Ecology

1.Schipper, J. et al. The status of the world’s land and marine mammals: Diversity, threat, and knowledge. Science 322, 225–230 (2008).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
2.Cushman, S. A. Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on amphibians: A review and prospectus. Biol. Conserv. 128, 231–240 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Díaz, S. et al. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science 366, 6471 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
4.Geary, W. L., Nimmo, D. G., Doherty, T. S., Ritchie, E. G. & Tulloch, A. I. T. Threat webs: Reframing the co-occurrence and interactions of threats to biodiversity. J. Appl. Ecol. 56, 1992–1997 (2019).
Google Scholar 
5.Halpern, B. S. et al. A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science 319, 948–952 (2008).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
6.Johnson, C. N. et al. Biodiversity losses and conservation responses in the Anthropocene. Science 356, 270–275 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Di Prisco, G. et al. A mutualistic symbiosis between a parasitic mite and a pathogenic virus undermines honey bee immunity and Health. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 113, 3203–3208 (2016).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
8.Grant, E. H. C. et al. Identifying management-relevant research priorities for responding to disease-associated amphibian declines. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 16, 00441 (2018).
Google Scholar 
9.Schindler, D. W. The cumulative effects of climate warming and other human stresses on Canadian freshwaters in the new millennium. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58, 18–29 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Cumulative Effects in Wildlife Management: Impact Mitigation. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 (CRC Press, 2011). 11.Frid, A. & Dill, L. Human-caused disturbance stimuli as a form of predation risk. Conserv. Ecol. 6, 11 (2002).
Google Scholar 
12.Rolland, R. M., Hunt, K. E., Kraus, S. D. & Wasser, S. K. Assessing reproductive status of right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) using fecal hormone metabolites. Gen. Comp. Endocrinol. 142, 308–317 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Sheriff, M. J., Dantzer, B., Delehanty, B., Palme, R. & Boonstra, R. Measuring stress in wildlife: Techniques for quantifying glucocorticoids. Oecologia 166, 869–887 (2011).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Crain, C. M., Kroeker, K. & Halpern, B. S. Interactive and cumulative effects of multiple human stressors in marine systems. Ecol. Lett. 11, 1304–1315 (2008).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Beal, A., Rodriguez-Casariego, J., Rivera-Casas, C., Suarez-Ulloa, V. & Eirin-Lopez, J. M. Environmental epigenomics and its applications in marine organisms. in Population Genomics: Marine Organisms (eds. Oleksiak, M. F. & Rajora, O. P.) 325–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/13836_2018_28 (Springer, 2018). 16.Eirin-Lopez, J. M. & Putnam, H. M. Marine environmental epigenetics. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 11, 335–368 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Laird, P. W. The power and the promise of DNA methylation markers. Nat. Rev. Cancer 3, 253–266 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Bird, A. P. CpG-rich islands and the function of DNA methylation. Nature 321, 209–213 (1986).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Cedar, H. & Bergman, Y. Linking DNA methylation and histone modification: patterns and paradigms. Nat. Rev. Genet. 10, 295–304 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Matosin, N., Cruceanu, C. & Binder, E. B. Preclinical and clinical evidence of DNA methylation changes in response to trauma and chronic stress. Chronic Stress 1, 247054701771076 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Radtke, K. M. et al. Transgenerational impact of intimate partner violence on methylation in the promoter of the glucocorticoid receptor. Transl. Psychiatry 1, e21–e26 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Mueller, B. R. & Bale, T. L. Sex-specific programming of offspring emotionality after stress early in pregnancy. J. Neurosci. 28, 9055–9065 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Elliott, E., Ezra-Nevo, G., Regev, L., Neufeld-Cohen, A. & Chen, A. Resilience to social stress coincides with functional DNA methylation of the Crf gene in adult mice. Nat. Neurosci. 13, 1351–1353 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
24.Boersma, G. J. et al. Prenatal stress decreases Bdnf expression and increases methylation of Bdnf exon IV in rats. Epigenetics 9, 437–447 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Turecki, G. & Meaney, M. J. Effects of the social environment and stress on glucocorticoid receptor gene methylation: A systematic review. Biol. Psychiatry 79, 87–96 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Sterrenburg, L. et al. Chronic stress induces sex-specific alterations in methylation and expression of corticotropin-releasing factor gene in the rat. PLoS ONE 6, 1–14 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
27.Reeder, D. A. M. & Kramer, K. M. Stress in free-ranging mammals: Integrating physiology, ecology, and natural history. J. Mammal. 86, 225–235 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Jeanneteau, F. D. et al. BDNF and glucocorticoids regulate corticotrophin-releasing hormone (CRH) homeostasis in the hypothalamus. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 109, 1305–1310 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Smith, S. M. & Vale, W. W. The role of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis in neuroendocrine responses to stress. Dialogues Clin. Neurosci. 8, 383–395 (2006).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Turner, J. D. & Muller, C. P. Structure of the glucocorticoid receptor (NR3C1) gene 5′ untranslated region: Identification, and tissue distribution of multiple new human exon 1. J. Mol. Endocrinol. 35, 283–292 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Bakusic, J., Schaufeli, W., Claes, S. & Godderis, L. Stress, burnout and depression: A systematic review on DNA methylation mechanisms. J. Psychosom. Res. 92, 34–44 (2017).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Center for Whale Research. Population. https://www.whaleresearch.com. Accessed 11 Jan 2021 (2020).33.Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Recovery Strategy for the Northern and Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) in Canada [Proposed]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series, Fisheries & Oceans Canada, Ottawa, x + 84 pp.(2018).34.DFO. Population Status Update for the Northern Resident Killer Whale (Orcinus orca) in 2018. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Resp. 2019/025. (2019).35.Bigg, M. A., Olesiuk, P. F., Ellis, G. M., Ford, J. K. B. & Balcomb, K. C. Social organization and genealogy of resident killer whales (Orcinus orca) in the coastal waters of British Columbia and Washington State. Reports Int. Whal. Comm. 12, 383–405 (1990).
Google Scholar 
36.Ford, J. K. B. & Ellis, G. M. Selective foraging by fish-eating killer whales Orcinus orca in British Columbia. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 316, 185–199 (2006).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Chen, I.-H. et al. Selection of reference genes for RT-qPCR studies in blood of beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas). PeerJ 4, e1810 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
38.Horvath, S. & Raj, K. DNA methylation-based biomarkers and the epigenetic clock theory of ageing. Nat. Rev. Genet. 19, 371–384 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Hoelzel, A. R., Dahlheim, M. E. & Stern, S. J. Low genetic variation among killer whales (Orcinus orca) in the eastern north Pacific and genetic differentiation between foraging specialists. J. Hered. 89, 121–128 (1998).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Yao, M., Stenzel-Poore, M. & Denver, R. J. Structural and functional conservation of vertebrate corticotropin- releasing factor genes: Evidence for a critical role for a conserved cyclic AMP response element. Endocrinology 148, 2518–2531 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Aguiniga, L. M., Yang, W., Yaggie, R. E., Schaeffer, A. J. & Klumpp, D. J. Acyloxyacyl hydrolase modulates depressive-like behaviors through aryl hydrocarbon receptor. Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol. 317, R289–R300 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Hankinson, O. The aryl hydrocarbon receptor complex. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 35, 307–340 (1995).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Lundin, J. I. et al. Pre-oil spill baseline profiling for contaminants in Southern Resident killer whale fecal samples indicates possible exposure to vessel exhaust. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 136, 448–453 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.MacDonald, L. H. Evaluating and managing cumulative effects: Process and constraints. Environ. Manag. 26, 299–315 (2000).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
45.National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. Approaches to Understanding the Cumulative Effects of Stressors on Marine Mammals. https://doi.org/10.17226/23479 (National Academies Press, 2017). 46.Barrett-Lennard, L. G., Smith, T. G. & Ellis, G. M. A cetacean biopsy system using lightweight pneumatic darts, and its effect on the behavior of killer whales. Mar. Mammal Sci. 12, 14–27 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Sambrook, J., Fritsch, E. F. & Maniatis, H. Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual (Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory Press, 1989).
Google Scholar 
48.Illumina. 16S Metagenomic Sequencing Library Preparation. Illumina.com 1–28 (2013).49.Martin, M. Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet.j 17, 10–12 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
50.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 
51.Magoč, T. & Salzberg, S. L. FLASH: Fast length adjustment of short reads to improve genome assemblies. Bioinformatics 27, 2957–2963 (2011).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
52.Li, H. & Durbin, R. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics 25, 1754–1760 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Li, H. et al. The sequence alignment/map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics 25, 2078–2079 (2009).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar  More

1.Arnold, M. L. Natural Hybridization and Evolution (Oxford University Press, 1997).
Google Scholar 
2.Stelkens, R. & Seehausen, O. Genetic distance between species predicts novel trait expression in their hybrids. Evolution 63, 884–897 (2009).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
3.Grant, P. R. & Grant, B. R. Hybridization of bird species. Science 256, 193–197 (1992).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
4.Saino, N. & Villa, S. Pair composition and reproductive success across a hybrid zone of carrion crows and hooded crows. Auk 109, 543–555 (1992).
Google Scholar 
5.Good, T. P., Ellis, J. C., Annett, C. A. & Pierotti, R. Bounded hybrid superiority in an avian hybrid zone: effects of mate, diet, and habitat choice. Evolution 54, 1774–1783 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
6.Bartley, D. M., Rana, K. & Immink, A. J. The use of inter-specific hybrids in aquaculture and fisheries. Rev. Fish Biol. Fisher. 10, 325–337 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Rosenfield, J. A., Nolasco, S., Lindauer, S., Sandoval, C. & Kodric-Brown, A. The role of hybrid vigor in the replacement of Pecos pupfish by its hybrids with sheepshead minnow. Conserv. Biol. 18, 1589–1598 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Sun, Y. et al. Comparative transcriptomic study of muscle provides new insights into the growth superiority of a novel grouper hybrid. PLoS ONE 11, e0168802 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
9.Scribner, K. T., Page, K. S. & Bartron, M. L. Hybridization in freshwater fishes: A review of case studies and cytonuclear methods of biological inference. Rev. Fish Biol. Fisher. 10, 293–323 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Ottová, E. et al. Evolution and trans-species polymorphism of MHC class IIB genes in cyprinid fish. Fish Shellfish Immun. 18, 199–222 (2005).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
11.Šimková, A. et al. Does invasive Chondrostoma nasus shift the parasite community structure of endemic Parachondrostoma toxostoma in sympatric zones?. Parasite. Vector. 5, 200 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Klein, J. & OhUigin, C. MHC polymorphism and parasites. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 346, 351–358 (1994).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Klein, J., Klein, D., Figueroa, F., OhUigin, C. & Sato, A. Major histocompatibility complex genes in the study of fish phylogeny. In Molecular Systematic of Fishes (eds Kocher, T. D. & Stepien, C. A.) 271–283 (Academic Press, 1997).Chapter 

