANOVA assumptions. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 204, 86–98 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
115.Ben-Shachar, M. S., Lüdecke, D. & Makowski, D. effectsize: Estimation of effect size indices and standardized parameters. J. Open Source Softw. 5, 2815 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
116.Oksanen, J. et al. Package ‘vegan’. Community Ecol. Packag. 2, 1–295 (2013).
Google Scholar 
117.Hedges, L. V., Gurevitch, J. & Curtis, P. S. The meta‐analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology. Ecology 80, 1150–1156 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
118.Barbera, P. et al. EPA-ng: massively parallel evolutionary placement of genetic sequences. Syst. Biol. 68, 365–369 (2019).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
119.Czech, L. & Stamatakis, A. Scalable methods for analyzing and visualizing phylogenetic placement of metagenomic samples. PLoS ONE 14, e0217050–e0217050 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
120.Louca, S. & Doebeli, M. Efficient comparative phylogenetics on large trees. Bioinformatics 34, 1053–1055 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
121.McMurdie, P. J. & Paulson, J. N. biomformat: An interface package for the BIOM file format. R/Bioconductor Package, version 1.0.0. (Bioconductor, 2015). More

1.Living Planet Report 2020: Bending the Curve on Biodiversity Loss (WWF, 2020).2.Routledge Handbook of Agricultural Biodiversity (Routledge, 2017).3.Ulian, T. et al. Unlocking plant resources to support food security and promote sustainable agriculture. Plants People Planet 2, 421–445 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Jarvis, D. I. et al. A global perspective of the richness and evenness of traditional crop-variety diversity maintained by farming communities. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 5326–5331 (2008).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture (FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, 2019); https://doi.org/10.4060/ca3129en6.Soroye, P., Newbold, T. & Kerr, J. Climate change contributes to widespread declines among bumble bees across continents. Science 367, 685–688 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
7.Willett, W. et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 393, 447–492 (2019).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
8.Lachat, C. et al. Dietary species richness as a measure of food biodiversity and nutritional quality of diets. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 127–132 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
9.Afshin, A. et al. Health effects of dietary risks in 195 countries, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet 393, 1958–1972 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Altieri, M. A. & Nicholls, C. I. Biodiversity and Pest Management in Agroecosystems (Food Products, 2004).11.McDaniel, M. D., Tiemann, L. K. & Grandy, A. S. Does agricultural crop diversity enhance soil microbial biomass and organic matter dynamics? A meta-analysis. Ecol. Appl. 24, 560–570 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Beillouin, D., Ben-Ari, T. & Makowski, D. Evidence map of crop diversification strategies at the global scale. Environ. Res. Lett. 4, 123001 (2019).ADS 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
13.Stomph, T. J. et al. Designing intercrops for high yield, yield stability and efficient use of resources: are there principles? Adv. Agron. 160, 1–50 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Raseduzzaman, M. & Jensen, E. S. Does intercropping enhance yield stability in arable crop production? A meta-analysis. Eur. J. Agron. 91, 25–33 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Renard, D. & Tilman, D. National food production stabilized by crop diversity. Nature 571, 257–260 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
16.International Food Policy Research Institute. Global spatially-disaggregated crop production statistics data for 2010 version 1.1. Harvard Dataverse v.3 (Harvard Dataverse, 2019).17.You, L., Wood, S., Wood-Sichra, U. & Wu, W. Generating global crop distribution maps: from census to grid. Agric. Syst. 127, 53–60 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Tedesco, P. A. et al. Data Descriptor: a global database on freshwater fish species occurrence in drainage basins. Sci. Data 4, 170141 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Sibhatu, K. T., Krishna, V. V. & Qaim, M. Production diversity and dietary diversity in smallholder farm households. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 201510982 (2015).
Google Scholar 
20.Allen, T., Prosperi, P., Cogill, B. & Flichman, G. Agricultural biodiversity, social–ecological systems and sustainable diets. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 73, 498–508 (2014).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Massawe, F., Mayes, S. & Cheng, A. Crop diversity: an unexploited treasure trove for food security. Trends Plant Sci. 21, 365–368 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Dwivedi, S. L. et al. Diversifying food systems in the pursuit of sustainable food production and healthy diets. Trends Plant Sci. 22, 842–856 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Frison, E. A. et al. Agricultural biodiversity is essential for a sustainable improvement in food and nutrition security. Sustainability 3, 238–253 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Klein, A.-M. et al. Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proc. R. Soc. B 274, 303–313 (2007).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Orgiazzi, A. et al. Global Soil Biodiversity Atlas (European Commission, Publications Office of the European Union, 2016); https://doi.org/10.2788/79918226.Kremen, C., Iles, A. & Bacon, C. Diversified farming systems: an agroecological, systems-based alternative to modern industrial agriculture. Ecol. Soc. 17, 44 (2012).
Google Scholar 
27.Khoury, C. K. et al. Comprehensiveness of conservation of useful wild plants: an operational indicator for biodiversity and sustainable development targets. Ecol. Indic. 98, 420–429 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Castañeda-Álvarez, N. P. et al. Global conservation priorities for crop wild relatives. Nat. Plants 2, 16022 (2016).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
29.A Global Database for the Distributions of Crop Wild Relatives v.1.12 (Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical, 2018); https://doi.org/10.15468/jyrthk30.Shannon, C. E. & Weaver, W. The Mathematical Theory of Communication (Univ. of Illinois Press, 1949).31.Milla, R. Crop Origins and Phylo Food: a database and a phylogenetic tree to stimulate comparative analyses on the origins of food crops. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 29, 606–614 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Hoelzel, A. R., Bruford, M. W. & Fleischer, R. C. Conservation of adaptive potential and functional diversity. Conserv. Genet. 20, 1–5 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Tamburini, G. et al. Agricultural diversification promotes multiple ecosystem services without compromising yield. Sci. Adv. 6, eaba1715 (2020).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Garibaldi, L. A. et al. Working landscapes need at least 20% native habitat. Conserv. Lett. 14, e12773 (2020).
Google Scholar 
35.Shackelford, G. et al. Comparison of pollinators and natural enemies: a meta-analysis of landscape and local effects on abundance and richness in crops. Biol. Rev. 88, 1002–1021 (2013).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Tuck, S. L. et al. Land-use intensity and the effects of organic farming on biodiversity: a hierarchical meta-analysis. J. Appl. Ecol. 51, 746–755 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Rader, R. et al. Organic farming and heterogeneous landscapes positively affect different measures of plant diversity. J. Appl. Ecol. 51, 1544–1553 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Palm, C., Blanco-Canqui, H., DeClerck, F., Gatere, L. & Grace, P. Conservation agriculture and ecosystem services: an overview. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 187, 87–105 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Altieri, M. A. & Nicholls, C. I. Agroecology and the emergence of a post COVID-19 agriculture. Agric. Human Values 37, 525–526 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Gemmill-Herren, B. Closing the circle: an agroecological response to COVID-19. Agric. Human Values 37, 613–614 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Tester, M. & Langridge, P. Breeding technologies to increase crop production in a changing world. Science 327, 818–822 (2010).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Swaminathan, M. S. in In Search of Biohappiness: Biodiversity and Food, Health and Livelihood Security (eds Sardar, D. & Yun, A.) Ch. 9 (World Scientific, 2015).43.Brown, C., Alexander, P., Arneth, A., Holman, I. & Rounsevell, M. Achievement of Paris climate goals unlikely due to time lags in the land system. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 203–208 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Love, B. & Spaner, D. Agrobiodiversity: its value, measurement, and conservation in the context of sustainable agriculture. J. Sustain. Agric. 31, 53–82 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Zimmerer, K. S. et al. The biodiversity of food and agriculture (agrobiodiversity) in the Anthropocene: research advances and conceptual framework. Anthropocene 25, 100192 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Béné, C. et al. Global map and indicators of food system sustainability. Sci. Data 6, 279 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Béné, C. et al. Global drivers of food system (un)sustainability: a multi-country correlation analysis. PLoS ONE 15, e0231071 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
48.Hickey, G. M., Pouliot, M., Smith-Hall, C., Wunder, S. & Nielsen, M. R. Quantifying the economic contribution of wild food harvests to rural livelihoods: a global-comparative analysis. Food Policy 62, 122–132 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Mainstreaming Agrobiodiversity in Sustainable Food Systems: Scientific Foundations for an Agrobiodiversity Index (Bioversity International, 2017).50.The Agrobiodiversity Index Methodology Report Version 1.0 (Bioversity International, 2018).51.Guidelines for the Preparation of the Country Reports for the State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture (SOWBFA) (FAO, 2013); https://doi.org/10.5812/jjm.3480452.Juventia, S. D. et al. Text mining national commitments towards agrobiodiversity conservation and use. Sustainability 12, 715 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Singh, R. K., Murty, H. R., Gupta, S. K. & Dikshit, A. K. An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecol. Indic. 9, 189–212 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Gan, X. et al. When to use what: methods for weighting and aggregating sustainability indicators. Ecol. Indic. 81, 491–502 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Gómez-Limón, J. A. & Sanchez-Fernandez, G. Empirical evaluation of agricultural sustainability using composite indicators. Ecol. Econ. 69, 1062–1075 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A. & Tarantola, S. Tools for Composite Indicators Building (Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, 2005).57.Wilson, M. C. & Wu, J. The problems of weak sustainability and associated indicators. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 24, 44–51 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Blaser, W. J. et al. Climate-smart sustainable agriculture in low-to-intermediate shade agroforests. Nat. Sustain. 1, 234–239 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Standard Country or Area Codes for Statistical Use (M49) (United Nations Statistics Division, 2012); https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/60.De Mendiburu, F. Una Herramienta de Analisis Estadistico para la Investigacion Agricola (Universidad Nacional de Ingenieria (UNI-PERU), 2009).61.Dinno, A. dunn.test: Dunn’s test of multiple comparisons using rank sums. R package v.1.3.4 (CRAN, 2017).62.Warner, R. M. Applied Statistics: From Bivariate Through Multivariate Techniques (SAGE, 2008).63.R Core Team R: A language and environment for statistical computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2018); https://www.r-project.org/64.Jones, S. K. et al. Agrobiodiversity Index Scores for 80+ Countries (Harvard Dataverse, 2020); https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/SKZSQD65.Kennedy, G. et al. in Mainstreaming Agrobiodiversity in Sustainable Food Systems: Scientific Foundations for an Agrobiodiversity Index (ed Bailey, A.) 23–52 (Bioversity International, 2017).66.Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women: A Guide for Measurement (FAO, FHI, 2016).67.Ojiewo, C., Tenkouano, C., Hughes, J. & Keatinge, J. D. H. in Diversifying Food and Diets: Using Agricultural Biodiversity to Improve Nutrition and Health (eds Fanzo, J. et al.) 291–302 (Routledge, 2013).68.Snyder, L. D., Gómez, M. I. & Power, A. G. Crop varietal mixtures as a strategy to support insect pest control, yield, economic, and nutritional services. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 4, 60 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Maureaud, A. et al. Biodiversity–ecosystem functioning relationships in fish communities: biomass is related to evenness and the environment, not to species richness. Proc. R. Soc. B 286, 20191189 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Wang, L. et al. Diversifying livestock promotes multidiversity and multifunctionality in managed grasslands. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 6187–6192 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Khumairoh, U., Lantinga, E. A., Schulte, R. P. O., Suprayogo, D. & Groot, J. C. J. Complex rice systems to improve rice yield and yield stability in the face of variable weather conditions. Sci. Rep. 8, 14746 (2018).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
72.Lavorel, S. Plant functional effects on ecosystem services. J. Ecol. 101, 4–8 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
73.Wood, S. A. et al. Functional traits in agriculture: agrobiodiversity and ecosystem services. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 531–539 (2015).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
74.Martin, A. R. & Isaac, M. E. Functional traits in agroecology: advancing description and prediction in agroecosystems. J. Appl. Ecol. 55, 5–11 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
75.Stark, J. C. & Thornton, M. in Potato Production Systems (eds Stark, J. et al.) 87–100 (Springer International, 2020).76.Taylor, M., Jaenicke, H., Hunter, D., McGregor, A. & Lyon, G. Diversity for sustaining livelihoods: examples, constraints and lessons learnt. Acta Hortic. 1101, 105–112 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
77.Mulumba, J. W. et al. A risk-minimizing argument for traditional crop varietal diversity use to reduce pest and disease damage in agricultural ecosystems of Uganda. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 157, 70–86 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
78.Bartomeus, I. et al. Contribution of insect pollinators to crop yield and quality varies with agricultural intensification. PeerJ 2014, e328 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
79.Fahrig, L. et al. Farmlands with smaller crop fields have higher within-field biodiversity. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 200, 219–234 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
80.Maxted, N., Dulloo, M. E. & Ford Lloyd, B. Enhancing Crop Genepool Use: Capturing Wild Relative and Landrace Diversity for Crop Improvement (CABI, 2016).81.Li, Y. et al. Investigating drought tolerance in chickpea using genome-wide association mapping and genomic selection based on whole-genome resequencing data. Front. Plant Sci. 9, 190 (2018).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
82.Hunter, D. et al. The potential of neglected and underutilized species for improving diets and nutrition. Planta 250, 709–729 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar  More

