Ecology

Parmesan, C. Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 37, 637–669 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Elahi, R. et al. Recent trends in local-scale marine biodiversity reflect community structure and human impacts. Curr. Biol. 25, 1938–1943 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Harley, C. D. G. Climate change, keystone predation, and biodiversity loss. Science 334, 1124–1127 (2011).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Poloczanska, E. S. et al. Global imprint of climate change on marine life. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 919–925 (2013).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Bellwood, D. R., Hughes, T. P., Folke, C. & Nyström, M. Confronting the coral reef crisis. Nature 429, 827–833 (2004).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Moreno-Mateos, D. et al. Anthropogenic ecosystem disturbance and the recovery debt. Nat. Commun. 8, 14163 (2017).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Newman, E. A. Disturbance ecology in the Anthropocene. Front. Ecol. Evol. 7, 147 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Mittelbach, G. G. et al. What is the observed relationship between species richness and productivity?. Ecology 82, 2381–2396 (2001).
Google Scholar 
van Nes, E. H. & Scheffer, M. Implications of spatial heterogeneity for catastrophic regime shifts in ecosystems. Ecology 86, 1797–1807 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Tylianakis, J. M. et al. Resource heterogeneity moderates the biodiversity-function relationship in real world ecosystems. Plos Biol. 6, e122 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Loreau, M. et al. In Metacommunities: Spatial Dynamics and Ecological Communities (eds Holyoak, M. et al.) (The University of Chicago Press, 2005).
Google Scholar 
Loreau, M. From Populations to Ecosystems (Princeton University Press, 2010). https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400834167.vii.Book 

Google Scholar 
Moreira, E. F., Boscolo, D. & Viana, B. F. Spatial heterogeneity regulates plant-pollinator networks across multiple landscape scales. PLoS ONE 10, e0123628 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Costanza, J. K., Moody, A. & Peet, R. K. Multi-scale environmental heterogeneity as a predictor of plant species richness. Landsc. Ecol. 26, 851–864 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Hughes, T. P. et al. Global warming transforms coral reef assemblages. Nature 556, 492–496 (2018).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nyström, M., Graham, N. A. J., Lokrantz, J. & Norström, A. V. Capturing the cornerstones of coral reef resilience: Linking theory to practice. Coral Reefs 27, 795–809 (2008).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Virah-Sawmy, M., Gillson, L. & Willis, K. J. How does spatial heterogeneity influence resilience to climatic changes? Ecological dynamics in southeast Madagascar. Ecol. Monogr. 79, 557–574 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Wilson, D. S. Complex interactions in metacommunities, with implications for biodiversity and higher levels of selection. Ecology 73, 1984–2000 (1992).
Google Scholar 
Leibold, M. A. et al. The metacommunity concept: A framework for multi-scale community ecology. Ecol. Lett. 7, 601–613 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Briggs, C. J. & Hoopes, M. F. Stabilizing effects in spatial parasitoid–host and predator–prey models: A review. Theor. Popul. Biol. 65, 299–315 (2004).MATH 

Google Scholar 
Wang, S., Haegeman, B. & Loreau, M. Dispersal and metapopulation stability. PeerJ 3, e1295 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Tilman, D. The ecological consequences of changes in biodiversity: A search for general principles. Ecology 80, 1455–1474 (1999).
Google Scholar 
Loreau, M., Mouquet, N. & Gonzalez, A. Biodiversity as spatial insurance in heterogeneous landscapes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 100, 12765–12770 (2003).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yachi, S. & Loreau, M. Biodiversity and ecosystem productivity in a fluctuating environment: The insurance hypothesis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 96, 1463–1468 (1999).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bouvier, T. et al. Contrasted effects of diversity and immigration on ecological insurance in marine bacterioplankton communities. PLoS ONE 7, e37620 (2012).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hammond, M., Loreau, M., Mazancourt, C. & Kolasa, J. Disentangling local, metapopulation, and cross-community sources of stabilization and asynchrony in metacommunities. Ecosphere 11, e03078 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Lamy, T., Legendre, P., Chancerelle, Y., Siu, G. & Claudet, J. Understanding the spatio-temporal response of coral reef fish communities to natural disturbances: Insights from beta-diversity decomposition. PLoS ONE 10, e0138696 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Lamy, T. et al. Species insurance trumps spatial insurance in stabilizing biomass of a marine macroalgal metacommunity. Ecology 100, e02719 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Stier, A. C., Shelton, A. O., Samhouri, J. F., Feist, B. E. & Levin, P. S. Fishing, environment, and the erosion of a population portfolio. Ecosphere https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3283 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Burgess, S. C. et al. Beyond connectivity: How empirical methods can quantify population persistence to improve marine protected-area design. Ecol. Appl. 24, 257–270 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Saenz-Agudelo, P., Jones, G. P., Thorrold, S. R. & Planes, S. Connectivity dominates larval replenishment in a coastal reef fish metapopulation. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 278, 2954–2961 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Wood, S., Paris, C. B., Ridgwell, A. & Hendy, E. J. Modelling dispersal and connectivity of broadcast spawning corals at the global scale. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 23, 1–11 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Loreau, M. et al. Biodiversity as insurance: From concept to measurement and application. Biol. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12756 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thibaut, L. M. & Connolly, S. R. Understanding diversity–stability relationships: Towards a unified model of portfolio effects. Ecol. Lett. 16, 140–150 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Wilcox, K. R. et al. Asynchrony among local communities stabilises ecosystem function of metacommunities. Ecol. Lett. 20, 1534–1545 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Loreau, M. & de Mazancourt, C. Species synchrony and its drivers: Neutral and nonneutral community dynamics in fluctuating environments. Am. Nat. 172, E48–E66 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Loreau, M. & Mazancourt, C. Biodiversity and ecosystem stability: A synthesis of underlying mechanisms. Ecol. Lett. 16, 106–115 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Gross, K. et al. Species richness and the temporal stability of biomass production: A new analysis of recent biodiversity experiments. Am. Nat. 183, 1–12 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Sullaway, G. H., Shelton, A. O. & Samhouri, J. F. Synchrony erodes spatial portfolios of an anadromous fish and alters availability for resource users. J. Anim. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.13575 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Adjeroud, M., Augustin, D., Galzin, R. & Salvat, B. Natural disturbances and interannual variability of coral reef communities on the outer slope of Tiahura (Moorea, French Polynesia): 1991 to 1997. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 237, 121–131 (2002).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Adjeroud, M. et al. Recurrent disturbances, recovery trajectories, and resilience of coral assemblages on a South Central Pacific reef. Coral Reefs 28, 775–780 (2009).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Pratchett, M. S., Trapon, M., Berumen, M. L. & Chong-Seng, K. Recent Disturbances Augment Community Shifts in Coral Assemblages in Moorea, French Polynesia (SpringerLink, 2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-010-0678-2.Book 

Google Scholar 
Kayal, M. et al. Predator crown-of-thorns starfish (Acanthaster planci) outbreak, mass mortality of corals, and cascading effects on reef fish and benthic communities. PLoS ONE 7, e47363 (2012).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
McWilliam, M., Pratchett, M. S., Hoogenboom, M. O. & Hughes, T. P. Deficits in functional trait diversity following recovery on coral reefs. Proc. R. Soc. B 287, 20192628 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Hoegh-Guldberg, O. et al. Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification. Science 318, 1737–1742 (2007).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Penin, L., Adjeroud, M., Schrimm, M. & Lenihan, H. S. High spatial variability in coral bleaching around Moorea (French Polynesia): Patterns across locations and water depths. C. R. Biol. 330, 171–181 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Adam, T. C. et al. Herbivory, connectivity, and ecosystem resilience: Response of a coral reef to a large-scale perturbation. PLoS ONE 6, e23717 (2011).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Edmunds, P. et al. Why more comparative approaches are required in time-series analyses of coral reef ecosystems. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 608, 297–306 (2019).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Pérez-Rosales, G. et al. Documenting decadal disturbance dynamics reveals archipelago-specific recovery and compositional change on Polynesian reefs. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 170, 112659 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Bruno, J. F. & Selig, E. R. Regional decline of coral cover in the Indo-Pacific: Timing, extent, and subregional comparisons. PLoS ONE 2, e711 (2007).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Jackson, J. B. C. et al. Status and trends of Caribbean coral reefs. Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland (2014)Edmunds, P. J. Implications of high rates of sexual recruitment in driving rapid reef recovery in Mo’orea, French Polynesia. Sci. Rep. 8, 16615 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Burgess, S. C., Johnston, E. C., Wyatt, A. S. J., Leichter, J. J. & Edmunds, P. J. Response diversity in corals: Hidden differences in bleaching mortality among cryptic Pocillopora species. Ecology https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.3324 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Holbrook, S. J. et al. Recruitment drives spatial variation in recovery rates of resilient coral reefs. Sci. Rep. 8, 7338 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Guest, J. R. et al. A framework for identifying and characterising coral reef “oases” against a backdrop of degradation. J. Appl. Ecol. 55, 2865–2875 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Hench, J. L., Leichter, J. J. & Monismith, S. G. Episodic circulation and exchange in a wave-driven coral reef and lagoon system. Limnol. Oceanogr. 53, 2681–2694 (2008).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Barry, J. P. & Dayton, P. K. Ecological heterogeneity. Ecol. Stud. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3062-5_14 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
Edmunds, P. & Bruno, J. The importance of sampling scale in ecology: Kilometer-wide variation in coral reef communities. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 143, 165–171 (1996).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Lough, J. M., Anderson, K. D. & Hughes, T. P. Increasing thermal stress for tropical coral reefs: 1871–2017. Sci. Rep. 8, 6079 (2018).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
van Oppen, M. J. H. & Lough, J. M. Coral bleaching, patterns, processes, causes and consequences. Ecol. Stud. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75393-5_14 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Monismith, S. G. Hydrodynamics of coral reefs. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 39, 37–55 (2007).ADS 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Edmunds P. Of Moorea Coral Reef LTER. MCR LTER: Coral Reef: Long-term Population and Community Dynamics: Corals, ongoing since 2005. knb-lter-mcr.4.33 https://doi.org/10.6073/pasta/1f05f1f52a2759dc096da9c24e88b1e8 (2020).Cowles, J. et al. Resilience: insights from the U.S. Long-term ecological research network. Ecosphere 12, e03434 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Beijbom, O. et al. Towards automated annotation of benthic survey images: Variability of human experts and operational modes of automation. PLoS ONE 10, e0130312 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Veron, J. E. N. Corals of the world, v. 1–3. Australian Institute of Marine Science (2000)Washburn, L of Moorea Coral Reef LTER. MCR LTER: Coral Reef: Ocean Currents and Biogeochemistry: salinity, temperature and current at CTD and ADCP mooring FOR01 from 2004 ongoing. knb-lter-mcr.30.36doi:10.6073/pasta/124d19950c5234bf1937661989dcced7 (2021).Safaie, A. et al. High frequency temperature variability reduces the risk of coral bleaching. Nat. Commun. 9, 1671 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Dean, R. G. & Dalrymple, R. A. Water Wave Mechanics for Engineers and Scientists. Advanced Series on Ocean Engineering Vol. 2 (World Scientific, 1991).