Google Scholar 
14.Hughes, A. L. & Nei, M. Nucleotide substitution at major histocompatibility complex class II loci: Evidence for overdominant selection. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 56, 958–962 (1989).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Klein, J. & OhUigin, C. Composite origin of major histocompatibility complex genes. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 3, 923–930 (1993).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Hughes, A. L. & Nei, M. Models of host-parasite interactions and MHC polymorphism. Genetics 132, 863–864 (1992).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Klein, J. Of HLA, tryps, and selection? An essay on coevolution of MHC and parasites. Hum. Immunol. 30, 247–258 (1991).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
18.Hughes, A. L., Hughes, M. K., Howell, C. Y. & Nei, M. Natural selection at the class II major histocompatibility complex loci of mammals. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 346, 359–367 (1994).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Hedrick, P. W. Pathogen resistence and genetic variation at MHC loci. Evolution 56, 1902–1908 (2002).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
20.Nowak, M. A., Tarczy-Hornoch, K. & Austyn, J. M. The optimal number of major histocompatibility complex molecules in an individual. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 89, 10896–10899 (1992).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Wegner, K. M., Reusch, T. B. H. & Kalbe, M. Multiple parasites are driving major histocompatibility complex polymorphism in the wild. J. Evol. Biol. 16, 224–232 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Eizaguirre, C., Lenz, T. L., Traulsen, A. & Milinski, M. Speciation accelerated and stabilized by pleiotropic major histocompatibility complex immunogenes. Ecol. Lett. 12, 5–12 (2009).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Nadachowska-Brzyska, K., Zielinski, P., Radwan, J. & Babiks, W. Interspecific hybridization increases MHC class II diversity in two sister species of newts. Mol. Ecol. 21, 887–906 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Wegner, K. M. & Eizaguirre, C. New(t)s and views from hybridizing MHC genes: Introgression rather than trans-species polymorphism may shape allelic repertoires. Mol. Ecol. 21, 779–781 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Dudek, K., Gaczorek, T. S., Zielinski, P. & Babik, W. Massive introgression of major histocompatibility complex (MHC) genes in newt hybrid zones. Mol. Ecol. 28, 4798–4810 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Šimková, A., Civáňová, K., Gettová, L. & Gilles, A. Genomic porosity between invasive Chondrostoma nasus and endangered endemic Parachondrostoma toxostoma (Cyprinidae): The evolution of MHC IIB genes. PLoS ONE 8, e65883 (2013).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
27.Zhang, S., Wang, Z. & Wang, H. Maternal immunity in fish. Dev. Comp. Immunol. 39, 72–78 (2013).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
28.Šimková, A., Vojtek, L., Halačka, K., Hyršl, P. & Vetešník, L. The effect of hybridization on fish physiology, immunity and blood biochemistry: A case study in hybridizing Cyprinus carpio and Carassius gibelio (Cyprinidae). Aquaculture 435, 381–389 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
29.Cowx, I. G. The biology of bream, Abramis brama (L), and its natural hybrid with roach, Rutilus rutilus (L), in the River Exe. J. Fish Biol. 22, 631–646 (1983).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Economidis, P. S. & Wheeler, A. Hybrids of Abramis brama with Scardinius erythrophthalmus and Rutilus rutilus from Lake Volvi, Macedonia, Greece. J. Fish Biol. 35, 295–299 (1989).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Toscano, B. J. et al. An ecomorphological framework for the coexistence of two cyprinid fish and their hybrids in a novel environment. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 99, 768–783 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Hayden, B. et al. Hybridisation between two cyprinid fishes in a novel habitat: Genetics, morphology and life-history traits. BMC Evol. Biol. 10, 169 (2010).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
33.Kuparinen, A., Vinni, M., Teacher, A. G. F., Kähkönen, K. & Merilä, J. Mechanism of hybridization between bream Abramis brama and roach Rutilus rutilus in their native range. J. Fish Biol. 84, 237–242 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Konopinski, M. K. & Amirowicz, A. Genetic composition of a population of natural common bream Abramis brama x roach Rutilus rutilus hybrids and their morphological characteristics in comparison with parent species. J. Fish Biol. 92, 365–385 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Krasnovyd, V., Vetešník, L., Gettová, L., Civáňová, K. & Šimková, A. Patterns of parasite distribution in the hybrids of non-congeneric cyprinid fish species: Is asymmetry in parasite infection the result of limited coadaptation?. Int. J. Parasitol. 47, 471–483 (2017).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
36.Hayden, B. et al. Trophic dynamics within a hybrid zone—interactions between an abundant cyprinid hybrid and sympatric parental species. Freshwater Biol. 56, 1723–1735 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Nzau Matondo, B. et al. Hybridization success of three common European cyprinid species, Rutilus rutilus, Blicca bjoerkna and Abramis brama and larval resistance to stress tests. Fish. Sci. 73, 1137–1146 (2007).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
38.Hayden, B., McLoone, P., Coyne, J. & Caffrey, J. M. Extensive hybridization between roach, Rutilus rutilus L., and common bream, Abramis brama L. Irish lakes and rivers. Biol. Environ. 114B, 35–39 (2014).
Google Scholar 
39.Eizaguirre, C. et al. Parasite diversity, patterns of MHC II variation and olfactory based mate choice in diverging threespined stickleback ecotypes. Evol. Ecol. 25, 605–622 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Hubbs, C. L. Hybridization between fish species in nature. Syst. Zool. 4, 1–20 (1955).Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Rauch, G., Kalbe, M. & Reusch, T. B. H. Relative importance of MHC and genetic background for parasite load in a field experiment. Evol. Ecol. Res. 8, 373–386 (2006).
Google Scholar 
42.Eizaguirre, C., Lenz, T. L., Kalbe, M. & Milinski, M. Divergent selection on locally adapted major histocompatibility complex immune genes experimentally proven in the field. Ecol. Lett. 15, 723–731 (2012).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Šimková, A., Dávidová, M., Papoušek, I. & Vetešník, L. Does interspecies hybridization affect the host specificity of parasites in cyprinid fish?. Parasite. Vector. 6, 95 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Seifertová, M., Jarkovský, J. & Šimková, A. Does the parasite-mediated selection drive the MHC class IIB diversity in wild populations of European chub (Squalius cephalus)?. Parasitol. Res. 115, 1401–1415 (2016).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
45.Nzau Matondo, B., Ovidio, M., Philippart, J. C. & Poncin, P. Reproductive behaviour and sexual production in the first-generation hybrids of roach Rutilus rutilus L. × common bream Abramis brama L. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 27, 859–867 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Graser, R., OhUigin, C., Vincek, V., Meyer, A. & Klein, J. Trans-species polymorphism of class II Mhc loci in danio fishes. Immunogenetics 44, 36–48 (1996).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
47.Figueroa, F. et al. MHC class IIB gene evolution in East African cichlid fishes. Immunogenetics 51, 556–575 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
48.Migalska, M., Sebastian, A. & Radwan, J. Major histocompatibility complex class I diversity limits the repertoire of T cell
receptors.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 116, 5021–5026 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Šimková, A., Košař, M., Vetešník, L. & Vyskočilová, M. MHC genes and parasitism in Carassius gibelio, a diploid-triploid fish species with dual reproduction strategies. BMC Evol. Biol. 13, 122 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Borghans, J. A. M., Beltman, J. B. & De Boer, J. B. MHC polymorphism under host-pathogen coevolution. Immunogenetics 55, 732–739 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Ejsmond, M. J. & Radwan, J. Red queen processes drive positive selection on major histocompatibility complex (MHC) genes. PLoS Comput. Biol. 11, e1004627 (2015).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
52.Phillips, K. P. et al. Immunogenetic novelty confers a selective advantage in host-pathogen coevolution. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 115, 1552–1557 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Gaigher, A., Burri, R., San-Jose, L. M., Roulin, A. & Fumagalli, L. Lack of statistical power as a major limitation in understanding MHC-mediated immunocompetence in wild vertebrate populations. Mol. Ecol. 28, 5115–5132 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Šimková, A., Ottová, E. & Morand, S. MHC variability, life-traits and parasite diversity of European cyprinid fish. Evol. Ecol. 20, 465–477 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Clarke, B. & Kirby, D. R. S. Maintenance of histocompatibility polymorphisms. Nature 211, 999–1000 (1966).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Meglécz, E. et al. SESAME (SEquence Sorter & AMplicon Explorer): Genotyping based on high throughput multiplex amplicon sequencing. Bioinformatics 27, 277–278 (2011).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
57.Zagalska-Neubauer, M. et al. 454 sequencing reveals extreme complexity of the class II major histocompatibility complex in the collared flycatcher. BMC Evol. Biol. 10, 395 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Van Erp, S. H. M., Egberts, E. & Stet, R. J. M. Characterization of class II A and B genes in a gynogenetic carp clone. Immunogenetics 44, 192–202 (1996).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Šimková, A. Major histocompatibility complex genes and parasites in cyprinid fish. Vie Milieu 67, 139–148 (2017).
Google Scholar 
60.Klein, J. et al. Nomenclature for the major histocompatibility complexes of different species: A proposal. Immunogenetics 31, 217–219 (1990).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
61.Dixon, B., Nagelkerke, L. A. J., Sibbing, F. A., Egberts, E. & Stet, R. J. M. Evolution of MHC class II beta chain-encoding genes in the Lake Tana barbel species flock (Barbus intermedius complex). Immunogenetics 44, 419–431 (1996).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
62.Rakus, K. L. et al. Major histocompatibility (MH) class IIB gene polymorphism influences disease resistance of common carp (Cyprinus carpio L). Aquaculture 288, 44–50 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Seifertová, M. & Šimková, A. Structure, diversity and evolutionary patterns of expressed MHC class IIB genes in chub (Squalius cephalus), a cyprinid fish species from Europe. Immunogenetics 63, 167–181 (2011).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Ronquist, F. et al. MrBayes 3.2: Efficient Bayesian phylogenetic inference and model choice across large model space. Syst. Biol. 61, 539–542 (2012).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Darriba, D., Taboala, G. L., Doallo, R. & Posada, D. J. ModelTest2: More models, new heuristics and parallel computing. Nat. Methods 9, 772 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Yang, Z. H. PAML4: Phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood. Mol. Biol. Evol. 24, 1586–1591 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Doledec, S. & Chessel, D. Co-inertia analysis—an alternative method for studying species environment relationships. Freshwater Biol. 31, 277–294 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Dray, S., Chessel, D. & Thioulouse, J. Co-inertia analysis and the linking of ecological data tables. Ecology 84, 3078–3089 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Deter, J. et al. Association between the DQA MHC class II gene and puumala virus infection in Myodes glareolus, the bank vole. Infect. Genet. Evol. 8, 450–458 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Evans, M. L. & Neff, B. D. Major histocompatibility complex heterozygote advantage and widespread bacterial infections in populations of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Mol. Ecol. 18, 4716–4729 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
71.Zuur, A. et al. Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology With R (Springer, 2009).MATH 
Book 

Google Scholar 
72.Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach 2nd edn. (Springer, 2002).MATH 

Google Scholar 
73.R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org/(2018).74.Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
75.Bartoń, K. MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference. R package version 1.15.1. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn (2018).76.Thioulouse, J. & Dray, S. Interactive multivariate data analysis in R with the ade4 and ade4tkgui packages. J. Stat. Softw. 22, 1–14 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar  More