1.Brochier-Armanet, C., Boussau, B., Gribaldo, S. & Forterre, P. Mesophilic crenarchaeota: proposal for a third archaeal phylum, the Thaumarchaeota. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 6, 245–252 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
2.Zhou, Z., Pan, J., Wang, F., Gu, J.-D. & Li, M. Bathyarchaeota: globally distributed metabolic generalists in anoxic environments. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 42, 639–655 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
3.Vanwonterghem, I. et al. Methylotrophic methanogenesis discovered in the archaeal phylum Verstraetearchaeota. Nat. Microbiol. 1, 1–9 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
4.Zaremba-Niedzwiedzka, K. et al. Asgard archaea illuminate the origin of eukaryotic cellular complexity. Nature 541, 353–358 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
5.Zhou, Z., Liu, Y., Li, M. & Gu, J.-D. Two or three domains: a new view of tree of life in the genomics era. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 102, 3049–3058 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
6.Castelle, C. J. et al. Genomic expansion of domain archaea highlights roles for organisms from new phyla in anaerobic carbon cycling. Curr. Biol. 25, 690–701 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
7.Rinke, C. et al. Insights into the phylogeny and coding potential of microbial dark matter. Nature 499, 431–437 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
8.Jahn, U. et al. Nanoarchaeum equitans and Ignicoccus hospitalis: new Insights into a unique, intimate association of two archaea. J. Bacteriol. 190, 1743–1750 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
9.Golyshina, O. V. et al. ‘ARMAN’ archaea depend on association with euryarchaeal host in culture and in situ. Nat. Commun. 8, 60 (2017).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
10.Hamm, J. N. et al. Unexpected host dependency of Antarctic Nanohaloarchaeota. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 14661–14670 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Beam, J. P. et al. Ancestral absence of electron transport chains in patescibacteria and DPANN. Front. Microbiol. 11, 1848 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Wang, H. et al. Different microbial distributions in the Yellow River delta. Desalination Water Treat. 75, 70–78 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Lipsewers, Y. A., Hopmans, E. C., Sinninghe Damsté, J. S. & Villanueva, L. Potential recycling of thaumarchaeotal lipids by DPANN Archaea in seasonally hypoxic surface marine sediments. Org. Geochem. 119, 101–109 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Ding, J. et al. Microbial community structure of deep-sea hydrothermal vents on the ultraslow spreading Southwest Indian Ridge. Front. Microbiol. 8, 1012 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Chen, Y., Liu, Y. & Wang, X. Spatiotemporal variation of bacterial and archaeal communities in sediments of a drinking reservoir, Beijing, China. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 101, 3379–3391 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
16.Castelle, C. J. & Banfield, J. F. Major new microbial groups expand diversity and alter our understanding of the tree of life. Cell 172, 1181–1197 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
17.Castelle, C. J. et al. Biosynthetic capacity, metabolic variety and unusual biology in the CPR and DPANN radiations. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 16, 629–645 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
18.Liu, X. et al. Insights into the ecology, evolution, and metabolism of the widespread Woesearchaeotal lineages. Microbiome 6, 102 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Ortiz-Alvarez, R. & Casamayor, E. O. High occurrence of Pacearchaeota and Woesearchaeota (Archaea superphylum DPANN) in the surface waters of oligotrophic high-altitude lakes. Environ. Microbiol. Rep. 8, 210–217 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
20.Greening, C. et al. Genomic and metagenomic surveys of hydrogenase distribution indicate H2 is a widely utilised energy source for microbial growth and survival. ISME J. 10, 761–777 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
21.Schuchmann, K., Chowdhury, N. P. & Müller, V. Complex multimeric [FeFe] hydrogenases: biochemistry, physiology and new opportunities for the hydrogen economy. Front. Microbiol. 9, 2911 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Wittkamp, F., Senger, M., Stripp, S. T. & Apfel, U.-P. [FeFe]-Hydrogenases: recent developments and future perspectives. Chem. Commun. 54, 5934–5942 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Westphal, L., Wiechmann, A., Baker, J., Minton, N. P. & Müller, V. The Rnf complex is an energy-coupled transhydrogenase essential to reversibly link cellular NADH and ferredoxin pools in the acetogen Acetobacterium woodii. J. Bacteriol. 200, 1 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Buckel, W. & Thauer, R. K. Flavin-based electron bifurcation, ferredoxin, flavodoxin, and anaerobic respiration with protons (Ech) or NAD+ (Rnf) as electron acceptors: a historical review. Front. Microbiol. 9, 401 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Szöllősi, G. J., Rosikiewicz, W., Boussau, B., Tannier, E. & Daubin, V. Efficient exploration of the space of reconciled gene trees. Syst. Biol. 62, 901–912 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Martijn, J. et al. Hikarchaeia demonstrate an intermediate stage in the methanogen-to-halophile transition. Nat. Commun. 11, 5490 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Dombrowski, N., Lee, J.-H., Williams, T. A., Offre, P. & Spang, A. Genomic diversity, lifestyles and evolutionary origins of DPANN archaea. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 366, fnz008 (2019).28.Nyirabuhoro, P. et al. Seasonal variability of conditionally rare taxa in the water column bacterioplankton community of subtropical reservoirs in China. Microb. Ecol. 80, 14–26 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
29.Logares, R. et al. Biogeography of bacterial communities exposed to progressive long-term environmental change. ISME J. 7, 937–948 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
30.Paul, B. G. et al. Retroelement-guided protein diversification abounds in vast lineages of Bacteria and Archaea. Nat. Microbiol. 2, 1–7 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
31.Schröder, C., Selig, M. & Schönheit, P. Glucose fermentation to acetate, CO2 and H2 in the anaerobic hyperthermophilic eubacterium Thermotoga maritima: involvement of the Embden-Meyerhof pathway. Arch. Microbiol. 161, 460–470 (1994).
Google Scholar 
32.Chhabra, S. R. et al. Carbohydrate-induced differential gene expression patterns in the hyperthermophilic bacterium Thermotoga maritima. J. Biol. Chem. 278, 7540–7552 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
33.Weimer, P. J. & Zeikus, J. G. Fermentation of cellulose and cellobiose by Clostridium thermocellum in the absence of Methanobacterium thermoautotrophicum. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 33, 289–297 (1977).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.McInerney, M. J., Sieber, J. R. & Gunsalus, R. P. Syntrophy in anaerobic global carbon cycles. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 20, 623–632 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Morris, B. E. L., Henneberger, R., Huber, H. & Moissl-Eichinger, C. Microbial syntrophy: interaction for the common good. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 37, 384–406 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
36.Dombrowski, N. et al. Undinarchaeota illuminate DPANN phylogeny and the impact of gene transfer on archaeal evolution. Nat. Commun. 11, 3939 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Williams, T. A. et al. Integrative modeling of gene and genome evolution roots the archaeal tree of life. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, E4602–E4611 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Zengler, K. & Zaramela, L. S. The social network of microorganisms—how auxotrophies shape complex communities. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 16, 383–390 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Werner, G. D. A. et al. Symbiont switching and alternative resource acquisition strategies drive mutualism breakdown. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 5229–5234 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Zhang, C.-J. et al. Prokaryotic diversity in mangrove sediments across Southeastern China fundamentally differs from that in other biomes. mSystems 4, 29 (2019).
Google Scholar 
41.Thompson, L. R. et al. A communal catalogue reveals Earth’s multiscale microbial diversity. Nature 551, 457–463 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Rognes, T., Flouri, T., Nichols, B., Quince, C. & Mahé, F. VSEARCH: a versatile open source tool for metagenomics. PeerJ 4, e2584 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
43.DeSantis, T. Z. et al. Greengenes, a chimera-checked 16S rRNA gene database and workbench compatible with ARB. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 72, 5069–5072 (2006).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Kuczynski, J. et al. Using QIIME to analyze 16S rRNA gene sequences from microbial communities. Curr. Protoc. Bioinform. 36, 10.7.1–10.7.20 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Liu, Y. et al. Expanded diversity of Asgard archaea and their relationships with eukaryotes. Nature 593, 553–557 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Zou, D. et al. Genomic characteristics of a novel species of ammonia-oxidizing archaea from the Jiulong River Estuary. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 86, 1 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Uritskiy, G. V., DiRuggiero, J. & Taylor, J. MetaWRAP—a flexible pipeline for genome-resolved metagenomic data analysis. Microbiome 6, 158 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Li, D., Liu, C.-M., Luo, R., Sadakane, K. & Lam, T.-W. MEGAHIT: an ultra-fast single-node solution for large and complex metagenomics assembly via succinct de Bruijn graph. Bioinformatics 31, 1674–1676 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Kang, D. D. et al. MetaBAT 2: an adaptive binning algorithm for robust and efficient genome reconstruction from metagenome assemblies. PeerJ 7, e7359 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Sieber, C. M. K. et al. Recovery of genomes from metagenomes via a dereplication, aggregation, and scoring strategy. Nat. Microbiol. 3, 836–843 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Peng, Y., Leung, H. C. M., Yiu, S. M. & Chin, F. Y. L. IDBA-UD: a de novo assembler for single-cell and metagenomic sequencing data with highly uneven depth. Bioinformatics 28, 1420–1428 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Bolger, A. M., Lohse, M. & Usadel, B. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 30, 2114–2120 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Benson, D. A. et al. GenBank. Nucleic Acids Res. 28, 15–18 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Markowitz, V. M. et al. The integrated microbial genomes (IMG) system. Nucleic Acids Res. 34, D344–D348 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
55.Parks, D. H. et al. A complete domain-to-species taxonomy for bacteria and archaea. Nat. Biotechnol. 38, 1079–1086 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
56.Parks, D. H., Imelfort, M., Skennerton, C. T., Hugenholtz, P. & Tyson, G. W. CheckM: assessing the quality of microbial genomes recovered from isolates, single cells, and metagenomes. Genome Res. 25, 1043 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Hyatt, D. et al. Prodigal: prokaryotic gene recognition and translation initiation site identification. BMC Bioinform. 11, 119 (2010).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
58.Seemann, T. Prokka: rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinformatics 30, 2068–2069 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Quevillon, E. et al. InterProScan: protein domains identifier. Nucleic Acids Res. 33, W116–W120 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Marchler-Bauer, A. et al. CDD: NCBI’s conserved domain database. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, D222–D226 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
61.Finn, R. D. et al. Pfam: the protein families database. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, D222–D230 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
62.Schultz, J., Copley, R. R., Doerks, T., Ponting, C. P. & Bork, P. SMART: a web-based tool for the study of genetically mobile domains. Nucleic Acids Res. 28, 231–234 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Haft, D. H., Selengut, J. D. & White, O. The TIGRFAMs database of protein families. Nucleic Acids Res. 31, 371 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Huerta-Cepas, J. et al. eggNOG 5.0: a hierarchical, functionally and phylogenetically annotated orthology resource based on 5090 organisms and 2502 viruses. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, D309–D314 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
65.Eddy, S. R. A new generation of homology search tools based on probabilistic inference. Genome Inf. Int. Conf. Genome Inf. 23, 205–211 (2009).
Google Scholar 
66.Zhang, H. et al. dbCAN2: a meta server for automated carbohydrate-active enzyme annotation. Nucleic Acids Res. 46, W95–W101 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Buchfink, B., Xie, C. & Huson, D. H. Fast and sensitive protein alignment using DIAMOND. Nat. Methods 12, 59–60 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
68.Rawlings, N. D. et al. The MEROPS database of proteolytic enzymes, their substrates, and inhibitors in 2017 and a comparison with peptidases in the PANTHER database. Nucleic Acids Res. 46, D624–D632 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
69.Saier, M. H., Reddy, V. S., Tamang, D. G. & Västermark, A. The transporter classification database. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, D251–D258 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
70.Søndergaard, D., Pedersen, C. N. S. & Greening, C. HydDB: a web tool for hydrogenase classification and analysis. Sci. Rep. 6, 1–8 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
71.Altenhoff, A. M. et al. OMA standalone: orthology inference among public and custom genomes and transcriptomes. Genome Res. 29, 1152–1163 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Wolfe, J. M. & Fournier, G. P. Horizontal gene transfer constrains the timing of methanogen evolution. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 897–903 (2018).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
73.Dombrowski, N. et al. Undinarchaeota illuminate DPANN phylogeny and the impact of gene transfer on archaeal evolution. Zendo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3672835 (2020).74.Katoh, K., Misawa, K., Kuma, K. & Miyata, T. MAFFT: a novel method for rapid multiple sequence alignment based on fast Fourier transform. Nucleic Acids Res. 30, 3059–3066 (2002).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
75.Criscuolo, A. & Gribaldo, S. BMGE (block mapping and gathering with entropy): a new software for selection of phylogenetic informative regions from multiple sequence alignments. BMC Evol. Biol. 10, 210 (2010).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

