More stories

  • in

    Purple sulfur bacteria fix N2 via molybdenum-nitrogenase in a low molybdenum Proterozoic ocean analogue

    SamplingSamples were collected on 28 August 2018 during a field campaign to Lake Cadagno29, Switzerland. In situ measurements and water collection was performed at the deepest part of the lake (21 m). Water was collected using a pump CTD system as described in Di Nezio et al.36. Online in situ data were obtained during a continuous downcast of the CTD-system from the water surface down to ~17.5 m depth. During the upcast, discrete water samples were collected from a total of 20 depths (between 12 m and 17 m) above, in, and below the chemocline for chemical analyses and from 3 depths for incubation experiments (13.7 m, 14 m, and 15.5 m).In Lake Cadagno, wind-driven internal waves lead to vertical shifts of the water masses and their corresponding physicochemical parameters56. While sampling, it was apparent that the depths of the individual water masses had slightly shifted between the down- and the upcast. Therefore, we corrected the water depths of the samples collected during the upcast so that the physicochemical parameters during sampling best matched those of the continuous downcast, to ensure that samples were assigned to the respective water mass that they originated from. A custom R script was employed for the depth correction. In brief, all parameters measured by the CTD-system during the upcast and the downcast were normalized to percent (with 100% as the maximum observed value, and 0% the minimum observed value). Per individual sampling depth (during the upcast, where the pump cast CTD remained stationary for some time), average values of conductivity, temperature, and pressure were calculated and converted to percent values. Then, the depth from the downcast profile was identified that best matched all calculated percent values. This was achieved by subtracting the percent values per parameter from all respective data points of the downcast profile. Absolute values of the calculated differences per data row were summed. The depth with the lowest resulting sum, i.e., with the most similar physicochemical parameters, was then chosen as the corrected depth.Chemical analyses, flux calculations, and rate determinationsFor chemical analyses, lake water from the individual sampling depths was sterile-filtered (0.2 µm, cellulose acetate filter) and frozen at −20 °C until analysis. Samples were analyzed with a QuAAtro39 autoanalyzer (Seal Analytical) using the methods described in Strickland and Parsons57 to determine concentrations of dissolved inorganic phosphorus (PO43−), nitrite (NO2−), nitrate (NO3−), and reactive silica (Si). Ammonium concentrations were determined from the same filtered samples using the colorimetric analysis described in Kempers et al.58. Molybdenum concentrations were determined from filtered samples after acidification with 1% HNO3 (69%, ROTIPURAN®, Roth) using an ICP-MS 7900 (Agilent, Santa Clara, USA). Molybdenum was analyzed on mass 95 in He-mode using a multi-element calibration SRM (21 elements, Bernd Kraft). The SRM NIST 1643f was analyzed in parallel to guarantee the quality of analyses. Concentrations of sulfide were determined colorimetrically from unfiltered Lake water samples, following Cline59.To calculate the turbulent flux (J) of ammonium into the chemocline, we assumed a steady-state using Fick’s first law: J = −D∂C/∂x. A turbulent diffusion coefficient (D) of 1.6 × 10−6 m2 s−1 was used, corresponding to turbulence at the Lake Cadagno chemocline boundaries60. The change in concentration (∂C) was calculated over 14.25 m to 14.77 m depth, where the steepest ammonium gradient was observed. Ammonium uptake rates were calculated for the chemocline by integrating this flux over the chemocline from 13.45 m to 14.45 m depth.To quantify N2 fixation and primary production (i.e., CO2 fixation) rates, stable isotope incubations with 15N2 and 13CO2 were performed using established protocols61. Briefly, lake water from three different depths of the chemocline was sampled directly from the CTD pump system into five 250 ml serum bottles per depth. Water was filled into the bottles from bottom to top, allowing 1–2 bottle volumes to overflow to minimize oxygen contamination before crimp-sealing the bottles headspace-free with butyl rubber stoppers. Back in the field laboratory, no more than 8 h after sampling, one bottle per depth was filtered onto pre-combusted (460 °C, 6 h) glass microfiber filters (GF/F, Whatman®, UK) for in situ natural abundance of C and N. 13C-labeled sodium bicarbonate (NaH13CO3, 98 atom% 13C, dissolved in autoclaved MilliQ water; Sigma-Aldrich) was injected (320 µL) into three bottles per depth, to achieve a final concentration of 160 µmol L−1. Then, a volume of 5 ml 15N2 gas (Cambridge Isotope Laboratories, >98 atom% 15N, Lot #: I-19197/AR0586172) was injected as a bubble into the same bottles and shaken for 20 min to equilibrate the 15N2 gas. Sulfide solution was injected aiming for a final concentration of approximately 2 µM to remove trace oxygen contamination in the incubation bottles. Finally, the 15N2 gas bubble was replaced by anoxic in situ lake water from the respective depth. The bottles, together with one untreated control bottle per depth (containing unamended lake water), were incubated for a full light-dark cycle (13 h light, 11 h dark) under natural light conditions (0–8267 Lux, average: 247 Lux, median: 10.8 Lux, as determined by a HOBO pendant data logger, Onset Computer Corporation, Bourne, USA) in a water bath kept at ~12 °C.After incubation, samples were filtered onto pre-combusted GF/F filters. The filters were dried at room temperature and frozen at −20 °C for transport and storage. In addition, subsamples for nanoscale secondary ion mass spectrometry (nanoSIMS) analysis and for the determination of 13C and 15N enrichments in the substrate pools were taken from all bottles amended with 13C and 15N. NanoSIMS samples were fixed with 2% (final w/v) formaldehyde solution for 1 h at room temperature, prior to filtration onto gold-sputtered 0.22 µm polycarbonate membrane filters (GTTP IsoporeTM, Merck Millipore, USA). Subsamples for label% determinations were taken in gas-tight glass vials (Exetainer Labco, UK) and biological activity was terminated with HgCl2.Samples on GF/F filters were analyzed for C and N content and the respective isotopic composition by an elemental analyzer (Thermo Flash EA, 1112 Series) coupled to a continuous-flow isotope ratio mass spectrometer (Delta Plus XP IRMS; Thermo Finnigan, Dreieich, Germany). Enrichment of 15N in the N2 pool was determined using a membrane inlet mass spectrometer (MIMS; GAM200, IPI). Enrichment of 13C in the dissolved inorganic carbon pool was determined from 13C/12C-CO2 ratios after sample acidification with phosphoric acid using cavity ring-down spectroscopy (G2201-I coupled to a Liaison A0301, Picarro Inc., connected to an AutoMate Prep Device, Bushnell, USA). In addition, we tested the used 15N2 gas bottle for contamination with 15N-ammonia62. Briefly, a 2 ml subsample of the used 15N2 gas was injected into a 12 ml gas-tight glass vial (Exetainer) filled with MilliQ (pH 95% sequence identity to any of the MAG NifD/NifK sequences were identified with a blastp search74 to the NCBI nr database. Multiple sequence alignments were obtained with MAFFT87. All full-length sequences were used to construct base trees with RAxML88 and 100 bootstraps in ARB90. The ARB Parsimony function was employed to add partial sequences to the base trees.The resulting trees were visualized in iTOL91.FISH, cell counts, and cell sizesFrom each incubation depth, 10–30 ml lake water was filtered onto 0.22 µm polycarbonate membrane filters (GTTP IsoporeTM, Merck Millipore, USA). The filters were fixed in 2% formaldehyde solution in sterile-filtered lake water for 10–12 h at 4 °C and then washed with MilliQ water. The filters were frozen and stored at −20 °C until further processing.The 16S rRNA FISH probe “Thiosyn459” (Table S7), exclusively targeting T. syntrophicum Cad16, was designed in ARB90. In addition, two competitor probes and four helper probes92 were designed (Table S7) to ensure efficient and specific binding of the probe to the target. All FISH probes and respective formamide concentrations are listed in Table S7. Probes, but not helpers and competitors, were double-labeled with either Atto488 or Atto594 fluorophores. Samples were embedded in 0.05% low melting point agarose. Cells were permeabilized with lysozyme (1.5 mg ml−1) for 30 min at 37 °C. Hybridization was performed for 2–4.5 h at 46 °C. Washing included 15 min in washing buffer at 48 °C and 20 min in 1× PBS buffer at room temperature. We used the hybridization and washing buffers described in Barrero-Canosa et al.93 to reduce background fluorescence. Cells were counterstained with DAPI.Samples were analyzed using a Zeiss Axio Imager.M2 microscope equipped with a Zeiss Axiocam 506 mono camera. Z-stack images were taken and the number of fluorescently labeled cells per image was counted for the individual probes. For each PSB population, we analyzed ≥38 randomly selected fields of view and ≥54 target cells, on one filter replicate each (see Supplementary File S1). Total cell counts were obtained in triplicates through flow cytometry as described in Danza et al.94.For cluster-forming organisms (Thiodictyon syntrophicum, Lamprocystis purpurea, Lamprocystis roseopersicina, and Lamprocystis spp.), the cell size (length and width, for biovolume and C-content calculations, see section below) of 100 cells per population was determined from the maximum-intensity projection of the z-stack images using the Zeiss Zen blue software 3.2.Single-cell analysis with nanoSIMSFor nanoSIMS analyses, we chose the replicate sample from 13.7 m depth that exhibited the highest bulk N2 fixation rate. Random spots were marked with a laser microdissection microscope (6000 B, Leica) on the gold-sputtered GTTP filter covered with cells incubated with 15N2 and 13CO2. After laser marking, FISH was performed as described above. For analysis of Thiodictyon cells, no permeabilization was performed, while for analysis of the other population’s permeabilization was reduced to 15 min at 37 °C using 2 mg ml−1 Lysozyme. Within one hybridization reaction, we simultaneously applied Apur453 with S453D and Laro453 with Cmok453, each probe double labeled with different fluorescent dyes (Atto488 and Atto594).Single-cell 15N- and 13C-assimilation from incubation experiments with 15N2 and 13CO2 was measured using a nanoSIMS 50 L instrument (CAMECA), as described in Martínez-Pérez et al.53. Briefly, instrument precision was monitored regularly on graphite planchet. Samples were pre-sputtered with a Cs+ beam (~300 pA) before the measurements with a beam current of around 1.5 pA. The diameter of the primary beam was tuned More

  • in

    The importance of species interactions in eco-evolutionary community dynamics under climate change

