Ecology

1.Giles-Corti, B. et al. City planning and population health: a global challenge. Lancet 388, 2912–2924 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
2.World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision ST/ESA/SER.A/420 (UN DESA, 2019).3.Okkels, N., Kristiansen, C. B., Munk-Jørgensen, P. & Sartorius, N. Urban mental health. Curr. Opin. Psychiatry 31, 258–264 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Robbins, R. N., Scott, T., Joska, J. A. & Gouse, H. Impact of urbanization on cognitive disorders. Curr. Opin. Psychiatry 32, 210–217 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Sarkar, C., Webster, C. & Gallacher, J. Residential greenness and prevalence of major depressive disorders: a cross-sectional, observational, associational study of 94 879 adult UK Biobank participants. Lancet Planet. Health 2, e162–e173 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Engemann, K. et al. Residential green space in childhood is associated with lower risk of psychiatric disorders from adolescence into adulthood. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA https://doi.org/10.1073/PNAS.1807504116 (2019).7.Dadvand, P. et al. Green spaces and cognitive development in primary schoolchildren. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 7937–7942 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Franco, L. S., Shanahan, D. F. & Fuller, R. A. A review of the benefits of nature experiences: more than meets the eye. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 14, 864 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Cox, D. T. C. et al. Skewed contributions of individual trees to indirect nature experiences. Landsc. Urban Plan. 185, 28–34 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Irvine, K. N. et al. Green space, soundscape and urban sustainability: an interdisciplinary, empirical study. Local Environ. 14, 155–172 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Weber, S. T. & Heuberger, E. The impact of natural odors on affective states in humans. Chem. Senses 33, 441–447 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Li, Q. Effect of forest bathing trips on human immune function. Environ. Health Prev. Med. 15, 9–17 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Rook, G. A., Raison, C. L. & Lowry, C. A. Can we vaccinate against depression? Drug Discov. Today 17, 451–458 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Markevych, I. et al. Access to urban green spaces and behavioural problems in children: results from the GINIplus and LISAplus studies. Environ. Int. 71, 29–35 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Taylor, M. S., Wheeler, B. W., White, M. P., Economou, T. & Osborne, N. J. Research note: urban street tree density and antidepressant prescription rates—a cross-sectional study in London, UK. Landsc. Urban Plan. 136, 174–179 (2015).16.Akpinar, A., Barbosa-Leiker, C. & Brooks, K. R. Does green space matter? Exploring relationships between green space type and health indicators. Urban For. Urban Green. 20, 407–418 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Cox, D. T. C., Shanahan, D. F., Hudson, H. L., Fuller, R. A. & Gaston, K. J. The impact of urbanisation on nature dose and the implications for human health. Landsc. Urban Plan. 179, 72–80 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Amoly, E. et al. Green and blue spaces and behavioral development in Barcelona schoolchildren: the BREATHE Project. Environ. Health Perspect. 122, 1351–1358 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Astell-Burt, T. & Feng, X. Association of urban green space with mental health and general health among adults in Australia. JAMA Netw. Open 2, e198209 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Barton, J. & Pretty, J. What is the best dose of nature and green exercise for improving mental health? A multi-study analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 3947–3955 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Gascon, M. et al. Mental health benefits of long-term exposure to residential green and blue spaces: a systematic review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 12, 4354–4379 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.The Mental Health of Children and Young People in London (PHE, 2016).23.Bijnens, E. M., Derom, C., Thiery, E., Weyers, S. & Nawrot, T. S. Residential green space and child intelligence and behavior across urban, suburban, and rural areas in Belgium: a longitudinal birth cohort study of twins. PLoS Med. 17, e1003213 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Milligan, C. & Bingley, A. Restorative places or scary spaces? The impact of woodland on the mental well-being of young adults. Health Place 13, 799–811 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Toledano, M. B. et al. Cohort profile: the study of cognition, adolescents and mobile phones (SCAMP). Int. J. Epidemiol. 48, 25–26l (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Afifi, M. Gender differences in mental health. Singapore Med. J. 48, 385–391 (2007).CAS 

Google Scholar 
27.Guhn, M., Emerson, S. D., Mahdaviani, D. & Gadermann, A. M. Associations of birth factors and socio-economic status with indicators of early emotional development and mental health in childhood: a population-based linkage study. Child Psychiatry Hum. Dev. 51, 80–93 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Morita, E. et al. Psychological effects of forest environments on healthy adults: shinrin-yoku (forest-air bathing, walking) as a possible method of stress reduction. Public Health 121, 54–63 (2007).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Thompson, C. W. et al. Health impacts of environmental and social interventions designed to increase deprived communities’ access to urban woodlands: a mixed-methods study. Public Health Res. 27, 1–172 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Hedblom, M., Heyman, E., Antonsson, H. & Gunnarsson, B. Bird song diversity influences young people’s appreciation of urban landscapes. Urban For. Urban Green. 13, 469–474 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Liao, J. et al. Residential exposure to green space and early childhood neurodevelopment. Environ. Int. 128, 70–76 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Picavet, H. S. J. et al. Greener living environment healthier people? Exploring green space, physical activity and health in the Doetinchem Cohort Study. Prev. Med. 89, 7–14 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Francis, J., Wood, L. J., Knuiman, M. & Giles-Corti, B. Quality or quantity? Exploring the relationship between public open space attributes and mental health in Perth, Western Australia. Soc. Sci. Med. 74, 1570–1577 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Nutsford, D., Pearson, A. L., Kingham, S. & Reitsma, F. Residential exposure to visible blue space (but not green space) associated with lower psychological distress in a capital city. Health Place 39, 70–78 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Little, S. & Derr, V. in Research Handbook on Childhoodnature (eds Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles, A. et al.) 151–178 (Springer, 2020).36.Bell, S. L., Phoenix, C., Lovell, R. & Wheeler, B. W. Seeking everyday wellbeing: the coast as a therapeutic landscape. Soc. Sci. Med. 142, 56–67 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Bratman, G. N. et al. Nature and mental health: an ecosystem service perspective. Sci. Adv. 5, 903–927 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Hartig, T., Mitchell, R., de Vries, S. & Frumkin, H. Nature and health. Annu. Rev. Public Health 35, 207–228 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Tarling, R. & Roger, R. D. Socio-economic determinants of crime rates: modelling local area police-recorded crime. Howard J. Crime Justice 55, 207–225 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Rose, D., Pevalin, D. J. & O’Reilly, K. The National Statistics Socio-economic Classification: Origins, Development and Use (Palgrave MacMillan, 2005).41.Carstairs, V. & Morris, R. Deprivation and health in Scotland. Health Bull. 48, 162–175 (1990).CAS 