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

Google Scholar 
77.Nguyen, L.-T., Schmidt, H. A., von Haeseler, A. & Minh, B. Q. IQ-TREE: a fast and effective stochastic algorithm for estimating maximum-likelihood phylogenies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 32, 268–274 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
78.Huang, W.-C. et al. Comparative genomic analysis reveals metabolic flexibility of Woesearchaeota. figshare https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14459535 (2021).79.Minh, B. Q. et al. IQ-TREE 2: new models and efficient methods for phylogenetic inference in the genomic era. Mol. Biol. Evol. 37, 1530–1534 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
80.Letunic, I. & Bork, P. Interactive Tree Of Life (iTOL) v4: recent updates and new developments. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, W256–W259 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
81.Parks, D. H. et al. A standardized bacterial taxonomy based on genome phylogeny substantially revises the tree of life. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 996–1004 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
82.Emms, D. M. & Kelly, S. OrthoFinder: phylogenetic orthology inference for comparative genomics. Genome Biol. 20, 238 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
83.Aramaki, T. et al. KofamKOALA: KEGG Ortholog assignment based on profile HMM and adaptive score threshold. Bioinformatics 36, 2251–2252 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
84.Steenwyk, J. L., Iii, T. J. B., Li, Y., Shen, X.-X. & Rokas, A. ClipKIT: a multiple sequence alignment trimming software for accurate phylogenomic inference. PLoS Biol. 18, e3001007 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
85.Sheridan, P. O. et al. Gene duplication drives genome expansion in a major lineage of Thaumarchaeota. Nat. Commun. 11, 5494 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
86.Huerta-Cepas, J., Serra, F. & Bork, P. ETE 3: reconstruction, analysis, and visualization of phylogenomic data. Mol. Biol. Evol. 33, 1635–1638 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
87.Li, W. & Godzik, A. Cd-hit: a fast program for clustering and comparing large sets of protein or nucleotide sequences. Bioinformatics 22, 1658–1659 (2006).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
88.Hoang, D. T., Chernomor, O., von Haeseler, A., Minh, B. Q. & Vinh, L. S. UFBoot2: improving the ultrafast bootstrap approximation. Mol. Biol. Evol. 35, 518–522 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
89.Zulkower, V. & Rosser, S. DNA features viewer: a sequence annotation formatting and plotting library for Python. Bioinformatics 36, 4350–4352 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
90.Tareen, A. & Kinney, J. B. Logomaker: beautiful sequence logos in Python. Bioinformatics 36, 2272–2274 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
91.Jaffe, A. L., Castelle, C. J., Dupont, C. L. & Banfield, J. F. Lateral gene transfer shapes the distribution of RuBisCO among candidate phyla radiation bacteria and DPANN archaea. Mol. Biol. Evol. 36, 435–446 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

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

Google Scholar 
93.Seemann, T. barrnap 0.9: rapid ribosomal RNA prediction https://github.com/tseemann/barrnap (2013).94.Pruesse, E., Peplies, J. & Glöckner, F. O. SINA: Accurate high-throughput multiple sequence alignment of ribosomal RNA genes. Bioinformatics 28, 1823–1829 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
95.Capella-Gutiérrez, S., Silla-Martínez, J. M. & Gabaldón, T. trimAl: a tool for automated alignment trimming in large-scale phylogenetic analyses. Bioinformatics 25, 1972–1973 (2009).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
96.Boyd, J. A., Woodcroft, B. J. & Tyson, G. W. GraftM: a tool for scalable, phylogenetically informed classification of genes within metagenomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 46, e59 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
97.R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2019). More

1.Strange RN, Scott PR. Plant disease: a threat to global food security. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2005;43:83–116.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
2.Savary S, Willocquet L, Pethybridge SJ, Esker P, McRoberts N, Nelson A. The global burden of pathogens and pests on major food crops. Nat Ecol Evol. 2019;3:430–9.PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
3.Savary S, Bregaglio S, Willocquet L, Gustafson D, Mason D’Croz D, Sparks A, et al. Crop health and its global impacts on the components of food security. Food Secur. 2017;9:311–27.Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Garrett KA, Alcalá-Briseño RI, Andersen KF, Buddenhagen CE, Choudhury RA, Fulton JC, et al. Network analysis: a systems framework to address grand challenges in plant pathology. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2018;56:559–80.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
5.Pautasso M, Xu X, Jeger MJ, Harwood TD, Moslonka-Lefebvre M, Pellis L. Disease spread in small-size directed trade networks: the role of hierarchical categories. J Appl Ecol. 2010;47:1300–9.Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Bryant JM, Grogono DM, Rodriguez-Rincon D, Everall I, Brown KP, Moreno P, et al. Emergence and spread of a human-transmissible multidrug-resistant nontuberculous mycobacterium. Science. 2016;354:751–7.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Yang C, Zhang X, Fan H, Li Y, Hu Q, Yang R, et al. Genetic diversity, virulence factors and farm-to-table spread pattern of Vibrio parahaemolyticus food-associated isolates. Food Microbiol. 2019;84:103270.PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
8.Dallman TJ, Byrne L, Ashton PM, Cowley LA, Perry NT, Adak G, et al. Whole-genome sequencing for national surveillance of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli O157. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;61:305–12.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Kwong JC, Mercoulia K, Tomita T, Easton M, Li HY, Bulach DM, et al. Prospective whole-genome sequencing enhances national surveillance of Listeria monocytogenes. J Clin Microbiol. 2016;54:333–42.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Mather AE, Reid SW, Maskell DJ, Parkhill J, Fookes MC, Harris SR, et al. Distinguishable epidemics of multidrug-resistant Salmonella Typhimurium DT104 in different hosts. Science. 2013;341:1514–7.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Richards VP, Velsko IM, Alam T, Zadoks RN, Manning SD, Pavinski Bitar PD, et al. Population gene introgression and high genome plasticity for the zoonotic pathogen Streptococcus agalactiae. Mol Biol Evol. 2019;36:2572–90.CAS 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Mellor KC, Petrovska L, Thomson NR, Harris K, Reid SWJ, Mather AE. Antimicrobial resistance diversity suggestive of distinct Salmonella Typhimurium sources or selective pressures in food-production animals. Front Microbiol. 2019;10:708.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Monteil CL, Yahara K, Studholme DJ, Mageiros L, Méric G, Swingle B, et al. Population-genomic insights into emergence, crop adaptation and dissemination of Pseudomonas syringae pathogens. Micro Genom. 2016;2:e000089.
Google Scholar 
14.Perez-Quintero AL, Ortiz-Castro M, Lang JM, Rieux A, Wu G, Liu S, et al. Genomic acquisitions in emerging populations of Xanthomonas vasicola pv. vasculorum infecting corn in the United States and Argentina. Phytopathology. 2020;110:1161–73.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
15.McCann HC, Li L, Liu Y, Li D, Pan H, Zhong C, et al. Origin and evolution of the kiwifruit canker pandemic. Genome Biol Evol. 2017;9:932–44.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Quibod IL, Atieza-Grande G, Oreiro EG, Palmos D, Nguyen MH, Coronejo ST, et al. The Green Revolution shaped the population structure of the rice pathogen Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae. ISME J. 2020;14:492–505.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
17.Straub C, Colombi E, McCann H. Population genomics of bacterial plant pathogens. Phytopathology. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-09-20-0412-RVW.18.Vinatzer BA, Monteil CL, Clarke CR. Harnessing population genomics to understand how bacterial pathogens emerge, adapt to crop hosts, and disseminate. Ann Rev Phytopathol. 2014;52:19–43.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Weisberg AJ, Davis EW, Tabima JF, Belcher MS, Miller M, Kuo C, et al. Unexpected conservation and global transmission of agrobacterial virulence plasmids. Science. 2020;368:eaba5256.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
20.Jones JB, Lacy GH, Bouzar H, Stall RE, Schaad NW. Reclassification of the xanthomonads associated with bacterial spot disease of tomato and pepper. Syst Appl Microbiol. 2004;27:755–62.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
21.Potnis N, Timilsina S, Strayer A, Shantharaj D, Barak JD, Paret ML, et al. Bacterial spot of tomato and pepper: diverse Xanthomonas species with a wide variety of virulence factors posing a worldwide challenge. Mol Plant Pathol. 2015;16:907–20.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.VanSickle J, Weldon R. The economic impact of bacterial leaf spot on the tomato industry. Tomato Inst Proc. 2009:30–31 https://plantpath.ifas.ufl.edu/rsol/RalstoniaPublications_PDF/Tomato_Institute_Proceedings_09.pdf.23.Horvath DM, Stall RE, Jones JB, Pauly MH, Vallad GE, Dahlbeck D, et al. Transgenic resistance confers effective field level control of bacterial spot disease in tomato. PLOS One. 2012;7:e42036.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Kunwar S, Iriarte F, Fan Q, Evaristo da Silva E, Ritchie L, Nguyen NS, et al. Transgenic expression of EFR and Bs2 genes for field management of bacterial wilt and bacterial spot of tomato. Phytopathology. 2018;108:1402–11.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
25.Jones JB, Bouzar H, Somodi GC, Stall RE, Pernezny K, El-Morsy G, et al. Evidence for the preemptive nature of tomato race 3 of Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria in Florida. Phytopathology. 1998;88:33–38.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
26.Timilsina S, Jibrin MO, Potnis N, Minsavage GV, Kebede M, Schwartz A, et al. Multilocus sequence analysis of xanthomonads causing bacterial spot of tomato and pepper plants reveals strains generated by recombination among species and recent global spread of Xanthomonas gardneri. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2015;81:1520–9.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
27.United States Department of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture; 2019.28.Klein-Gordon JM, Xing Y, Garrett KA, Abrahamian P, Paret ML, Minsavage GV, et al. Assessing changes and associations in the Xanthomonas perforans population across Florida commercial tomato fields via a state-wide survey. Phytopathology. 2021;111:1029–1041.29.Vallad GE, Timilsina S, Adkison H, Potnis N, Minsavage G, Jones J, et al. A recent survey of xanthomonads causing bacterial spot of tomato in Florida provides insights into management strategies. Tomato Inst Proc. 2013:25–27 https://swfrec.ifas.ufl.edu/docs/pdf/veghort/tomato-institute/proceedings/ti13_proceedings.pdf.30.Timilsina S, Pereira-Martin JA, Minsavage GV, Iruegas-Bocardo F, Abrahamian P, Potnis N, et al. Multiple recombination events drive the current genetic structure of Xanthomonas perforans in Florida. Front Microbiol. 2019;10:448.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Burlakoti R, Hsu C, Chen J, Wang J. Population dynamics of Xanthomonads associated with bacterial spot of tomato and pepper during twenty-seven years across Taiwan. Plant Dis. 2018;102:1348–56.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
32.Araújo ER, Costa JR, Ferreira MASV, Quezada-Duval AM. Widespread distribution of Xanthomonas perforans and limited presence of X. gardneri in Brazil. Plant Pathol. 2017;66:159–68.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
33.Jones JB, Pohronezny KL, Stall RE, Jones JP. Survival of Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria in Florida on tomato crop residue, weeds, seeds, and volunteer tomato plants. Phytopathology. 1986;76:430–4.Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Sijam K, Chang CJ, Gitaitis RD. An agar medium for the isolation and identification of Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria from seed. Phytopathology. 1991;81:831–4.Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Abrahamian P, Timilsina S, Minsavage GV, Potnis N, Jones JB, Goss EM, et al. Molecular epidemiology of Xanthomonas perforans outbreaks in tomato plants from transplant to field as determined by single-nucleotide polymorphism analysis. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2019;85:e01220–01219.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Abrahamian P, Sharma A, Jones J, Vallad GE. Dynamics and spread of bacterial spot epidemics in tomato transplants grown for field production. Plant Dis. 2021 in press.37.Baym M, Kryazhimskiy S, Lieberman TD, Chung H, Desai MM, Kishony R. Inexpensive multiplexed library preparation for megabase-sized genomes. PLOS One. 2015;10:e0128036.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
38.Tudor-Nelson SM, Minsavage GV, Stall RE, Jones JB. Bacteriocin-like substances from tomato race 3 strains of Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria. Bacteriology. 2003;93:1415–21.CAS 