    Modeling frameworkWe consider S species distributed in L distinct habitat patches. The patches form a linear latitudinal chain going around the globe, with dispersal between adjacent patches (Fig. 1). The state variables are species’ local densities and local temperature optima (the temperature at which species achieve maximum intrinsic population growth). This temperature optimum is a trait whose evolution is governed by quantitative genetics18,19,20,21,22: each species, in every patch, has a normally distributed temperature optimum with a given mean and variance. The variance is the sum of a genetic and an environmental contribution. The genetic component is given via the infinitesimal model23,24, whereby a very large number of loci each contribute a small additive effect to the trait. This has two consequences. First, a single round of random mating restores the normal shape of the trait distribution, even if it is distorted by selection or migration. Second, the phenotypic variance is unchanged by these processes, with only the mean being affected25 (we apply a reduction in genetic variance at very low population densities to prevent such species from evolving rapidly; see the Supplementary Information [SI], Section 3.4). Consequently, despite selection and the mixing of phenotypes from neighboring patches, each species retains a normally-shaped phenotypic distribution with the same phenotypic variance across all patches—but the mean temperature optimum may evolve locally and can therefore differ across patches (Fig. 1).Fig. 1: Illustration of our modeling framework.There are several patches hosting local communities, arranged linearly along a latitudinal gradient. Patch color represents the local average temperature, with warmer colors corresponding to higher temperatures. The graph depicts the community of a single patch, with four species present. They are represented by the colored areas showing the distributions of their temperature optima, with the area under each curve equal to the population density of the corresponding species. The green species is highlighted for purposes of illustration. Each species has migrants to adjacent patches (independent of local adaptedness), as well as immigrants from them (arrows from and to the green species; the distributions with dashed lines show the trait distributions of the green species’ immigrant individuals). The purple line is the intrinsic growth rate of a phenotype in the patch, as a function of its local temperature optimum (this optimum differs across patches, which is why the immigrants are slightly maladapted to the temperature of the focal patch.) Both local population densities and local adaptedness are changed by the constant interplay of temperature-dependent intrinsic growth, competition with other species in the same patch, immigration to or emigration from neighboring patches, and (in certain realizations of the model) pressure from consumer species.Full size imageSpecies in our setup may either be resources or consumers. Their local dynamics are governed by the following processes. First, within each patch, we allow for migration to and from adjacent patches (changing both local population densities and also local adaptedness, due to the mixing of immigrant individuals with local ones). Second, each species’ intrinsic rate of increase is temperature-dependent, influenced by how well their temperature optima match local temperatures (Fig. 2a). For consumers, metabolic loss and mortality always result in negative intrinsic growth, which must be compensated by sufficient consumption to maintain their populations. Third, there is a local competition between resource species, which can be thought of as exploitative competition for a set of shared substitutable lower-level resources26. Consumers, when present, compete only indirectly via their shared resource species. Fourth, each consumer has feeding links to five of the resource species (pending their presence in patches where the consumer is also present), which are randomly determined but always include the one resource which matches the consumer’s initial mean temperature optimum. Feeding rates follow a Holling type II functional response. Consumers experience growth from consumption, and resource species experience loss due to being consumed.Fig. 2: Temperature optima and climate curves.a Different growth rates at various temperatures. Colors show species with different mean temperature optima, with warmer colors corresponding to more warm-adapted species. The curves show the maximum growth rate achieved when a phenotype matches the local temperature, and how the growth rate decreases with an increased mismatch between a phenotype and local temperature, for each species. The dashed line shows zero growth: below this point, the given phenotype of a species mismatches the local temperature to the extent that it is too maladapted to be able to grow. Note the tradeoff between the width and height of the growth curves, with more warm-tolerant species having larger maximum growth at the cost of being viable for only a narrower range of temperatures62,63. b Temperature changes over time. After an initial establishment phase of 4000 years during which the pre-climate change community dynamics stabilize, temperatures start increasing at t = 0 for 300 years (vertical dotted line, indicating the end of climate change). Colors show temperature change at different locations along the spatial gradient, with warmer colors indicating lower latitudes. The magnitude and latitudinal dependence of the temperature change is based on region-specific predictions by 2100 CE, in combination with estimates giving an approximate increase by 2300 CE, for the IPCC intermediate emission scenario27.Full size imageFollowing the previous methodology, we derive our equations in the weak selection limit22 (see also the Discussion). We have multiple selection forces acting on the different components of our model. Species respond to local climate (frequency-independent directional selection, unless a species is at the local environmental optimum), to consumers and resources (frequency-dependent selection), and competitors (also frequency-dependent selection, possibly complicated by the temperature-dependence of the competition coefficients mediating frequency dependence). These different modes of selection do not depend on the parameterization of evolution and dispersal, which instead are used to adjust the relative importance of these processes.Communities are initiated with 50 species per trophic level, subdividing the latitudinal gradient into 50 distinct patches going from pole to equator (results are qualitatively unchanged by increasing either the number of species or the number of patches; SI, Section 5.9–5.10). We assume that climate is symmetric around the equator; thus, only the pole-to-equator region needs to be modeled explicitly (SI, Section 3.5). The temperature increase is based on predictions from the IPCC intermediate emission scenario27 and corresponds to predictions for the north pole to the equator. The modeled temperature increase is represented by annual averages and the increase is thus smooth. Species are initially equally spaced, and adapted to the centers of their ranges. We then integrate the model for 6500 years, with three main phases: (1) an establishment period from t = −4000 to t = 0 years, during which local temperatures are constant; (2) climate change, between t = 0 and t = 300 years, during which local temperatures increase in a latitude-specific way (Fig. 2b); and (3) the post-climate change period from t = 300 to t = 2500 years, where temperatures remain constant again at their elevated values.To explore the influence and importance of dispersal, evolution, and interspecific interactions, we considered the fully factorial combination of high and low average dispersal rates, high and low average available genetic variance (determining the speed and extent of species’ evolutionary responses), and four different ecological models. These were: (1) the baseline model with a single trophic level and constant, patch- and temperature-independent competition between species; (2) two trophic levels and constant competition; (3) single trophic level with temperature-dependent competition (where resource species compete more if they have similar temperature optima); and (4) two trophic levels as well as temperature-dependent competition. Trophic interactions can strongly influence diversity in a community, either by apparent competition28 or by acting as extra regulating agents boosting prey coexistence29. Temperature-dependent competition means that the strength of interaction between two phenotypes decreases with an increasing difference in their temperature optima. Importantly, while differences in temperature adaptation may influence competition, they do not influence trophic interactions.The combination of high and low genetic variance and dispersal rates, and four model setups, gives a total of 2 × 2 × 4 = 16 scenarios. For each of them, some parameters (competition coefficients, tradeoff parameters, genetic variances, dispersal rates, consumer attack rates, and handling times; SI, Section 6) were randomly drawn from pre-specified distributions. We, therefore, obtained 100 replicates for each of these 16 scenarios. While replicates differed in the precise identity of the species which survived or went extinct, they varied little in the overall patterns they produced.We use the results from these numerical experiments to explore patterns of (1) local species diversity (alpha diversity), (2) regional trends, including species range breadths and turnover (beta diversity), (3) global (gamma) diversity, and global changes in community composition induced by climate change. In addition, we also calculated the interspecific community-wide trait lag (the difference between the community’s density-weighted mean temperature optima and the current temperature) as a function of the community-wide weighted trait dispersion (centralized variance in species’ density-weighted mean temperature optima; see Methods). The response capacity is the ability of the biotic community to close this trait lag over time30 (SI, Section 4). Integrating trait lag through time31 gives an overall measure of different communities’ ability to cope with changing climate over this time period; furthermore, this measure is comparable across communities. The integrated trait lag summarizes, in a single functional metric, the performance and adaptability of a community over space and time. The reason it is related to performance is that species that on average live more often under temperatures closer to their optima (creating lower trait lags) will perform better than species whose temperature optima are far off from local conditions in space and/or time. Thus, a lower trait lag (higher response capacity) may also be related to other ecosystem functions, such as better carbon uptake which in turn has the potential to feedback to global temperatures32.Overview of resultsWe use our framework to explore the effect of species interactions on local, regional, and global biodiversity patterns, under various degrees of dispersal and available genetic variance. For simplicity, we focus on the dynamics of the resource species, which are present in all scenarios. Results for consumers, when present, are in the SI (Section 5.8). First, we display a snapshot of species’ movement across the landscape with time; before, during, and after climate change. Then we proceed with analyzing local patterns, followed by regional trends, and finally, global trends.Snapshots from the time series of species’ range distributions reveal useful information about species’ movement and coexistence (Fig. 3). Regardless of model setup and parameterization, there is a northward shift in species’ ranges: tropical species expand into temperate regions and temperate species into polar regions. This is accompanied by a visible decline in the number of species globally, with the northernmost species affected most. The models do differ in the predicted degree of range overlap: trophic interactions and temperature-dependent competition both lead to broadly overlapping ranges, enhancing local coexistence (the overlap in spatial distribution is particularly pronounced with high available genetic variance). Without these interactions, species ranges overlap to a substantially lower degree, diminishing local diversity. Below we investigate whether these patterns, observed for a single realization of the dynamics for each scenario, play out more generally as well.Fig. 3: Species’ range shift through time, along a latitudinal gradient ranging from polar to tropical climates (ordinate).Species distributions are shown by colored curves, with the height of each curve representing local density in a single replicate (abscissa; note the different scales in the panels), with the color indicating the species’ initial (i.e., at t = 0) temperature adaptation. The model was run with only 10 species, for better visibility. The color of each species indicates its temperature adaptation at the start of the climate change period, with warmer colors belonging to species with a higher temperature optimum associated with higher latitudes. Rows correspond to a specific combination of genetic variance and dispersal ability of species, columns show species densities at different times (t = 0 start of climate change, t = 300 end of climate change, t = 2500 end of simulations). Each panel corresponds to a different model setup; a the baseline model, b an added trophic level of consumers, c temperature-dependent competition coefficients, and d the combined influence of consumers and temperature-dependent competition.Full size imageLocal trendsTrophic interactions and temperature-dependent competition indeed result in elevated local species richness levels (Fig. 4). The fostering of local coexistence by trophic interactions and temperature-dependent competition is in line with general ecological expectations. Predation pressure can enhance diversity by providing additional mechanisms of density regulation and thus prey coexistence through predator partitioning28,29. In turn, temperature-dependent competition means species can reduce interspecific competition by evolving locally suboptimal mean temperature optima22, compared with the baseline model’s fixed competition coefficients. Hence with temperature-dependent competition, the advantages of being sufficiently different from other locally present species can outweigh the disadvantages of being somewhat maladapted to the local temperatures. If competition is not temperature-dependent, interspecific competition is at a fixed level independent of the temperature optima of each species. An important question is how local diversity is affected when the two processes act simultaneously. In fact, any synergy between their effects is very weak, and is even slightly negative when both the available genetic variance and dispersal abilities are high (Fig. 4, top row).Fig. 4: Local species richness of communities over time, from the start of climate change to the end of the simulation, averaged over replicates.Values are given in 100-year steps. At each point in time, the figure shows the mean number of species per patch over the landscape (points) and their standard deviation (shaded region, extending one standard deviation both up- and downwards from the mean). Panel rows show different parameterizations (all four combinations of high and low genetic variance and dispersal ability); columns represent various model setups (the baseline model; an added trophic level of consumers; temperature-dependent competition coefficients; and the combined influence of consumers and temperature-dependent competition). Dotted vertical lines indicate the time at which climate change ends.Full size imageRegional trendsWe see a strong tendency for poleward movement of species when looking at the altered distributions of species over the spatial landscape (Fig. 3). Indeed, looking at the effects of climate change on the fraction of patches occupied by species over the landscape reveals that initially cold-adapted species lose suitable habitat during climate change, and even afterwards (Fig. 5). For the northernmost species, this always eventuate to the point where all habitat is lost, resulting in their extinction. This pattern holds universally in every model setup and parameterization. Only initially warm-adapted species can expand their ranges, and even they only do so under highly restrictive conditions, requiring both good dispersal ability and available genetic variance as well as consumer pressure (Fig. 5, top row, second and third panel).Fig. 5: Range breadth of each species expressed as the percentage of the whole landscape they occupy (ordinate) at three different time stamps (colors).The mean (points) and plus/minus one standard deviation range (colored bands) are shown over replicates. Numbers along the abscissa represent species, with initially more warm-adapted species corresponding to higher values. The range breadth of each species is shown at three time stamps: at the start of climate change (t = 0, blue), the end of climate change (t = 300, green), and at the end of our simulations (t = 2500, yellow). Panel layout as in Fig. 4.Full size imageOne can also look at larger regional changes in species richness, dividing the landscape into three equal parts: the top third (polar region), the middle third (temperate region), and the bottom third (tropical region). Region-wise exploration of changes in species richness (Fig. 6) shows that the species richness of the polar region is highly volatile. It often experiences the greatest losses; however, with high dispersal ability and temperature-dependent competition, the regional richness can remain substantial and even increase compared to its starting level (Fig. 6, first and third rows, last two columns). Of course, change in regional species richness is a result of species dispersing to new patches and regions as well as of local extinctions. Since the initially most cold-adapted species lose their habitat and go extinct, altered regional species richness is connected to having altered community compositions along the spatial gradient. All regions experience turnover in species composition (SI, Section 5.1), but in general, the polar region experiences the largest turnover, where the final communities are at least 50% and sometimes more than 80% dissimilar to the community state right before the onset of climate change—a result in agreement with previous studies as well7,33.Fig. 6: Relative change in global species richness from the community state at the onset of climate change (ordinate) over time (abscissa), averaged over replicates and given in 100-year steps (points).Black points correspond to species richness over the whole landscape; the blue points to richness in the top third of all patches (the polar region), green points to the middle third (temperate region), and yellow points to the last third (tropical region). Panel layout as in Fig. 4; dotted horizontal lines highlight the point of no net change in global species richness.Full size imageGlobal trendsHence, the identity of the species undergoing global extinction is not random, but strongly biased towards initially cold-adapted species. On a global scale, these extinctions cause decreased richness, and the model predicts large global biodiversity losses for all scenarios (Fig. 6). These continue during the post-climate change period with stable temperatures, indicating a substantial extinction debt which has been previously demonstrated34. Temperature-dependent competition reduces the number of global losses compared to the baseline and trophic models.A further elucidating global pattern is revealed by analyzing the relationship between the time-integrated temperature trait lag and community-wide trait dispersion (Fig. 7). There is an overall negative correlation between the two, but more importantly, within each scenario (unique combination of model and parameterization) a negative relationship is evident. Furthermore, the slopes are very similar: the main difference between scenarios is in their mean trait lag and trait dispersion values (note that the panels do not share axis value ranges). The negative trend reveals the positive effect of more varied temperature tolerance strategies among the species on the community’s ability to respond to climate change. This is analogous to Fisher’s fundamental theorem35, stating that the speed of the evolution of fitness r is proportional to its variance: dr/dt ~ var(r). More concretely, this relationship is also predicted by trait-driver theory, a mathematical framework that focuses explicitly on linking spatiotemporal variation in environmental drivers to the resulting trait distributions30. Communities generated by different models reveal differences in the magnitude of this relationship: trait dispersion is much higher in models with temperature-dependent competition (essentially, niche differentiation with respect to temperature), resulting in lower trait lag. The temperature-dependent competition also separates communities based on their spatial dispersal ability, with faster dispersal corresponding to greater trait dispersion and thus lower trait lag. Interestingly, trophic interactions tend to erode the relationship between trait lag and trait dispersion slightly (R2 values are lower in communities with trophic interactions, both with and without temperature-dependent competition). We have additionally explored the relationship between species richness and trait dispersion, finding a positive relationship between the two (SI, Section 4.1).Fig. 7: The ability of communities in four different models (panels) to track local climatic conditions (ordinate), against observed variation in traits within those communities (abscissa).Larger values along the ordinate indicate that species’ temperature optima are lagging behind local temperatures, meaning a low ability of communities to track local climate conditions. Both quantities are averaged over the landscape and time from the beginning to the end of the climate change period, yielding a single number for every community (points). The greater the average local diversity of mean temperature optima in a community, the closer it is able to match the prevailing temperature conditions. Species’ dispersal ability and available genetic variance (colors) are clustered along this relationship.Full size image More