The location, diameter, height and circumference of the coral were measured (Table 1, Fig. 2). The Porites was brown to cream in colour and hemispherical in shape (Fig. 2). It was identified as either Porites lutea (Hump or Pore coral) or P. lobata (Lobe coral)14.The primary habitat on the Porites was live coral (70%), followed by sponge, live coral rock and a small amount of macroalgae (Table 2). No recently dead coral, coral rubble or sand was recorded (Table 2). We observed competition between the Porites and other species of coral and invertebrate including encrusting sponge, plating and branching Acropora spp., Montipora, Chlorodesmis, soft coral and zoanthids (Table 2, Figs. 3, 4).Table 2 Reef Health Impact Survey (RHIS) of habitat and species categories on Porites sp.Full size tableFigure 3Detail of the sub-habitats and competitive interactions Porites sp. and boring sponge Cliona viridis (left) and live coral Porites sp. and Montipora sp. (right) along interspecific contact zones.Full size imageFigure 4Detail of Reef Health Impact Survey (RHIS) of Porites.Full size imageThe boring sponge, Cliona viridis, is abundant on the Great Barrier Reef15. It is a common bioeroding species advancing laterally at around 1 cm and to a depth of 1.2 cm per annum15. Abundance of Cliona viridis is often correlated to substrate availability and water energy with the greatest abundance often on the windward side of bommies15. This correlates to our observations as the large proportion of the substrate estimated to cover the bommie (15%) was on the windward side. The sponge’s advances will likely continue to compromise the colony size and health.We recorded marine debris at the base of the Porites. The debris was 2–3 m of rope that appeared to have been wrapped around the base of an adjacent coral. Adjacent to the bommie were three concrete blocks.How big is the Porites coral at Goolboodi compared to other big corals in the GBR, and the world? Potts et al.6 reported a very large, rounded Porites colony, 6.9 m in diameter which is 3.1 m smaller than this study. Lough et al.16 reported coral cores from colonies between 1.6–8.0 m in height with the largest corals of 6.0 m at Havannah, North Molle and Masthead Islands, 7.5 m at Abraham Reef and 8.0 m at Sanctuary Reef. Recognising the limitations of published data, the Porites coral at Goolboodi is the largest diameter coral that has been measured, and the 6th tallest in the GBR. It is unknown if the other corals are still alive or dead.Other comparatively large massive Porites have previously been located throughout the Pacific. These have included multiple bommies measuring more than 10 m4 and one exceptionally large colony observed measuring 17 m × 12 m in American Samoa17. Additionally, large Porites sp. bommies have been observed at Green Island, 30 km east of Taiwan18 as well as an 11 m diameter Porites australiensis at Sesoko Island, Okinawa, Japan19.How old is this massive Porites? In discussions with the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS), there is a robust, linear relationship ( > 80% variance explained) between Porites average linear extension rate and average annual sea surface temperature (SST)20,21 that provides an estimate of colony age from its height. Using average annual SST at 18.5S, 146.5E of 26.12C (from HadiSST data set), the estimated linear extension rate is determined by (2.97 × 26.12) − 65.46 = 1.21 cm/year. Given the colony height of 5.1–5.3 m, this gives an estimated age of 421–438 years. This is well before European exploration and settlement of Australia. AIMS has investigated over 328 colonies of massive Porites corals from 69 reefs along the GBR and has aged them as being from 10–436 years21. AIMS has not investigated this coral (pers. comm Neal Cantin). Based on limitations of published data, the Porites coral at Goolboodi is one of the oldest corals on the GBR.Why is the Porites partially dead on top and living on the side? The proportion of live coral tissue on a colony reflects the cumulative, integrated effect of both beneficial and adverse environmental factors. Substantial portions of coral tissue can die from exposure to sun at low tides or warm water without lethal consequences to the colony as a whole10. Partial mortality of large bommies provides available real estate for opportunistic, fast growing sessile organisms. In this instance, multiple species of tabulate and branching Acropora sp., encrusting Montipora sp. and encrusting sponges are among the benthic organisms to have colonised 30% of the coral bommies’ surface area. Intraspecific competition is also evident from the skeletal barriers created along contact zones22 (Fig. 3). There was no observation of disease or coral bleaching.The Porites is located in a relatively remote, rarely visited and highly protected Marine National Park (green) zone. Its location had not been previously reported and there is no existing database for significant corals in Australia or globally. Cataloguing the location of massive and long-lived corals can have multiple benefits. Scientific benefits include geochemical and isotopic analyses in coral skeletal cores which can help understand century-scale changes in oceanographic events and can be used to verify climate models. Social and economic benefits can include diving tourism, citizen science23 culture and stewardship. Perhaps the Significant Trees Register, which was designed by the National Trust24 to protect and celebrate Australia’s heritage could be considered as a model. There are risks of cataloguing the location of massive corals. It could be damaged by direct and indirect human uses including anchoring, research and pollution.Indigenous languages are an integral part of Indigenous culture, spirituality, and connection to country. We consulted Manbarra Traditional Owners about protocol and an appropriate cultural name for the Porites and they considered: Big (Muga), Home (Wanga), Coral reef (Muugar), Coral (Dhambi), Old (Anki, Gurgu), Old man (Gulula) and Old person (Gurgurbu)25. The recommendation by Manbarra Traditional Owners is that the Porites is named as Muga dhambi (Big coral). The feedback from the process of consultation was very positive with acknowledgement of the respect that the scientists have demonstrated to acknowledge Traditional Owners in this way.The large Porites coral at Goolboodi (Orpheus) Island is unusually rare and resilient. It has survived coral bleaching, invasive species, cyclones, severely low tides and human activities for almost 500 years. In an attempt to contextualise the resilience of these individual Porites we have reviewed major historic disturbances such as coral bleaching which has occurred since at least 1575 and potentially 99 bleaching events in the GBR over the past 400 plus years26. Other indicators such as high-density ‘stress bands’ were recorded from 1877 and are significantly more frequent in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries in accordance with rising temperatures from anthropogenic global warming27. In addition there have been an average of 1–2 tropical cyclones per decade (40–80 in total) that have potentially impacted the coral adjacent to Goolboodi Island28,29; 46 tropical cyclones impacted the area between Ingham and Townsville from 1858 to 200830. The cumulative impact of almost 100 bleaching events and up to 80 major cyclones over a period of four centuries, plus declining nearshore water quality contextualise the high resilience of this Porites coral. Looking to the future there is real concern for corals in the GBR due to many impacts including climate change, declining water quality, overfishing and coastal development31,32. This field note provides important geospatial, environmental, and cultural information of a rare coral that can be monitored, appreciated, potentially restored and hopefully inspire future generations to care more for our reefs and culture. More

1.Chapman, B. B. et al. Partial migration in fishes: Causes and consequences. J. Fish Biol. 81, 456–478 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Araújo, C. V. M. et al. Habitat fragmentation caused by contaminants: Atrazine as a chemical barrier isolating fish populations. Chemosphere 193, 24–31 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Flitcroft, R. L., Arismendi, I. & Santelmann, M. V. A review of habitat connectivity research for pacific salmon in marine, estuary, and freshwater environments. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 55, 430–441 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Maire, A., Thierry, E., Viechtbauer, W. & Daufresne, M. Poleward shift in large-river fish communities detected with a novel meta-analysis framework. Freshw. Biol. 64, 1143–1156 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.van Vliet, M. T. H. et al. Coupled daily streamflow and water temperature modelling in large river basins. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 16, 4303–4321 (2012).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Palmer, M. A. et al. Climate change and the world’s river basins: Anticipating management options. Front. Ecol. Environ. 6, 81–89 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Jonsson, B. & Jonsson, N. A review of the likely effects of climate change on anadromous Atlantic salmon Salmo salar and brown trout Salmo trutta, with particular reference to water temperature and flow. J. Fish Biol. 75, 2381–2447 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Arevalo, E. et al. An innovative bivariate approach to detect joint temporal trends in environmental conditions: Application to large French rivers and diadromous fish. Sci. Total Environ. 748, 141260 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Hughes, L. Biological consequences of global warming: Is the signal already apparent?. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15, 56–61 (2000).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Tesch, F.-W. & Bartsch, P. The Eel (Blackwell Science, 2003).Book 

Google Scholar 
11.Durif, C. M. F. et al. Age of European silver eels during a period of declining abundance in Norway. Ecol. Evol. 10, 4801–4815 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Poole, R. W. & Reynolds, J. D. Growth rate and age at migration of Anguilla anguilla. J. Fish Biol. 48, 633–642 (1996).
Google Scholar 
13.Durif, C. M. F., Travade, F., Rives, J., Elie, P. & Gosset, C. Relationship between locomotor activity, environmental factors, and timing of the spawning migration in the European eel Anguilla anguilla. Aquat. Living Resour. 21, 163–170 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Fontaine, M. Physiological mechanisms in the migration of marine and amphihaline fish. Adv. Mar. Biol. 13, 241–355 (1975).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Bruijs, M. C. M. & Durif, C. M. F. Silver Eel migration and behaviour. Spawning Migr. Eur. Eel https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9095-0_4 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.ICES. Workshop on the temporal migration patterns of European eel (WKEELMIGRATION). vol. 2 http://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.5993 (2020).17.Vøllestad, L. A., Jonsson, B., Hvidsten, N. A. & Naesje, T. F. Experimental test of environmental factors influencing the seaward migration of European silver eels. J. Fish Biol. 45, 641–651 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Sandlund, O. T. et al. Timing and pattern of annual silver eel migration in two European watersheds are determined by similar cues. Ecol. Evol. 7, 5956–5966 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Drouineau, H. et al. Freshwater eels: A symbol of the effects of global change. Fish Fish. 19, 903–930 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Pike, C., Crook, V., & Gollock, M. Anguilla anguilla. The IUCN Red List of Treatened Species 2020. https://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-539 2.RLTS.T60344A152845178.en (2020).21.Dankers, R. & Feyen, L. Climate change impact on flood hazard in Europe: An assessment based on high-resolution climate simulations. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 113, 1–17 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Reid, A. J. et al. Emerging threats and persistent conservation challenges for freshwater biodiversity. Biol. Rev. 94, 849–873 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Trenberth, K. E. et al. Global warming and changes in drought. Nat. Clim. Chang. 4, 17–22 (2014).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Durif, C., Elie, P., Gosset, C. & Rives, J. Behavioral Study of Downstream Migrating Eels by Radio-telemetry at a Small Hydroelectric Power Plant. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 1–14 (2002).25.Flitcroft, R. L. et al. Linking hydroclimate to fish phenology and habitat use with ichthyographs. PLoS ONE 11, 1–12 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Bossard, M., Feranec, J. & Othael, J. CORINE Land Cover Technical Guide – Addendum 2000. European Environment Agency. Technical Report. Available online at: http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/tech40add. (2000).27.de Eyto, E. et al. Characterisation of salmonid food webs in the rivers and lakes of an Irish peatland ecosystem. Biol. Environ. Proc. R. Irish Acad. 120, 1–17 (2020).
Google Scholar 
28.Poole, W. R., Reynolds, J. D. & Moriarty, C. Observations on the Silver Eel Migrations of the Burrishoole River System, Ireland, 1959 to 1988. Int. Rev. der gesamten Hydrobiol. und Hydrogr 75, 807–815 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Poole, W. R. et al. Long-term variation in numbers and biomass of silver eels being produced in two European river systems. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 75, 1627–1637 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Chacón, J. E. & Duong, T. Multivariate plug-in bandwidth selection with unconstrained pilot bandwidth matrices. TEST 19, 375–398 (2010).MathSciNet 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Lechowicz, M. The sampling characteristics of electivity indices. Oecologia 52, 22–30 (1982).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Ivlev, V. S. Experimental ecology of the feeding fishes (Yale University Press, 1961).
Google Scholar 
33.R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (2020).34.Drouineau, H., Arevalo, E., Lassalle, G., Tétard, S. & Maire, A. chocR: Exploring the temporal CHange of OCcurence of events in multivariate time series. R package version 0.0.0.9000. (2020).35.Hutchinson, G. E. Concluding Remarks. in Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 415–442 (1957).36.Schneider, C., Laizé, C. L. R., Acreman, M. C. & Flörke, M. How will climate change modify river flow regimes in Europe?. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 17, 325–339 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Hannaford, J., Laize, C. L. R. & Marsh, T. J. An assessment of runoff trends in undisturbed catchments in the Celtic regions of North West Europe. IAHS-AISH Publ. 78–85 (2007).38.Engen-Skaugen, T. Refinement of dynamically downscaled precipitation and temperature scenarios. Clim. Change 84, 365–382 (2007).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Lawrence, D. & Hisdal, H. Hydrological projections for floods in Norway under a future climate. NVE Report http://webby.nve.no/publikasjoner/report/2011/report2011_05.pdf (2011).40.Woolway, R. I. et al. Substantial increase in minimum lake surface temperatures under climate change. Clim. Change 155, 81–94 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Fealy, R. et al. RESCALE : Review and Simulate Climate and Catchment Responses at Burrishoole. Review Literature and Arts of the Americas (2014).42.Als, T. D. et al. All roads lead to home: Panmixia of European eel in the Sargasso Sea. Mol. Ecol. 20, 1333–1346 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Acou, A., Laffaille, P., Legault, A. & Feunteun, E. Migration pattern of silver eel (Anguilla anguilla, L.) in an obstructed river system. Ecol. Freshw. Fish 17, 432–442 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Fernandes, W. P. A. et al. Does relatedness influence migratory timing and behaviour in Atlantic salmon smolts?. Anim. Behav. 106, 191–199 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Vøllestad, L. A. et al. Environmental Factors Regulating the Seaward Migration of European Silver Eels (Anguilla anguilla). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 43, 1909–1916 (1986).Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Daverat, F. et al. One century of eel growth: Changes and implications. Ecol. Freshw. Fish 21, 325–336 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Vøllestad, L. A. Geographic variation in age and length at metamorphosis of maturing European eel: Environmental effects and phenotypic plasticity. J. Anim. Ecol. 61, 41 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Vaughan, L. et al. Growth rates in a European eel Anguilla anguilla (L., 1758) population show a complex relationship with temperature over a seven-decade otolith biochronology. ICES J. Mar. Sci. (2021).49.Lassalle, G. & Rochard, E. Impact of twenty-first century climate change on diadromous fish spread over Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. Glob. Chang. Biol. 15, 1072–1089 (2009).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Monteiro, R. M. et al. Migration and escapement of silver eel males, Anguilla anguilla, from a southwestern European river. Ecol. Freshw. Fish https://doi.org/10.1111/eff.12545 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Mateo, M. et al. Cause or consequence? Exploring the role of phenotypic plasticity and genetic polymorphism in the emergence of phenotypic spatial patterns of the European eel. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 74, 987–999 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.Irwin AJ, Oliver MJ. Are ocean deserts getting larger? Geophys Res Lett. 2009;36:L18609.Article 