Google Scholar 
39.Schwartz A, Potnis N, Timilsina S, Wilson M, Patane J, Martins J, et al. Phylogenomics of Xanthomonas field strains infecting pepper and tomato reveals diversity in effector repertoires and identifies determinants of host specificity. Front Microbiol. 2015;6:535.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Nurk S, Bankevich A, Antipov D, Gurevich AA, Korobeynikov A, Lapidus A, et al. Assembling single-cell genomes and mini-metagenomes from chimeric MDA products. J Comput Biol. 2013;20:714–37.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Langmead B, Salzberg SL. Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nat Methods. 2012;9:357–9.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Li H, Handsaker B, Wysoker A, Fennell T, Ruan J, Homer N, et al. The sequence alignment/map format and SAMtools. Bioinform. 2009;25:2078–9.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
43.Walker BJ, Abeel T, Shea T, Priest M, Abouelliel A, Sakthikumar S, et al. Pilon: an integrated tool for comprehensive microbial variant detection and genome assembly improvement. PLOS One. 2014;9:e112963.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

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

Google Scholar 
45.Chen IA, Chu K, Palaniappan K, Pillay M, Ratner A, Huang J, et al. IMG/M v.5.0: an integrated data management and comparative analysis system for microbial genomes and microbiomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47:D666–d677. D1CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
46.Seemann T. Prokka: rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinformatics. 2014;30:2068–9.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
47.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 
Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Rice P, Longden I, Bleasby A. EMBOSS: the European molecular biology open software suite. Trends Genet. 2000;16:276–7.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
49.Darriba D, Posada D, Kozlov AM, Stamatakis A, Morel B, Flouri T. ModelTest-NG: a new and scalable tool for the selection of DNA and protein evolutionary models. Mol Biol Evol. 2019;37:291–4.PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
50.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 
Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Stamatakis A, Hoover P, Rougemont J. A rapid bootstrap algorithm for the RAxML web servers. Syst Biol. 2008;57:758–71.PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
52.Didelot X, Wilson DJ. ClonalFrameML: efficient inference of recombination in whole bacterial genomes. PLOS Comput Biol. 2015;11:e1004041.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
53.Tonkin-Hill G, Lees JA, Bentley SD, Frost SDW, Corander J. RhierBAPS: an R implementation of the population clustering algorithm hierBAPS. Wellcome Open Res. 2018;3:93.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Cheng L, Connor TR, Sirén J, Aanensen DM, Corander J. Hierarchical and spatially explicit clustering of DNA sequences with BAPS software. Mol Biol Evol. 2013;30:1224–8.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Letunic I, Bork P. Interactive Tree Of Life (iTOL): an online tool for phylogenetic tree display and annotation. Bioinformatics. 2007;23:127–8.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
56.Csardi G, Nepusz T. The igraph software package for complex network research. 2006; InterJ., Complex Systems:1695.57.R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2020.58.Li H, Durbin R. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics. 2009;25:1754–60.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Canteros BI, Minsavage GV, Jones JB, Stall RE. Diversity of plasmids in Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria. Phytopathology. 1995;85:1482–6.Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Li H. Aligning sequence reads, clone sequences and assembly contigs with BWA-MEM. arXiv. 2013. https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.3997.61.Broad Institute: Picard. http://broadinstitute.github.io/picard/ 2019.62.Garrison E, Marth G. Haplotype-based variant detection from short-read sequencing. arXiv. 2012. https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.3907.63.Garrison, E, Kronenberg, ZN, Dawson, ET, Pedersen, BS, Prins, P. Vcflib and tools for processing the VCF variant call format. BioRxiv. 2021.64.Li H. Tabix: fast retrieval of sequence features from generic TAB-delimited files. Bioinformatics. 2011;27:718–9.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
65.Danecek P, Auton A, Abecasis G, Albers CA, Banks E, DePristo MA, et al. The variant call format and VCFtools. Bioinformatics. 2011;27:2156–8.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Cingolani P, Platts A, Wang LL, Coon M, Nguyen T, Wang L, et al. A program for annotating and predicting the effects of single nucleotide polymorphisms, SnpEff. Fly. 2012;6:80–92.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
67.R Core Team. A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2019.68.RStudio Team. RStudio: Integrated Development for R. Boston, MA: RStudio Inc.; 2016.69.Knaus B, Grünwald NJ. vcfR: a package to manipulate and visualize variant call format data in R. Mol Ecol Res. 2017;17:44–53.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Jombart T. adegenet: a R package for the multivariate analysis of genetic markers. Bioinform. 2008;24:1403–5.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Kamvar ZN, Tabima JF, Grünwald NJ. Poppr: an R package for genetic analysis of populations with clonal, partially clonal, and/or sexual reproduction. PeerJ. 2014;2:e281.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Grünwald NJ, Kamvar ZN, Everhart SE. Population genetics and genomics in R: Discriminant analysis of principal components (DAPC). 2020. https://grunwaldlab.github.io/Population_Genetics_in_R/DAPC.html.73.Wickham H. ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2016.74.Tabima JF, Knaus B, Grünwald NJ. Population genetics and genomics in R: GBS analysis. 2020. https://grunwaldlab.github.io/Population_Genetics_in_R/gbs_analysis.html.75.Dray S, Dufour A. The ade4 package: implementing the duality diagram for ecologists. J Stat Softw. 2007;22:1–20.Article 

Google Scholar 
76.Kamvar ZN, Everhart SE, Grünwald NJ. Population genetics and genomics in R: AMOVA. 2020. https://grunwaldlab.github.io/Population_Genetics_in_R/AMOVA.html.77.Rozas J, Ferrer-Mata A, Sanchez-DelBarrio JC, Guirao-Rico S, Librado P, Ramos-Onsins SE, et al. DnaSP 6: DNA sequence polymorphism analysis of large data sets. Mol Biol Evol. 2017;34:3299–302.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
78.Lischer HE, Excoffier L. PGDSpider: an automated data conversion tool for connecting population genetics and genomics programs. Bioinformatics. 2012;28:298–9.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
79.Excoffier L, Lischer HEL. Arlequin suite ver 3.5: a new series of programs to perform population genetics analyses under Linux and Windows. Mol Ecol Resour. 2010;10:564–7.PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
80.Newberry EA, Bhandari R, Minsavage GV, Timilsina S, Jibrin MO, Kemble J, et al. Independent evolution with the gene flux originating from multiple Xanthomonas species explains genomic heterogeneity in Xanthomonas perforans. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2019;85:e00885–19.81.Jibrin MO, Potnis N, Timilsina S, Minsavage GV, Vallad GE, Roberts PD, et al. Genomic inference of recombination-mediated evolution in Xanthomonas euvesicatoria and X. perforans. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2018; 84:e00136–18. More