  • in

    Securing genetic integrity in freshwater pearl mussel propagation and captive breeding

    1.Geist, J. Integrative freshwater ecology and biodiversity conservation. Ecol. Indic. 11, 1507–1516 (2011).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    2.Lopes-Lima, M. et al. Conservation status of freshwater mussels in Europe: State of the art and future challenges. Biol. Rev. 92, 572–607 (2017).PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    3.Geist, J. Strategies for the conservation of endangered freshwater pearl mussels (Margaritifera margaritifera L.): A synthesis of conservation genetics and ecology. Hydrobiologia 644, 69–88 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    4.Taeubert, J. E. & Geist, J. The relationship between the freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) and its hosts. Biol. Bull. 44, 67–73 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    5.Salonen, J. K. et al. Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and brown trout (Salmo trutta) differ in their suitability as a host for the endangered freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) in northern Fennoscandian rivers. Freshw. Biol. 62, 1346–1358 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    6.Geist, J. & Auerswald, K. Physicochemical stream bed characteristics and recruitment of the freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera). Freshw. Biol. 52, 2299–2316 (2007).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    7.Stoeckl, K., Denic, M. & Geist, J. Conservation status of two endangered freshwater mussel species in Bavaria, Germany: Habitat quality, threats, and implications for conservation management. Aquat. Conserv. 30, 647–661 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    8.Auerswald, K. & Geist, J. Extent and cause of siltation in a headwater stream bed: Catchment and soil erosion is less important than internal stream processes. Land Degrad. Dev. 29, 737–748. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2779 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    9.Bauer, G. Threats to the freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera L. in central Europe. Biol. Conserv. 45, 239–253 (1988).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    10.Boon, P. J. et al. Developing a standard approach for monitoring freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) populations in European rivers. Aquat. Conserv. 29, 1365–1379 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    11.Hruska, J. Nahrungsansprüche der Flußperlmuschel und deren halbnatürliche Aufzucht in der Tschechischen Republik (Dietary requirements and semi-natural rearing of freshwater pearl mussel in the Czech Republic). Heldia 4, 69–79 (1999).
    Google Scholar 
    12.Preston, S. J., Keys, A. & Roberts, D. Culturing freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera: A breakthrough in the conservation of an endangered species. Aquat. Conserv. 17, 539–549. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.799 (2007).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    13.Thomas, G. R., Taylor, J. & de Leaniz, C. G. Captive breeding of the endangered freshwater pearl mussel, Margaritifera margaritifera. Endanger. Species Res. 12, 1–9 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    14.Gum, B., Lange, M. & Geist, J. A critical reflection on the success of rearing and culturing juvenile freshwater mussels with a focus on the endangered freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera L.). Aquat. Conserv. 21, 743–751 (2011).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    15.Geist, J., Rottmann, O., Schröder, W. & Kühn, R. Development of microsatellite markers for the endangered freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera L. (Bivalvia: Unionoidea). Mol. Ecol. Resour. 3, 444–446 (2003).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    16.Geist, J. & Kühn, R. Genetic diversity and differentiation of central European freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera L.) populations: Implications for conservation and management. Mol. Ecol. 14, 425–439 (2005).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    17.Geist, J. & Kuehn, R. Host-parasite interactions in oligotrophic stream ecosystems: The roles of life history strategy and ecological niche. Mol. Ecol. 17, 997–1008 (2008).PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    18.Marchordom, A., Araujo, R., Erpenbeck, D. & Ramos, M. A. Phylogeography and conservation genetics of the endangered European Margaritiferidae (Bivalvia: Unionoidea). Biol. J. Linn. Soc. Lond. 78, 235–252 (2003).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    19.Stoeckle, et al. Strong genetic differentiation and low genetic diversity of the freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera L.) in the southwestern European distribution range. Conserv. Genet. 18, 147–157 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    20.Karlsson, S., Larsen, B. M. & Hindar, K. Host-dependent genetic variation in freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera L.). Hydrobiologia 735, 179–190 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    21.Geist, J., Söderberg, H., Karlberg, A. & Kuehn, R. Drainage-independent genetic structure and high genetic diversity of endangered freshwater pearl mussels (Margaritifera margaritifera) in northern Europe. Conserv. Genet. 11, 1339–1350 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    22.Geist, et al. Genetic structure of Irish freshwater pearl mussels (Margaritifera margaritifera and Margaritifera durrovensis): Validity of subspecies, roles of host fish, and conservation implications. Aquat. Conserv. 28, 923–933 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    23.Zanatta, et al. High genetic diversity and low differentiation in North American Margaritifera margaritifera (Bivalvia: Unionida: Margaritiferidae). Biol. J. Linn. Soc. Lond. 123, 850–863 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    24.Taeubert, J. E., Denic, M., Gum, B., Lange, M. & Geist, J. Suitability of different salmonid strains as hosts for the endangered freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera). Aquat. Conserv. 20, 728–734 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    25.Marwaha, et al. Host (Salmo trutta) age influences resistance to infestation by freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) glochidia. Parasitol. Res. 118, 1519–1532 (2019).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    26.Taeubert, J. E., Gum, B. & Geist, J. Variable development and excystment of freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera L.) at constant temperature. Limnologica 43, 319–322 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    27.Taeubert, J. E. & Geist, J. Critical swimming speed of brown trout (Salmo trutta) infested with freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) glochidia and implications for artificial breeding of an endangered mussel species. Parasitol. Res. 112, 1607–1613 (2013).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    28.Marwaha, J., Jensen, K. H., Jakobsen, P. J. & Geist, J. Duration of the parasitic phase determines subsequent performance in juvenile freshwater pearl mussels (Margaritifera margaritifera). Ecol. Evol. 7, 1375–1383 (2017).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    29.Eybe, T., Thielen, F., Bohn, T. & Sures, B. Influence of the excystment time on the breeding success of juvenile freshwater pearl mussels (Margaritifera margaritifera). Aquat. Conserv. 25, 21–30 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    30.Denic, M., Taeubert, J. E. & Geist, J. Trophic relationships between the larvae of two freshwater mussels and their fish hosts. Invertebr. Biol. 134, 129–135 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    31.Denic, M. et al. Influence of stock origin and environmental conditions on the survival and growth of juvenile freshwater pearl mussels (Margaritifera margaritifera) in a cross-exposure experiment. Limnologica 50, 67–74 (2015).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    32.Hyvärinen, H. S. H., Chowdhury, M. M. R. & Taskinen, J. Pulsed flow-through cultivation of Margaritifera margaritifera: Effects of water source and food quantity on the survival and growth of juveniles. Hydrobiologia. 3219–3229 (2021).33.Hyvärinen, H., Saarinen-Valta, M., Mäenpää, E. & Taskinen, J. Effect of substrate particle size on burrowing of the juvenile freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera. Hydrobiologia https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-021-04522-z (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    34.Taskinen, J. et al. Effect of pH, iron and aluminum on survival of early life history stages of the endangered freshwater pearl mussel, Margaritifera margaritifera. Toxicol. Environ. Chem. 93, 1764–1777 (2011).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    35.Lavictoire, L., Moorkens, E., Ramsay, A. & Sweeting, R. Effects of substrate size and cleaning regime on growth and survival of captive-bred juvenile freshwater pearl mussels, Margaritifera margaritifera (Linnaeus, 1758). Hydrobiologia 766, 89–102 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    36.Eybe, T., Thielen, F., Bohn, T. & Sures, B. The first millimetre: Rearing juvenile freshwater pearl mussels (Margaritifera margaritifera L.) in plastic boxes. Aquat. Conserv. 23, 964–975 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    37.Strayer, D. L., Geist, J., Haag, W. R., Jackson, J. K. & Newbold, J. D. Essay: Making the most of recent advances in freshwater mussel propagation and restoration. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 1, e53. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.53 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    38.Patterson, M. A. et al. Freshwater Mussel Propagation for Restoration (Cambridge University Press, 2018).Book 