Google Scholar 
2.McClain CR, Signorini SR, Christian JR. Subtropical gyre variability observed by ocean-color satellites. Deep Sea Res Part II Topical Stud Oceanogr. 2004;51:281–301.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Signorini SR, Franz BA, McClain CR. Chlorophyll variability in the oligotrophic gyres: Mechanisms, seasonality and trends. Front Mar Sci. 2015;2:1–11.Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Polovina JJ, Howell EA, Abecassis M. Ocean’s least productive waters are expanding. Geophys Res Lett. 2008;35:L03618.Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Sharma P, Marinov I, Cabre A, Kostadinov T, Singh A. Increasing biomass in the warm oceans: unexpected new insights from SeaWIFS. Geophys Res Lett. 2019;46:3900–10.Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Flombaum P, Wang W-L, Primeau FW, Martiny AC. Global picophytoplankton niche partitioning predicts overall positive response to ocean warming. Nat Geosci. 2020;13:116–20.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Carr M-E, Friedrichs MAM, Schmeltz M, Noguchi Aita M, Antoine D, Arrigo KR, et al. A comparison of global estimates of marine primary production from ocean color. Deep Sea Res Part II Topical Stud Oceanogr. 2006;53:741–70.Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Field CB, Behrenfeld MJ, Randerson JT, Falkowski P. Primary production of the biosphere: Integrating terrestrial and oceanic components. Science. 1998;281:237–40.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.DeVries T, Primeau F, Deutsch C. The sequestration efficiency of the biological pump. Geophys Res Lett. 2012;39:L13601.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
10.Cabré A, Marinov I, Leung S. Consistent global responses of marine ecosystems to future climate change across the IPCC AR5 earth system models. Clim Dyn. 2015;45:1253–80.Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Behrenfeld MJ, O’Malley RT, Boss ES, Westberry TK, Graff JR, Halsey KH, et al. Revaluating ocean warming impacts on global phytoplankton. Nat Clim Change. 2015;6:323–30.Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Richardson K, Bendtsen J. Vertical distribution of phytoplankton and primary production in relation to nutricline depth in the open ocean. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2019;620:33–46.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Roshan S, DeVries T. Efficient dissolved organic carbon production and export in the oligotrophic ocean. Nat Commun. 2017;8:1–8.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Marañón E, Holligan PM, Barciela R, González N, Mouriño B, Pazó MJ, et al. Patterns of phytoplankton size structure and productivity in contrasting open-ocean environments. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2001;216:43–56.Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Pérez V, Fernández E, Marañón E, Morán XAG, Zubkov MV. Vertical distribution of phytoplankton biomass, production and growth in the Atlantic subtropical gyres. Deep Sea Res Part I Oceanographic Res Pap. 2006;53:1616–34.Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Teira E, Mouriño B, Marañón E, Pérez V, Pazó MJ, Serret P, et al. Variability of chlorophyll and primary production in the Eastern North Atlantic subtropical gyre: potential factors affecting phytoplankton activity. Deep Sea Res Part I Oceanographic Res Pap. 2005;52:569–88.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Chisholm SW, Frankel SL, Goericke R, Olson RJ, Palenik B, Waterbury JB, et al. Prochlorococcus marinus nov. Gen. Nov. Sp.: an oxyphototrophic marine prokaryote containing divinyl chlorophyll a and b. Arch Microbiol. 1992;157:297–300.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Flombaum P, Gallegos JL, Gordillo RA, Rincón J, Zabala LL, Jiao N, et al. Present and future global distributions of the marine cyanobacteria Prochlorococcus and Synechococcus. PNAS. 2013;110:9824–9.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Partensky F, Hess WR, Vaulot D. Prochlorococcus, a marine photosynthetic prokaryote of global significance. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 1999;63:106–27.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Li WK. Primary production of prochlorophytes, cyanobacteria, and eucaryotic ultraphytoplankton: Measurements from flow cytometric sorting. Limnol Oceanogr. 1994;39:169–75.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Jardillier L, Zubkov MV, Pearman J, Scanlan DJ. Significant CO2 fixation by small prymnesiophytes in the subtropical and tropical Northeast Atlantic Ocean. ISME J. 2010;4:1180–92.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Irion S, Christaki U, Berthelot H, L’Helguen S, Jardillier L. Small phytoplankton contribute greatly to CO2-fixation after the diatom bloom in the Southern Ocean. ISME J. 2021;15:1–14.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
23.Liu K, Suzuki K, Chen B, Liu H. Are temperature sensitivities of Prochlorococcus and Synechococcus impacted by nutrient availability in the subtropical Northwest Pacific? Limnol Oceanogr. 2020;66:639–51.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
24.D’Hondt S, Spivack AJ, Pockalny R, Ferdelman TG, Fischer JP, Kallmeyer J, et al. Subseafloor sedimentary life in the South Pacific gyre. PNAS. 2009;106:11651–6.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Longhurst A, Sathyendranath S, Platt T, Caverhill C. An estimate of global primary production in the ocean from satellite radiometer data. J Plankton Res. 1995;17:1245–71.Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Morel A, Gentili B, Claustre H, Babin M, Bricaud A, Ras J, et al. Optical properties of the “clearest” natural waters. Limnol Oceanogr. 2007;52:217–29.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Halm H, Lam P, Ferdelman TG, Lavik G, Dittmar T, LaRoche J, et al. Heterotrophic organisms dominate nitrogen fixation in the south pacific gyre. ISME J. 2012;6:1238–49.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Raimbault P, Garcia N. Evidence for efficient regenerated production and dinitrogen fixation in nitrogen-deficient waters of the South Pacific Ocean: impact on new and export production estimates. Biogeosciences. 2008;5:323–38.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Shiozaki T, Bombar D, Riemann L, Sato M, Hashihama F, Kodama T, et al. Linkage between dinitrogen fixation and primary production in the oligotrophic South Pacific Ocean. Glob Biogeochem Cyc. 2018;32:1028–44.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Reintjes G, Tegetmeyer HE, Bürgisser M, Orlić S, Tews I, Zubkov M, et al. On-site analysis of bacterial communities of the ultraoligotrophic South Pacific gyre. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2019;85:e00184–19.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Zielinski O, Henkel R, Voß D, Ferdelman TG. Physical oceanography during Sonne cruise SO245 (Ultrapac). PANGAEA. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.890394.32.Ferdelman TG, Klockgether G, Downes P, Lavik G. Nutrient data from CTD Nisken bottles from Sonne expedition SO-245 “Ultrapac”. PANGAEA. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.899228.33.Arar EJ, Collins GB. Method 445.0: In vitro determination of chlorophyll a and pheophytin a in marine and freshwater algae by fluorescence: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC; 1997. https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?Lab=NERL&dirEntryId=309417.34.Welschmeyer N, Naughton S. Improved chlorophyll a analysis: single fluorometric measurement with no acidification. Lake Reserv Manag. 1994;9:123.
Google Scholar 
35.Osterholz H, Kilgour D, Storey DS, Lavik G, Ferdelman T, Niggemann J, et al. Accumulation of DOC in the South Pacific subtropical gyre from a molecular perspective. Mar Chem. 2021;231:103955.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Voß D, Henkel R, Wollschläger J, Zielinski O. Hyperspectral underwater light field measured during the cruise SO245 with R/V Sonne. PANGAEA. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.911558.37.Martínez-Pérez C, Mohr W, Löscher CR, Dekaezemacker J, Littmann S, Yilmaz P, et al. The small unicellular diazotrophic symbiont, UCYN-A, is a key player in the marine nitrogen cycle. Nat Microbiol. 2016;1:1–7.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
38.Marra J. Net and gross productivity: weighing in with 14C. Aquat Microb Ecol. 2009;56:123–31.Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Ribeiro CG, Marie D, Santos ALD, Brandini FP, Vaulot D. Estimating microbial populations by flow cytometry: comparison between instruments. Limnol Oceanogr Methods. 2016;14:750–8.Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Pernthaler A, Pernthaler J, Amann R. Fluorescence in situ hybridization and catalyzed reporter deposition for the identification of marine bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2002;68:3094–101.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.West NJ, Schönhuber WA, Fuller NJ, Amann RI, Rippka R, Post AF, et al. Closely related Prochlorococcus genotypes show remarkably different depth distributions in two oceanic regions as revealed by in situ hybridization using 16 S rRNA-targeted oligonucleotides. Microbiology. 2001;147:1731–44.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Polerecky L, Adam B, Milucka J, Musat N, Vagner T, Kuypers MMM. Look@NanoSIMS—a tool for the analysis of nanoSIMS data in environmental microbiology. Environ Microbiol. 2012;14:1009–23.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Verity PG, Robertson CY, Tronzo CR, Andrews MG, Nelson JR, Sieracki ME. Relationships between cell volume and the carbon and nitrogen content of marine photosynthetic nanoplankton. Limnol Oceanogr. 1992;37:1434–46.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Khachikyan A, Milucka J, Littmann S, Ahmerkamp S, Meador T, Könneke M, et al. Direct cell mass measurements expand the role of small microorganisms in nature. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2019;85:AEM00493–19.Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Walters W, Hyde ER, Berg-Lyons D, Ackermann G, Humphrey G, Parada A, et al. Improved bacterial 16 S rRNA gene (v4 and v4-5) and fungal internal transcribed spacer marker gene primers for microbial community surveys. MSystems. 2016;1:e00009–15.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Parada AE, Needham DM, Fuhrman JA. Every base matters: assessing small subunit rrna primers for marine microbiomes with mock communities, time series and global field samples. Environ Microbiol. 2016;18:1403–14.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Comeau AM, Douglas GM, Langille MG. Microbiome helper: a custom and streamlined workflow for microbiome research. MSystems. 2017;2:e00127–16.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Caporaso JG, Kuczynski J, Stombaugh J, Bittinger K, Bushman FD, Costello EK, et al. Qiime allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat Methods. 2010;7:335.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Haas S, Desai DK, LaRoche J, Pawlowicz R, Wallace DW. Geomicrobiology of the carbon, nitrogen and sulphur cycles in Powell Lake: a permanently stratified water column containing ancient seawater. Environ Microbiol. 2019;21:3927–52.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Zhang J, Kobert K, Flouri T, Stamatakis A. Pear: a fast and accurate Illumina paired-end read merger. Bioinformatics. 2013;30:614–20.51.Rognes T, Flouri T, Nichols B, Quince C, Mahé F. Vsearch: a versatile open source tool for metagenomics. PeerJ. 2016;4:e2584.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Kopylova E, Noé L, Touzet H. Sortmerna: fast and accurate filtering of ribosomal RNAs in metatranscriptomic data. Bioinformatics. 2012;28:3211–7.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Mercier C, Boyer F, Bonin A, Coissac E (eds). Sumatra and Sumaclust: fast and exact comparison and clustering of sequences. SeqBio 2013 Workshop 2013: (abstract).54.DeSantis TZ, Hugenholtz P, Larsen N, Rojas M, Brodie EL, Keller K, et al. Greengenes, a chimera-checked 16 S rRNA gene database and workbench compatible with ARB. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006;72:5069–72.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Quast C, Pruesse E, Yilmaz P, Gerken J, Schweer T, Yarza P, et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;41:D590–6.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
56.Decelle J, Romac S, Stern RF, Bendif EM, Zingone A, Audic S, et al. PhytoREF: A reference database of the plastidial 16 S rRNA gene of photosynthetic eukaryotes with curated taxonomy. Molec Ecol Res. 2015;15:1435–45.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Guillou L, Bachar D, Audic S, Bass D, Berney C, Bittner L, et al. The protist ribosomal reference database (PR2): a catalog of unicellular eukaryote small sub-unit rRNA sequences with curated taxonomy. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;4:D597–604.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
58.Del Campo J, Kolisko M, Boscaro V, Santoferrara LF, Nenarokov S, Massana R, et al. EukRef: phylogenetic curation of ribosomal RNA to enhance understanding of eukaryotic diversity and distribution. PLoS Biol. 2018;16:e2005849.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
59.Ludwig W, Strunk O, Westram R, Richter L, Meier H, Yadhukumar, et al. ARB: A software environment for sequence data. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32:1363–71.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Gruber-Vodicka HR, Seah BK, Pruesse E. Phyloflash: rapid small-subunit rRNA profiling and targeted assembly from metagenomes. Msystems. 2020;5:e00920.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Farrant GK, Doré H, Cornejo-Castillo FM, Partensky F, Ratin M, Ostrowski M, et al. Delineating ecologically significant taxonomic units from global patterns of marine picocyanobacteria. PNAS. 2016;113:E3365–74.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Oggerin de Orube M, Fuchs BM. Personal communication: Unpublished shotgun metagenomes collected from in situ pump samples during R/V Sonne expedition SO245. Bremen, Germany. 2021.63.Schlitzer R. Ocean Data View. Bremerhaven, Germany. 2021. https://odv.awi.de.64.R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing,Vienna, Austria. 2017. https://www.R-project.org/.65.Wickham H. Ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer-Verlag, New York. 2016.66.McMurdie PJ, Holmes S. Phyloseq: an R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PLOS ONE. 2013;8:e61217.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Oksanen J, Kindt R, Legendre P, O’Hara B, Stevens MHH, Oksanen MJ, et al. The vegan package: community ecology package. R package version 2.5–7. 2019. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan.68.Chaigneau A, Pizarro O. Surface circulation and fronts of the South Pacific Ocean, east of 120°W. Geophys Res Lett. 2005;32:L08605.69.Logares R, Sunagawa S, Salazar G, Cornejo‐Castillo FM, Ferrera I, Sarmento H, et al. Metagenomic 16 S rRNA Illumina tags are a powerful alternative to amplicon sequencing to explore diversity and structure of microbial communities. Environ Microbiol. 2014;16:2659–71.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Shi XL, Lepère C, Scanlan DJ, Vaulot D. Plastid 16 s rRNA gene diversity among eukaryotic picophytoplankton sorted by flow cytometry from the South Pacific Ocean. PLOS ONE. 2011;6:e18979.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Fuller NJ, Campbell C, Allen DJ, Pitt FD, Zwirglmaier K, Le Gall F, et al. Analysis of photosynthetic picoeukaryote diversity at open ocean sites in the Arabian Sea using a pcr biased towards marine algal plastids. Aquat Micro Ecol. 2006;43:79–93.Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Raes EJ, Bodrossy L, Kamp JVD, Bissett A, Ostrowski M, Brown MV, et al. Oceanographic boundaries constrain microbial diversity gradients in the South Pacific Ocean. PNAS. 2018;115:E8266–75.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
73.Campbell L, Liu H, Nolla HA, Vaulot D. Annual variability of phytoplankton and bacteria in the subtropical North Pacific Ocean at station ALOHA during the 1991-4 ENSO event. Deep Sea Res Part I Oceanogr Res Pap. 1997;44:167–92.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
74.Viviani DA, Church MJ. Decoupling between bacterial production and primary production over multiple time scales in the North Pacific subtropical gyre. Deep Sea Res Part I Oceanogr Res Pap. 2017;121:132–42.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
75.Rii YM, Duhamel S, Bidigare RR, Karl DM, Repeta DJ, Church MJ. Diversity and productivity of photosynthetic picoeukaryotes in biogeochemically distinct regions of the south east pacific ocean. Limnol Oceanogr. 2016;61:806–24.Article 