Study areaThis study was conducted in Jilin Province, which is located in the center of Northeast China (40°52ʹ N–46°18ʹ N, 121°38′ E–131°19ʹ E) and covers an area of approximately 187,400 km2, with an elevation varying from 5 m to 2,691 m (Fig. 1). The study area has a temperate continental monsoon climate and is climatologically humid, semi-humid, and semi-arid from the southeast to the northwest. The annual mean temperature and annual total precipitation form a southeast-northwest gradient; the eastern part is relatively humid and rainy while the western region is dry in the summer months. Generally, 70–80% of the annual precipitation occurs from June to September, with the most abundant rainfall in the east. The long-term average annual temperature and average annual rainfall are 5.8 °C and 687.0 mm, respectively49. Crop cultivation is mostly concentrated in the black soil region50. The soil types of cultivated lands mainly include black soil, sand, and paddy soil, which are suitable for potato growth.Figure 1Spatial distribution of 51 meteorological stations and soil sampling sites in the study area. Soil data were divided into two categories. Soil samples (I): soil mechanical compositions, involving 81 sampling points; soil samples (II): soil physico-chemical properties, involving 79 sampling points. The map was created using ArcGIS v. 10.4.1 (http://www.esri.com/software/arcgis).Full size imagePotato growth is highly dependent on temperature and light. Jilin Province, as one of the main potato-producing areas in China, possesses sufficient sunlight and exhibits large temperature difference between day and night. Generally, potato cultivation occurs from April to May, depending on the lowest temperature (5 °C), and potatoes are harvested from August to October of the same year. Among potato production areas, mid-late maturing cultivars (e.g., Yanshu No. 4, Atlantic, Jishu No. 1, and Summer) account for about 70%, while early maturing cultivars (e.g., Favorita, Youjin, and Fujin) account for 30%51.DataClimate dataClimate data were obtained from the National Meteorological Information Center, China Meteorological Administration (http://data.cma.cn), including 51 national standard meteorological stations in Jilin Province (Fig. 1). The meteorological data contain daily average temperature, daily maximum temperature, daily minimum temperature, daily sunshine hours, and daily precipitation during 1957–2018. Based on the periods of potato sowing and harvesting in Jilin Province, the climate data between April 1 and September 31 each year were selected. To avoid the impact of extreme weather within a single year on the inter-annual climate change, we used 5-year moving average values of climate data rather than single-year values to establish a geo-climate model using regression analysis and evaluated changes in suitable areas for potato cultivation under the influence of climate change.Topography dataTopography data were extracted from the digital elevation model (DEM) sourced from the geospatial data cloud SRTM (http://www.gscloud.cn). Through a series of processes such as adding X–Y axis, splicing, vector data layering, filtering, cropping, and resampling of raster data on the ArcGIS platform, digitized elevation model (90-m resolution) maps were used to derivate layers such as longitude, latitude, slope, and aspect (Fig. 1).Soil dataSoil mechanical composition data (81 sampling sites) were extracted from the National Science and Technology Infrastructure Platform (http://soil.geodata.cn) and soil physico-chemical property data (79 sampling sites) were provided by the Soil and Fertilizer General Station of Jilin Province (http://www.jltf.cn). The sequence number of the occurrence layer is 1, and the thickness is about 20-50 cm. The soil properties extracted included contents of soil sand, silt, and clay, pH, and contents of nutrients such as organic matter (OM), quick-acting potassium (QAK), available nitrogen (AN), and available phosphorus (AP) (Fig. 1; Tables S1-S2).The soil data were rasterized using kriging. First, the soil mechanical composition data were converted into spherical coordinates, and then ordinary Kriging interpolation was used to spatialize the soil mechanical composition data. co-kriging was used to interpolate spatialize the soil physico-chemical property data. Due to limited soil samples and the lack of a continuous dataset in the study area, the soil data in 2018 were selected as a fixed background for the analysis.Analysis of climatic factorsWe used six climatic factors in this study. Usually, potatoes have has different requirements for light, heat, and water in each growth and development stage. We used average daily temperature during the growth period (ADT/°C, mean of daily average temperature from April 1st to September 30th) and active accumulated temperature ≥ 10 °C (AAT/°C d, sum of active accumulated temperature ≥ 10 °C from April 1st to September 30th) from 1961 to 2018 to reflect the temperature conditions of potato growth52,53,54,55,56. ADT at 14–17 °C was evaluated as “Most suitable”; 10–14 °C or 17–20 °C as “Suitable”; 8–10 °C or 20–24 °C as “Sub-suitable”; < 17 °C or > 24 °C as “Not suitable” for potato growth in the study area. AAT for mid-late maturing varieties at 2000–3000 °Cd was evaluated as “Most suitable”; 1,500–2,000 °Cd or 3,000–6,000 °Cd as “Suitable”; 1,300–1,500 °Cd or 6,000–8,000 °Cd as “Sub-suitable”; < 1,300 °Cd or > 8,000 °Cd as “Not suitable”.The average temperature in July (ATJ, mean of daily average temperature in July) and the day/night temperature difference from July to August (DIF/°C, mean of the day/night temperature difference from July 1st to August 31st) are the key climatic factors for the expansion of potato chunks, which have significant correlation with the meteorological yield of potato 53–57. ATJ at 16–20 °C was evaluated as “Most suitable”; 15–16 °C or 20–24 °C as “Suitable”; 12–15 °C or 24–28 °C as “Sub-suitable”; < 10 °C or > 28 °C as “Not suitable”. DIF at 8–12 °C was evaluated as “Most suitable”; 5–8 °C as “Suitable”; 2–5 °C as “Sub-suitable”; < 2 °C as “Not suitable” in the study area.During the growth and development of potato, there is a great demand for water, especially from the budding stage to the swelling stage of potato growth, which are extremely sensitive to water supply52,53,54,55,56. The total precipitation during the growth period (PP/mm, sum of the daily precipitation from April 1st to September 30th) at 700–900 mm was evaluated as “Most suitable”; 600–700 mm or 900–1,200 mm as “Suitable”; 500–600 mm or 1,200–1,500 mm as “Sub-suitable”; < 500 mm or > 1,500 mm as “‘Not suitable” in the study area.Short daylight and appropriate high temperature during the seedling stage are beneficial to promote potato root development, forming strong seedlings and increasing potato formation52,53,54,55,56. The total sunshine duration during potato growth (SD/hours, sum of the daily sunshine duration from April 1st to September 30th) at 900–1,200 h was evaluated as “Most suitable”; 700–900 h or 1,200–1,500 h as “Suitable”; 400–700 h or 1,500–1,800 h as “Sub-suitable”; < 400 h or >1,800 h as “Not suitable”.MethodsFirst, climatic factors were simulated using geo-climate models. Then, the AHP-PCA model was employed for suitability evaluation, and the satellite-based gridded environmental data were applied for suitability mapping. Finally, the degree of changes in climatic factors and suitable geographic ranges were calculated. These data were interpolated into the surface grid data with a spatial resolution of 0.03° × 0.03° (~3 km × 3 km)57,58. All maps and statistical analyses were generated using ArcGIS 10.4.159 and R 3.6.360.Geo-climate model buildingTopographic factors such as longitude, latitude, and altitude dominate the distribution of climate factors, and directly affect the solar radiation budget and atmospheric circulation, which makes the climate resources to demonstrate obvious spatial differences in both vertical and horizontal directions61,62. Based on the meteorological data and geographic information of each meteorological station, we established geo-climate models and used them to calculate the climate distribution of the study area. The difference between the highest temperature and the lowest temperature from July 1st to August 31st was used to calculate the grid layer of DIF. The relationship between climate zoning indicators and geographic factors is expressed as follows:$$ F = fleft( {lambda ,varphi ,h} right) + varepsilon $$
(1)
where, F is the simulated value of grid point of the climate zoning index; λ, φ, and h represent longitude (°), latitude (°), and altitude (m), respectively; f (λ,φ,h) is called climatological equation of regionalization index; and ε is the influence of local small topography and random factors on climate (i.e., comprehensive geographical residual term).Residual correction : Affected by local topography and random factors, the variation of climatic factors is random, which will cause errors in the calculation of geo-climate models. Therefore, the inverse distance weight (IDW) routine in ArcGIS was used to derive the simulated value of the comprehensive geographical residual term ε raster63. The interpolation calculation formula is:$$varepsilon ={sum }_{i=1}^{n}frac{{varepsilon }_{i}}{{d}_{i}^{k}}/{sum }_{i=1}^{n}{d}_{i}^{k}$$
(2)
where, ε is the simulated value of the grid point of the residual term of climatic factors; (n) is the number of meteorological stations; ({varepsilon }_{i}) is the residual value of the climate factor of the (i)-th meteorological station; ({d}_{i}) is the Euclidean distance between the grid point and the (i)-th meteorological station; k is the power of the distance.AHP-PCA and GIS based suitability analysis for potato cultivationThe suitability map for potato cultivation was generated based on identified criteria that are relevant to the climatic, soil environmental, and geophysical conditions considered. Details of the data analysis procedure, model application, and suitability classification are described as follows.

AHP-PCA model
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a multi-criterion decision-based approach developed for analyzing complex decisions involving multiple criteria38,64,65. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is a multivariate statistical data analysis technique that combines all input variables using a linear combination into a number of principal components that retain the most variance within the original data to identify possible patterns or clusters between objects and variables. In this study, we used AHP to calculate the weight of each zoning indicator in the evaluation index system66,67, and then, we explored the comprehensive relationship of suitability evaluation factors using the grid calculator and PCA tool on the ArcGIS platform. The first principal component will have the greatest variance, the second will show the second most variance not described by the first, and so forth. In most cases, the first three or four raster bands of the resulting multiband raster from principal components tool will describe more than 95% of the variance, that is, the cumulative contribution rate of the principal component reaches more than 95%. The variance of the weighted original data becomes larger, leading to more scientific and reasonable evaluation results. In summary, the proposed approach is achieved as follows (Fig. 2):
Step 1: The weight of each index was calculated by using AHP and consistency test;
Step 2: The indicators were standardized using the Z-Score method;
Step 3: The weights calculated in Step 1 were loaded onto the standardized indicators;
Step 4: A standardized matrix was built and the correlation coefficient matrix was calculated;
Step 5: The principal components was filtered and determined;
Step 6: The score for each principal component was calculated;
Step 7: A comprehensive score for all indicators was obtained.

Establishment of indicator system and calculation of weight
The assessment of climate change impacting suitability of potato cultivation has multiple objectives and levels. This paper combined comprehensive and hierarchical principles, relevant literature reviews38,39,40,68, expert opinions, and characteristics of potato cultivation in Jilin Province to establish an index system for evaluation of ecological environment impact, including 18 evaluation indicators: ADT ( °C d), AAT ( °C), PP (mm), SD (h), ATJ ( °C), DIF ( °C), elevation (m), slope (°), aspect (°), hill shade, sand (%), silt (%), clay (%), OM (g/kg), pH, QAK (mg/kg), AN (mg/kg), and AP (mg/kg). These indicators were classified into three categories: climatic conditions, soil environments, and topography (Table 1).
The weight of each evaluation indicator was determined by AHP. According to relevant literatures and expert opinions, we established a judgment matrix for these evaluation indicators. Pairwise comparison was used for obtaining the relative importance score between different indicators. The consistency of pairwise importance scales is one of the important measurements for successful decision-making by AHP, which could be checked using consistency ratio (CR). If CR < 0.10, the degree of consistency is satisfactory, whereas, CR > 0.10 indicates an inconsistency63,69 (Table 1).