    Google Scholar 
    39.Gstöttenmayr, D., Scheder, C. & Gumpinger, C. Conservation de la mulette perlière d’eau douce en Autriche: un système d’élevage contrôlé en progrès. Penn ar Bed 222, 45–49 (2015).
    Google Scholar 
    40.Gumpinger, C., Pichler-Scheder, C. & Huemer, D. Das oberösterreichische Artenschutzprojekt „Vision Flussperlmuschel“. Österreichs Fischerei 69, 259–273 (2016).
    Google Scholar 
    41.Rice, W. R. Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43, 223–225 (1989).PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    42.DeWoody, J. A. et al. Universal method for producing ROXlabeled size standards suitable for automated genotyping. Biotechniques 37, 348–352. https://doi.org/10.2144/04373BM02 (2004).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    43.Goudet, J. Fstat (Version 1.2): A computer program to calculate F-statistics. J. Hered. 86, 485–486 (1995).44.Rousset, F. Genepop’007: A complete reimplementation of the Genepop software for Windows and Linux. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 8, 103–106 (2008).PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    45.Haldane, J. B. S. An exact test for randomness of mating. J. Genet. 52, 631–635. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02981502 (1954).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    46.Weir, B. S. & Cockerham, C. C. Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution 38, 1358–1370 (1984).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    47.Guo, S. W. & Thompson, E. A. Performing the exact test of Hardy-Weinberg proportion for multiple alleles. Biometrics 48, 361–372 (1992).CAS 
    PubMed 
    MATH 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    48.Raymond, M. & Rousset, F. An exact test for population differentiation. Evolution 49, 1280–1283 (1995).PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    49.Kamvar, Z. N., Tabima, J. F. & Grünwald, N. J. Poppr: An R package for genetic analysis of populations with clonal, partially clonal, and/or sexual reproduction. PeerJ 2, e281. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.281 (2014).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    50.Jombart, T. Adegenet: A R package for the multivariate analysis of genetic markers. Bioinformatics 24, 1403–1405 (2008).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    51.Ciofi, C., Beaumont, M. A., Swingland, I. R. & Bruford, M. W. Genetic divergence and units for conservation in the Komodo dragon Varanus komodoensis. Proc. Royal Soc. B 266, 2269–2274 (1999).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    52.Pritchard, J. K., Stephens, M. & Donnelly, P. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155, 945–959 (2000).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    53.Kopelman, N. M., Mayzel, J., Jakobsson, M., Rosenberg, N. A. & Mayrose, I. CLUMPAK: A program for identifying clustering modes and packaging population structure inferences across K. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 15, 1179–1191 (2015).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    54.Evanno, G., Regnaut, S. & Goudet, J. Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software structure: A simulation study. Mol. Ecol. 14, 2611–2620 (2005).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    55.Jakobsson, M. & Rosenberg, N. A. CLUMPP: A cluster matching and permutation program for dealing with label switching and multimodality in analysis of population structure. Bioinformatics 23, 1801–1806 (2007).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    56.Rosenberg, N. A. DISTRUCT: A program for the graphical display of population structure. Mol. Ecol. Notes 4, 137–138 (2004).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    57.Kalinowski, S. T. The computer program STRUCTURE does not reliably identify the main genetic clusters within species: Simulations and implications for human population structure. Heredity 106, 625–632 (2011).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    58.Puechmaille, S. J. The program structure does not reliably recover the correct population structure when sampling is uneven: Subsampling and new estimators alleviate the problem. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 16, 608–627 (2016).PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    59.Jombart, T., Devillard, S. & Balloux, F. Discriminant analysis of principal components: A new method for the analysis of genetically structured populations. BMC Genet. 11, 94 (2010).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    60.R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL: https://www.R-project.org/ (2019).61.Trushenski, J. T., Whelan, G. E. & Bowker, J. D. Why keep hatcheries? Weighing the economic cost and value of fish production for public use and public trust purposes. Fisheries 43, 285–293 (2018).
    Google Scholar 
    62.Wacker, S., Larsen, B. M., Jakobsen, P. & Karlsson, S. High levels of multiple paternity in a spermcast mating freshwater mussel. Ecol. Evol. 8, 8126–8134 (2018).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    63.Wacker, S., Larsen, B. M., Jakobsen, P. & Karlsson, S. Multiple paternity promotes genetic diversity in captive breeding of a freshwater mussel. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 17, e00564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00564 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    64.Garrison, N. L., Johnson, P. D. & Whelan, N. V. Conservation genomics reveals low genetic diversity and multiple parentage in the threatened freshwater mussel, Margaritifera hembeli. Conserv. Genet. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-020-01329-8 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    65.Bauer, G. Reproductive strategy of the freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera. J. Anim. Ecol. 56, 691–704 (1987).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    66.McMurray, S. E. & Roe, K. J. Perspectives on the controlled propagation, augmentation, and reintroduction of freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionoida). Freshw. Mollusk Biol. Conserv. 20, 1–12 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    67.Geist, J. Seven steps towards improving freshwater conservation. Aquat. Conserv. 25, 447–453 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Conservation agriculture increases the soil resilience and cotton yield stability in climate extremes of the southeast US