Google Scholar 
42.2011 Census Aggregate Data (Office of National Statistics, 2012); https://www.ons.gov.uk/census/2011census43.Luciana, M. & Nelson, C. A. Assessment of neuropsychological function through use of the Cambridge Neuropsychological Testing Automated Battery: performance in 4- to 12-year-old children. Dev. Neuropsychol. 22, 595–624 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Tombaugh, T. N. Trail Making Test A and B: Normative data stratified by age and education. Arch. Clin. Neuropsychol. 19, 203–214 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Wechsler, D. The Measurement of Adult Intelligence (Williams & Wilkins, 1944).46.Burgess, P. W. in Methodology of Frontal and Executive Function (ed. Rabbitt, P.) 79–113 (Taylor and Francis, 2004).47.Goodman, R., Meltzer, H. & Bailey, V. The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: a pilot study on the validity of the self-report version. Int. Rev. Psychiatry 15, 173–177 (2003).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Cronbach, L. J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16, 297–334 (1951).Article 

Google Scholar 
49.The KIDSCREEN Group Europe The Kidscreen Questionnaires: Quality of Life Questionnaires for Children and Adolescents (Pabst Science, 2006).50.Berman, A. H., Liu, B., Ullman, S., Jadbäck, I. & Engström, K. Children’s quality of life based on the KIDSCREEN-27: child self-report, parent ratings and child–parent agreement in a Swedish random population sample. PLoS ONE 11, e0150545 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
51.Sentinel-2 User Handbook (ESA, 2015).52.Gascon, M. et al. Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) as a marker of surrounding greenness in epidemiological studies: the case of Barcelona city. Urban For. Urban Green. 19, 88–94 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Gorelick, N. et al. Google Earth Engine: planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. Remote Sens. Environ. 202, 18–27 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Open Map—Local (Ordnance Survey, 2019); http://os.uk55.Miura, N. & Jones, S. D. Characterizing forest ecological structure using pulse types and heights of airborne laser scanning. Remote Sens. Environ. 114, 1069–1076 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Dadvand, P. et al. The association between greenness and traffic-related air pollution at schools. Sci. Total Environ. 523, 59–63 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Sunyer, J. et al. Association between traffic-related air pollution in schools and cognitive development in primary school children: a prospective cohort study. PLoS Med. 12, e1001792 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
58.Roberts, S. et al. Exploration of NO2 and PM2.5 air pollution and mental health problems using high-resolution data in London-based children from a UK longitudinal cohort study. Psychiatry Res. 272, 8–17 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Tzivian, L. et al. Effect of long-term outdoor air pollution and noise on cognitive and psychological functions in adults. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 218, 1–11 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Rue, H., Martino, S. & Chopin, N. Approximate Bayesian inference for latent Gaussian models by using integrated nested Laplace approximations. J. R. Stat. Soc. B 71, 319–392 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.2012 Recreational Water Quality Criteria. (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2012).2.Lee, C. M. et al. Persistence of fecal indicator bacteria in Santa Monica Bay beach sediments. Water Res. 40, 2593–2602 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Luo, C. et al. Genome sequencing of environmental Escherichia coli expands understanding of the ecology and speciation of the model bacterial species. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108, 7200–7205 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Ishii, S., Ksoll, W. B., Hicks, R. E. & Sadowsky, M. J. Presence and growth of naturalized Escherichia coli in temperate soils from lake superior watersheds. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 72, 612–621 (2006).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Rochelle-Newall, E., Nguyen, T. M. H., Le, T. P. Q., Sengtaheuanghoung, O. & Ribolzi, O. A short review of fecal indicator bacteria in tropical aquatic ecosystems: Knowledge gaps and future directions. Front. Microbiol. 6, 1–15 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Tymensen, L. D. et al. Comparative accessory gene fingerprinting of surface water Escherichia coli reveals genetically diverse naturalized population. J. Appl. Microbiol. 119, 263–277 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Ishii, S. & Sadowsky, M. J. Escherichia coli in the environment: Implications for water quality and human health. Microbes and environments / JSME 23, 101–108 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Surbeck, C. Q., Jiang, S. C. & Grant, S. B. Ecological control of fecal indicator bacteria in an urban stream. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 631–637 (2010).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Jang, J. et al. Environmental Escherichia coli: Ecology and public health implications—A review. J. Appl. Microbiol. 123(3), 570–581. https://doi.org/10.1111/jam.13468 (2017).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
10.Van Elsas, J. D., Semenov, A. V., Costa, R. & Trevors, J. T. Survival of Escherichia coli in the environment: Fundamental and public health aspects. ISME J. 5, 173–183 (2010).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Jaureguy, F. et al. Phylogenetic and genomic diversity of human bacteremic Escherichia coli strains. BMC Genomics 9, 560 (2008).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
12.Clermont, O. et al. Characterization and rapid identification of phylogroup G in Escherichia coli, a lineage with high virulence and antibiotic resistance potential. Environ. Microbiol. 21, 3107–3117 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Clermont, O., Christenson, J. K., Denamur, E. & Gordon, D. M. The Clermont Escherichia coli phylo-typing method revisited: Improvement of specificity and detection of new phylo-groups. Environ. Microbiol. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-2229.12019 (2012).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
14.Ratajczak, M. et al. Influence of hydrological conditions on the Escherichia coli population structure in the water of a creek on a rural watershed. BMC Microbiol. 10, 1–10 (2010).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
15.Johnson, J. R. et al. Phylogenetic backgrounds and virulence associated traits of Escherichia coli isolates from surface waters and diverse animals in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 83, 1–33 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
16.Petit, F. et al. Change in the structure of Escherichia coli population and the pattern of virulence genes along a rural aquatic continuum. Front. Microbiol. 8, 1–14 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Kraft, N. J. B. et al. Community assembly, coexistence and the environmental filtering metaphor. Funct. Ecol. 29, 592–599 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Berthe, T., Ratajczak, M., Clermont, O., Denamur, E. & Petit, F. Evidence for coexistence of distinct Escherichia coli populations in various aquatic environments and their survival in estuary water. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 79, 4684–4693 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Méric, G., Kemsley, E. K., Falush, D., Saggers, E. J. & Lucchini, S. Phylogenetic distribution of traits associated with plant colonization in Escherichia coli. Environ. Microbiol. 15, 487–501 (2013).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
20.Walk, S. T. The “Cryptic” Escherichia. EcoSal Plus 6, 2 (2015).21.Ingle, D. J. et al. Biofilm formation by and thermal niche and virulence characteristics of Escherichia spp. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 77, 2695–2700 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Elmqvist, T. The Urban Planet: Knowledge Towards Sustainable Cities (Cambridge University Press, 2018).Book 