Google Scholar 
Carroll, A., Harrison, P. & Adjeroud, M. Sexual reproduction of Acropora reef corals at Moorea, French Polynesia. Coral Reefs 25, 93–97 (2006).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Han, X., Adam, T. C., Schmitt, R. J., Brooks, A. J. & Holbrook, S. J. Response of herbivore functional groups to sequential perturbations in Moorea, French Polynesia. Coral Reefs 35, 999–1009 (2016).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Clarke, K. R. Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Austral Ecol. 18, 117–143 (1993).
Google Scholar 
Clarke, K. R., Somerfield, P. J. & Chapman, M. G. On resemblance measures for ecological studies, including taxonomic dissimilarities and a zero-adjusted Bray–Curtis coefficient for denuded assemblages. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 330, 55–80 (2006).
Google Scholar 
RStudio Team. RStudio: Integrated development for R. RStudio, PBC, Boston, MA URL http://www.rstudio.com/ (2021).Oksanen J. et al. vegan: Community ecology package. R package version 2.5–7. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan (2020).Wickham, et al. Welcome to the Tidyverse. J. Open Source Softw. 4(43), 1686. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686 (2019).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Corlett, R. T. The Anthropocene concept in ecology and conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 36–41 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Williams, G. J. et al. Coral reef ecology in the Anthropocene. Funct. Ecol. 33, 1014–1022 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Walther, G.-R. et al. Ecological responses to recent climate change. Nature 416, 389–395 (2002).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Walther, G.-R. Community and ecosystem responses to recent climate change. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 365, 2019–2024 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Cinner, J. E. et al. Bright spots among the world’s coral reefs. Nature 535, 416–419 (2016).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Grman, E., Lau, J. A., Schoolmaster, D. R. & Gross, K. L. Mechanisms contributing to stability in ecosystem function depend on the environmental context. Ecol. Lett. 13, 1400–1410 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Schindler, D. E. et al. Population diversity and the portfolio effect in an exploited species. Nature 465, 609–612 (2010).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Doak, D. F. et al. The statistical inevitability of stability-diversity relationships in community ecology. Am. Nat. 151, 264–276 (1998).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Isbell, F. I., Polley, H. W. & Wilsey, B. J. Biodiversity, productivity and the temporal stability of productivity: Patterns and processes. Ecol. Lett. 12, 443–451 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Connell, J. H. Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs author. Science 199, 1302–1310 (1978).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Plaisance, L., Caley, M. J., Brainard, R. E. & Knowlton, N. The diversity of coral reefs: What are we missing?. PLoS ONE 6, e25026 (2011).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Williams, G. J. et al. Biophysical drivers of coral trophic depth zonation. Mar. Biol. 165, 60 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Moritz, C. et al. Long-term monitoring of benthic communities reveals spatial determinants of disturbance and recovery dynamics on coral reefs. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 672, 141–152 (2021).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Dietzel, A. et al. The spatial footprint and patchiness of large scale disturbances on coral reefs. Global Change Biol. 27, 4825–4838 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Leichter, J. et al. Biological and physical interactions on a tropical island coral reef: Transport and retention processes on Moorea, French Polynesia. Oceanography 26, 52–63 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Porter, J. W. et al. Population trends among Jamaican reef corals. Nature 294, 249–250 (1981).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Graham, N. A. J., Jennings, S., MacNeil, M. A., Mouillot, D. & Wilson, S. K. Predicting climate-driven regime shifts versus rebound potential in coral reefs. Nature 518, 94–97 (2015).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Whittaker, R. H. & Levin, S. A. The role of mosaic phenomena in natural communities. Theor. Popul. Biol. 12, 117–139 (1977).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Karlson, R. H. & Hurd, L. E. Disturbance, coral reef communities, and changing ecological paradigms. Coral Reefs 12, 117–125 (1993).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Stoddart, D. R. Effects of Hurricane Hattie on the British Honduras reefs and cays, October 30–31, 1961. Atoll Res. Bull. 95, 1–142 (1963).
Google Scholar 
Witman, J. D. Physical disturbance and community structure of exposed and protected reefs: A case study from St. John U.S. Virgin Islands. Integr. Comp. Biol. 32, 641–654 (1992).
Google Scholar 
Thorson, J. T., Scheuerell, M. D., Olden, J. D. & Schindler, D. E. Spatial heterogeneity contributes more to portfolio effects than species variability in bottom-associated marine fishes. Proc. R. Soc. B 285, 20180915 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Mellin, C., MacNeil, M. A., Cheal, A. J., Emslie, M. J. & Caley, M. J. Marine protected areas increase resilience among coral reef communities. Ecol. Lett. 19, 629–637 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Beyer, H. L. et al. Risk-sensitive planning for conserving coral reefs under rapid climate change. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12587 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Harrison, H. B., Bode, M., Williamson, D. H., Berumen, M. L. & Jones, G. P. A connectivity portfolio effect stabilizes marine reserve performance. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 117, 25595–25600 (2020).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Walter, J. A. et al. The spatial synchrony of species richness and its relationship to ecosystem stability. Ecology https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.3486 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, S., Lamy, T., Hallett, L. M. & Loreau, M. Stability and synchrony across ecological hierarchies in heterogeneous metacommunities: Linking theory to data. Ecography 42, 1200–1211 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Catano, C. P., Fristoe, T. S., LaManna, J. A. & Myers, J. A. Local species diversity, β-diversity and climate influence the regional stability of bird biomass across North America. Proc. R. Soc. B 287, 20192520 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Roscher, C. et al. Identifying population- and community-level mechanisms of diversity–stability relationships in experimental grasslands. J. Ecol. 99, 1460–1469 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Downing, A. L., Brown, B. L. & Leibold, M. A. Multiple diversity–stability mechanisms enhance population and community stability in aquatic food webs. Ecology 95, 173–184 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Moran, P. The statistical analysis of the Canadian Lynx cycle. Aust. J. Zool. 1, 291–298 (1953).