    1.Livelihoods, To Build Resilient the Impact of Natural Hazards and Disasters on Agriculture. Food Agric. Organ. UN (2015).2.Smith, A., et al. US Billion-Dollar Weather & Climate Disasters 1980-2019. NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information: Asheville, NC, USA 15 (2019).3.Stocker, Thomas F., et al. Climate Change 2013: The physical science basis. contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of IPCC the intergovernmental panel on climate change. (2014).4.Biasutti, M. & Seager, R. Projected changes in US rainfall erosivity. Hydrology Earth Syst. Sci. 19, 2945–2961 (2015).5.Hoomehr, S., Schwartz, J. S. & Yoder, D. C. Potential changes in rainfall erosivity under GCM climate change scenarios for the southern Appalachian region, USA. Catena 136, 141–151 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    6.Janowiak, M. et al. Adaptation resources for agriculture: responding to climate variability and change in the midwest and northeast. USDA (2018).7.Cooke, B. & Jiang, H. Outlook for US agricultural trade. Electronic Outlook Report from the Economic Research Service (2020).8.Alizadeh, M. R. et al. A century of observations reveals increasing likelihood of continental-scale compound dry-hot extremes. Sci. Adv. 6, eaaz4571 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    9.Gipson, J. & Joham, H. Influence of night temperature on growth and development of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). I. Fruiting and Boll Development 1. Agron. J. 60, 292–295 (1968).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    10.Ludwig, M., Wilmes, P. & Schrader, S. Measuring soil sustainability via soil resilience. Sci. Total Environ. 626, 1484–1493 (2018).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    11.Lal, R. Rights-of-Soil. J. Soil Water Conserv. 74, 81A–86A (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    12.Hillel, D. Introduction to Environmental Soil Physics. (Elsevier, 2003).13.Yoder, D. C. et al. Soil health: meaning, measurement, and value through a critical zone lens. J. Soil Water Conserv. 76, 103–108 (2021).14.Li, J. et al. Asymmetric responses of soil heterotrophic respiration to rising and decreasing temperatures. Soil Biol. Biochem. 106, 18–27 (2017).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    15.Nouri, A., Lee, J., Yin, X., Tyler, D. D. & Saxton, A. M. Thirty-four years of no-tillage and cover crops improve soil quality and increase cotton yield in Alfisols, Southeastern USA. Geoderma 337, 998–1008 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    16.Lal, R. Degradation and resilience of soils. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B 352, 997–1010 (1997).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    17.Li, Y., Guan, K., Schnitkey, G. D., DeLucia, E. & Peng, B. Excessive rainfall leads to maize yield loss of a comparable magnitude to extreme drought in the United States. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 2325–2337 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    18.McLaughlin, B. C. et al. Weather underground: Subsurface hydrologic processes mediate tree vulnerability to extreme climatic drought. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 3091–3107 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    19.Van Kessel, C. et al. Climate, duration, and N placement determine N2O emissions in reduced tillage systems: a meta‐analysis. Glob. Change Biol. 19, 33–44 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    20.Döring, T. F. et al. Resilience as a universal criterion of health. J. Sci. Food Agric. 95, 455–465 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    21.Corstanje, R., Deeks, L., Whitmore, A., Gregory, A. & Ritz, K. Probing the basis of soil resilience. Soil Use Manag. 31, 72–81 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    22.Herrick, J. E. & Wander, M. M. Relationships between soil organic carbon and soil quality in cropped and rangeland soils: the importance of distribution, composition, and soil biological activity. in Soil Processes and the Carbon Cycle. 405–425 (CRC Press, 2018).23.Gaudin, A. C. et al. Increasing crop diversity mitigates weather variations and improves yield stability. PloS ONE 10, e0113261 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    24.Biggs, R. et al. Toward principles for enhancing the resilience of ecosystem services. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 37, 421–448 (2012).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    25.Holt-Giménez, E. Measuring farmers’ agroecological resistance after Hurricane Mitch in Nicaragua: a case study in participatory, sustainable land management impact monitoring. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 93, 87–105 (2002).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    26.Slette, I. J. et al. How ecologists define drought, and why we should do better. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 3193–3200 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    27.Tirivarombo, S., Osupile, D. & Eliasson, P. Drought monitoring and analysis: standardised precipitation evapotranspiration index (SPEI) and standardised precipitation index (SPI). Phys. Chem. Earth Parts A/B/C 106, 1–10 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    28.Svoboda, M. et al. The drought monitor. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 83, 1181–1190 (2002).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    29.Gitz, V., Meybeck, A., Lipper, L., Young, C. D. & Braatz, S. Climate change and food security: risks and responses. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Report 110 (2016).30.Walthall, C. L., Anderson, C. J., Baumgard, L. H., Takle, E. & Wright-Morton, L. Climate change and agriculture in the United States: Effects and adaptation. (2013).31.USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service Cropland Data Layer. Published crop-specific data layer. (2019).32.Hake, K. & Grimes, D. in Physiology of cotton 255-264 (Springer, 2010).33.Main, C. L. W288 Cotton Production in Tennessee.  (2012).34.Lal, R. & Shukla, M. K. Principles of soil physics. (CRC Press, 2004).35.Shen, Y., McLaughlin, N., Zhang, X., Xu, M. & Liang, A. Effect of tillage and crop residue on soil temperature following planting for a Black soil in Northeast China. Sci. Rep. 8, 1–9 (2018).
    Google Scholar 
    36.Seneviratne, S. I. et al. Land radiative management as contributor to regional-scale climate adaptation and mitigation. Nat. Geosci. 11, 88–96 (2018).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    37.Nouri, A. et al. Crop species in no-tillage summer crop rotations affect soil quality and yield in an Alfisol. Geoderma 345, 51–62 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    38.Singh, S. et al. Soil organic carbon and aggregation in response to thirty-nine years of tillage management in the southeastern US. Soil Tillage Res. 197, 104523 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    39.Werner, W., Sanderman, J. & Melillo, J. Decreased soil organic matter in a long‐term soil warming experiment lowers soil water holding capacity and affects soil thermal and hydrological buffering. J. Geophys. Res. 125, e2019JG005158 (2020).CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    40.Blanco-Canqui, H., Mikha, M. M., Presley, D. R. & Claassen, M. M. Addition of cover crops enhances no‐till potential for improving soil physical properties. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 75, 1471–1482 (2011).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    41.Jin, V. L. et al. Management controls the net greenhouse gas outcomes of growing bioenergy feedstocks on marginally productive croplands. Sci. Adv. 5, eaav9318 (2019).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    42.Vincent, L., Zhang, X., Mekis, É., Wan, H. & Bush, E. Changes in Canada’s climate: Trends in indices based on daily temperature and precipitation data. Atmos.-Ocean 56, 332–349 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    43.Houghton, J. T. et al. Climate change 2001: the scientific basis.  (The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 2001).44.Liu, Q. et al. Extension of the growing season increases vegetation exposure to frost. Nat. Commun. 9, 1–8 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    45.Mueller, N. D. et al. Cooling of US Midwest summer temperature extremes from cropland intensification. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 317–322 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    46.Lal, R. Restoring soil quality to mitigate soil degradation. Sustainability 7, 5875–5895 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    47.Qin, S. et al. Temperature sensitivity of SOM decomposition governed by aggregate protection and microbial communities. Sci. Adv. 5, eaau1218 (2019).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    48.Blanco-Canqui, H. & Ruis, S. J. No-tillage and soil physical environment. Geoderma 326, 164–200 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    49.Himes, F. Nitrogen, sulfur, and phosphorus and the sequestering of carbon. in Soil processes and the carbon cycle. 315–319 (CRC Press, 2018).50.Li, L. & Schaeffer, S. M. Stabilization mechanisms of isotope-labeled carbon substrates in soil under moisture pulses and conservation agricultural management. Geoderma 380, 114677 (2020).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    51.Nouri, A. et al. Management duration controls the synergistic effect of tillage, cover crop, and nitrogen rate on cotton yield and yield stability. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 301, 107007 (2020).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    52.Adams, J. Climate indices, an open source Python library providing reference implementations of commonly used climate indices. Climate indices in Python. (2017).53.McKee, T.B., Doesken, N.J. & Kleist, J. The Relation of Drought Frequency and Duration to Time Scales. Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Applied Climatology. 179-184 (1993).54.Thornthwaite, C. W. An approach toward a rational classification of climate. Geogr. Rev. 38, 55–94 (1948).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    55.Palmer, W. C. Meteorological Drought. Vol. 30 (US Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau, 1965).56.Wells, N., Goddard, S. & Hayes, M. J. A self-calibrating Palmer drought severity index. J. Clim. 17, 2335–2351 (2004).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    57.Culman, S. W. et al. Permanganate oxidizable carbon reflects a processed soil fraction that is sensitive to management. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 76, 494–504 (2012).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    58.Jones, D. & Willett, V. Experimental evaluation of methods to quantify dissolved organic nitrogen (DON) and dissolved organic carbon (DOC) in soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 38, 991–999 (2006).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    59.Kemper, W. & Rosenau, R. Aggregate stability and size distribution. Methods of soil analysis: Part 1 physical and mineralogical. Methods 5, 425–442 (1986).
    Google Scholar 
    60.Fuchs, B. Using the Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI) and the Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index (SPEI). in NDM Center. Nebraska-Lincoln, Caribbean Drought Workshop. 1–24 (2012).61.Friedman, J. H. Multivariate adaptive regression splines. Ann. Stat. 19, 1–67 (1991).62.Racine, J. S. RStudio: a platform-independent IDE for R and Sweave. (JSTOR, 2012).63.Institute, S. SAS 9.4 Output delivery system: User’s Guide. (SAS Institute, 2014).64.Saxton, A. A macro for converting mean separation output to letter groupings in Proc Mixed. Proc. 23rd SAS Users Group International, 22–25 March 1998, Nashville, 1243–1246 (1998). More

  • in

    The phyllosphere microbiome of host trees contributes more than leaf phytochemicals to variation in the Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire gut microbiome structure