Classification and mapping for suitability of potato cultivation

Figure 2Diagrammatic flow of the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) weighted Principal Component Analysis (PCA) model evaluation process.Full size imageTable 1 Weights of all criteria used for estimating suitability of potato cultivation in the study area.Full size tableThe natural breakpoint method in ArcGIS was employed to classify lands of the study area in terms of cultivation suitability. The study area was delineated into 4 zones: zone 1 (Not suitable), zone 2 (Sub-suitable), zone 3 (Suitable), and zone 4 (Most suitable) (Table 2).Table 2 Dimensionless grading of evaluation values of potato cultivation suitability.Full size tableAfter normalizing all indicators, the cultivation suitability index was established as follows:$$I={sum }_{i}^{n}{W}_{i}{X}_{i}$$
(3)
where I is the suitability index for comprehensive evaluation, ({W}_{i}) is the weight of the indicator, ({X}_{i}) is the value after dimensionless treatment of the indicator, i is the comprehensive evaluation value of topography, climatic conditions, and soil environments. The larger the topography value was converted into a negative value for the calculation as the greater its value, the higher its negative impact on cultivation suitability. Meanwhile, the greater the pH value is, the more unfavorable the comprehensive evaluation of soil will be; the pH value was therefore inversed for the calculation.Trends and fluctuations in changes of climatic factors and suitable areasThe fluctuations of various climatic factors over the past 58 years were analyzed by coefficient of variation (CV), which was calculated as CV = (standard deviation/mean) × 100%. Temporal trends in changes of climatic factors and suitable areas were calculated using ordinary least squares linear regression on annual data from 1961 to 2018. Among them, the trend in suitable area changes was calculated based on each grid. The significance of trends was estimated following a method that considers the temporal autocorrelation by reducing the effective sample size of the time series70. And the significance of temporal trends was tested at P < 0.171. More