Google Scholar 
76.Shi XL, Marie D, Jardillier L, Scanlan DJ, Vaulot D. Groups without cultured representatives dominate eukaryotic picophytoplankton in the oligotrophic South East Pacific Ocean. PLOS ONE. 2009;4:e7657.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
77.Kirkham AR, Lepere C, Jardillier LE, Not F, Bouman H, Mead A, et al. A global perspective on marine photosynthetic picoeukaryote community structure. ISME J. 2013;7:922–36.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
78.Lepère C, Vaulot D, Scanlan DJ. Photosynthetic picoeukaryote community structure in the South East Pacific Ocean encompassing the most oligotrophic waters on earth. Environ Microbiol. 2009;11:3105–17.PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
79.Bender ML, Jönsson B. Is seasonal net community production in the South Pacific subtropical gyre anomalously low? Geophys Res Lett. 2016;43:9757–63.Article 

Google Scholar 
80.Montégut CDB, Madec G, Fischer AS, Lazar A, Iudicone D. Mixed layer depth over the global ocean: an examination of profile data and a profile-based climatology. J Geophys Res Oceans. 2004;109:C12003.Article 

Google Scholar 
81.Liu Q, Lu Y. Role of horizontal density advection in seasonal deepening of the mixed layer in the subtropical Southeast Pacific. Adv Atmospher Sci. 2016;33:442–51.Article 

Google Scholar 
82.Sato K, Suga T. Structure and modification of the South Pacific eastern subtropical mode water. J Phys Oceanogr. 2009;39:1700–14.Article 

Google Scholar 
83.Jung J, Furutani H, Uematsu M. Atmospheric inorganic nitrogen in marine aerosol and precipitation and its deposition to the north and south pacific oceans. J Atmospher Chem. 2011;68:157–81.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
84.Pavia FJ, Anderson RF, Winckler G, Fleisher MQ. Atmospheric dust inputs, iron cycling, and biogeochemical connections in the South Pacific Ocean from thorium isotopes. Glob Biogeochem Cycles. 2020;34:e2020GB006562.CAS 

Google Scholar 
85.Bonnet S, Guieu C, Bruyant F, Prášil O, Van Wambeke F, Raimbault P, et al. Nutrient limitation of primary productivity in the Southeast Pacific (Biosope Cruise). Biogeosciences. 2008;5:215–25.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
86.Mahaffey C, Björkman KM, Karl DM. Phytoplankton response to deep seawater nutrient addition in the North Pacific subtropical gyre. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2012;460:13–34.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
87.Grob C, Jardillier L, Hartmann M, Ostrowski M, Zubkov MV, Scanlan DJ. Cell-specific CO2 fixation rates of two distinct groups of plastidic protists in the Atlantic Ocean remain unchanged after nutrient addition. Environ Microbiol Rep. 2015;7:211–8.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
88.Vaulot D, Marie D, Olson RJ, Chisholm SW. Growth of Prochlorococcus, a photosynthetic prokaryote, in the equatorial pacific ocean. Science. 1995;268:1480–2.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
89.Grob C, Hartmann M, Zubkov MV, Scanlan DJ. Invariable biomass-specific primary production of taxonomically discrete picoeukaryote groups across the Atlantic Ocean. Environ Microbiol. 2011;13:3266–74.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
90.Berthelot H, Duhamel S, L’Helguen S, Maguer J-F, Wang S, Cetinić I, et al. NanoSIMS single cell analyses reveal the contrasting nitrogen sources for small phytoplankton. ISME J. 2019;13:651.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
91.Zubkov MV, Fuchs BM, Tarran GA, Burkill PH, Amann R. High rate of uptake of organic nitrogen compounds by Prochlorococcus cyanobacteria as a key to their dominance in oligotrophic oceanic waters. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003;69:1299–304.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
92.Muñoz-Marín MC, Gómez-Baena G, López-Lozano A, Moreno-Cabezuelo JA, Díez J, García-Fernández JM. Mixotrophy in marine picocyanobacteria: use of organic compounds by Prochlorococcus and Synechococcus. ISME J. 2020;14:1065–73.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
93.Timmermans K, Van der Wagt B, Veldhuis M, Maatman A, De Baar H. Physiological responses of three species of marine pico-phytoplankton to ammonium, phosphate, iron and light limitation. J Sea Res. 2005;53:109–20.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
94.Vaulot D, Eikrem W, Viprey M, Moreau H. The diversity of small eukaryotic phytoplankton (≤ 3 μm) in marine ecosystems. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2008;32:795–820.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
95.Worden AZ, Janouskovec J, McRose D, Engman A, Welsh RM, Malfatti S, et al. Global distribution of a wild alga revealed by targeted metagenomics. Curr Biol. 2012;22:R675–7.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
96.Le Gall F, Rigaut-Jalabert F, Marie D, Garczarek L, Viprey M, Gobet A, et al. Picoplankton diversity in the South-east Pacific Ocean from cultures. Biogeosciences. 2008;5:203–14.Article 