    1.Feldhaar, H. Bacterial symbionts as mediators of ecologically important traits of insect hosts. Ecol. Entomol. 36, 533–543 (2011).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    2.Popa, V., Deziel, E., Lavallee, R., Bauce, E. & Guertin, C. The complex symbiotic relationships of bark beetles with microorganisms: A potential practical approach for biological control in forestry. Pest Manag. Sci. 68, 963–975. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.3307 (2012).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    3.Qadri, M., Short, S., Gast, K., Hernandez, J. & Wong, A.C.-N. Microbiome innovation in agriculture: Development of microbial based tools for insect pest management. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 4, 547751. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    4.Vasanthakumar, A., Handelsman, J., Schloss, P. D., Bauer, L. S. & Raffa, K. F. Gut microbiota of an invasive subcortical beetle, Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire, across various life stages. Environ. Entomol. 37, 1344–1353 (2008).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    5.Zhang, Z., Jiao, S., Li, X. & Li, M. Bacterial and fungal gut communities of Agrilus mali at different developmental stages and fed different diets. Sci. Rep. 8, 15634. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-34127-x (2018).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    6.Franzini, P. Z., Ramond, J.-B., Scholtz, C. H., Sole, C. L., Ronca, S. & Cowan, D. A. The gut microbiomes of two Pachysoma MacLeay desert dung beetle species (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae) feeding on different diets. PLoS ONE 11, e0161118 (2016).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    7.Colman, D. R., Toolson, E. C. & Takacs-Vesbach, C. Do diet and taxonomy influence insect gut bacterial communities?. Mol. Ecol. 21, 5124–5137 (2012).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    8.Kim, J. M. Choi, M.-Y., Kim, J.-W., Lee, S. A., Ahn, J.-H., Song, J., Kim, S.-H. & Weon, H.-Y. Effects of diet type, developmental stage, and gut compartment in the gut bacterial communities of two Cerambycidae species (Coleoptera). J. Microbiol. 55, 21–30 (2017).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    9.Ferguson, L. V.  Dhakal, P., Lebenzon, J. E., Heinrichs, D. E., Bucking, C., & Sinclair B. J. Seasonal shifts in the insect gut microbiome are concurrent with changes in cold tolerance and immunity. Funct. Ecol. 32, 2357–2368 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    10.Mason, C. J., Hanshew, A. S. & Raffa, K. F. Contributions by host trees and insect activity to bacterial communities in Dendroctonus valens (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) galleries, and their high overlap with other microbial assemblages of bark beetles. Environ. Entomol. 45, 348–356. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvv184 (2015).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    11.Mogouong, J., Constant, P., Lavallée, R. & Guertin, C. Gut microbiome of the emerald ash borer, Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire, and its relationship with insect population density. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiaa141 (2020).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    12.Moran, N. A. & Yun, Y. Experimental replacement of an obligate insect symbiont. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112, 2093–2096 (2015).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    13.Borcard, D., Legendre, P. & Drapeau, P. Partialling out the spatial component of ecological variation. Ecology 73, 1045–1055 (1992).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    14.Peres-Neto, P. R., Legendre, P., Dray, S. & Borcard, D. Variation partitioning of species data matrices: Estimation and comparison of fractions. Ecology 87, 2614–2625 (2006).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    15.Cappaert, D., McCullough, D. G., Poland, T. M. & Siegert, N. W. Emerald ash borer in North America: A research and regulatory challenge. (2005).16.Kovacs, K. F., Haight, R. G., McCullough, D. G., Mercader, R. J., Siegert, N. W. & Liebhold, A. M. Cost of potential emerald ash borer damage in U.S. communities, 2009–2019. Ecol. Econ. 69, 569–578 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    17.Aukema, J. E., Leung, B., Kovacs, K., Chivers, C., Britton, K. O., Englin, J., Frankel, S. J., Haight, R. G., Holmes, T. P., Liebhold, A. M., McCullough, D. G. & Von Holle, B. Economic impacts of non-native forest insects in the continental United States. PLoS ONE 6, e24587 (2011).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    18.Poland, T. M. & McCullough, D. G. Emerald ash borer: Invasion of the urban forest and the threat to North America’s ash resource. J. For. 104, 118–124 (2006).
    Google Scholar 
    19.Herms, D. A. & McCullough, D. G. Emerald ash borer invasion of North America: History, biology, ecology, impacts, and management. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 59, 13–30. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-011613-162051 (2014).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    20.McCullough, D. G. Challenges, tactics and integrated management of emerald ash borer in North America. For. Int. J. For. Res. 93, 197–211 (2020).
    Google Scholar 
    21.Gandhi, K. J. & Herms, D. A. North American arthropods at risk due to widespread Fraxinus mortality caused by the alien emerald ash borer. Biol. Invasions 12, 1839–1846 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    22.Slesak, R. A., Lenhart, C. F., Brooks, K. N., D’Amato, A. W. & Palik, B. J. Water table response to harvesting and simulated emerald ash borer mortality in black ash wetlands in Minnesota, USA. Can. J. For. Res. 44, 961–968 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    23.Wielkopolan, B. & Obrepalska-Steplowska, A. Three-way interaction among plants, bacteria, and coleopteran insects. Planta 244, 313–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-016-2543-1 (2016).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    24.Howe, G. A. & Jander, G. Plant immunity to insect herbivores. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 59, 41–66 (2008).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    25.Stam, J. M., Kroes, A., Li, Y., Gols, R., van Loon, J. J. A., Poelman, E. H. & Dicke, M. Plant interactions with multiple insect herbivores: from community to genes. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 65, 689–713 (2014).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    26.Douglas, A. E. Multiorganismal insects: Diversity and function of resident microorganisms. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 60, 17–34 (2015).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    27.Vorholt, J. A. Microbial life in the phyllosphere. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 10, 828 (2012).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    28.Shikano, I., Rosa, C., Tan, C.-W. & Felton, G. W. Tritrophic interactions: Microbe-mediated plant effects on insect herbivores. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 55, 313–331 (2017).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    29.Schowalter, T. D. Insect Ecology: An Ecosystem Approach (Academic Press, 2016).
    Google Scholar 
    30.Oliverio, A. M., Gan, H., Wickings, K. & Fierer, N. A DNA metabarcoding approach to characterize soil arthropod communities. Soil Biol. Biochem. 125, 37–43 (2018).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    31.Lennon, J. T., Muscarella, M. E., Placella, S. A. & Lehmkuhl, B. K. How, when, and where relic DNA affects microbial diversity. MBio 9, e00637-e618. https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00637-18 (2018).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    32.Humphrey, P. T. & Whiteman, N. K. Insect herbivory reshapes a native leaf microbiome. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 221–229 (2020).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    33.Yutthammo, C., Thongthammachat, N., Pinphanichakarn, P. & Luepromchai, E. Diversity and activity of PAH-degrading bacteria in the phyllosphere of ornamental plants. Microb. Ecol. 59, 357–368 (2010).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    34.Kadivar, H. & Stapleton, A. E. Ultraviolet radiation alters maize phyllosphere bacterial diversity. Microb. Ecol. 45, 353–361 (2003).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    35.Thapa, S. & Prasanna, R. Prospecting the characteristics and significance of the phyllosphere microbiome. Ann. Microbiol. 68, 229–245 (2018).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    36.Kembel, S. W., O’Connor, T. K., Arnold, H. K., Hubbell, S. P., Wright, S. J. & Green, J. L. Relationships between phyllosphere bacterial communities and plant functional traits in a neotropical forest. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111, 13715–13720 (2014).37.Biedermann, P. H. & Vega, F. E. Ecology and evolution of insect–fungus mutualisms. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 65, 431–455 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    38.Fischer, R., Ostafe, R. & Twyman, R. M. In: Yellow Biotechnology II: Insect Biotechnology in Plant Protection and Industry. Ch. Cellulases from insects, 51–64 (Springer, 2013).39.Watanabe, H. & Tokuda, G. Cellulolytic systems in insects. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 55, 609–632 (2010).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    40.Mittapalli, O., Bai, X., Mamidala, P., Rajarapu, S. P., Bonello, P. & Herms, D. A. Tissue-specific transcriptomics of the exotic invasive insect pest emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis). PLoS ONE 5, e13708 (2010).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    41.Vacheron, J., Péchy-Tarr, M., Brochet, S., Heiman, C. M., Stojiljkovic, M., Maurhofer, M. & Keel, C. T6SS contributes to gut microbiome invasion and killing of an herbivorous pest insect by plant-beneficial Pseudomonas protegens. ISME J. 13, 1318–1329. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-019-0353-8 (2019).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    42.Smith, C. C., Snowberg, L. K., Caporaso, J. G., Knight, R. & Bolnick, D. I. Dietary input of microbes and host genetic variation shape among-population differences in stickleback gut microbiota. ISME J. 9, 2515–2526 (2015).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    43.Agler, M. T., Ruhe, J., Kroll, S., Morhenn, C., Kim, S.-T., Weigel, D. & Kemen, E. M. Microbial hub taxa link host and abiotic factors to plant microbiome variation. PLoS Biol. 14, e1002352 (2016).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    44.Gupta, A. & Nair, S. Dynamics of insect-microbiome interaction influence host and microbial symbiont. Front. Microbiol. 11, 1357 (2020).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    45.AFSQ. La clé forestière. https://afsq.org/cle-forestiere/accueil.html. Association forestière du Sud du Québec (2018).46.Comeau, A. M., Li, W. K. W., Tremblay, J. -É., Carmack, E. C. & Lovejoy, C. Arctic Ocean Microbial Community Structure before and after the 2007 Record Sea Ice Minimum. PLoS ONE 6, e27492. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0027492 (2011).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    47.Toju, H., Tanabe, A. S., Yamamoto, S. & Sato, H. High-coverage ITS primers for the DNA-based identification of ascomycetes and basidiomycetes in environmental samples. PLoS ONE 7, e40863. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0040863 (2012).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    48.Edgar, R. C. UNOISE2: Improved error-correction for Illumina 16S and ITS amplicon sequencing. BioRxiv 081257 (2016).49.Edgar, R. C. Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics 26, 2460–2461 (2010).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    50.Callahan, B. J., McMurdie, P. J. & Holmes, S. P. Exact sequence variants should replace operational taxonomic units in marker-gene data analysis. ISME J. 11, 2639 (2017).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    51.Glassman, S. I. & Martiny, J. B. H. Broadscale ecological patterns are robust to use of exact sequence variants versus operational taxonomic units. mSphere 3, e00148-e118. https://doi.org/10.1128/mSphere.00148-18 (2018).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    52.Cole, J. R., Wang, Q., Fish, J. A., Chai, B., McGarrell, D. M., Sun, Y.,  Brown, C. T.,  Porras-Alfaro, A., Kuske, C. R. & Tiedje J. M. Ribosomal database project: Data and tools for high throughput rRNA analysis. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, D633-642. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkt1244 (2014).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

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

    Google Scholar 
    54.Chen, Y. & Poland, T. M. Interactive influence of leaf age, light intensity, and girdling on green ash foliar chemistry and emerald ash borer development. J. Chem. Ecol. 35, 806–815. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-009-9661-1 (2009).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    55.Bi, J. L., Toscano, N. C. & Madore, M. A. Effect of urea fertilizer application on soluble protein and free amino acid content of cotton petioles in relation to silverleaf whitefly (Bemisia argentifolii) populations. J. Chem. Ecol. 29, 747–761. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1022880905834 (2003).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    56.Torti, S. D., Dearing, M. D. & Kursar, T. A. Extraction of phenolic compounds from fresh leaves: A comparison of methods. J. Chem. Ecol. 21, 117–125 (1995).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    57.Hagerman, A. E. Extraction of tannin from fresh and preserved leaves. J. Chem. Ecol. 14, 453–461 (1988).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    58.Beauchemin, N. J., Furnholm,T., Lavenus, J., Svistoonoff, S., Doumas, P., Bogusz, D., Laplaze, L. & Tisa L. S. Casuarina root exudates alter the physiology, surface properties, and plant infectivity of Frankia sp. strain CcI3. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 78, 575–580 (2012).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    59.Garg, B. Plant Analysis: Comprehensive Methods and Protocols (Scientific Publishers, 2012).
    Google Scholar 
    60.Wellburn, R. The spectral determination of chlorophylls a and b, as well as total carotenoids, using various solvents with spectrophotometers of different resolution. J. Plant Physiol. 144, 307–313 (1994).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    61.Marquis, R. J., Newell, E. A. & Villegas, A. C. Non-structural carbohydrate accumulation and use in an understorey rain-forest shrub and relevance for the impact of leaf herbivory. Funct. Ecol. 11, 636–643. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2435.1997.00139.x (1997).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    62.Garcia, A. M. N., Moumen, A., Ruiz, D. Y. & Alcaide, E. M. Chemical composition and nutrients availability for goats and sheep of two-stage olive cake and olive leaves. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 107, 61–74 (2003).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    63.Van Soest, P. V., Robertson, J. & Lewis, B. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci. 74, 3583–3597 (1991).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    64.Oksanen, J., Blanchet, F. G., Friendly, M., Kindt, R., Legendre, P., McGlinn, D., Minchin, P. R. & O’Hara, R. B. Package ‘vegan’. R package version 2.5-6 (2019)65.Borcard, D., Gillet, F. & Legendre, P. Numerical Ecology with R (Springer, 2018).MATH 
    Book 