Google Scholar 
23.Hosen, J. D., Febria, C. M., Crump, B. C. & Palmer, M. A. Watershed urbanization linked to differences in stream bacterial community composition. Front. Microbiol. 8, 1–17 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Wang, S.-Y., Sudduth, E. B., Wallenstein, M. D., Wright, J. P. & Bernhardt, E. S. Watershed urbanization alters the composition and function of stream bacterial communities. PLoS ONE 6, e22972 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Bernhardt, E. S., Band, L. E., Walsh, C. J. & Berke, P. E. Understanding, managing, and minimizing urban impacts on surface water nitrogen loading. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1134, 61–96 (2008).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
26.Hosen, J. D., McDonough, O. T., Febria, C. M. & Palmer, M. A. Dissolved organic matter quality and bioavailability changes across an urbanization gradient in headwater streams. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 7817–7824 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
27.Hatt, B. E., Fletcher, T. D., Walsh, C. J. & Taylor, S. L. The influence of urban density and drainage infrastructure on the concentrations and loads of pollutants in small streams. Environ. Manage. 34, 112–124 (2004).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
28.Smith, R. M., Kaushal, S. S., Beaulieu, J. J., Pennino, M. J. & Welty, C. Influence of infrastructure on water quality and greenhouse gas dynamics in urban streams. Biogeosciences 14, 2831–2849 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Handler, N. B., Paytan, A., Higgins, C. P., Luthy, R. G. & Boehm, A. B. Human development is linked to multiple water body impairments along the California coast. Estuar. Coasts 29, 860–870 (2006).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Ishii, S. et al. Factors controlling long-term survival and growth of naturalized Escherichia coli populations in temperate field soils. Microbes Environ. 25, 8–14 (2010).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
31.Whitman, R. L. et al. Microbes in beach sands: Integrating environment, ecology and public health. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 13, 329–368 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Kleinheinz, G. et al. Effect of aquatic macrophytes on the survival of Escherichia coli in a laboratory microcosm. Lake Reserv. Manage. 25, 149–154 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Moreira, S. et al. Persistence of Escherichia coli in freshwater periphyton: Biofilm-forming capacity as a selective advantage. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 79, 608–618 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Pachepsky, Y. A. & Shelton, D. R. Escherichia coli and fecal coliforms in freshwater and estuarine sediments. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41, 1067–1110 (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Walsh, C. J. & Kunapo, J. The importance of upland flow paths in determining urban effects on stream ecosystems. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 28, 977–990 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.McLellan, S. L., Fisher, J. C. & Newton, R. J. The microbiome of urban waters. Int. Microbiol. 18, 141–149 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
37.Newton, R. J. et al. Sewage reflects the microbiomes of human populations. MBio 6, 1–9 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Richards, S., Paterson, E., Withers, P. J. A. & Stutter, M. Septic tank discharges as multi-pollutant hotspots in catchments. Sci. Total Environ. 542, 854–863 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
39.Sowah, R. A., Habteselassie, M. Y., Radcliffe, D. E., Bauske, E. & Risse, M. Isolating the impact of septic systems on fecal pollution in streams of suburban watersheds in Georgia, United States. Water Res. 108, 330–338 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Ly, D. K. & Chui, T. F. M. Modeling sewage leakage to surrounding groundwater and stormwater drains. Water Sci. Technol. 66, 2659–2665 (2012).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Graziano, M., Giorgi, A. & Feijoó, C. Science of the Total Environment Multiple stressors and social-ecological traps in Pampean streams (Argentina): A conceptual model. Sci. Total Environ. 765, 142785 (2020).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
42.Graziano, M. et al. Fostering urban transformations in Latin America: Lessons around the ecological management of an urban stream in coproduction with a social movement (Buenos Aires, Argentina). Ecol. Soc. 24, 13 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Cirelli, A. F. & Ojeda, C. Wastewater management in Greater Buenos Aires, Argentina. Desalination 218, 52–61 (2008).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Elordi, M. L., Lerner, J. E. C. & Porta, A. Evaluación del impacto antrópico sobre la calidad del agua del arroyo Las Piedras, Quilmes, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Acta Bioquimica Clinica Latinoamericana 50, 669–677 (2016).
Google Scholar 
45.Censo nacional de población, hogares y viviendas 2010 : censo del Bicentenario : resultados definitivos, Serie B nº 2. (Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos, 2012).46.Gordon, N. D., McMahon, T. A., Finlayson, B. L., Gippel, C. J. & Nathan, R. J. Stream Hydrology: An Introduction for Ecologists (Wiley, 2004).
Google Scholar 
47.Elosegui, A., Sabater, S. (eds.). Conceptos y técnicas en ecología fluvial. 243-251. (Fundación BBVa, 2009)48.Baird, R. B., Eaton, A. D., Rice, E. W., & Bridgewater, L. (eds.)Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 23. (American Public Health Association, 2017).
49.Clermont, O., Bonacorsi, S., Bingen, E. & Bonacorsi, P. Rapid and simple determination of the Escherichia coli phylogenetic group. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 66, 4555–4558 (2000).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Clermont, O., Gordon, D. M., Brisse, S., Walk, S. T. & Denamur, E. Characterization of the cryptic Escherichia lineages: Rapid identification and prevalence. Environ. Microbiol. 13, 2468–2477 (2011).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
51.Lescat, M. et al. Commensal Escherichia coli strains in Guiana reveal a high genetic diversity with host-dependant population structure. Environ. Microbiol. Rep. 5, 9–57 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
52.Clermont, O. et al. Evidence for a human-specific Escherichia coli clone. Environ. Microbiol. 10, 1000–1006 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
53.Congedo, L. Semi-automatic classification plugin for QGIS. Sapienza Univ, 1-25 (2013).54.Blanchet, F. G., Legendre, P. & Borcard, D. Forward selection of explanatory variables. Ecology 89, 2623–2632 (2008).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Borcard, D., Gillet, F. & Lengendre, P. Numerical Ecology with R (Springer, 2018).MATH 
Book 

Google Scholar 
56.Legendre, P., Borcard, D. & Roberts, D. W. Variation partitioning involving orthogonal spatial eigenfunction submodels. Ecology 93, 1234–1240 (2012).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Bivand, R. S. & Wong, D. W. S. Comparing implementations of global and local indicators of spatial association. TEST 27, 716–748 (2018).MathSciNet 
MATH 
Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Magurran, A. E. Measuring Biological Diversity (Wiley, Hoboken, 2004).
Google Scholar 
59.Oksanen, J. et al. Vegan: Ecological Diversity. R Project, 368. http://cran.r-project.org (2013)
60.Wilkinson, L. & Friendly, M. History corner the history of the cluster heat map. Am. Stat. 63, 179–184 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Wei, T. et al. Visualization of a correlation matrix. Statistician 56, 316–324 (2017).
Google Scholar 
62.Robinaugh, D. J., Millner, A. J. & McNally, R. J. Identifying highly influential nodes in the complicated grief network. J. Abnormal Psychol. 125(6), 747 (2016).Article 