Google Scholar 
Townsend, D. L. & Gouhier, T. C. Spatial and interspecific differences in recruitment decouple synchrony and stability in trophic metacommunities. Theor. Ecol. 12, 319–327 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Yeager, M. E., Gouhier, T. C. & Hughes, A. R. Predicting the stability of multitrophic communities in a variable world. Ecology 101, e02992 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Hughes, T. P. et al. Emergent properties in the responses of tropical corals to recurrent climate extremes. Curr. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.10.046 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jackson, J. B. C. Morphological strategies of sessile animals. In Biology and Systematics of Colonial Organisms (eds Larwood, G. & Rosen, B. R.) 499–555 (Academic, 1979).
Google Scholar 
Sammarco, P. W. & Andrews, J. C. Localized dispersal and recruitment in Great Barrier Reef Corals: The helix experiment. Science 239, 1422–1424 (1988).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Edmunds, P. J. Unusually high coral recruitment during the 2016 El Niño in Mo’orea, French Polynesia. PLoS ONE 12, e0185167 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Bull, G. Distribution and abundance of coral plankton. Coral Reefs 4, 197–200 (1986).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Hodgson, G. Abundance and distribution of planktonic coral larvae in Kaneohe Bay, Oahu, Hawaii. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 26, 61–71 (1985).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Edmunds, P. J. Vital rates of small reef corals are associated with variation in climate. Limnol. Oceanogr. 66, 901–913 (2021).ADS 

Google Scholar  More

The data were recorded under the DarwinCore standard55,56 in a matrix named “Benthic biota of CIMAR-Fiordos and Southern Ice Field Cruises”58. The occurrence dataset contains direct basic information (description, scope [temporal, geographic and taxonomic], methodology, bibliography, contacts, data description, GBIF registration and citation), project details, metrics (taxonomy and occurrences classification), activity (citations and download events) and download options. The following data fields were occupied:Column 1: “occurrenceID” (single indicator of the biological record indicating the cruise and correlative record).Column 2: “basisOfRecord” (“PreservedSpecimen” for occurrence records with catalogue number of scientific collection, “MaterialCitation” for any literature record).Column 3: “institutionCode” (The acronym in use by the institution having custody of the sample or information referred to in the record).Column 4: “collectionCode” (The name of the cruise).Column 5: “catalogNumber” (The repository number in museums or correlative number).Column 6: “type” (All records entered as “text”).Column 7: “language” (Spanish, English or both).Column 8: “institutionID” (The identifier for the institution having custody of the sample or information referred to in the record).Column 9: “collectionID” (The identifier for the collection or dataset from which the record was derived).Column 10: “datasetID” (The code “CONA-benthic-biota-database” for entire database).Column 11: “recordedBy” (Author/s who recorded the original occurrence [publication source]).Column 12: “individualCount” (Number of individuals recorded).Column 13: “associatedReferences” (Publication source [report and/or paper/s] for each record).Column 14: “samplingProtocol” (The sampling gear for each record).Column 15: “eventDate” (The date-time or interval during which the record occurred).Column 16: “eventRemarks” (Comments or notes about the event).Column 17: “continent” (Location).Column 18: “country” (Location).Column 19: “countryCode” (The standard code for the country in which the location occurs).Column 20: “stateProvince” (Location, refers to the Administrative Region of Chile).Column 21: “county” (Location, refers to the Administrative Province of Chile).Column 22: “municipality” (Location, refers to the Administrative Commune of Chile).Column 23: “locality” (The specific name of the place).Column 24: “verbatimLocality” (The original textual description of the place).Column 25: “verbatimDepth” (The original description of the depth).Column 26: “minimumDepthInMeters” (The shallowest depth of a range of depths).Column 27: “maximumDepthInMeters” (The deepest depth of a range of depths).Column 28: “locationRemarks” (The name of the sample station of the cruise).Column 29: “verbatimLatitude” (The verbatim original latitude of the location).Column 30: “verbatimLongitude” (The verbatim original longitude of the location).Column 31: “verbatimCoordinateSystem” (The coordinate format for the “verbatimLatitude” and “verbatimLongitude” or the “verbatimCoordinates” of the location).Column 32: “verbatimSRS” (The spatial reference system [SRS] upon which coordinates given in “verbatimLatitude” and “verbatimLongitude” are based)Column 33: “decimalLatitude” (The geographic latitude in decimal degrees).Column 34: “decimalLongitude” (The geographic longitude in decimal degrees).Column 35: “geodeticDatum” (The spatial reference system [SRS] upon which the geographic coordinates given in “decimalLatitude” and “decimalLongitude” was based).Column 36: “coordinateUncertaintyInMeters” (The horizontal distance from the given “decimalLatitude” and “decimalLongitude” describing the smallest circle containing the whole of the location).Column 37: “georeferenceRemarks” (Notes about the spatial description determination).Column 38: “identifiedBy” (Responsible for recording the original occurrence [publication source]).Column 39: “dateIdentified” (The date-time or interval during which the identification occurred.)Column 40: “identificationQualifier” (A taxonomic determination [e.g., “sp.”, “cf.”]).Column 41: “scientificNameID” (An identifier for the nomenclatural details of a scientific name).Column 42: “scientificName” (The name of species or taxon of the occurrence record).Column 43: “kingdom” (The scientific name of the kingdom in which the taxon is classified).Column 44: “phylum” (The scientific name of the phylum or division in which the taxon is classified).Column 45: “class” (The scientific name of the class in which the taxon is classified).Column 46: “order” (The scientific name of the order in which the taxon is classified).Column 47: “family” (The scientific name of the family in which the taxon is classified).Column 48: “genus” (The scientific name of the genus in which the taxon is classified).Column 49: “subgenus” (The scientific name of the subgenus in which the taxon is classified).Column 50: “specificEpithet” (The name of the first or species epithet of the “scientificName”).Column 51: “infraspecificEpithet” (The name of the lowest or terminal infraspecific epithet of the “scientificName”).Column 52: “taxonRank” (The taxonomic rank of the most specific name in the “scientificName”).Column 53: “scientificNameAuthorship” (The authorship information for the “scientificName” formatted according to the conventions of the applicable nomenclatural Code).Column 54: “verbatimIdentification” (A string representing the taxonomic identification as it appeared in the original record).The information sources (see Fig. 2b) provided a total of 107 publications (22 cruise reports and 85 scientific papers; see Fig. 2c). Nineteen of the 22 cruise reports reviewed provided species occurrence records8,28,29,30,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46, one provided qualitative or descriptive data, with no recorded occurrences31, and two did not provide information on benthic biota (CIMAR-9 and −23 cruises). Of all the scientific papers reviewed, 74 provided records of species occurrences (Table 2), while 11 did not provide any record, as they were data without occurrences of geographically referenced species or with descriptive or qualitative information: Foraminifera59,60,61,62, Annelida63,64,65,66, Fishes67, Mollusca68 and Echinodermata69. The phyla with the highest number of publications were the following: Annelida (present in 18 reports and 21 papers), Mollusca (in 14 and 20), Arthropoda (in 10 and 18), Echinodermata (in 10 and 9), Chordata (in 10 and 9) and Foraminifera (in 4 and 10).Table 2 Publications with >100 occurrences, indicating the main recorded taxa.Full size tableThe information registry includes data on occurrences and number of individuals for 8,854 records (files in the database), representing 1,225 species (Fig. 3). The main taxa in terms of occurrence and number of species were Annelida (mainly Polychaeta), Foraminifera, Mollusca and Arthopoda (mainly Crustacea), together accumulating ~70% of total occurrences and ~73% of the total species (Fig. 3). The large number of recorded occurrences of Myzozoa (10%) should be highlighted, which, however, only represent about 32 species. Echinodermata represented ~8% of occurrences and 7% of species.Fig. 3Occurrences and total species by taxon, considering large taxonomic groups of the benthic biota recorded in the CIMAR 1 to 25 and CDHS-1995 cruises. The absolute values of occurrences and species are represented in parentheses.Full size imageThe cruises with the highest number of occurrences were CIMAR-2 (with 1,424), followed by CIMAR-8 (1,040) and CIMAR-16 (813) (Fig. 4). Three dominant taxonomic groups were recorded in most cruises, except for cruises CIMAR-1, CIMAR-4, CIMAR-17, CIMAR-18 and CIMAR-24 (Fig. 4). The cruises with the highest number of species recorded were CIMAR-2 (with 335), CIMAR-3 (328) and CIMAR-8 (323) (Fig. 5). Three or fewer dominant taxonomic groups were recorded only in the CIMAR-1, CIMAR-4, CIMAR-17, CIMAR-18 and CIMAR-24 cruises (Fig. 5).Fig. 4Total occurrences and percentages per dominant taxon recorded in each of the CIMAR 1 to 25 and CDHS-1995 cruises. The absolute values of occurrences per dominant taxon are represented in parentheses.Full size imageFig. 5Total species and percentages per dominant taxon recorded in each of the CIMAR 1 to 25 and CDHS-1995 cruises. The absolute values of species per dominant taxon are represented in parentheses.Full size imageThe latitudinal bands 42°S and 45°S are those with the highest number of occurrences (Fig. 6), while the 56°S and 46°S bands had the fewest. The highest number of species was recorded in the 52°S and 50°S latitudinal bands, while, as with the occurrences, the lowest values corresponded to the 56°S and 46°S latitudinal bands (Fig. 6).Fig. 6Occurrences and number of species recorded by latitudinal band from the CIMAR 1 to 25 and CDHS-1995 cruises. SEP: South-eastern Pacific.Full size image More

Van Dover, C. L. et al. Environmental management of deep-sea chemosynthetic ecosystems: justification of and considerations for a spatially based approach. ISA Technical Study: No.9. (International Seabed Authority, 2011).Ikehata, K., Suzuki, R., Shimada, K., Ishibashi, J., & Urabe, T. Mineralogical and Geochemical Characteristics of Hydrothermal Minerals Collected from Hydrothermal Vent Fields in the Southern Mariana Spreading Center. In Subseafloor biosphere linked to hydrothermal systems: TAIGA Concept. 275–288 (Springer Tokyo, 2015).Rona, P. A. & Scott, S. D. A special issue on sea-floor hydrothermal mineralization; new perspectives; preface. Econ. Geol. 88, 1935–1976 (1993).
Google Scholar 
Glasby, G. P., Iizasa, K., Yuasa, M. & Usui, A. Submarine hydrothermal mineralization on the Izu-Bonin arc, south of Japan: an overview. Mar. Georesources Geotech. 18, 141–176 (2000).