Mammalia Linnaeus, 175829.Artiodactyla Owen, 184830.Ruminantia Scopoli, 177731.Infraorder Tragulina Flower, 188332.Family Lophiomerycidae Janis, 198733.Included generaLophiomeryx, Zhailimeryx, Krabimeryx, Chiyoumeryx nov. gen.Genus Krabimeryx Métais, Chaimanee, Jaeger, and Ducroq, 200117.EtymologyKrabi—from Krabi Basin, where the fossils were found, and—meryx is the Greek word for ruminant.Diagnosis [modified after Métais et al.17]Small primitive ruminant with lower molars morphologically close to those of Zhailimeryx. Krabimeryx differs from Zhailimeryx in: more laterally compressed lingual cuspids in the lower molars; an entoconid displaced to anterior with respect to the hypoconid; the lack of both a paraconid and a hypoconulid in m1 and m2; a p4 with a mesolingual conid that is located more posterior and less individualized; a p4 without a distinct posterolingual conid. Krabimeryx differs from Lophiomeryx by less selenodont labial cuspids in the lower molars, the presence of a developed external postmetacristid, and by a distinct groove on the anterior side of the entoconid, the entoconidian groove. Krabimeryx can be distinguished from Iberomeryx in having a well-marked entoconidian groove; the lack of a clear external postprotocristid; the third lobe of m3 not forming a complete buckle; and a more transversely compressed hypoconulid in the m3. Krabimeryx possesses a huge notch in lingual view between the entoconid and the third lobe in the m3.Type speciesKrabimeryx primitivus Métais, Chaimanne, Jaeger, and Ducroq, 200117.Included speciesKrabimeryx gracilis nov. comb. (Miao, 198220).Krabimeryx gracilis nov. comb. (Miao, 198220).Figure 1A and Figure S1.Figure 1Dentition of Krabimeryx gracilis nov. comb. (Miao, 1982)20 (A, B, G, H), Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. shinaoensis (Miao, 1982)20 (C, D), Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. flavimperatoris nov. sp. (E) and Iberomeryx miaoi nov. sp. (F–I). Krabimeryx gracilis nov. comb. (Miao, 1982)20: (A) IVPP V 6546-1 (holotype), partial skull with right and left M1–M3; (B) IVPP V 6546-2 (holotype), right fragmented mandible with m2–m3. Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. shinaoensis (Miao, 1982)20: (C) IVPP V 6531 (holotype), right mandible with p2–m3 and tooth socket of p1; (D) IVPP V 6532 (paratype), right fragmented maxillary with P4-M3. Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. flavimperatoris nov. sp.: (E) IVPP V 6547 (holotype), right mandible with p4–m3; Iberomeryx miaoi nov. sp.: (F) IVPP V 6551 (holotype), left mandible with m1–m3 (mirrored); (G) lower molar Lophiomerycidae dental nomenclature (based on the m3 of IVPP 6546-2): 1 internal postmetacristid, 2 metaconid, 3 external postmetacristid, 4 internal preentocristid, 5 entoconidian groove, 6 external preentocristid, 7 entoconid, 8 posthypoconulidcristid, 9 hypoconulid, 10 prehypoconuldicristid, 11 posthypocristid, 12 hypoconid, 13 prehypocristid, 14 ectostylid, 15 postprotocristid, 16 protoconid, 17 preprotocristid, 18 anterior cingulid; (H) upper molar Lophiomerycidae dental nomenclature (based on the M2 of IVPP 6546-1): 1 postmetacrista, 2 metacone, 3 premetacrista, 4 mesostyle, 5 postparacrista, 6 paracone, 7 paraconid labial groove, 8 preparacrista, 9 parastyle, 10 preprotocrista, 11 anterolingual cingulum, 12 protocone, 13 postprotocrista, 14 entostyle, 15 additional cone, 16 premetaconulecrista, 17 metaconule, 18 postmetaconulecrista; (I) lower molar Tragulidae dental nomenclature (based on the m2 of IVPP V 6551, reversed): 1 metaconid, 2 external postmetacristid, 3 Dorcatherium fold, 4 internal postmetacristid, 5 preentocristid, 6 entoconid, 7 postentocristid, 8 posterior cingulid, 9 posthypocristid, 10 hypoconid, 11 prehypocristid, 12 ectostylid, 13 external postprotocristid, 14 Tragulus fold, 15 internal postprotocristid, 16 protoconid, 17 preprotocristid, 18 paraconid, 19 preparacristid. (J) phylogenetic position and stratigraphie of the Shinao/Yangjiachong/Xiaerhete ruminants (topology2). a stem Ruminantia, b Archaeomeryx, c Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. and Krabimeryx gracilis, d crown Ruminantia, e Iberomeryx miaoi nov. sp.; 1 lingual view, 2 occlusal view. Scale bare is 1 cm.Full size image*v pars1982 Lophiomeryx gracilis—Miao: 532, Table 3, Figs. 6 and 720.v non1982 Lophiomeryx gracilis?—Miao: 536, Fig. 820.v pars1987 L. gracilis—Janis: 21133.v pars1997 L. gracilis—Vislobokova: Fig. 321.v pars2000 L. gracilis—Guo, Dawson, and Beard: 247, Table 214.v pars2001 L. gracilis—Métais, Chaimanee, Jaeger, and Ducroq: 239, 24117.v pars2012 L. gracilis—Mennecart: 6234.NeodiagnosisKrabimeryx gracilis has an m2 that is wider than the m3; this is the other way round in K. primitivus. Moreover, the entoconid is less anterior relative to the hypoconid in K. gracilis than it is in K primitivus. The ectostylid is large in K. gracilis, while it is absent in K. primitivus. The cingulum on the upper molars in K. gracilis is more developed than in K. primitivus.HolotypeIVPP V 6546, partial skull with right and left M1–M3 (IVPP V 6546-1) and an associated right fragmented mandible with m2–m3 (IVPP V 6546-2) found in occlusion with the skull.Additional materialIVPP V 6549, right m3 on fragmented mandible; IVPP V 6550 left fragmented mandible with m1–m2; IVPP V 26638, right m1. Measurements are given in Table S1.LocalitiesShinao Basin, Panxian County, Southwestern Guizhou, China; Xiaerhete locality, Jiminay County, Xingjiang, China. Late Eocene.Taxonomical attributionThe herein described specimens were first attributed to the genus Lophiomeryx20. However, the thorough reassessment of the specimens now leads to the conclusion that Lophiomeryx gracilis sensu Miao20 contains three different species and genera, but none of them can be assigned to Lophiomeryx.Based on the presence of a strong lingual cingulum in upper molars and a short anteroposteriorly oriented postprotocrista, as well as the absence of a premetacristid and an anterior fossa widely open in the lower molars, we can conclude that the specimens, IVPP V 6546-1, IVPP V 6546-2, IVPP V 6549, and IVPP V 6550, belong to Lophiomerycidae or Tragulidae35,36. However, the absence of a large paraconid and the absence of an elongated external postmetacristid distinguish the specimens from primitive Tragulidae17,36. In Zhailimeryx jingweni, the cuspids are more slender than in the herein described specimens14, a feature the taxon shares with K. primitivus. In Z. jingweni, m1 and m2 are of relative similar width14, while in K. primitivus and the herein described specimens from Shinao the m2 is clearly bigger than the m117. Similarly to K. primitivus, the herein described specimens differ from Z. jingweni in its lower molar lingual cusps being more laterally compressed, and in an entoconid that is slightly shifted to anterior with respect to the hypoconid, while it is more posterior in Z. jingweni14,17. Furthermore, K. primitivus and the herein described specimens from Shinao both lack the rudimentary paraconid present in Z. jingweni14,17.Like K. primitivus, the here-described specimens differ from Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. (described below) and the Lophiomeryx species L. mouchelini, L. chalaniati and L. angarae by having more massive and more bunomorph lower molars16,17,24,34,37. Furthermore, Zhailimeryx jingweni, K. primitivus, and the herein described specimens differ from Lophiomeryx by the presence of a developed external postmetacristid and by a distinct entoconidian groove on the anterior side of the compressed entoconid14,17. In Lophiomeryx, the back fossa of m3 is widely open due to the strong reduction of the posthypoconulidcristid34,37. In contrast to this, Krabimeryx primitivus possesses a clearly developed posthypoconulidcristid forming a buckle on the m3 back basin17, similarly to the specimens from Shinao described here.Summing up, the general morphology of the teeth in the herein described specimens is most similar to the one observed in K. primitivus. They both share a similar huge notch in lateral view between the third lobe of m3 and the entoconid and the entoconidian groove, features that clearly distinguishing them both from Lophiomeryx and Zhailimeryx. Thus, we attribute the specimens IVPP V 6546-1, IVPP V 6546-2, IVPP V 6549, and IVPP V 6550 to the genus Krabimeryx. However, significant differences occur with the type species, ruling out the synonymisation of K. gracilis nov. comb. and Krabimeryx primitivus. While both species are very similar in size, K. primitivus has an m3 wider than m2, while it is the converse for K. gracilis nov. comb. Moreover, the entoconid is less shifted to the anterior with respect to the hypoconid in K. gracilis nov. comb. than in K primitivus. There is no ectostylid in K. primitivus, while it is large in K. gracilis nov. comb., forming a transverse cristid between the protoconid and the hypoconid. The cingulum on the upper molars is more developed in K. gracilis nov. comb. than in K. primitivus.Due to these differences we decided to create the new combination Krabimeryx gracilis nov. comb.Chiyoumeryx nov. gen.ZooBank LSIDurn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:464C46E0-5A69-4AC1-A9DD-8A7DF76D5CC0.EtymologyChiyou is a tribe leader of the ancient China, about 5–4 k years ago. Chiyou’s tribe was believed to be in relation with the peoples in southern China; -meryx means ruminant in Greek.DiagnosisChiyoumeryx nov. gen. differs from Zhailimeryx and Krabimeryx notably by the absence of the entoconidian groove. The lower teeth are more laterally compressed in Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. and the metaconid is linguo-labiallly more central than in the two other genera. The posthypoconulidcristid in the lower molars of Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. is longer than in Krabimeryx and its p4 is posteriorly extended, while this part is reduced in Krabimeryx. Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. differs from Lophiomeryx by the shape of the mandible. In Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. there is no diastema between p1 and p2 and the diastema between c and p1 is extremely reduced. The outline of the mandible in occlusal view is relatively straight in this species. Lophiomeryx possesses a long diastema between c and p1 and a small one between p1 and p2, as well as a regularly curved occlusal outline of the corpus. The lower premolars of Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. are laterally compressed giving a more elongated aspect to these teeth than in Lophiomeryx. The trigonid is smaller than the talonid in m1 and m2 in Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. and the preprotocristid terminates centrally and does not reach the lingual side. In Lophiomeryx the trigonid and talonid are of similar size and the preprotocristid is longer and reaches the lingual side. Moreover, in Chiyoumeryx nov. gen., the posthypoconulidcristid is longer than in Lophiomeryx. The shape of the P4 in Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. differs from the one in Lophiomeryx: the posterolingual crista does not meet the posterolabial crista.Type speciesChiyoumeryx nov. gen. shinaoensis (Miao, 198220).Included speciesChiyoumeryx nov. gen. flavimperatoris nov. sp.; ?Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. turgaicus (Flerow 193838).Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. shinaoensis (Miao, 198220).Figure 1B and Figure S2.*v1982 Lophiomeryx shinaoensis—Miao: 530, Table 3, Figs. 3–520.v1987 Lophiomeryx shinaoensis—Janis: 203, 204, 211, 212, Fig. 8B33.v1997 Lophiomeryx shinaoensis—Vislobokova: Fig. 321.v2000 L. shinaoensis—Guo, Dawson, and Beard: 247, Table 214.v2001 L. shinaoensis—Métais, Chaimanee, Jaeger, and Ducroq: 239–241, 24117.v2012 L. shinaoensis—Mennecart: 6234.NeodiagnosisChiyoumeryx nov. gen. shinaoensis is bigger than Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. flavimperatoris nov. sp. but smaller than ?Chiyoumeryx turagicus. The transversely oriented anterior conid in the p4 in Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. shinaoensis differs from the obliquely oriented one in Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. flavimperatoris nov. sp. In Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. shinaoensis, the posterolingual conid is vestigial on p4. Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. shinaoensis has no anterior cingulid, while in Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. flavimperatoris nov. sp. there is a tiny anterior cingulid. Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. shinaoensis possesses lower crowns than ?Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. turgaicus. Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. flavimperatoris nov. sp. possesses an ectostylid, which is absent in ?Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. turgaicus.HolotypeIVPP V 6531, right mandible with p2–m3 and tooth socket of p1.ParatypeIVPP V 6532, right fragmented maxillary with P4–M3.Additional materialIVPP V 6533, right mandible with p2–m3 and tooth socket of i1–p1; IVPP V 6534, left fragments mandible with m1–m3; IVPP V 6535, right fragmented mandible with m1–m3; IVPP V 6536, left fragmented mandible with p4–m3; IVPP V 6537, right fragmented mandible with p4–m2; IVPP V 6538, left p4; IVPP V 6539, right maxillary with P3–M3; IVPP V 6540, right maxillary with P4–M2; IVPP V 6541, right maxillary with M2–M3; IVPP V 6542, left maxillary with P3–M1; IVPP V 6543, right maxillary with M1–M3; IVPP V 6544, Left M3; IVPP V 6545, left maxillary with P4–M3. Measurements are given in Table S1.LocalityShinao Basin, Panxian County, Southwestern Guizhou, China. Late Eocene.Taxonomical attributionMiao20 attributed the here described specimens to the genus Lophiomeryx assuming that these fossils belong to a traguloid. “Lophiomeryx” shinaoensis clearly is a Lophiomerycidae: anterior and posterior fossae are open on the lower molars due to the absence of a premetacristid and the extreme reduction or absence of a postentocristid, there is no external postprotocristid, there is a mesolingual conid on the p4, the symphysis of the mandible extends backward up to the p12,36. It also shares with undisputable Lophiomerycidae a reduced posthypoconulidcristid that does not enclose the third lobe lingually.“Lophiomeryx” shinaoensis differs from Zhailimeryx and Krabimeryx in the absence of the entoconidian groove14,17. Moreover, the teeth are more laterally compressed in “Lophiomeryx” shinaoensis and the metaconid is linguo-labially more centeral14,17. The posthypoconulidcristid in “Lophiomeryx” shinaoensis is more elongated than in Krabimeryx and its p4 has an extended posterior part, while it is reduced in Krabimeryx17.Contrary to what was suggested by Métais and Vislobokova2, Miomeryx altaicus24 is currently known only by its holotype, which is an upper tooth row (AMNH 20383, see Matthew and Granger24). Comparable to M. altaicus, the postprotocrista reaches the premetaconulecrista on the M2 in “Lophiomeryx” shinaoensis. These two cristae fuse totally on the M3 in the here described specimens. However, even if both genera also bear a very strong cingulum, “Lophiomeryx” shinaoensis clearly differs from M. altaicus in having broader and squarer molars and straighter lingual cristae in the P4.Miao20 compared the here revised fossils with the seven Lophiomeryx species considered valid at that time. Unfortunately, very few specimens document most of these species and there is considerable doubt considering the genus attribution of most of them34,36,37,38,39. In any case, we agree with Miao20 (p. 535) that “L. [= Praetragulus] gobiae is readily distinguished from other known Lophiomeryx species as well as from L. shinaoensis by the absence of p1, the anterior flange of metaconid joining protoconid crescent.”. Miao20 (p. 535) already noticed that “Lophiomeryx chalaniati, Lophiomeryx gaudry [= Iberomeryx minor], and Lophiomeryx benarensis are radically different from the present specimens in the anterior branches of the protoconid crescent [= preprotocristid], of m1 and m2 not reaching the lingual border while the posterior branches of hypoconid crescent [= posthypocristid], doing so”. “Lophiomeryx” shinaoensis shares this condition with the Mongolian Lophiomeryx angarae24. However, the trigonid is smaller than the talonid on m1 and m2 in “Lophiomeryx” shinaoensis and the preprotocristid ends in the labio-lingual axis of the molars, while trigonid and talonid are of more similar width combined with a longer preprotocristid in the European Lophiomeryx species and L. angarae16,34,37. The shape of the P4 in “Lophiomeryx” shinaoensis is very different from Lophiomeryx (see Brunet and Sudre37, Figs. 4 and 6). In Lophiomeryx, the posterolingual crista fuses with the posterolabial crista. In “Lophiomeryx” shinaoensis, the curved posterolingual crista does not join the distal end of the posterolabial crista but reaches the labial side. Furthermore, “Lophiomeryx” shinaoensis clearly differs from L. angarae L. mouchelini, and L. chalaniati in the shape of the mandible. These three species of Lophiomeryx possess a very elongated diastema between c and p1 and a small one between p1 and p224,36,37. As part of the genus diagnosis, Mennecart34 (p. 62 and p. 67), adapted from Brunet and Sudre37 and Métais and Vislobokova2, noticed that “the corpus mandibulae presents [in Lophiomeryx: L. angarae, L. mouchelini, and L. chalaniati24,34,37] a concave ventral profile just behind the mandible symphysis, then it becomes regularly convex until the beginning of the ramus, where there is a rounded incisura vasorum. […] On the anterior part of the mandible there are two foramen mentale.” Moreover he wrote that the “p1 is always reduced and leaf-like, separated from c and p2 by diastemata.” (Mennecart34, p. 67). In “Lophiomeryx” shinaoensis there is no diastema between p1 and p2 and the diastema between c and p1 is extremely reduced. The p1 is relatively big considering the root size. The lower outline of the mandible in lateral view is relatively straight. “Lophiomeryx” shinaoensis shares these characteristics with “Lophiomeryx” turgaicus40. Miao20 (p. 535) already noticed strong similarities between “Lophiomeryx” turgaicus and “Lophiomeryx” shinaoensis. The lower premolars of “Lophiomeryx” turgaicus and “Lophiomeryx” shinaoensis are strongly laterally compressed and the p4 is rectangular, giving the lower premolar toothrow an more elongated aspect than in L. angarae, L. mouchelini, and L. chalaniati20,24,30,38,40. Moreover, in these two species, the posthypoconulidcristid is of similar length, longer than in L. angarae, L. mouchelini, and L. chalaniati.Based on these observations, we can assume that “Lophiomeryx” shinaoensis and “Lophiomeryx” turagicus cannot be assigned to the genus Lophiomeryx and may both belong to the same new Lophiomerycidae genus that we here name Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. shinaoensis differs from ?Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. turgaicus nov. comb. in being lower crowned, smaller, possessing an ectostylid, having the symphysis starting under p1, and a shorter diastema.Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. flavimperatoris nov. sp.Figure 1C and Figure S3.v1961 cf. Miomeryx sp.—Xu: 316, 323, 32426.v pars1982 Lophiomeryx gracilis—Miao: 532, Table 3, Fig. 9a,b20.v non1982 Lophiomeryx gracilis?—Miao: 536, Fig. 820.1983 Lophiomeryx sp.—Wang & Zhang: 122, 12741.v1983 cf. Miomeryx sp.—Wang & Zhang: 12341.v1997 Miomeryx sp.—Vislobokova: Fig. 321.v pars1997 L. gracilis—Vislobokova: Fig. 321.v1999 cf. Miomeryx sp.—Zhang, Long, Ji, & Ding: 7, Table 527.v pars2000 L. gracilis—Guo, Dawson, and Beard: 247, Table 214.v pars2001 L. gracilis—Métais, Chaimanee, Jaeger, and Ducrocq: 239, 24117.v2007 Miomeryx sp.—Métais and Vislobokova: 1942.v pars2012 L. gracilis—Mennecart: 6234.ZooBank LSIDurn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:1DF6F58C-F08B-4657-BD4A-7C597653926F.Etymologymeaning yellow (flavor-) emperor (imperatoris) in latin. Chiyou fought with the Yellow Emperor, the ancestor of Chinese, but was defeated.DiagnosisChiyoumeryx nov. gen. flavimperatoris nov. sp. shows the above-mentioned characteristics of the genus. Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. flavimperatoris nov. sp. is smaller than Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. shinaoensis and ?Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. turgaicus. The p4 of Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. flavimperatoris nov. sp. differs from Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. shinaoensis by an oblique anterior conid, which is labio-lingually oriented in the larger species. A very short posterolingual conid is located between the posterolabial cristid and the transverse cristid in the p4 of Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. flavimperatoris nov. sp., while it is absent on Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. shinaoensis. In Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. flavimperatoris nov. sp., there is a tiny anterior cingulid, while it is absent in Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. shinaoensis.HolotypeIVPP V 6547, right mandible with p4–m3 (previously attributed to Lophiomeryx gracilis20).ParatypeIVPP V 6548, left mandible with p4–m3 (previously attributed to Lophiomeryx gracilis20).Additional materialIVPP V 2600, left p4–m2 (previously attributed to cf. Miomeryx sp.26). Measurements are given in Table S1.LocalitiesYangjiachong locality lying in the Caijiachong marls, Qujing, Yunnan, China; Shinao Basin, Panxian County, Southwestern Guizhou, China. Late Eocene.Taxonomical attributionIVPP V 6547 and IVPP V 6548 from Shinao were previously attributed to Lophiomeryx gracilis20, while IVPP V 2600 from Caijiachong marls was first described as cf. Miomeryx sp.26. All these specimens share the same size and dental morphology, and originate from a similar stratigraphic position. That is why we attribute them to the same species.None of these specimens can be attributed to Krabimeryx or Zhailymeryx, as the entoconidian groove is absent14,17. Furthermore, the external postmetacristid is more marked in the considered specimens than in Krabimeryx and Zhailymeryx, forming a deep groove. The third basin is also very different in the here-described specimens from Krabimeryx and Zhailymeryx: the third lobe is a little tilted parallel with the prehypoconulidcristid and posthypoconulidcristid. The back fossa of m3 is very narrow.Furthermore, the here-described specimens can be distinguished from K. gracilis (previously attributed to the same species), by a smaller size and a slenderer shape. The ectostylid is smaller than in K. gracilis. The anterior cingulid in the lower molars is stronger in K. gracilis than in the here-considered specimens. The small postentocristid (especially on m3) of the here-described specimens is absent in K. gracilis.The here-described specimens possess all characteristics in the lower molars that are typical for Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. and distinguish this genus from Lophiomeryx24,34,37. Furthermore, as in Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. shinaoensis, the p4 is laterally compressed giving it a more elongated aspect than in Lophiomeryx24,34,37. Therefore, we consider it justified assigning the here-described specimens to Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. However, they differ from Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. shinaoensis in as smaller size and the morphology of the p4: (1) the anterior conid is oblique while it is labio-lingually oriented in Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. shinaoensis. (2) There is a tiny anterior cingulid that is absent in Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. shinaoensis. (3) There is no additional cristid on the mesolingual conid, which is a well-rounded conid, while in Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. shinaoensis, there is a short posterolingual cristid. (4) The posterolingual conid stands between the posterolabial cristid and the transverse cristid, while in Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. shinaoensis, the posterolingual conid is very small and oblique between the transverse cristid and the posterior stylid and does not join the posterolabial cristid. Due to these distinct differences we erect a new species: Chiyoumeryx nov. gen. flavimperatoris nov. sp.Family Tragulidae Milne-Edwards, 186442.Genus Iberomeryx Gabunia, 196443.Diagnosis (modified from Mennecart et al.36)Small-sized ruminant with upper molars possessing the following combination of characters: well-marked parastyle and mesostyle in small-column shape; strong paracone rib; metacone rib absent; metastyle absent; unaligned external walls of metacone and paracone; strong postprotocrista stopping against the anterior side of the premetaconulecrista; continuous lingual cingulum, stronger under the protocone. Lower dental formula is primitive (3–1–4–3) with non-molarized premolars. Tooth c is adjacent to i3. Tooth p1 is single-rooted, reduced and separated from c and p2 by a short diastema. The premolars have a well-developed anterior conid. Teeth p2–p3 display a distally bifurcated mesolabial conid. Tooth p3 is the largest premolar. Tooth p4 displays no mesolingual conid and a large posterior valley. Regarding the lower molars, the trigonid and talonid are lingually open with a trigonid more tapered than the talonid. The anterior fossa is open, due to a forward orientation of the preprotocristid and the presence of a paraconid. The internal postprotocristid is oblique and the external postprotocristid reaches the prehypocristid. The internal postprotocristid, postmetacristid and preentocristid are fused and Y-shaped. Protoconid and metaconid display a weak Tragulus fold and a well-developed Dorcatherium fold, respectively. The mandible displays a regularly concave ventral profile in lateral view, a marked incisura vasorum, a strong mandibular angular process, a vertical ramus, and a stout condylar process.Type speciesIberomeryx parvus Gabunia, 196443 from Benara (Georgia), late Oligocene44.Included speciesI. minor45, Iberomeryx miaoi nov. sp.Iberomeryx miaoi nov. sp.Figure 1D and Figure S4.v 1982 Lophiomeryx gracilis?—Miao: 536, Fig. 820.ZooBank LSIDurn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:EE3F88E9-0EAF-4EC6-A46F-8623241E614B.DiagnosisIberomeryx with a very large paraconid, which is smaller in Iberomeryx minor and Iberomeryx parvus. The metastylid is not strong but is more developed than in the other species. The ectostylid is big on m1, smaller on m2 and absent on m3, while I. minor displays an ectostylid on all molars and I. parvus none at all. Iberomeryx miaoi nov. sp. is of similar size to I. minor and its m2 is smaller than the one of I. parvus. It differs from I. minor by a thin anterior cingulid. Moreover, its protoconid is positioned slightly more anterior than in I. parvus. The molars appear to be more massive and bulkier in this species than in I. minor and I. parvus.HolotypeIVPP V 6551, left mandible with m1–m3 (only specimen known). m1 5.1 × 3.5, m2 5.2 × 4.1, m3 8.0 × 4.0.EtymologyWe dedicate this species to Prof. Miao Desui who was the first to describe the Shinao fauna.Locality and horizonShinao Basin, Panxian County, Southwestern Guizhou, China. Late Eocene.Taxonomical attributionThis minute ruminant was referred to Lophiomeryx gracilis? by Miao20. However, he already noticed that the size of this individual was smaller than in the other specimens attributed to Lophiomeryx gracilis. Miao20 excluded an attribution of IVPP V 6551 to “Lophiomeryx” gaudryi due to a closed posterior section of the posterior fossa on the m3. However, in both teeth, the posterior fossa is still open by the reduction of the postentocristid.The here-described specimen clearly differs from Lophiomeryx by the presence of an external postmetacristid forming a slight Dorcatherium fold, a developed external postprotocristid (clearly visible at least on m2), and a large paraconid36. Furthermore the external postprotocristid and prehypocristid are connected on their distal ends and the third basin of m3 forms a well-formed buckle, unlike the condition in Lophiomerycidae14,16,33,36,37. The combination of these characters is typical for Tragulidae36.Very few taxa are so far known in the early evolution of the Tragulidae. Only Archaeotragulus, Iberomeryx, and Nalameryx are recognized as potential Paleogene Tragulidae17,36,46, of which Archaeotragulus is currently the oldest representative described17,47. Archaeotragulus possesses lower molars with a broadened talonid in comparison to the trigonid and displays an entoconidian groove36. In the case of IVPP V 6551, the trigonid and talonid are of similar size and no specific entoconidian groove can be observed. Mennecart et al.36 considered Nalameryx a Tragulidae notably based on the presence of the M structure (the external postmetacristid, the internal postmetacristid, the internal postprotocristid, and the external postprotocristid are interconnected forming a M in occlusal view), including the Tragulus fold and Dorcatherium fold, and the absence of a rounded mesolingual conid in the p435. IVPP V 6551 differs from Nalameryx in having an m3 wider than m1 and similar m1 and m2 widths17. In size proportions and molar morphology, IVPP V 6551 resembles the genus Iberomeryx. In IVPP V 6551, the relative size of the m2 is more similar to I. minor. In Iberomeryx minor, the anterior cingulid is big36,46, while in Iberomeryx parvus the cingulid is thin48 like in IVPP V 6551. The teeth of IVPP V 6551 appear to be more massive and bulkier than in I. minor and I. parvus36,48. Similarly to I. minor, the protoconid of IVPP V 6551 is a little more anterior than in I. parvus36,48. IVPP V 6551 clearly differs from I. parvus and I. minor by the presence of a very large paraconid, which is smaller in the two other species36,48. Moreover, the metastylid in IVPP V 6551 is slightly more developed than in I. minor and not present in I. parvus43,48. Iberomeryx minor displays an ectostylid on all molars36, while this structure is absent from I. parvus48. The ectostylid in IVPP V 6551 is large on m1 to absent on m3. Based on these differences we decided to erect the new species Iberomeryx miaoi nov. sp.Origin of crown Ruminantia and dispersal pattern of Paleogene Eurasian ruminantsSo far five families and 13 genera of Ruminantia are known during the middle and late Eocene in Eurasia2,18,19. Based on molecular data, the origin of crown ruminants should be searched for between the latest late Paleocene (56.5 Ma) and the latest early Oligocene (29 Ma)49,50. With the description of stem Tragulidae from the early Oligocene of Western Europe (Iberomeryx) and the late Eocene from Southern Thailand (Archaeotragulus)17, Mennecart et al.26 and Mennecart and Métais51 verified that the oldest crown ruminants date back at least to the latest Eocene (34 Mya). The presence of the tragulid genus Iberomeryx in Shinao, Southern China, further confirms this and may actually represent the oldest fossil of a Tragulidae known and thus of a crown Ruminantia (37–35 Mya, Fig. 1), since no Pecora is known during the Eocene so far51.The here presented reassesment of the Shinao ruminants in combination with literature data reveals a clear pattern in the distribution of Eocene ruminants. Among Archaeomerycidae, Archaeomeryx and Miomeryx are found in Northern and Central Asia [Kazhakstan, Mongolia, and northern part of China2,21,53 (see Fig. 2)]. The lophiomerycid Lophiomeryx (as Lophiomeryx angarae) as well as the Asiatic Praetragulidae (Praetragulus) occupy the same area2. The Mongolian Lophiomeryx angarae is most likely closely related to the European species Lophiomeryx mouchelini. Due to the strong morphological similarities, some specimens of L. mouchelini were actually first described as Lophiomeryx cf. angarae54. Lophiomeryx mouchelini or its ancestors arrived in Europe with the Grande-Coupure dispersal event at the Eocene–Oligocene transition ca. 34 Mya ago (oldest European records: Calaf, Spain, MP22; Möhren 9, Germany, MP21-22; age comprised between the German localities Haag2 MP21 and Möhren 13 MP2234,37,53). The close relationship of these European and the Mongolian species confirms that the origin of the Grande-Coupure cohort may be deeply anchored in the Eocene of Central-Northern Asia (Fig. 2).Figure 2Paleobiogeography of the Eurasiatic ruminants during the Eocene at the genus level. The localities are from the synthesis of data2,17,18,22,49. The palinspastic map is modified from Scotese52.Full size imageThe Southern part of Asia presents a totally different ruminant community at the genus level and includes the Archaeomerycidae Indomeryx and Notomeryx, the Lophiomerycidae Krabimeryx and Chiyoumeryx nov. gen., the Bachitheriidae Bachitherium and the Tragulidae Archaetrogulus and Iberomeryx2,17,18,19,21,53 (see Fig. 2). The oldest Bachitherium is currently known from the Balkan area during the Eocene18,19. The Tethys Ocean separated this area from Western Europe until its progressive disappearance during the Oligocene, ca. 31 Mya55,56. Bachitherium and a cohort of rodents (Pseudocricetodon, Paracricetodon, and the Melissodontinae)19 did not reach Western Europe prior to the opening of this passage. Similarly to the genus Bachitherium, Iberomeryx arrived in Western Europe after the drying out of the Tethys Ocean ca. 31 Mya, during the Bachitherium dispersal event18,19,36. Iberomeryx is mainly known from the middle early Oligocene of Western Europe34,36,57 and the late Oligocene of Anatolia and Georgia43,48,58. Discovering Iberomeryx in the Eocene of Eastern Asia confirms an Asiatic origin of this genus. The close relationship between South-eastern Europe and South-eastern Asia is furthermore supported by anthracotheriids (extinct artiodactyls related to hippopotamids) and rhinocerotoids59,60.Mennecart et al.18,19 proposed that mammals originating from Asia arrived in Western Europe during the early Oligocene in two faunal events: the Grande-Coupure, ca. 33.9 Mya and the Bachitherium dispersal event, ca. 31 Mya. These two faunal events imply two different and diachronous ways of dispersal. The fact that Eocene taxa from South-eastern Asia did not arrive in Western Europe prior to 31 Mya indicates that the Bachitherium dispersal Event cohort might be deeply anchored in the Eocene of Southern Asia (Fig. 2), while genera recorded from the Eocene of Central Asia are known to have arrived already during the Grande-Coupure and thus originated from a different palaeobiogeographic province. The Grande-Coupure was a dispersal event using a Northern way over the closed Turgai Strait and probably originating from Central Asia (Fig. 2). The Bachitherium dispersal event is a stepwise story with a first dispersion from Southern Asia to South-eastern Europe along the Southern path (Fig. 2) and then the dispersal throughout Europe thanks to the closure of the Tethyian Ocean18,19.The south-eastern part of Asia has shown very few changes from a warm and humid climate and environment since the Eocene4, while Northern Asia underwent a transition from warm and humid subtropical environments during the Eocene to steppe environments in the Pliocene, e.g.3,4,5. In this light it is not surprising that an increasing number of paleontological and geological studies indicate that Asia had already experienced a strong latitudinal environmental zonation during the middle and the late Eocene, e.g.6,13.These different climatic and environmental conditions in Central and South Asia led to two distinct palaeobiogeographical provinces clearly traceable in assemblages of herbivores like ruminants that was already apparent during the Eocene. The Central Asian ruminants were living in a more arid environment than the ones from South-eastern Asia (see Fig. 2). The tropical and wet environments from the South-eastern Asia led to the emergence of the Tragulidae (Iberomeryx and Archaeotragulus) and of the anthracotheriids. More