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

Google Scholar 
64.Legendre, P. & Gallagher, E. D. Ecologically meaningful transformations for ordination of species data. Oecologia 129, 271–280 (2001).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
65.Lepš, J. & Šmilauer, P. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data Using CANOCO (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003).MATH 
Book 

Google Scholar 
66.Simpson, G. Restricted permutations; using the permute package. http://cran.r-project.org (2012).67.Booth, D. B., Roy, A. H., Smith, B. & Capps, K. A. Global perspectives on the urban stream syndrome. Freshw. Sci. 35, 412–420 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Peipoch, M., Brauns, M., Hauer, F. R., Weitere, M. & Valett, H. M. Ecological simplification: Human influences on Riverscape complexity. Bioscience 65, 1057–1065 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Stoppe, N. D. C. et al. Worldwide phylogenetic group patterns of Escherichia coli from commensal human and wastewater treatment plant isolates. Front. Microbiol. 8, 2512 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Escobar-Páramo, P. et al. Large-scale population structure of human commensal Escherichia coli isolates. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 70, 5698–5700 (2004).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
71.Walk, S. T., Alm, E. W., Calhoun, L. M., Mladonicky, J. M. & Whittam, T. S. Genetic diversity and population structure of Escherichia coli isolated from freshwater beaches. Environ. Microbiol. 9, 2274–2288 (2007).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Touchon, M. et al. Phylogenetic background and habitat drive the genetic diversification of Escherichia coli. PLoS Genet. 16, e1008866 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

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

Jennifer Grenz is currently a sessional lecturer at the University of British Columbia and owns a land healing company, Greener This Side. Her recently completed PhD dissertation explores the science of invasive species management and restoration through the lens of an ‘Indigenous ecology’, which she defines as “relationally guided healing of our lands, waters, and relations through intentional shaping of ecosystems by humans to bring a desired balance that meets the fluid needs of communities while respecting and honouring our mutual dependence through reciprocity.” Here we ask about her research and experiences as an Indigenous woman in ecology. More

Freshwater fish are important contributors to human livelihoods, food and nutrition, recreation, ecosystem services, and biological diversity. Yet, they inhabit some of the most threatened ecosystems globally1, face higher declines relative to marine and terrestrial species2, and are disproportionally understudied3,4. Inland fisheries are subjected to a suite of anthropogenic stressors across aquatic-terrestrial landscapes5, including flow alterations, dams, invasive species, sedimentation, drought, and pollution6,7,8. Evaluating stressors and their impacts on global inland fisheries is essential for effective management, monitoring, and conservation6, but unlike marine fisheries, there is no standardized method to assess inland fisheries9.Data inputs for a fisheries threat assessment typically include baseline information, such as species-specific landings or in situ population data (volume and composition), size (population and landings), and biomass. In addition, multi-stressor interactions (e.g., synergistic, additive) across complex habitats often warrant cross-ecosystem and cross-sector evaluations at multiple scales10,11. However, in the case of inland fisheries, these data inputs are severely deficient and often disparate in many regions12,13, which challenges the development of a global assessment. Thus, evaluating stressors and their impacts on inland fisheries necessitates the use of additional data sources (e.g., expert knowledge) beyond those typically derived directly from fish or fish habitats12,14. Local and subject-matter expertise can provide contextualized insights where spatial data are limited or unattainable (e.g., emerging threats15) and where empirical evidence is incomplete (e.g., multi-stressor interactions).Expert elicitation (i.e., expert opinion synthesis, where opinion is the preliminary state of knowledge of an individual) is increasingly used to inform ecological evaluations and guide water infrastructure, development, food security, and conservation decision-making and assessments, especially in data-poor scenarios14,16. While spatial data can be integrated as a suite of individual stressors (i.e., input variables) within ranking systems for the development of vulnerability or habitat assessments for conservation purposes14,17, the utilization of spatial variables is limited by the method for determining relative impacts (i.e., value judgment)18. Cumulate impact scores and systematic weighted ranking of threats are often based on geographically biased, small sized, or non-representative subsets of experts’ opinions (e.g., global weight determination from eight experts5). Thus, data collection for this study was motivated by the development of a global assessment of threats to major inland fisheries, and the overarching need for tractable freshwater indicators. The data generated contribute essential relative influence scores for the assessment and provide a timely snapshot of inland fisheries as perceived by fisheries professionals. Threat composition and influence have broader potential applications to inform vulnerability and adaptation components of freshwater conservation and management targets (e.g., United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals, UN International Decade “Water for Sustainable Development,” Convention on Biological Diversity, Ramsar Convention on Wetlands).This paper introduces a dataset that can help address a knowledge gap in understanding natural and human influences on inland fisheries with local, contextualized fishery evaluations. Derived from an electronic survey, data comprise perceptions from fisheries professionals (n = 536) on the relative influence and spatial associations of fishery threats, recent successes, and adaptive capacity measures within the respondent’s fishery of expertise.In the context of the survey, we use the term “threat” as a proximate human activity or process (“direct threat”) causing degradation or impairment (“stress”; e.g., reduced population size, fragmented riparian habitat) to ecological targets (e.g., species, communities, ecosystems; in this case, fishery)19. We considered only the threats most proximate and direct to the target (fishery) and excluded stresses (i.e., symptoms, degraded key attributes) and contributing factors (i.e., root causes, underlying factors). For example, we considered pollutants (direct threat) rather than the pollution source (contributing factor) or the resulting contaminated water (stress, effect). We addressed the ambiguity of the term ‘fishery’20 by allowing respondents to indicate a geographic location (specific point) within their fishery area. This allows for spatial attribution with an inclusive use of ‘fishery’ as it pertains to threats (e.g., threats to a fish population of fishery-targeted species, catch characteristics, or the habitat in which the fishery operates).We structured survey questions about the occurrence and relative influence of threats to the production and health of inland fisheries using 29 specified individual threats derived from well-studied pressures to inland fisheries in addition to pressures emerging as threats to fisheries (e.g., climate change, plastics15). We categorized individual threats into five well-established categories: habitat degradation, pollution, overexploitation, species invasion, and climate change1,7 for organizational context in the survey. We also designed survey questions specifically to understand the social adaptive capacity of fishers using five major community-level domains: fisher access to assets (e.g., financial, technological, service), fisher and institutional flexibility to adapt to changing conditions (e.g., livelihood alternatives, adaptive management), social capital and organization to enable cooperation and collective action (e.g., co-management), learning and problem-solving for responding to threats, and fishers’ sense of agency to influence and shape actions and outcomes21.This dataset can be useful as an overview assessment, on which future assessments may expand for specific temporal or spatial interests. Some data in this dataset (e.g., microplastics, invasive species disturbances) are otherwise unattainable at relevant scales from geospatial information and therefore provide novel information. Potential uses include demographic influences on threat perceptions, spatial distribution of adaptive capacity measures paired with climate change or other threats, external factors driving multi-stressor interactions, and paired geospatial and expert-derived threat analysis. These data can provide insights on fisheries as a coupled human-natural system and inform regional and global freshwater assessments. More