Google Scholar 
Van Dover, C. L. Inactive sulfide ecosystems in the deep sea: a review. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 461. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00461 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Boschen, R. E., Rowde, A. A., Clark, M. R. & Gardner, J. P. Mining of deep-sea seafloor massive sulfides: a review of the deposits, their benthic communities, impacts from mining, regulatory frameworks and management strategies. Ocean Coast. Manag. 84, 54–67 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Washburn, T. W. et al. Ecological risk assessment for deep-sea mining. Ocean Coast. Manag. 176, 24–39 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Matsui, T., Sugishima, H., Okamoto, N., Igarashi, Y. Evaluation of turbidity and resedimentation through seafloor disturbance experiments for assessment of environmental impacts associated with exploitation of seafloor massive sulfides mining. Proceedings of the Twenty-eighth. International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference. 144–151 (2018).International Seabed Authority. Recommendations for the guidance of contractors for the assessment of the possible environmental impacts arising from exploration for marine minerals in the Area. https://www.isa.org.jm/documents/isba19ltc8 (2013).Suzuki, K., Yoshida, K., Watanabe, H. & Yamamoto, H. Mapping the resilience of chemosynthetic communities in hydrothermal vent fields. Sci. Rep. 8, 9364. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-27596-7 (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yahagi, T., Watanabe, H., Ishibashi, J. I. & Kojima, S. Genetic population structure of four hydrothermal vent shrimp species (Alvinocarididae) in the Okinawa Trough, Northwest Pacific. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 529, 159–169 (2015).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Mullineaux, L. S. Deep-sea hydrothermal vent communities. In Marine community ecology and conservation (eds Bertness, M. D. et al.) 383–400 (Sinauer, 2013).
Google Scholar 
Van Dover, C. L., German, C. R., Speer, K. G., Parson, L. M. & Vrijenhoek, R. C. Evolution and biogeography of deep-sea vent and seep invertebrates. Science 295, 1253–1257 (2002).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Yahagi, T., Kayama-Watanabe, H., Kojima, S. & Kano, Y. Do larvae from deep-sea hydrothermal vents disperse in surface waters?. Ecology 98, 1524–1534 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Hebert, P. D. & Gregory, T. R. The promise of DNA barcoding for taxonomy. Syst. Biol. 54, 852–859 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Iguchi, A. et al. Comparative analysis on the genetic population structures of the deep-sea whelks Buccinum tsubai and Neptunea constricta in the Sea of Japan. Mar. Biol. 151, 31–39 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Goode, G. B. & Bean, T. H. A catalogue of the fishes of Essex County, Massachusetts, including the fauna of Massachusetts Bay and the contiguous deep waters. Bull. Essex Inst. 11, 1–38 (1879).
Google Scholar 
Johnson, J. Y. Descriptions of some new genera and species of fishes obtained at Madeira. Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 1862, 167–180 (1862).
Google Scholar 
Bate, C. S. Report on the Crustacea Macrura collected by the Challenger during the years 1873–76. Report on the scientific results of the Voyage of H.M.S. Challenger during the years 1873–76. Zoology 24, 1–942 (1888).
Google Scholar 
Folmer, O., Black, M., Hoeh, W. R., Lutz, R. & Vrijenhoek, R. C. DNA primers for amplification of mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I from diverse metazoan invertebrates. Mol. Mar. Biol Biotech. 3, 294–299 (1994).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pilgrim, E. M., Blum, M. J., Reusser, D. A., Lee, H. & Darling, J. A. Geographic range and structure of cryptic genetic diversity among Pacific North American populations of the non-native amphipod Grandidierella japonica. Biol. Invasions 15, 2415–2428 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Suyama, Y. & Matsuki, Y. MIG-seq: an effective PCR-based method for genome-wide single-nucleotide polymorphism genotyping using the next-generation sequencing platform. Sci. Rep. 5, 16963. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep16963 (2015).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/ (2020).Paradis, E., Claude, J. & Strimmer, K. APE: analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Bioinformatics 20, 289–290 (2004).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Katoh, K. & Standley, D. M. MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: improvements in performance and usability. Mol. Biol. Evol. 30, 772–780 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Shen, W., Le, S., Li, Y. & Hu, F. SeqKit: a cross-platform and ultrafast toolkit for FASTA/Q file manipulation. PLoS ONE 11, e0163962. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163962 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Paradis, E. pegas: an R package for population genetics with an integrated–modular approach. Bioinformatics 26, 419–420 (2010).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kumar, S., Stecher, G. & Tamura, K. MEGA7: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 7.0 for bigger datasets. Mol. Biol. Evol. 33, 1870–1874 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Darriba, D. et al. ModelTest-NG: a new and scalable tool for the selection of DNA and protein evolutionary models. Mol. Biol. Evol. 37, 291–294 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kozlov, A. M., Darriba, D., Flouri, T., Morel, B. & Stamatakis, A. RaxML-NG: a fast, scalable and user-friendly tool for maximum likelihood phylogenetic inference. Bioinformatics 35, 4453–4455 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ronquist, F. R. & Huelsenbeck, J. P. MRBAYES 3: Bayesian inference of phylogeny. Bioinformatics 19, 1572–1574 (2003).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Puillandre, N., Brouillet, S. & Achaz, G. ASAP: assemble species by automatic partitioning. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 21, 609–620 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Martin, M. Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet.journal 17, http://journal.embnet.org/index.php/embnetjournal/article/view/200/479 (2011).Rochette, N. C., Rivera-Colón, A. G. & Catchen, J. M. Stacks 2: Analytical methods for paired-end sequencing improve RADseq-based population genomics. Mol. Ecol. 28, 4737–4754 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Purcell, S. et al. PLINK: a tool set for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analyses. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 81, 559–575 (2007).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jombart, T. adegenet: a R package for the multivariate analysis of genetic markers. Bioinformatics 24, 1403–1405 (2008).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Goudet, J. Hierfstat, a package for R to compute and test hierarchical F-statistics. Mol. Ecol. Notes 5, 184–186 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Oksanen, J. et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.5–6. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan (2019).Dana, J. D. Synopsis of the genera of Gammaracea. Am. J. Sci. Arts 8, 135–140 (1849).