Google Scholar 
97.NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Ocean Ecology Laboratory, Ocean Biology Processing Group. Moderate-resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) Aqua Chlorophyll Data; Reprocessing. NASA OB.DAAC, Greenbelt, MD, USA. 2018. https://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/10.5067/AQUA/MODIS/L3M/CHL/2018/ Accessed 2019/08/01. More

Model A: abundances and δ13C of short alkanesConsidering the cleavage at position m (between the no. m and no. m + 1 carbon atoms) of an n-alkyl chain with n carbon atoms (1 ≤ m 15), the isotopic compositions of gas products are insensitive to the initial kerogen side chain length distribution. For initial values, a δ13C value of −35‰ is applied. The initial chain length is in a normal distribution with a peak of C17 and a standard deviation of σ = 2 carbon atoms. The initial alkane concentrations are assumed to be 0.For simplicity, we assume that since there is no isotopic fractionation within or between the alkyl chains at the beginning of hydrogenolysis, the probability of 13C substitution at any position of any side chain is identical and determined by the initial carbon isotopic composition δ13C. Multiple 13C substitutions on a C–C chain are omitted because consideration of multiple substitutions would drastically increase the modelling complexity. This approximation is valid when the C–C chain is not too long. For example, the ratio between the probabilities of double and single 13C substitution in a C20 chain is ({left[{left(begin{array}{c}20\ 2end{array}right)}{{left(frac{{,}^{13}{{{{{rm{C}}}}}}}{{,}^{12}{{{{{rm{C}}}}}}}right)}}^{2}right]}/{left[{left(begin{array}{c}20\ 1end{array}right)}{left(frac{{,}^{13}{{{{{rm{C}}}}}}}{{,}^{12}{{{{{rm{C}}}}}}}right)}right]}) ≈ 10% for 13C/12C ~ 0.01. Such a chain is long enough that the δ13C of gas products is insensitive to C–C chain length. Numerical simulation was conducted with Mathworks MATLAB 2020a.Model B: bulk and clumped isotopic fractionations of CH4
Conversion of methylene in a long C–C chain to methane is generalised into two steps:$${{{{{rm{R}}}}}}{mbox{-}}{{{{{{rm{CH}}}}}}}_{2}{mbox{-}}{{{{{rm{R}}}}}}{^prime} mathop{longrightarrow}limits^{{{{{{{rm{r}}}}}}}_{a}}_{+{{{{{rm{H}}}}}}}{{{{{rm{R}}}}}}{mbox{-}}{{{{{{rm{CH}}}}}}}_{3}mathop{longrightarrow}limits^{{{{{{{rm{r}}}}}}}_{b}}_{+{{{{{rm{H}}}}}}}{{{{{{rm{CH}}}}}}}_{4}$$
(8)
The first step (step a) is the conversion of the methylene group R-CH2-R′ to a methyl group (RCH3) by accepting a capping hydrogen atom from the hydrogen donor (activated H2); the second step (step b) is the conversion of the methyl group to methane by accepting another capping hydrogen atom. This scheme is highly generalised, and each step may involve multiple elementary biochemical reaction steps, such as the binding of H2 and long alkyl chains to the enzyme, activation of H–H and C–C bonds, and release of the short alkane products from the enzyme. It is beyond the scope of this work to discuss the detailed biochemical reaction steps. But the cleavage and formation of chemical bonds in these steps should be constrained by the observed isotopic patterns.Due to the computational complexity, we did not use the random scission model (Model A) in the simulation involving clumped isotopic fractionation, as explained in the following. A conventional kinetic model of the decomposition of organic matter without considering the constraints of C–C chain lengths is a zero-dimensional problem. Modelling the random cutting of long C–C chains without considering isotopes is a one-dimensional problem, and modelling bulk carbon isotopic fractionation during random cutting (Model A) is a two-dimensional problem. If 13C–13C coupling is included in random cutting, the modelling is a three-dimensional problem; a complex Monte Carlo method has been applied to deal with this problem19. If the 13C–D or D–D coupling is included in Model B, as we wish, it is a problem above the fourth dimension. The complexity of programming and the difficulty of computation make the model unattainable; even if it is achievable, solving this problem is far beyond the scope of this work.Reaction equation Eq. 8 is expanded to the scheme in Fig. 3a to quantify the five most abundant isotopologues in methane (three or more substitutions such as 13CH2D2 or 12CHD3 are ignored due to their low abundances). For the subscripts in Fig. 3a (m, i, and j in ramij or rbmij), the first digit (m = 0 or 1) is the number of 13C atoms involved in the reaction, the second digit (i = 0, 1, or 2) is the number of deuterium atoms connected in the methylene or methyl group, and the third digit (j = 0 or 1) is the number of deuterium atoms in the hydrogen donor.Clumped isotopic compositions of methylene and methane are defined as the following:$$left{begin{array}{l}{{Delta}} {{{{{rm{R}}}}}}{,}^{13}{{{{{rm{C}}}}}}{{{{{rm{HDR}}}}}}^{prime} =frac{({{{{{rm{R}}}}}}{,}^{13}{{{{{rm{C}}}}}}{{{{{rm{HDR}}}}}}^{prime} )({{{{{rm{R}}}}}}{,}^{12}{{{{{rm{C}}}}}}{{{{{{rm{H}}}}}}}_{2}{{{{{rm{R}}}}}}^{prime} )}{({{{{{rm{R}}}}}}{,}^{13}{{{{{rm{C}}}}}}{{{{{{rm{H}}}}}}}_{2}{{{{{rm{R}}}}}}^{prime} )({{{{{rm{R}}}}}}{,}^{12}{{{{{rm{C}}}}}}{{{{{rm{HDR}}}}}}^{prime} )}-1hfill\ {{Delta}} {{{{{rm{R}}}}}}{,}^{12}{{{{{rm{C}}}}}}{{{{{{rm{D}}}}}}}_{2}{{{{{rm{R}}}}}}^{prime} =4frac{({{{{{rm{R}}}}}}{,}^{12}{{{{{rm{C}}}}}}{{{{{{rm{D}}}}}}}_{2}{{{{{rm{R}}}}}}^{prime} )({{{{{rm{R}}}}}}{,}^{12}{{{{{rm{C}}}}}}{{{{{{rm{H}}}}}}}_{2}{{{{{rm{R}}}}}}^{prime} )}{{({{{{{rm{R}}}}}}{,}^{12}{{{{{rm{C}}}}}}{{{{{rm{HDR}}}}}}^{prime} )}^{2}}-1hfill\ {{Delta}} {,}^{13}{{{{{rm{C}}}}}}{{{{{{rm{H}}}}}}}_{3}{{{{{rm{D}}}}}}=frac{({,}^{13}{{{{{rm{C}}}}}}{{{{{{rm{H}}}}}}}_{3}{{{{{rm{D}}}}}})({,}^{12}{{{{{rm{C}}}}}}{{{{{{rm{H}}}}}}}_{4})}{({,}^{12}{{{{{rm{C}}}}}}{{{{{{rm{H}}}}}}}_{3}{{{{{rm{D}}}}}})({,}^{13}{{{{{rm{C}}}}}}{{{{{{rm{H}}}}}}}_{4})}-1hfill\ {{Delta}} {,}^{12}{{{{{rm{C}}}}}}{{{{{{rm{H}}}}}}}_{2}{{{{{{rm{D}}}}}}}_{2}=frac{8}{3} frac{({,}^{12}{{{{{rm{C}}}}}}{{{{{{rm{H}}}}}}}_{2}{{{{{{rm{D}}}}}}}_{2})({,}^{12}{{{{{rm{C}}}}}}{{{{{{rm{H}}}}}}}_{4})}{{({,}^{12}{{{{{rm{C}}}}}}{{{{{{rm{H}}}}}}}_{3}{{{{{rm{D}}}}}})}^{2}}-1 hfillend{array}right.$$
(9)
Note that the isotopic compositions here are expressed in decimals; they should be multiplied by 1000 to give per mil values.The deuterium isotope ratio between the hydrogen donor (denoted with subscript B) and the methylene group (subscript A) is expressed as:$${alpha }_{{{{{{rm{A}}}}}}}^{{{{{{rm{B}}}}}}}=frac{1+{{{delta }}{{{{{rm{D}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{B}}}}}}}}{1+{{{delta }}{{{{{rm{D}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{A}}}}}}}}$$
(10)
For each reaction step in Fig. 3a, the corresponding rate constants are denoted as kamij for step a or kbmij for step b. Kinetic fractionation factors αkamij = kamij/ka000 and αkbmij = kbmij/kb000 define KIEs. Note that a DKIE is often expressed as kH/kD, which is the reciprocal of the αk nomenclature here. A DKIE may be primary or secondary; a primary DKIE results in αka001 ≠ 1 and αkb001 ≠ 1, and a secondary one results in αka010 ≠ 1 and αkb010 ≠ 1. Kinetic clumped isotope fractionation factors γamij = αkamij/(αka100mαka010iαka001j) and γbmij = αkbmij/ (αkb100mαkb010iαkb001j) define the excessive KIE due to isotope clumping in steps a and b, respectively30.Conversion of the reactant R-CH2-R′ is defined as 1 − f, where f is the residual fraction of R-CH2-R′:$$f=({{{{{rm{R}}}}}}{mbox{-}}{{{{{{rm{CH}}}}}}}_{2}{mbox{-}}{{{{{rm{R}}}}}}{^prime} )/{({{{{{rm{R}}}}}}{mbox{-}}{{{{{{rm{CH}}}}}}}_{2}{mbox{-}}{{rm{R}}}{^prime} )}_{{{{{{rm{initial}}}}}}}$$
(11)
Considering the isotope abundance of D  1 or γb011  > 1, as shown by the Δ12CH2D2 expression in Eq. (13). With this prerequisite, either an inverse primary DKIE (1° DKIE, αka001  > 1, αkb001  > 1) or an inverse secondary DKIE (2° DKIE, αka010  > 1, αkb010  > 1) is necessary, and through numerical simulation, we found that only the inverse 1° DKIE satisfies the above-mentioned δDA, δDB, and Δ12CH2D2 values.Two scenarios (one is the pure stochastic condition, the other is with an inverse 1° DKIE) are modelled (Fig. 3). The parameters are listed in Table 1. For comparison, analytical solutions at the beginning and end of reactions from Eqs. (12) and (13) are presented. The numerical and analytical solutions are nearly identical at the beginning of conversion. There are small differences between the numerical and analytical solutions at the endpoint because the abundance of the hydrogen donor is not extremely excessive. A weak 13C fractionation between the organic precursor and the methane product is obtained with the KIE parameters (Fig. 3b). With such a weak 13C KIE, Δ13CH3D is nearly constant for reaction extent (Fig. 3c). Note that we applied an inverse 13C KIE, as required by the δ13C distribution of the alkane gases (Method 1, Model A). The δD and Δ12CH2D2 values are independent of 13C KIE. Both the bulk and clumped isotopic compositions of methane within the range of reported values are obtained at the organic precursor conversion of 0.65–0.70 as constrained by Fig. 2. More