1.Keenan, R. J. et al. Forest ecology and management dynamics of global forest area: Results from the FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015. For. Ecol. Manag. 352, 9–20 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Siitonen, J. Forest management, coarse woody debris and saproxylic organisms: Fennoscandian boreal forests as an example. Ecol. Bull. 49, 11–41 (2001).
Google Scholar 
3.Stokland, J. N., Siitonen, J. & Jonsson, B. G. Biodiversity in Dead Wood (Cambridge University Press, 2012).Book 

Google Scholar 
4.Nordén, J., Penttilä, R., Siitonen, J., Tomppo, E. & Ovaskainen, O. Specialist species of wood-inhabiting fungi struggle while generalists thrive in fragmented boreal forests. J. Ecol. 101, 701–712 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Tikkanen, O.-P., Martikainen, P., Hyvärinen, E., Junninen, K. & Kouki, J. Red-listed boreal forest species of Finland: Associations with forst structure, tree species, and decaying wood. Ann. Zool. Fennici 43, 373–383 (2006).
Google Scholar 
6.Sippola, A.-L., Lehesvirta, T. & Renvall, P. Effect of selective logging on coarse woody debris and diversity of wood-decaying polypores in eastern Finland. Ecol. Bull. 49, 243–254 (2001).
Google Scholar 
7.Axelsson, A. L., Östlund, L. & Hellberg, E. Changes in mixed deciduous forests of boreal Sweden 1866–1999 based on interpretation of historical records. Landsc. Ecol. 17, 403–418 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Eriksson, S., Skånes, H., Hammer, M. & Lönn, M. Current distribution of older and deciduous forests as legacies from historical use patterns in a Swedish boreal landscape (1725–2007). For. Ecol. Manag. 260, 1095–1103 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Wallenius, T. H., Lilja, S. & Kuuluvainen, T. Fire history and tree species composition in managed Picea abies stands in southern Finland: Implications for restoration. For. Ecol. Manag. 250, 89–95 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Stokland, J. N. Host-tree associattions. In Biodiversity in Dead Wood (eds Stokland, J. N. et al.) 82–109 (Cambridge University Press, 2012).Chapter 