    Google Scholar 
    66.Kembel, S. W., Eisen, J. A., Pollard, K. S. & Green, J. L. The phylogenetic diversity of metagenomes. PLoS ONE 6, e23214 (2011).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    67.Faith, D. P. Conservation evaluation and phylogenetic diversity. Biol. Cons. 61, 1–10 (1992).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    68.Kembel, S. W.,  Cowan, P. D., Helmus, M. R., Cornwell, W. K., Morlon, H., Ackerly, D. D., Blomberg, S. P., & Webb, C. O. Picante: R tools for integrating phylogenies and ecology. Bioinformatics 26, 1463–1464 (2010).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    69.Legendre, P. & De Cáceres, M. Beta diversity as the variance of community data: Dissimilarity coefficients and partitioning. Ecol. Lett. 16, 951–963 (2013).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    70.Dray, S., Bauman, D., Blanchet, G., Borcard, D., Clappe, S., Guenard, G., Jombart, T., Larocque, G., Legendre, P., Madi, N, Wagner H. H. Package ‘adespatial’, version 0.3-14. R Package version 2.5.6 (2018).71.De Cáceres, M., Legendre, P. & Moretti, M. Improving indicator species analysis by combining groups of sites. Oikos 119, 1674–1684 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    72.De Caceres, M., Jansen, F. & Caceres, D. Package ‘indicspecies’, version 1.7.9. R package version 2.5.6 (2016).73.Blanchet, F. G., Legendre, P. & Borcard, D. Forward selection of explanatory variables. Ecology 89, 2623–2632 (2008).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Ghostly conduits

    Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain
    the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in
    Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles
    and JavaScript. More

  • in

    Bird–plant dispersal limits

    Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain
    the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in
    Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles
    and JavaScript. More

  • in

    Large-scale assessment of lepidopteran soybean pests and efficacy of Cry1Ac soybean in Brazil

    1.CONAB—Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento. Acompanhamento da Safra Brasileira de Grãos. V.7 – SAFRA 2019/20 – N. 12 – Décimo segundo levantamento. https://www.conab.gov.br/info-agro/safras (2020).2.Panizzi, A. R. & Corrêa-Ferreira, B. S. Dynamics in the insect fauna adaption to soybeans in the tropics. Trends Entomol. 1, 71–88 (1997).
    Google Scholar 
    3.Cattelan, A. J. & Dall’Agnol, A. The rapid soybean growth in Brazil. Oilseeds Fats Crops Lipids 25, D102 (2018).
    Google Scholar 
    4.Freitas, P. L. & Landers, J. N. The transformation of agriculture in Brazil through development and adoption of Zero Tillage Conservation Agriculture. Int. Soil Wat. Cons. Res. 2, 35–46 (2014).
    Google Scholar 
    5.Brookes, G., Taheripour, F. & Tyner, W. E. The contribution of glyphosate to agriculture and potential impact of restrictions on use at the global level. GM Crops Food 8, 216–228 (2017).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    6.Bueno, R. C. O. F., Bueno, A. F., Moscardi, F., Parra, J. R. P. & Hoffmann-Campo, C. B. Lepidopteran larva consumption of soybean foliage: Basis for developing multiple-species economic thresholds for pest management decisions. Pest Manag. Sci. 67, 170–174 (2011).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    7.Panizzi, A. R. History and contemporary perspectives of the integrated pest management of soybean in Brazil. Neotrop. Entomol. 42, 119–127 (2013).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    8.Bortolotto, A. et al. The use of soybean integrated pest management in Brazil: A review. Embrapa Soja-Artigo em periódico indexado (ALICE) Agron. Sci. Biotechnol. 1, 25–32 (2015).
    Google Scholar 
    9.CIB; AGROCONSULT. Impactos Econômicos e Sócio-ambientais da Tecnologia de Plantas Resistentes a Insetos no Brasil – Análise Histórica, Perspectivas e Desafios Futuros. http://apps.agr.br/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Impactos-do-Milho-Bt-no-Brasil.pdf (2018).10.Brookes, G. The farm level economic and environmental contribution of Intacta soybeans in South America: The first five years. GM Crops Food 9, 140–151 (2018).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    11.Macrae, T. C. et al. Laboratory and field evaluations of transgenic soybean exhibiting high-dose expression of a synthetic Bacillus thuringiensis cry1A gene for control of Lepidoptera. J. Econ. Entomol. 98, 577–587 (2005).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    12.Bernardi, O. et al. Assessment of the high-dose concept and level of control provided by MON 87701× MON 89788 soybean against Anticarsia gemmatalis and Pseudoplusia includens (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Brazil. Pest Manag. Sci. 68, 1083–1091 (2012).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    13.Bernardi, O. et al. High levels of biological activity of Cry1Ac protein expressed on MON 87701× MON 89788 soybean against Heliothis virescens (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Pest Manag. Sci. 70, 588–594 (2014).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    14.Dourado, P. M. et al. High susceptibility to Cry1Ac and low resistance allele frequency reduce the risk of resistance of Helicoverpa armigera to Bt soybean in Brazil. PLoS ONE 11, e0161388 (2016).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    15.Bernardi, O. et al. Low susceptibility of Spodoptera cosmioides, Spodoptera eridania and Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to genetically-modified soybean expressing Cry1Ac protein. Crop Prot. 58, 33–40 (2014).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    16.Edgerton, M. D. et al. Transgenic insect resistance traits increase corn yield and yield stability. Nat. Biotechnol. 30, 493–496 (2012).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    17.Lu, Y., Wu, K., Jiang, Y., Guo, Y. & Desneux, N. Widespread adoption of Bt cotton and insecticide decrease promotes biocontrol services. Nature 487, 362–365 (2012).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    18.Carrière, Y. et al. Long-term regional suppression of pink bollworm by Bacillus thuringiensis cotton. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100, 1519–1523 (2003).ADS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    19.Hutchison, W. D. et al. Areawide suppression of European corn borer with Bt maize reaps savings to non-Bt maize growers. Science 330, 222–225 (2010).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    20.Wu, K. M., Lu, Y. H., Feng, H. Q., Jiang, Y. Y. & Zhao, J. Z. Suppression of cotton bollworm in multiple crops in China in areas with Bt toxin–containing cotton. Science 321, 1676–1678 (2008).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    21.Dively, G. P. et al. Regional pest suppression associated with widespread Bt maize adoption benefits vegetable growers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 115, 3320–3325 (2018).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    22.Lu, Y. et al. Mirid bug outbreaks in multiple crops correlated with wide-scale adoption of Bt cotton in China. Science 328, 1151–1154 (2010).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    23.Zhao, J. H., Ho, P. & Azadi, H. Benefits of Bt cotton counterbalanced by secondary pests? Perceptions of ecological change in China. Environ. Monit. Assess. 173, 985–994 (2011).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    24.Gould, F. Sustainability of transgenic insecticidal cultivars: Integrating pest genetics and ecology. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 43, 701–726 (1998).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    25.Van Rensburg, J. B. J. First report of field resistance by the stem borer, Busseola fusca (Fuller) to Bt-transgenic maize. S. Afr. J. Plant Soil 24, 147–151 (2007).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    26.Storer, N. P. et al. Discovery and characterization of field resistance to Bt maize: Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Puerto Rico. J. Econ. Entomol. 103, 1031–1038 (2010).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    27.Dhurua, S. & Gujar, G. T. Field-evolved resistance to Bt toxin Cry1Ac in the pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae), from India. Pest Manag. Sci. 67, 898–903 (2011).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    28.Gassmann, A. J., Petzold-Maxwell, J. L., Keweshan, R. S. & Dunbar, M. W. Field-evolved resistance to Bt maize by western corn rootworm. PLoS ONE 6, e22629 (2011).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    29.Farias, J. R. et al. Field-evolved resistance to Cry1F maize by Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Brazil. Crop Prot. 64, 150–158 (2014).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    30.Fatoretto, J. C., Michel, A. P., Silva Filho, M. C. & Silva, N. Adaptive potential of fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) limits Bt trait durability in Brazil. J. Integr. Pest Manag. 8, 17 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    31.Silva, C. S. et al. Population expansion and genomic adaptation to agricultural environments of the soybean looper, Chrysodeixis includens. Evol. Appl. 13, 2071–2085 (2020).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    32.Herzog, D. C. Sampling soybean looper on soybean. In Sampling Methods in Soybean Entomology (eds Koogan, M. & Herzog, D. C.) 141–168 (Springer, 1980).Chapter 