1.Borer ET, Seabloom EW, Mitchell CE, Cronin JP. Multiple nutrients and herbivores interact to govern diversity, productivity, composition, and infection in a successional grassland. Oikos. 2014;123:214–24.Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Isbell F, Reich PB, Tilman D, Hobbie SE, Polasky S, Binder S. Nutrient enrichment, biodiversity loss, and consequent declines in ecosystem productivity. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2013;110:11911–6.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Robinson RJ, Fraaije BA, Clark IM, Jackson RW, Hirsch PR, Mauchline TH. Endophytic bacterial community composition in wheat (Triticum aestivum) is determined by plant tissue type developmental stage and soil nutrient availability. Plant Soil. 2016;405:381–96.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Ratzke C, Barrere J, Gore J. Strength of species interactions determines biodiversity and stability in microbial communities. Nat Ecol Evol. 2020;4:376–83.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Lambers JHR, Harpole WS, Tilman D, Knops J, Reich PB. Mechanisms responsible for the positive diversity–productivity relationship in minnesota grasslands. Ecol Lett. 2004;7:661–8.Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Essarioui A, LeBlanc N, Kistler HC, Kinkel LL. Plant community richness mediates inhibitory interactions and resource competition between Streptomyces and fusarium populations in the rhizosphere. Micro Ecol. 2017;74:157–67.Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Pan Y, Cassman N, de Hollander M, Mendes LW, Korevaar H, Geerts RH, et al. Impact of long-term n, p, k, and npk fertilization on the composition and potential functions of the bacterial community in grassland soil. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2014;90:195–205.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Schlatter DC, DavelosBaines AL, Xiao K, Kinkel LL. Resource use of soilborne Streptomyces varies with location phylogeny, and nitrogen amendment. Micro Ecol. 2013;66:961–71.Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Firn J, McGree JM, Harvey E, Flores-Moreno H, Schütz M, Buckley YM, et al. Leaf nutrients, not specific leaf area, are consistent indicators of elevated nutrient inputs. Nat Ecol Evol. 2019;3:400–6.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Anderson TM, Griffith DM, Grace JB, Lind EM, Adler PB, Biederman LA, et al. Herbivory and eutrophication mediate grassland plant nutrient responses across a global climatic gradient. Ecol. 2018;99:822–31.Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Bernstein N, Gorelick J, Zerahia R, Koch S. Impact of n, p, k, and humic acid supplementation on the chemical profile of medical cannabis (Cannabis sativa L.). Front Plant Sci. 2019;10:736.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Tangolar S, Tangolar S, Torun AA, Ada M, Göçmez S. Influence of supplementation of vineyard soil with organic substances on nutritional status, yield and quality of ‘black magic’ grape (Vitis vinifera L.) and soil microbiological and biochemical characteristics. OENO One. 2020;54:1143–57.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
13.De Long JR, Sundqvist MK, Gundale MJ, Giesler R, Wardle DA. Effects of elevation and nitrogen and phosphorus fertilization on plant defence compounds in subarctic tundra heath vegetation. Funct Ecol. 2016;30:314–25.Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Dietrich R, Ploss K, Heil M. Constitutive and induced resistance to pathogens in Arabidopsis thaliana depends on nitrogen supply. Plant Cell Environ. 2004;27:896–906.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Bryant JP, Chapin III FS, Klein DR. Carbon/nutrient balance of boreal plants in relation to vertebrate herbivory. Oikos. 1983;40:357–68.16.Kinkel LL, Otto-Hanson LK, Otto-Hansen Z, Johnson M, Spawn S, Song Z, et al. Foliar endophytic microbiome composition and functional capacities vary with soil nutrient inputs. Phytopathol. 2018;108:77.
Google Scholar 
17.Seabloom EW, Condon B, Kinkel L, Komatsu KJ, Lumibao CY, May G, et al. Effects of nutrient supply, herbivory, and host community on fungal endophyte diversity. Ecol. 2019;100:e02758.Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Vandenkoornhuyse P, Quaiser A, Duhamel M, Le Van A, Dufresne A. The importance of the microbiome of the plant holobiont. N. Phytol. 2015;206:1196–206.Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Stulberg E, Fravel D, Proctor LM, Murray DM, LoTempio J, Chrisey L, et al. An assessment of US microbiome research. Nat Microbiol. 2016;1:15015.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Hanson BM, Weinstock GM. The importance of the microbiome in epidemiologic research. Ann Epidemiol. 2016;26:301–5.PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
21.Bell TH, Hockett KL, Alcalá-Briseño RI, Barbercheck M, Beattie GA, Bruns MA, et al. Manipulating wild and tamed phytobiomes: Challenges and opportunities. Phytobiomes J 2019;3:3–21.Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Henning JA, Kinkel L, May G, Lumibao CY, Seabloom EW, Borer ET. Plant diversity and litter accumulation mediate the loss of foliar endophyte fungal richness following nutrient addition. Ecol. 2021;102:e03210.Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Vacher C, Hampe A, Porté AJ, Sauer U, Compant S, Morris CE. The phyllosphere: microbial jungle at the plant–climate interface. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2016;47:1–24.Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Berendsen RL, Pieterse CM, Bakker PA. The rhizosphere microbiome and plant health. Trends Plant Sci. 2012;17:478–86.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Turner TR, James EK, Poole PS. The plant microbiome. Genome Biol. 2013;14:1–10.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
26.Trivedi P, Leach JE, Tringe SG, Sa T, Singh BK. Plant–microbiome interactions: from community assembly to plant health. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2020;18:607–21.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
27.Sanchez-Gorostiaga A, Bajić D, Osborne ML, Poyatos JF, Sanchez A. High-order interactions distort the functional landscape of microbial consortia. PLOS Biol. 2019;17:e3000550.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Gould AL, Zhang V, Lamberti L, Jones EW, Obadia B, Korasidis N, et al. Microbiome interactions shape host fitness. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2018;115:E11951–E11960.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
29.O’Keeffe KR. Within-host Microbial Interactions and Plant Parasites: From Pairwise Interactions to the Microbiome. PhD thesis, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2019.30.Wemheuer F, Kaiser K, Karlovsky P, Daniel R, Vidal S, Wemheuer B. Bacterial endophyte communities of three agricultural important grass species differ in their response towards management regimes. Sci Rep. 2017;7:1–13.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
31.Wemheuer B, Thomas T, Wemheuer F. Fungal endophyte communities of three agricultural important grass species differ in their response towards management regimes. Microorg. 2019;7:37.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Layeghifard M, Hwang DM, Guttman DS. Disentangling interactions in the microbiome: a network perspective. Trends Microbiol. 2017;25:217–28.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Barabási AL Network science. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2016).
Google Scholar 
34.Scott J. Social network analysis. Sociol. 1988;22:109–27.Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Borgatti SP, Mehra A, Brass DJ, Labianca G. Network analysis in the social sciences. Science. 2009;323:892–5.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Nelson GD, Rae A. An economic geography of the United States: from commutes to megaregions. PLOS ONE. 2016;11:e0166083.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
37.Danon L, Ford AP, House T, Jewell CP, Keeling MJ, Roberts GO, et al. Networks and the epidemiology of infectious disease. Interdiscip Perspectives on Infect Dis. 2011.38.Expert P, Evans TS, Blondel VD, Lambiotte R. Uncovering space-independent communities in spatial networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2011;108:7663–8.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Röttjers L, Faust K. From hairballs to hypotheses—biological insights from microbial networks. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2018;42:761–80.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
40.Naqvi A, Rangwala H, Keshavarzian A, Gillevet P. Network-based modeling of the human gut microbiome. Chem Biodivers. 2010;7:1040–50.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Coyte KZ, Schluter J, Foster KR. The ecology of the microbiome: networks, competition, and stability. Sci. 2015;350:663–6.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Poudel R, Jumpponen A, Schlatter DC, Paulitz TC, McSpadden Gardener BB, Kinkel LL, et al. Microbiome networks: a systems framework for identifying candidate microbial assemblages for disease management. Phytopathol. 2016;106:1083–96.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Bakker MG, Schlatter DC, Otto-Hanson L, Kinkel LL. Diffuse symbioses: roles of plant–plant, plant–microbe and microbe–microbe interactions in structuring the soil microbiome. Mol Ecol. 2014;23:1571–83.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.van der Heijden MG, Hartmann M. Networking in the plant microbiome. PLOS Biol. 2016;14:e1002378.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
45.Lau MK, Borrett SR, Baiser B, Gotelli NJ, Ellison AM. Ecological network metrics: opportunities for synthesis. Ecosphere. 2017;8:e01900.Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Billick I, Case TJ. Higher order interactions in ecological communities: what are they and how can they be detected? Ecol. 1994;75:1529–43.Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Carr A, Diener C, Baliga NS, Gibbons SM. Use and abuse of correlation analyses in microbial ecology. ISME J. 2019;13:2647–55.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Vaz Jauri P, Bakker MG, Salomon CE, Kinkel LL. Subinhibitory antibiotic concentrations mediate nutrient use and competition among soil Streptomyces. PLOS ONE. 2013;8:e81064.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
49.Borer ET, Harpole WS, Adler PB, Lind EM, Orrock JL, Seabloom EW, et al. Finding generality in ecology: a model for globally distributed experiments. Methods Ecol Evol. 2014;5:65–73.Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Borer ET, Grace JB, Harpole WS, MacDougall AS, Seabloom EW. A decade of insights into grassland ecosystem responses to global environmental change. Nat Ecol Evol. 2017;1:1–7.Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Essarioui A, LeBlanc N, Kistler HC, Kinkel LL. Plant host and community diversity impact the dynamics of resource use by soil Streptomyces. Phytopathol. 2014;104:38.
Google Scholar 
52.LeBlanc N, Essarioui A, Kinkel LL, Kistler HC. Fusarium community structure and carbon metabolism phenotypes respond to grassland plant community richness and plant host. Phytopathol. 2014;104:67.Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Essarioui A, Kistler HC, Kinkel LL. Nutrient use preferences among soil Streptomyces suggest greater resource competition in monoculture than polyculture plant communities. Plant Soil. 2016;409:329–43.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Essarioui A, LeBlanc N, Otto-Hanson L, Schlatter DC, Kistler HC, Kinkel LL. Inhibitory and nutrient use phenotypes among coexisting fusarium and Streptomyces populations suggest local coevolutionary interactions in soil. Environ Microbiol. 2020;22:976–85.PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
55.Schlatter D, Fubuh A, Xiao K, Hernandez D, Hobbie S, Kinkel L. Resource amendments influence density and competitive phenotypes of Streptomyces in soil. Micro Ecol. 2009;57:413–20.Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Kinkel LL, Schlatter DC, Xiao K, Baines AD. Sympatric inhibition and niche differentiation suggest alternative coevolutionary trajectories among Streptomycetes. ISME J 2013;8:249–56.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
57.Reichardt J, Bornholdt S. Statistical mechanics of community detection. Phys Rev E 2006;74:016110.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
58.Watts DJ, Strogatz SH. Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nat. 1998;393:440–2.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Allesina S, Levine JM. A competitive network theory of species diversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2011;108:5638–42.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Maynard DS, Bradford MA, Lindner DL, van Diepen LT, Frey SD, Glaeser JA, et al. Diversity begets diversity in competition for space. Nat Ecol Evol. 2017;1:1–8.Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Maynard DS, Crowther TW, Bradford MA. Competitive network determines the direction of the diversity–function relationship. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2017;114:11464–9.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Gallien L, Zimmermann NE, Levine JM, Adler PB. The effects of intransitive competition on coexistence. Ecol Lett. 2017;20:791–800.PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
63.Schlatter DC, Song Z, Vaz-Jauri P, Kinkel LL. Inhibitory interaction networks among coevolved Streptomyces populations from prairie soils. PLOS ONE. 2019;14:e0223779.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Milo R. Network motifs: simple building blocks of complex networks. Sci. 2002;298:824–7.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Case TJ, Bender EA. Testing for higher order interactions. Am Nat. 1981;118:920–9.Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Levine JM, Bascompte J, Adler PB, Allesina S. Beyond pairwise mechanisms of species coexistence in complex communities. Nat. 2017;546:56–64.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Mayfield MM, Stouffer DB. Higher-order interactions capture unexplained complexity in diverse communities. Nat Ecol Evol. 2017;1:0062.Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Friedman J, Higgins LM, Gore J. Community structure follows simple assembly rules in microbial microcosms. Nat Ecol Evol. 2017;1:0109.Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Bender EA, Canfield E. The asymptotic number of labeled graphs with given degree sequences. J Comb Theory Ser A 1978;24:296–307.Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Newman ME. Modularity and community structure in networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2006;103:8577–82.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Guo X, Boedicker JQ. The contribution of high-order metabolic interactions to the global activity of a four-species microbial community. PLOS Comput Biol. 2016;12:e1005079.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
72.Borrelli JJ, Allesina S, Amarasekare P, Arditi R, Chase I, Damuth J, et al. Selection on stability across ecological scales. Trends Ecol Evol. 2015;30:417–25.PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
73.Davis GH, Crofoot MC, Farine DR. Estimating the robustness and uncertainty of animal social networks using different observational methods. Anim Behav. 2018;141:29–44.Article 