Google Scholar 
11.Kouki, J., Arnold, K. & Martikainen, P. Long-term persistence of aspen – A key host for many threatened species—Is endangered in old-growth conservation areas in Finland. J. Nat. Conserv. 12, 41–52 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Komonen, A., Tuominen, L., Purhonen, J. & Halme, P. Landscape structure influences browsing on a keystone tree species in conservation areas. For. Ecol. Manag. 457, 117724 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Purhonen, J. et al. Morphological traits predict host-tree specialization in wood-inhabiting fungal communities. Fungal Ecol. 46, 100863 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Dowding, P. Nutrient uptake and allocation during substrate exploitation by fungi. In The Fungal Community. Its Organization and Role in the Ecosystems (eds Wicklow, D. T. & Carroll, G. C.) 612–636 (Marcel Dekker Inc, 1981).
Google Scholar 
15.Boddy, L., Frankland, J. & van West, P. Ecology of Saprotrophic Basidiomycetes (Elsevier Ltd, 2008).
Google Scholar 
16.Kahl, T. et al. Wood decay rates of 13 temperate tree species in relation to wood properties, enzyme activities and organismic diversities. For. Ecol. Manag. 391, 86–95 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Abrego, N. & Salcedo, I. Variety of woody debris as the factor influencing wood-inhabiting fungal richness and assemblages: Is it a question of quantity or quality?. For. Ecol. Manag. 291, 377–385 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Lindblad, I. Wood-inhabiting fungi on fallen logs of Norway spruce: Relations to forest management and substrate quality. Nord. J. Bot. 18, 243–255 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Tomao, A., Antonio Bonet, J., Castaño, C. & de-Miguel, S. How does forest management affect fungal diversity and community composition? Current knowledge and future perspectives for the conservation of forest fungi. For. Ecol. Manag. 457, 1176 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Bader, P., Jansson, S. & Jonsson, B. G. Wood-inhabiting fungi and substratum decline in selectively logged boreal spruce forests. Biol. Conserv. 72, 355–362 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Heilmann-Clausen, J. & Christensen, M. Does size matter?. For. Ecol. Manag. 201, 105–117 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Nordén, B., Götmark, F., Tönnberg, M. & Ryberg, M. Dead wood in semi-natural temperate broadleaved woodland: Contribution of coarse and fine dead wood, attached dead wood and stumps. For. Ecol. Manag. 194, 235–248 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Ottosson, E. et al. Diverse ecological roles within fungal communities in decomposing logs of Picea abies. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 91, 1–13 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
24.Juutilainen, K., Mönkkönen, M., Kotiranta, H. & Halme, P. The effects of forest management on wood-inhabiting fungi occupying dead wood of different diameter fractions. For. Ecol. Manag. 313, 283–291 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Jönsson, M., Ruete, A., Kellner, O., Gunnarsson, U. & Snäll, T. Will forest conservation areas protect functionally important diversity of fungi and lichens over time?. Biodivers. Conserv. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-015-1035-0 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Abrego, N., Norberg, A. & Ovaskainen, O. Measuring and predicting the influence of traits on the assembly processes of wood-inhabiting fungi. J. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12722 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Bässler, C. et al. Functional response of lignicolous fungal guilds to bark beetle deforestation. Ecol. Indic. 65, 149–160 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Bässler, C., Heilmann-Clausen, J., Karasch, P., Brandl, R. & Halbwachs, H. Ectomycorrhizal fungi have larger fruit bodies than saprotrophic fungi. Fungal Ecol. 17, 205–212 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Sherwood, M. A. Convergent evolution in discomycetes from bark and wood. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 82, 15–34 (1981).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Unterseher, M., Otto, P. & Morawetz, W. Species richness and substrate specificity of lignicolous fungi in the canopy of a temperate, mixed deciduous forest. Mycol. Prog. 4, 117–132 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Dawson, S. K. & Jönsson, M. Just how big is intraspecific trait variation in basidiomycete wood fungal fruit bodies?. Fungal Ecol. 46, 100865 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Dawson, S. K. et al. Handbook for the measurement of macrofungal functional traits: A start with basidiomycete wood fungi. Funct. Ecol. 33, 372–387 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Zanne, A. E. et al. Fungal functional ecology: Bringing a trait-based approach to plant-associated fungi. Biol. Rev. 95, 409–433 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Nordén, B., Ryberg, M., Götmark, F. & Olausson, B. Relative importance of coarse and fine woody debris for the diversity of wood-inhabiting fungi in temperate broadleaf forests. Biol. Conserv. 117, 1–10 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Stokland, J. N. & Larsson, K. Forest ecology and management legacies from natural forest dynamics : Different effects of forest management on wood-inhabiting fungi in pine and spruce forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 261, 1707–1721 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Cajander, A. K. Forest types and their significance. Acta For. Fenn. 56, 1–69 (1949).
Google Scholar 
37.Ahti, T., Hämet-Ahti, L. & Jalas, J. Vegetation zones and their sections in northwestern Europe. Ann. Bot. Fenn. 5, 169–211 (1968).
Google Scholar 
38.Renaud, V., Innes, J. L., Dobbertin, M. & Rebetez, M. Comparison between open-site and below-canopy climatic conditions in Switzerland for different types of forests over 10 years (1998–2007). Theor. Appl. Climatol. 105, 119–127 (2011).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Renvall, P. Community structure and dynamics of wood-rotting Basidiomycetes on decomposing conifer trunks in northern Finland. Karstenia 35, 1–51 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Abrego, N., Halme, P., Purhonen, J. & Ovaskainen, O. Fruit body based inventories in wood-inhabiting fungi: Should we replicate in space or time?. Fungal Ecol. 20, 225–232 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Halme, P. & Kotiaho, J. S. The importance of timing and number of surveys in fungal biodiversity research. Biodivers. Conserv. 21, 205–219 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Purhonen, J., Huhtinen, S., Kotiranta, H. & Kotiaho, J. S. Detailed information on fruiting phenology provides new insights on wood-inhabiting fungal detection. Fungal Ecol. 27, 175–177 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, Landcare Research-NZ & Chinese Academy of Science. Index Fungorum. www.indexfungorum.org 01.03.2017 (2017).44.Barton, K. MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference. R Package Version 1.43.6. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn 15.11.2020 (2019).45.R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Available at: https://www.r-project.org/ (2017).46.Magnusson, A. et al. glmmTMB: Generalized Linear Mixed Models Using Template Model Builder. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/glmmTMB/glmmTMB.pdf 30.08.2018 (2018).47.Oksanen, J. et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.4-4. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/vegan/index.html 30.12.2017 (2017).48.Abrego, N., Bässler, C., Christensen, M. & Heilmann-Clausen, J. Implications of reserve size and forest connectivity for the conservation of wood-inhabiting fungi in Europe. Biol. Conserv. 191, 469–477 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Halme, P. et al. The effects of habitat degradation on metacommunity structure of wood-inhabiting fungi in European beech forests. Biol. Conserv. 168, 24–30 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Edman, M., Kruys, N. & Jonsson, B. G. Local dispersal sources strongly affect colonization patterns of wood-decaying fungi on spruce logs. Ecol. Appl. 14, 893–901 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Komonen, A. & Müller, J. Dispersal ecology of deadwood organisms and connectivity conservation. Conserv. Biol. 32, 535–545 (2018).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
52.Abrego, N. & Salcedo, I. How does fungal diversity change based on woody debris type? A case study in Northern Spain. Ekologija 57, 109–119 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Juutilainen, K., Halme, P., Kotiranta, H. & Mönkkönen, M. Size matters in studies of dead wood and wood-inhabiting fungi. Fungal Ecol. 4, 342–349 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Heilmann-Clausen, J. & Christensen, M. Wood-inhabiting macrofungi in Danish beech-forests ? conflicting diversity patterns and their implications in a conservation perspective. Biol. Conserv. 122, 633–642 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Moore, D., Gange, A. C., Gange, E. G. & Boddy, L. Fruit bodies: Their production and develpoment in relation to environment. In Ecology of Saprotrophic Basidiomycetes (eds Boddy, L. et al.) (Elsevier, 2008).
Google Scholar 
56.Junninen, K., Similä, M., Kouki, J. & Kotiranta, H. Assemblages of wood-inhabiting fungi along the gradients of succession and naturalness in boreal pine-dominated forests in Fennoscandia. Ecography (Cop.) 29, 75–83 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Agren, J. & Zackrisson, O. Age and size structure of Pinus sylvestris populations on mires in Central and Northern Sweden. J. Ecol. 78, 1049–1062 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Niemelä, T., Wallenius, T. & Kotiranta, H. The kelo tree, a vanishing substrate of specified wood-inhabiting fungi. Polish Bot. J. 47, 91–101 (2002).
Google Scholar 
59.Venugopal, P., Julkunen-Tiitto, R., Junninen, K. & Kouki, J. Phenolic compounds in Scots pine heartwood: Are kelo trees a unique woody substrate?. Can. J. For. Res. 46, 225–233 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Jonsson, B. G. et al. Dead wood availability in managed Swedish forests – Policy outcomes and implications for biodiversity. For. Ecol. Manag. 376, 174–182 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Runnel, K. & Lõhmus, A. Deadwood-rich managed forests provide insights into the old-forest association of wood-inhabiting fungi. Fungal Ecol. 27, 155–167 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Junninen, K. & Komonen, A. Conservation ecology of boreal polypores: A review. Biol. Conserv. 144, 11–20 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Krah, F. S. et al. Independent effects of host and environment on the diversity of wood-inhabiting fungi. J. Ecol. 106, 1428–1442. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12939 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Hoppe, B. et al. Linking molecular deadwood-inhabiting fungal diversity and community dynamics to ecosystem functions and processes in Central European forests. Fungal Divers. 77, 367–379 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Kubartová, A., Ottosson, E., Dahlberg, A. & Stenlid, J. Patterns of fungal communities among and within decaying logs, revealed by 454 sequencing. Mol. Ecol. 21, 4514–4532 (2012).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Kazartsev, I., Shorohova, E., Kapitsa, E. & Kushnevskaya, H. Decaying Picea abies log bark hosts diverse fungal communities. Fungal Ecol. 33, 1–12 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
67.von Bonsdorff, T. et al. New national and regional biological records for Finland 8. Contributions to agaricoid, gastroid and ascomycetoid taxa of fungi 5. Memo. Soc. pro Fauna Flora Fenn. 92, 120–128 (2016).
Google Scholar 
68.von Bonsdorff, T. et al. New national and regional biological records for Finland 5. Contributions to agaricoid and ascomycetoid taxa of fungi 4. Memo. Soc. pro Fauna Flora Fenn. 91, 56–66 (2015).
Google Scholar 
69.Frøslev, T. G. et al. Man against machine: Do fungal fruitbodies and eDNA give similar biodiversity assessments across broad environmental gradients?. Biol. Conserv. 233, 201–212 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Esri. ArcMap, version 10.5.1. http://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap/ 04.09.2017 (2017). Available at: http://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap/. More