    Google Scholar 
    33.Sosa-Gómez, D. R. et al. Manual de Identificação de Insetos e Outros Invertebrados da Cultura da Soja (Embrapa Soja-Documentos (INFOTECA-E), 2014).
    Google Scholar 
    34.Gilligan, T. M. & Passoa, S. C. LepIntercept–An identification resource for intercepted Lepidoptera larvae. (Identification Technology Program (ITP), 2014). http://idtools.org/id/leps/lepintercept/key.html.35.R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020). https://www.R-project.org/.36.Kaster, M. & Farias, J. R. B. Regionalização dos Testes de Valor de Cultivo e Uso e da indicação de Cultivares de Soja-terceira Aproximação (Embrapa Soja-Documentos (INFOTECA-E), 2012).
    Google Scholar 
    37.Sosa-Gómez, D. R., Delpin, K. E., Moscardi, F. & Nozaki, M. D. H. The impact of fungicides on Nomuraea rileyi (Farlow) Samson epizootics and on populations of Anticarsia gemmatalis Hübner (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), on soybean. Neotrop. Entomol. 32, 287–291 (2003).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    38.Specht, A., Paula-Moraes, S. V. & Sosa-Gómez, D. R. Host plants of Chrysodeixis includens (Walker) (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae, Plusiinae). Rev. Bras. Entomol. 59, 343–345 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    39.Andrade, K. et al. Bioecological characteristics of Chrysodeixis includens (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) fed on different hosts. Austral. Entomol. 55, 449–454 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    40.Moonga, M. N. & Davis, J. A. Partial life history of Chrysodeixis includens (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on summer hosts. J. Econ. Entomol. 109, 1713–1719 (2016).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    41.Specht, A. et al. Biotic potential and life tables of Chrysodeixis includens (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), Rachiplusia nu, and Trichoplusia ni on soybean and forage turnip. J. Insect Sci. 19, 8 (2019).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    42.Zulin, D., Ávila, C. J. & Schlick-Souza, E. C. Population fluctuation and vertical distribution of the soybean looper (Chrysodeixis includes) in soybean culture. Am. J. Plant Sci. 9, 1544–1556 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    43.Stacke, R. F. et al. Field-evolved resistance to chitin synthesis inhibitor insecticides by soybean looper, Chrysodeixis includens (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), in Brazil. Chemosphere 259, 127499 (2020).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    44.Stacke, R. F. et al. Inheritance of lambda-cyhalothrin resistance, fitness costs and cross-resistance to other pyrethroids in soybean looper, Chrysodeixis includens (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Crop Prot. 131, 105096 (2020).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    45.Yano, S. A. et al. High susceptibility and low resistance allele frequency of Chrysodeixis includens (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) field populations to Cry1Ac in Brazil. Pest Manag. Sci. 72, 1578–1584 (2016).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    46.Silva, M. T. B. & Moscardi, F. Field efficacy of the nucleopolyhedrovirus of Anticarsia gemmatalis Hübner (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae): Effect of formulations, water pH, volume and time of application, and type of spray nozzle. Neotrop. Entomol. 31, 75–83 (2002).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    47.Herzog, D. C. & Todd, J. W. Sampling velvetbean caterpillar on soybean. In Sampling Methods in Soybean Entomology (eds Koogan, M. & Herzog, D. C.) 107–140 (Springer, 1980).Chapter 

    Google Scholar 
    48.Panizzi, A. R., Oliveira, L. J. & Silva, J. J. Survivorship, larval development and pupal weight of Anticarsia gemmatalis (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) feeding on potential leguminous host plants. Neotrop. Entomol. 33, 563–567 (2004).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    49.Leite, N. A., Alves-Pereira, A., Corrêa, A. S., Zucchi, M. I. & Omoto, C. Demographics and genetic variability of the new world bollworm (Helicoverpa zea) and the old world bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera) in Brazil. PLoS ONE 9, e113286 (2014).ADS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    50.Leite, N. A. et al. Pan-American similarities in genetic structures of Helicoverpa armigera and Helicoverpa zea (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) with implications for hybridization. Environ. Entomol. 46, 1024–1034 (2017).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    51.Sosa-Gómez, D. R. et al. Timeline and geographical distribution of Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae: Heliothinae) in Brazil. Rev. Bras. Entomol. 60, 101–104 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    52.Dourado, P. M. et al. Host plant use of Helicoverpa spp. (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in the Brazilian agricultural landscape. Pest Manag. Sci. 77, 780–794 (2021).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    53.Czepak, C., Albernaz, K. C., Vivan, L. M., Guimarães, H. O. & Carvalhais, T. First reported occurrence of Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Brazil. Pesqui. Agropecu. Trop. 43, 110–113 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    54.Gomes, E. S., Santos, V. & Ávila, C. J. Biology and fertility life table of Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in different hosts. Entomol. Sci. 20, 419–426 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    55.Luttrell, R. G. & Mink, J. S. Damage to cotton fruiting structures by the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. Cotton Sci. 3, 35–44 (1999).
    Google Scholar 
    56.Martinelli, S., Barata, R. M., Zucchi, M. I., DeCastroSilva-Filho, M. & Omoto, C. Molecular variability of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) populations associated to maize and cotton crops in Brazil. J. Econ. Entomol. 99, 519–526 (2006).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    57.Barros, E. M., Torres, J. B., Ruberson, J. R. & Oliveira, M. D. Development of Spodoptera frugiperda on different hosts and damage to reproductive structures in cotton. Ent. Exp. Appl. 137, 237–245 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    58.Silva, D. M. D. et al. Biology and nutrition of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) fed on different food sources. Sci. Agric. 74, 18–31 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    59.Machado, E. P. et al. Cross-crop resistance of Spodoptera frugiperda selected on Bt maize to genetically-modified soybean expressing Cry1Ac and Cry1F proteins in Brazil. Sci. Rep. 10, 1–9 (2020).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    60.Montezano, D. G. et al. Host plants of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in the Americas. Afr. Entomol. 26, 286–300 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    61.Nagoshi, R. N. & Meagher, R. L. Review of fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) genetic complexity and migration. Fla. Entomol. 91, 546–554 (2008).
    Google Scholar 
    62.Westbrook, J. K., Nagoshi, R. N., Meagher, R. L., Fleischer, S. J. & Jairam, S. Modeling seasonal migration of fall armyworm moths. Int. J. Biometeorol. 60, 255–267 (2016).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    63.Garcia, A. G., Ferreira, C. P., Godoy, W. A. & Meagher, R. L. A computational model to predict the population dynamics of Spodoptera frugiperda. J. Pest Sci. 92, 429–441 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    64.Diez-Rodríguez, G. I. & Omoto, C. Herança da resistência de Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) a lambda-cialotrina. Neotrop. Entomol. 30, 311–316 (2001).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    65.Carvalho, R. A., Omoto, C., Field, L. M., Williamson, M. S. & Bass, C. Investigating the molecular mechanisms of organophosphate and pyrethroid resistance in the fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda. PLoS ONE 8, e62268 (2013).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    66.Nascimento, A. R. B. et al. Genetic basis of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) resistance to the chitin synthesis inhibitor lufenuron. Pest Manag. Sci. 72, 810–815 (2016).PubMed 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    67.Okuma, D. M. et al. Inheritance and fitness costs of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) resistance to Spinosad in Brazil. Pest Manag. Sci. 74, 1441–1448 (2018).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    68.Bolzan, A. et al. Selection and characterization of the inheritance of resistance of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to chlorantraniliprole and cross-resistance to other diamide insecticides. Pest Manag. Sci. 75, 2682–2689 (2019).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    69.Lira, E. C. et al. Resistance of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to spinetoram: Inheritance and cross-resistance to spinosad. Pest Manag. Sci. 76, 2674–2680 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    70.Paulillo, L. C. M. et al. Changes in midgut endopeptidase activity of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) are responsible for adaptation to soybean proteinase inhibitors. J. Econ. Entomol. 93, 892–896 (2000).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    71.Silva-Brandão, K. L. et al. Transcript expression plasticity as a response to alternative larval host plants in the speciation process of corn and rice strains of Spodoptera frugiperda. BMC Genom. 18, 1–15 (2017).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    72.Montezano, D. G., Specht, A., Sosa-Gomez, D. R., Roque-Specht, V. F. & Barros, N. M. Immature stages of Spodoptera eridania (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae): Developmental parameters and host plants. J. Insect Sci. 14, 238 (2014).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    73.Santos, K. B., Meneguim, A. M. & Neves, P. M. O. J. Biologia de Spodoptera eridania (Cramer) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) em diferentes hospedeiros. Neotrop. Entomol. 34, 903–910 (2005).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    74.Justiniano, W., Fernandes, M. G. & Viana, C. L. T. P. Diversity, composition and population dynamics of arthropods in the genetically modified soybeans Roundup Ready® RR1 (GT 40-3-2) and Intacta RR2 PRO (MON87701 x MON89788). J. Agric. Sci. 6, 33 (2014).
    Google Scholar 
    75.Specht, A. et al. Owlet moths (Lepidoptera: Noctuoidea) associated with Bt and non-Bt soybean in the Brazilian savanna. Braz. J. Biol. 79, 248–256 (2019).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    76.Specht, A. & Roque-Specht, V. F. Immature stages of Spodoptera cosmioides (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae): Developmental parameters and host plants. Zoologia 33, e20160053 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    77.Habib, M. E. M., Paleari, M. L. & Amaral, M. E. C. Effect of three larval diets on the development of the armyworm, Spodoptera latifascia Walker, 1856 (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Rev. Bras. Zool. 1, 177–182 (1983).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    78.Silva, D. M. et al. Biology of Spodoptera eridania and Spodoptera cosmioides (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on different host plants. Fla. Entomol. 100, 752–760 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    79.Tomquelski, G. V. & Maruyama, L. C. T. Lagarta-da-macã em soja. Rev. Cultiv. 117, 20–22 (2009).
    Google Scholar 
    80.Blanco, C. A. Heliothis virescens and Bt cotton in the United States. GM Crops Food 3, 201–212 (2012).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    81.Barrionuevo, M. J., Murúa, M. G., Goane, L., Meagher, R. & Navarro, F. Life table studies of Rachiplusia nu (Guenée) and Chrysodeixis (= Pseudoplusia) includens (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on artificial diet. Fla. Entomol. 95, 944–951 (2012).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    82.Specht, A. et al. Ocorrência de Rachiplusia nu (Guenée) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) em Fumo (Nicotiana tabacum L.) no Rio Grande do Sul. Neotrop. Entomol. 35, 705–706 (2006).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    83.Trentin, L. B. et al. The complete genome of Rachiplusia nu nucleopolyhedrovirus (RanuNPV) and the identification of a baculoviral CPD-photolyase homolog. Virology 534, 64–71 (2019).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    84.Perini, C. R. et al. Genetic structure of two Plusiinae species suggests recent expansion of Chrysodeixis includens in the American continent. Agric. For. Entomol. 23, 2502–3260 (2020).
    Google Scholar 
    85.Bacalhau, F. B. et al. Performance of genetically modified soybean expressing the Cry1A. 105, Cry2Ab2, and Cry1Ac proteins against key Lepidopteran pests in Brazil. J. Econ. Entomol. 113, 2883–2889 (2020).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    86.Machado, E. P. et al. Survival and development of Spodoptera eridania, Spodoptera cosmioides and Spodoptera albula (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on genetically-modified soybean expressing Cry1Ac and Cry1F proteins. Pest Manag. Sci. 76, 4029–4035 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    87.Horikoshi, R. J. et al. Effective dominance of resistance of Spodoptera frugiperda to Bt maize and cotton varieties: Implications for resistance management. Sci. Rep. 6, 1–8 (2016).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar  More