Google Scholar 
74.Gilbertson ML, White LA, Craft ME. Trade-offs with telemetry-derived contact networks for infectious disease studies in wildlife. Methods Ecol Evol. 2020;12:76–87.PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
75.Grilli J, Barabás G, Michalska-Smith MJ, Allesina S. Higher-order interactions stabilize dynamics in competitive network models. Nat. 2017;548:210–3.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
76.Letten AD, Stouffer DB. The mechanistic basis for higher-order interactions and non-additivity in competitive communities. Ecol Lett. 2019;22:423–36.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
77.Dormann CF, Roxburgh SH. Experimental evidence rejects pairwise modelling approach to coexistence in plant communities. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2005;272:1279–85.Article 

Google Scholar 
78.Staniczenko PP, Kopp JC, Allesina S. The ghost of nestedness in ecological networks. Nat Commun. 2013;4:1–6.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
79.Großkopf T, Soyer OS. Synthetic microbial communities. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2014;18:72–77.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
80.Holm S. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat. 1979;6:65–70.
Google Scholar  More

1.Rao, G. D., Sui, J. K. & Zhang, J. G. Metabolomics reveals significant variations in metabolites and correlations regarding the maturation of walnuts (Juglans regia L.). Biol Open 5, 829–836 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Li, T. et al. Influence of green manure and rice straw management on soil organic carbon, enzyme activities, and rice yield in red paddy soil. Soil Till Res 195, 104428 (2019).3.Sharma, P. et al. Green manure as part of organic management cycle: effects on changes in organic matter characteristics across the soil profile. Geoderma 305, 197–207 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Nivelle, E. et al. Functional response of soil microbial communities to tillage, cover crops and nitrogen fertilization. Appl. Soil Ecol. 108, 147–155 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Mbuthia, L. W. et al. Long term tillage, cover crop, and fertilization effects on microbial community structure, activity: Implications for soil quality. Soil Biol Biochem. 89, 24–34 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Chavarria, D. N. et al. Effect of cover crops on microbial community structure and related enzyme activities and macronutrient availability. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 76, 74–82 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Zhao, S. et al. Changes in soil microbial community, enzyme activities and organic matter fractions under long-term straw return in north-central China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 216, 82–88 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Tian, Y., Zhang, X., Wang, J. & Gao, L. Soil microbial communities associated with the rhizosphere of cucumber under different summer cover crops and residue management: A 4-year field experiment. Sci. Hort. 150, 100–109 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Capo-Bauca, S., Marques, A., Llopis-Vidal, N., Bota, J. & Baraza, E. Long-term establishment of natural green cover provides agroecosystem services by improving soil quality in a Mediterranean vineyard. Ecol. Eng. 127, 285–291 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Saikia, R., Sharma, S., Thind, H. S., Sidhu, H. S. & Yadvinder, S. Temporal changes in biochemical indicators of soil quality in response to tillage, crop residue and green manure management in a rice-wheat system. Ecol. Indic. 103, 383–394 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Acosta-Martinez, V. et al. Dryland cropping systems influence the microbial biomass and enzyme activities in a semiarid sandy soil. Biol. Fert. Soils 47, 655–667 (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Sharma, S. & Dhaliwal, S. S. Conservation agriculture based practices enhanced micronutrients transformation in earthworm cast soil under rice-wheat cropping system. Ecol Eng 163, 106195 (2021).13.Nunes, M. R., Karlen, D. L., Veum, K. S., Moorman, T. B. & Cambardella, C. A. Biological soil health indicators respond to tillage intensity: A US metaanalysis. Geoderma 369, 114335 (2020).14.Roper, M. M. & Gupta, V. V. S. R. Management practices and soil biota. Aust. J. Soil Res. 33, 321–339 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Wortman, S. E., Drijber, R. A., Francis, C. A. & Lindquist, J. L. Arable weeds, cover crops, and tillage drive soil microbial community composition in organic cropping systems. Appl. Soil Ecol. 72, 232–241 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Drijber, R. A., Doran, J. W., Parkhurst, A. M. & Lyon, D. J. Changes in soil microbial community structure with tillage under long-term wheat-fallow management. Soil. Biol. Biochem. 32, 1419–1430 (2000).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Qian, X. et al. Effects of living mulches on the soil nutrient contents, enzyme activities, and bacterial community diversities of apple orchard soils. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 70, 23–30 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Verzeaux, J. et al. Cover crops prevent the deleterious effect of nitrogen fertilisation on bacterial diversity by maintaining the carbon content of ploughed soil. Geoderma 281, 49–57 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Rothe, M., Darnaudery, M. & Thuries, L. Organic fertilizers, green manures and mixtures of the two revealed their potential as substitutes for inorganic fertilizers used in pineapple cropping. Sci. Hort. 257, 108691 (2019)20.Lupwayi, N. Z., Larney, F. J., Blackshaw, R. E., Kanashiro, D. A. & Pearson, D. C. Phospholipid fatty acid biomarkers show positive soil microbial community responses to conservation soil management of irrigated crop rotations. Soil Till Res. 168, 1–10 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Li, L., Larney, F. J., Angers, D. A., Pearson, D. C. & Blackshaw, R. E. Surface soil quality attributes following 12 years of conventional and conservation management on irrigated rotations in Southern Alberta. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 79, 930–942 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Xu, Z. et al. The variations in soil microbial communities, enzyme activities and their relationships with soil organic matter decomposition along the northern slope of Changbai Mountain. Appl. Soil Ecol. 86, 19–29 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Cusack, D. F., Silver, W. L., Torn, M. S., Burton, S. D. & Firestone, M. K. Changes in microbial community characteristics and soil organic matter with nitrogen additions in two tropical forests. Ecology 92, 621–632 (2011).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
24.Sinsabaugh, R. L. Phenol oxidase, peroxidase and organic matter dynamics of soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 42, 391–404 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Masai, E., Katayama, Y. & Fukuda, M. Genetic and biochemical investigations on bacterial catabolic pathways for lignin-derived aromatic compounds. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 71, 1–15 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
26.Falchini, L., Naumova, N., Kuikman, P. J., Bloem, J. & Nannipieri, P. CO2 evolution and denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis profiles of bacterial communities in soil following addition of low molecular weight substrates to simulate root exudation. Soil Biol. Biochem. 35, 775–782 (2003).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Liang, S., Grossman, J. & Shi, W. Soil microbial responses to winter, legume cover crop management during organic transition. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 65, 15–22 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Cruz, C., Green, J. J., Watson, C. A., Wilson, F. & Martins-Loução, M. A. Functional aspects of root architecture and mycorrhizal inoculation with respect to nutrient uptake capacity. Mycorrhiza 14, 177–184 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
29.Wu, Q. S., Zou, Y. N., He, X. H. & Luo, P. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi can alter some root characters and physiological status in trifoliate orange (Poncirus trifoliata L. Raf) seedlings. Plant Growth Regul. 65, 273–278 (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Gutjahr, C. & Paszkowski, U. Multiple control levels of root system remodeling in arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis. Front. Plant Sci. 4, 204 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Endlweber, K. & Scheu, S. Interactions between mycorrhizal fungi and Collembola: effects on root structure of competing plant species. Biol. Fertil. Soils 43, 741–749 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Stevens, K. J., Wall, C. B. & Janssen, J. A. Effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on seedling growth and development of two wetland plants, Bidens frondosa L., and Eclipta prostrate L., grown under three levels of water availability. Mycorrhiza 21, 279–288 (2011).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
33.Peng, L., Wen, Z., An, X., Han, J. & Jiang, Y. M. Effects of interplanting grass on utilization, loss and accumulation of 15N in apple orchard. Acta Pedol. Sin. 52, 950–956 (2015).
Google Scholar 
34.Sánchez, E. E. et al. Cover crops influence soil properties and tree performance in an organic apple (Malus domestica Borkh) orchard in northern Patagonia. Plant Soil 292, 193–203 (2007).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
35.Zhang, C. P., Meng, P., Zhang, J. S. & Wan, X. C. Effects of a nitrogen fixing plant Vigna radiata on growth, leaf stomatal gas exchange and hydraulic characteristics of the intercropping Juglans regia seedlings. Chin. J. Plant Ecol. 38, 499–506 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Li, Y. Y., Hu, H. S., Cheng, X., Sun, J. H. & Li, L. Effects of interspecific interactions and nitrogen fertilization rates on above-and below-growth in faba bean/mazie intercropping system. Acta Ecol. Sin. 31, 1617–1630 (2011).
Google Scholar 
37.Nyamadzawo, G., Nyamangara, J., Nyamugafata, P. & Muzulu, A. Soil microbial biomass and mineralization of aggregate protected carbon in fallow-maize systems under conventional and no-tillage in Central Zimbabwe. Soil Tillage Res. 102, 151–157 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Xiao, D. et al. Microbial biomass, metabolic functional diversity, and activity are affected differently by tillage disturbance and maize planting in a typical karst calcareous soil. J. Soil Sediment. 19, 809–821 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Elfstrand, S., Bath, B. & Martensson, A. Influence of various forms of green manure amendment on soil microbial community composition, enzyme activity and nutrient levels in leek. Appl. Soil Ecol. 36, 70–82 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Waring, B. G., Averill, C. & Hawkes, C. V. Differences in fungal and bacterial physiology alter soil carbon and nitrogen cycling: insights from meta-analysis and theoretical models. Ecol. Lett. 16, 887–894 (2013).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
41.Sinsabaugh, R. L. & Moorhead, D. L. Resource allocation to extracellular enzyme production: a model for nitrogen and phosphorus control of litter decomposition. Soil Biol. Biochem. 26, 1305–1311 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.DeForest, J. The influence of time, storage temperature, and substrate age on potential soil enzyme activity in acidic forest soils using MUB-linked substrates and L-DOPA. Soil Biol. Biochem. 41, 1180–1186 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Saiya-Cork, K. R., Sinsabaugh, R. L. & Zak, D. R. The effects of long term nitrogen deposition on extracellular enzyme activity in an Acer saccharum forest soil. Soil. Biol. Biochem. 34, 1309–1315 (2002).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Schutter, M. E. & Dick, R. P. Comparison of fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) methods for characterizing microbial communities. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 64, 1659–1668 (2000).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Bowles, T. M., Acosta-Martinez, V., Calderon, F. & Jackson, L. E. Soil enzyme activities, microbial communities, and carbon and nitrogen availability in organic agroecosystems across an intensively-managed agricultural landscape. Soil Biol. Biochem. 68, 252–262 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar  More