From SSN to PFCsWe analyzed the 1,914,171 proteins from 885 MAGs from marine plankton, recovered from 12 geographically bound assemblies of metagenomic sets corresponding to a total of 93 Tara Oceans samples from the 0.2 to 3 µm and 0.2 to 1.6 µm size fractions21. A flowchart of our bioinformatic pipeline is available in Supplementary Fig. 1. 39.6% of the MAGs’ proteins (757,457) were involved in our SSN, i.e., they had at least one similarity relationship with another protein that satisfied the chosen threshold of 80% similarity and 80% coverage (see “Methods”). In total, 51.1% of the network proteins could be annotated to 4922 unique molecular function IDs in the KEGG database37, associated with 327 distinct metabolic pathways (a full list of these pathways is available in Supplementary Data 1). In total, 85.2% of the network proteins were annotated to 17,009 eggNOG functional descriptions38,39.The SSN involved 233,756 connected components (CCs), i.e., groups of nodes (here proteins) connected together by at least one path and disconnected from the rest of the network. According to KEGG and eggNOG databases, 15.3% and 48.5% of the CCs remained without any functional annotation (i.e., all sequences from the CC were unmatched in the databases, or had a match but were not yet linked to any biological function, Table 1), and 14.8% were functionally unannotated for both databases. We ranked the functional homogeneity of CCs involving at least one functional annotation from 0 (all annotations in the CC are different) to 1 (all annotations in the CC are the same) and found mean homogeneity scores of 0.99 over 1 for KEGG annotations and 0.94 over 1 for eggNOG ones (see “Methods” for score calculation details). Only 88 (0.04%) CCs had a homogeneity score below 0.5 in both annotation databases, all with sizes below five proteins. 177 CCs (0.07%) had a score below 0.8 in both databases, all under 12 proteins in size. These CCs were kept in the analysis while tagged as poorly homogenous. We thereafter considered each CC as a PFC, numbered from #1 to #233,756.Table 1 Metrics computed on the 233,756 protein functional clusters (PFC) from the sequence similarity network of MAGs proteins.Full size tableTo check for the influence of taxonomic relationships between the MAGs on our PFCs, we computed different metrics based on MAGs taxonomic annotations provided by Delmont et al.21. (Table 1). This taxonomic annotation based on 43 single-copy core genes allowed to annotate 100% of the MAGs at the domain level, and 95% of the MAGs at the phylum level, the remaining 5% corresponding to Bacteria MAGs of unidentified phyla21. Only 1330 PFCs (0.6%) mixed proteins from the Archaea and Bacteria domains. PFCs were very homogeneous at the phylum level, then the homogeneity decreased at lower taxonomic rank, meaning that PFCs studied here were generally not specific from a single class, order, family, genus, or MAG (Table 1). In total, 7834 PFCs (3.4%) were only composed of proteins with no functional annotation in KEGG and eggNOG databases, and no taxonomic annotation under the phylum level. Their sizes ranged from 2 to 30 proteins (mean of 2.62). Their 20,552 proteins came from Euryarchaeota MAGs (12,458; 60.6%), Bacteria MAGs of unidentified phylum (2742; 13.3%), Candidatus Marinimicrobia MAGs (2451; 11.9%), Proteobacteria MAGs (1528; 7.4%), Acidobacteria MAGs (1031; 5%), Verrucomicrobia MAGs (103; 0.5%), Planctomycetes MAGs (89; 0.4%), Bacteroidetes MAGs (79; 0.4%), Chloroflexi MAGs (59; 0.3%) and Candidate Phyla Radiation MAGs (12; 0.05%). We hereafter considered these functionally and taxonomically unknown PFCs as “dark” PFCs40,41. Their nucleotidic sequences are available in separate supplementary files (see “Data availability”). The abundance of dark PFCs was significantly different from the abundance of other PFCs in 85 samples over 93 (two-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test, p-value  More

1.Mendo, T., Semmens, J. M., Lyle, J. M., Tracey, S. R. & Moltschaniwskyj, N. Reproductive strategies and energy sources fueling reproductive growth in a protracted spawner. Mar. Biol. 163, 2 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Stephens, P. A., Boyd, I. L., McNamara, J. M. & Houston, A. I. Capital breeding and income breeding: their meaning, measurement, and worth. Ecology 90, 2057–2067 (2009).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
3.Bonnet, X., Bradshaw, D. & Shine, R. Capital versus income breeding: An ectothermic perspective. Oikos 83, 333–342 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Johnson, R. A. Capital and income breeding and the evolution of colony founding strategies in ants. Insectes Soc. 53, 316–322 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Wheatley, K. E., Bradshaw, C. J., Harcourt, R. G. & Hindell, M. A. Feast or famine: Evidence for mixed capital–income breeding strategies in Weddell seals. Oecologia 155, 11–20 (2008).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
6.Tammaru, T. & Haukioja, E. Capital breeders and income breeders among Lepidoptera: Consequences to population dynamics. Oikos 77, 561–564 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.McHuron, E. A., Costa, D. P., Schwarz, L. & Mangel, M. State-dependent behavioural theory for assessing the fitness consequences of anthropogenic disturbance on capital and income breeders. Methods Ecol. Evol. 8, 552–560 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Williams, C. T. et al. Seasonal reproductive tactics: Annual timing and the capital-to-income breeder continuum. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 372, 20160250 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Kerby, J. & Post, E. Capital and income breeding traits differentiate trophic match–mismatch dynamics in large herbivores. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 368, 20120484 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Zeng, Y., McLay, C. & Yeo, D. C. Capital or income breeding crabs: Who are the better invaders?. Crustaceana 87, 1648–1656 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Griffen, B. D. The timing of energy allocation to reproduction in an important group of marine consumers. PLoS ONE 13, e0199043 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
12.Boudreau, S. A. & Worm, B. Ecological role of large benthic decapods in marine ecosystems: A review. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 469, 195–213 (2012).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Holland, D. S. & Kasperski, S. The impact of access restrictions on fishery income diversification of US West Coast fishermen. Coast. Manag. 44, 452–463 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Edwards, M. & Richardson, A. J. Impact of climate change on marine pelagic phenology and trophic mismatch. Nature 430, 881–884 (2004).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
15.Anilkumar, G. Reproductive physiology of female crustaceans. Ph.D. thesis, University of Calicut, India (1980).16.Lovrich, G. A., Romero, M. C., Tapella, F. & Thatje, S. Distribution, reproductive and energetic conditions of decapod crustaceans along the Scotia Arc (Southern Ocean). Sci. Mar. 69, 183–193 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Sainmont, J., Andersen, K. H., Varpe, Ø. & Visser, A. W. Capital versus income breeding in a seasonal environment. Am. Nat. 184, 466–476 (2014).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
18.Griffen, B. D. Metabolic costs of capital energy storage in a small-bodied ectotherm. Ecol. Evol. 7, 2423–2431 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Varpe, Ø., Jørgensen, C., Tarling, G. A. & Fiksen, Ø. The adaptive value of energy storage and capital breeding in seasonal environments. Oikos 118, 363–370 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Varpe, Ø., Jørgensen, C., Tarling, G. A. & Fiksen, Ø. Early is better: Seasonal egg fitness and timing of reproduction in a zooplankton life-history model. Oikos 116, 331–1342 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Warner, G. F. The life history of the mangrove tree crab, Aratus pisoni. J. Zool. 153, 321–335 (1967).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Díaz, H. & Conde, J. E. Population dynamics and life history of the mangrove crab Aratus pisonii (Brachyura, Grapsidae) in a marine environment. Bull. Mar. Sci. 45, 148–163 (1989).
Google Scholar 
23.de Arruda Leme, M. H. & Negreiros-Fransozo, M. L. Reproductive patterns of Aratus pisonii (Decapoda: Grapsidae) from an estuarine area of São Paulo northern coast, Brazil. Rev. Biol. Trop. 46, 673–678 (1998).
Google Scholar 
24.Cannizzo, Z. J., Lang, S. Q., Benitez-Nelson, B. & Griffen, B. D. An artificial habitat increases the reproductive fitness of a range-shifting species within a newly colonized ecosystem. Sci. Rep. 10, 554 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Riley, M. E., Vogel, M. & Griffen, B. D. Fitness-associated consequences of an omnivorous diet for the mangrove tree crab Aratus pisonii. Aquat. Biol. 20, 35–43 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.López, B. & Conde, J. E. Dietary variation in the crab Aratus pisonii (H. Milne Edwards, 1837)(Decapoda, Sesarmidae) in a mangrove gradient in northwestern Venezuela. Crustaceana 86, 1051–1069 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Erickson, A. A., Feller, I. C., Paul, V. J., Kwiatkowski, L. M. & Lee, W. Selection of an omnivorous diet by the mangrove tree crab Aratus pisonii in laboratory experiments. J. Sea Res. 59, 59–69 (2008).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Beever, J. W., Simberloff, D. & King, L. L. Herbivory and predation by the mangrove tree crab Aratus pisonii. Oecologia 43, 317–328 (1979).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
29.Riley, M. E., Johnston, C. A., Feller, I. C. & Griffen, B. D. Range expansion of Aratus pisonii (mangrove tree crab) into novel vegetative habitats. Southeast. Nat. 13, N43–N48 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Cannizzo, Z. J. & Griffen, B. D. Changes in spatial behaviour patterns by mangrove tree crabs following climate-induced range shift into novel habitat. Anim. Behav. 121, 79–86 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Riley, M. E. & Griffen, B. D. Habitat-specific differences alter traditional biogeographic patterns of life history in a climate-change induced range expansion. PLoS ONE 12, e0176263 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
32.Cannizzo, Z. J. & Griffen, B. D. An artificial habitat facilitates a climate-mediated range expansion into a suboptimal novel ecosystem. PLoS ONE 14, e0207416 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
33.Bernardo, J. & Agosta, S. J. Evolutionary implications of hierarchical impacts of nonlethal injury on reproduction, including maternal effects. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 86, 309–331 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Griffen, B. D., Cannizzo, Z. J., Carver, J. & Meidell, M. Reproductive and energetic costs of injury in the mangrove tree crab. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 640, 127–137 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.De Arruda Leme, M. H., De Sousa Soares, V. & Pinheiro, M. A. A. Population dynamics of the mangrove tree crab Aratus pisonii (Brachyura: Sesarmidae) in the estuarine complex of Cananéia-Iguape, São Paulo, Brazil. Pan-Am. J. Aquat. Sci. 9, 259–266 (2014).
Google Scholar 
36.Skov, M. W. et al. Marching to a different drummer: Crabs synchronize reproduction to a 14-month lunar-tidal cycle. Ecology 86, 1164–1171 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Schmidt, A. J., Bemvenuti, C. E. & Diele, K. Effects of geophysical cycles on the rhythm of mass mate searching of a harvested mangrove crab. Anim. Behav. 84, 333–340 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Dronkers, J. J. Tidal Computations in Rivers and Coastal Waters (Wiley, 1964).
Google Scholar 
39.Varpe, Ø. Life history adaptations to seasonality. Integr. Comp. Biol. 57, 943–960 (2017).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
40.Conde, J. E. et al. Population and life history features of the crab Aratus pisonii (Decapoda: Grapsidae) in a subtropical estuary. Interciencia 25, 151–158 (2000).
Google Scholar 
41.Elner, R. W. & Beninger, P. G. Multiple reproductive strategies in snow crab, Chionoecetes opilio: Physiological pathways and behavioral plasticity. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 193, 93–112 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Tepolt, C. K. & Somero, G. N. Master of all trades: Thermal acclimation and adaptation of cardiac function in a broadly distributed marine invasive species, the European green crab, Carcinus maenas. J. Exp. Biol. 217, 1129–1138 (2014).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
43.Ruiz, G., Fofonoff, P., Steves, B. & Dahlstrom, A. Marine crustacean invasions in North America: a synthesis of historical records and documented impacts. In In the Wrong Place-Alien Marine Crustaceans: Distribution, Biology and Impacts 215–250. (Springer, 2011).44.Griffen, B. D. & Mosblack, H. Predicting diet and consumption rate differences between and within species using gut ecomorphology. J. Anim. Ecol. 80, 854–863 (2011).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
45.Cannizzo, Z. J., Dixon, S. R. & Griffen, B. D. An anthropogenic habitat within a suboptimal colonized ecosystem provides improved conditions for a range-shifting species. Ecol. Evol. 8, 1521–1533 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

Here, we analyzed the burrowing mechanisms of beetle larvae. Beetle larvae were placed on the soil surface to make sure they could burrow into the soil (Fig. 1a). In order to observe the burrowing behavior, a two-dimensional (2D) observation tank (130 × 210 ×  ~ 20 mm) was constructed (Fig. 1b); we succeeded in observing the dynamics of the larvae under a 2D soil condition (Fig. 1c, Supplementary Movie 1). The larvae burrowed by rotating themselves (Fig. 1d, Supplementary Movie 1). Rotation was observed regardless of sex. All observed individuals proceeded towards the bottom and stopped when rotating at the bottom layer (Fig. 1c).Figure 1Burrowing dynamics of scarab beetle (Trypoxylus dichotomus) larva. (a) Burrowing images. After beetle is put on the soil, they can burrow in a short time ( More