Google Scholar 
Hansen, H. J. Malacostraca marina Groenlandiæ occidentalis Oversigt over det vestlige Grønlands Fauna af malakostrake Havkrebsdyr. Vidensk. Meddel. Natuirist. Foren Kjobenhavn, Aaret 9, 5–226 (1888).
Google Scholar 
Van Dover, C. L. The ecology of deep-sea hydrothermal vents (Princeton University Press, 2000).
Google Scholar 
Tunnicliffe, V. The biology of hydrothermal vents: ecology and evolution. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Annu. Rev. 29, 319–407 (1991).
Google Scholar 
Priede, I. G., Bagley, P. M., Smith, A., Creasey, S. & Merrett, N. R. Scavenging deep demersal fishes of the Porcupine Seabight, north-east Atlantic: observations by baited camera, trap and trawl. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U. K. 74, 481–498 (1994).
Google Scholar 
Causse, R., Biscoito, M. & Briand, P. First record of the deep-sea eel Ilyophis saldanhai (Synaphobranchidae, Anguilliformes) from the Pacific Ocean. Cybium 29, 413–416 (2005).
Google Scholar 
King, N. J., Bagley, P. M. & Priede, I. G. Depth zonation and latitudinal distribution of deep-sea scavenging demersal fishes of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, 42 to 53°N. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 319, 263–274 (2006).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Leitner, A. B., Durden, J. M., Smith, C. R., Klingberg, E. D. & Drazen, J. C. Synaphobranchid eel swarms on abyssal seamounts: largest aggregation of fishes ever observed at abyssal depths. Deep Sea Res. Oceanogr. Res. Part I Pap. 167, 103423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.2020.103423 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fishelson, L. Comparative internal morphology of deep-sea eels, with particular emphasis on gonads and gut structure. J. Fish. Biol. 44, 75–101 (1994).
Google Scholar 
Bailey, D. M. et al. High swimming and metabolic activity in the deep-sea eel Synaphobranchus kaupii revealed by integrated in situ and in vitro measurements. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 78, 335–346 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Trenkel, V. M. & Lorance, P. Estimating Synaphobranchus kaupii densities: contribution of fish behaviour to differences between bait experiments and visual strip transects. Deep Sea Res. Oceanogr. Res. Part I Pap. 58, 63–71 (2011).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Raupach, M. J. et al. Genetic homogeneity and circum-Antarctic distribution of two benthic shrimp species of the Southern Ocean, Chorismus antarcticus and Nematocarcinus lanceopes. Mar. Biol. 157, 1783–1797 (2010).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dambach, J., Raupach, M. J., Leese, F., Schwarzer, J. & Engler, J. O. Ocean currents determine functional connectivity in an Antarctic deep-sea shrimp. Mar. Ecol. 37, 1336–1344 (2016).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dambach, J., Raupach, M. J., Mayer, C., Schwarzer, J. & Leese, F. Isolation and characterization of nine polymorphic microsatellite markers for the deep-sea shrimp Nematocarcinus lanceopes (Crustacea: Decapoda: Caridea). BMC Res. Notes 6, 75. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-6-75 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ritchie, H., Jamieson, A. J. & Piertney, S. B. Phylogenetic relationships among hadal amphipods of the Superfamily Lysianassoidea: Implications for taxonomy and biogeography. Deep Sea Res. Part I 105, 119–131 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bowen, B. W. et al. Phylogeography unplugged: comparative surveys in the genomic era. Bull. Mar. Sci. 90, 13–46 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Ritchie, H., Jamieson, A. J. & Piertney, S. B. Population genetic structure of two congeneric deep-sea amphipod species from geographically isolated hadal trenches in the Pacific Ocean. Deep Sea Res. Part I. 119, 50–57 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Iguchi, A. et al. Deep-sea amphipods around cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts: taxonomic diversity and selection of candidate species for connectivity analysis. PLoS ONE 15, e0228483. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228483 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Baco, A. R. et al. A synthesis of genetic connectivity in deep-sea fauna and implications for marine reserve design. Mol. Ecol. 25, 3276–3298 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Taylor, M. L. & Roterman, C. N. Invertebrate population genetics across Earth’s largest habitat: the deep-sea floor. Mol. Ecol. 26, 4872–4896 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar  More

WHO. Global antimicrobial resistance and use surveillance system (GLASS) report: 2021; https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/341666/9789240027336-eng.pdfVan Boeckel TP, Glennon EE, Chen D, Gilbert M, Robinson TP, Grenfell BT, et al. Reducing antimicrobial use in food animals. Science. 2017;357:1350–2. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao1495Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
ONeill J. Antimicrobials in agriculture and the environment: reducing unnecessary use and waste. Rev Antimicrob Resistance; 2015:1–28.Van Boeckel TP, Brower C, Gilbert M, Grenfell BT, Levin SA, Robinson TP, et al. Global trends in antimicrobial use in food animals. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2015;112:5649–54. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1503141112Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Managaki S, Murata A, Takada H, Tuyen BC, Chiem NH. Distribution of macrolides, sulfonamides, and trimethoprim in tropical waters: ubiquitous occurrence of veterinary antibiotics in the Mekong Delta. Environ Sci Technol. 2007;41:8004–10. https://doi.org/10.1021/es0709021Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Woolhouse M, Ward M, van Bunnik B, Farrar J. Antimicrobial resistance in humans, livestock and the wider environment. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2015;370:20140083 https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0083Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Noyes NR, Yang X, Linke LM, Magnuson RJ, Cook SR, Zaheer R, et al. Characterization of the resistome in manure, soil and wastewater from dairy and beef production systems. Sci Rep. 2016;6:24645. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep24645Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Agga GE, Cook KL, Netthisinghe AMP, Gilfillen RA, Woosley PB, Sistani KR. Persistence of antibiotic resistance genes in beef cattle backgrounding environment over two years after cessation of operation. PLoS One. 2019;14:e0212510. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212510Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hudson JA, Frewer LJ, Jones G, Brereton PA, Whittingham MJ, Stewart G. The agri-food chain and antimicrobial resistance: a review. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2017;69:131–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2017.09.007Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gillings MR. Lateral gene transfer, bacterial genome evolution, and the Anthropocene. Ann NY Acad Sci. 2017;1389:20–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13213Article 

Google Scholar 
Rodríguez-Beltrán J, DelaFuente J, León-Sampedro R, MacLean RC, San Millán Á. Beyond horizontal gene transfer: the role of plasmids in bacterial evolution. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2021;6:347–59. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-020-00497-1Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zhang T, Zhang XX, Ye L. Plasmid metagenome reveals high levels of antibiotic resistance genes and mobile genetic elements in activated sludge. PLoS One. 2011;6:e26041. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0026041Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Li AD, Li LG, Zhang T. Exploring antibiotic resistance genes and metal resistance genes in plasmid metagenomes from wastewater treatment plants. Front Microbiol. 2015;6:1025. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2015.01025Article 

Google Scholar 
Bukowski M, Piwowarczyk R, Madry A, Zagorski-Przybylo R, Hydzik M, Wladyka B. Prevalence of antibiotic and heavy metal resistance determinants and virulence-related genetic elements in plasmids of Staphylococcus aureus. Front Microbiol. 2019;10:805. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.00805Article 

Google Scholar 
Ramírez-Díaz MI, Díaz-Magaña A, Meza-Carmen V, Johnstone L, Cervantes C, Rensing C. Nucleotide sequence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa conjugative plasmid pUM505 containing virulence and heavy-metal resistance genes. Plasmid. 2011;66:7–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plasmid.2011.03.002Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Haenni M, Poirel L, Kieffer N, Châtre P, Saras E, Métayer V, et al. Co-occurrence of extended spectrum β lactamase and MCR-1 encoding genes on plasmids. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016;16:281–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(16)00007-4Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Peter S, Bosio M, Gross C, Bezdan D, Gutierrez J, Oberhettinger P, et al. Tracking of antibiotic resistance transfer and rapid plasmid evolution in a hospital setting by nanopore sequencing. mSphere. 2020;5. https://doi.org/10.1128/mSphere.00525-20Halary S, Leigh JW, Cheaib B, Lopez P, Bapteste E. Network analyses structure genetic diversity in independent genetic worlds. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2010;107:127–32. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0908978107Article 

Google Scholar 
Bosi E, Fani R, Fondi M. The mosaicism of plasmids revealed by atypical genes detection and analysis. BMC Genom. 2011;12:403. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-12-403Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pesesky MW, Tilley R, Beck DAC. Mosaic plasmids are abundant and unevenly distributed across prokaryotic taxa. Plasmid. 2019;102:10–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plasmid.2019.02.003Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Casjens SR, Gilcrease EB, Vujadinovic M, Mongodin EF, Luft BJ, Schutzer SE, et al. Plasmid diversity and phylogenetic consistency in the Lyme disease agent Borrelia burgdorferi. BMC Genom. 2017;18:165. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-017-3553-5Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Madec JY, Haenni M. Antimicrobial resistance plasmid reservoir in food and food-producing animals. Plasmid. 2018;99:72–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plasmid.2018.09.001Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ceccarelli D, Kant A, van Essen-Zandbergen A, Dierikx C, Hordijk J, Wit B, et al. Diversity of plasmids and genes encoding resistance to extended spectrum cephalosporins in commensal escherichia coli from dutch livestock in 2007–2017. Front Microbiol. 2019;10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.00076Auffret MD, Dewhurst RJ, Duthie CA, Rooke JA, John Wallace R, Freeman TC, et al. The rumen microbiome as a reservoir of antimicrobial resistance and pathogenicity genes is directly affected by diet in beef cattle. Microbiome. 2017;5:159. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-017-0378-zArticle 

Google Scholar 
Sabino YNV, Santana MF, Oyama LB, Santos FG, Moreira AJS, Huws SA, et al. Characterization of antibiotic resistance genes in the species of the rumen microbiota. Nat Commun. 2019;10:5252. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-13118-0Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Brown Kav A, Benhar I, Mizrahi I. Rumen plasmids. In: Gophna U, editor. Lateral gene transfer in evolution. New York, NY: Springer New York; 2013. p. 105–20.Mizrahi I, Wallace RJ, Moraïs S. The rumen microbiome: balancing food security and environmental impacts. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2021;19:553–66. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-021-00543-6Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dionisio F, Zilhão R, Gama JA. Interactions between plasmids and other mobile genetic elements affect their transmission and persistence. Plasmid. 2019;102:29–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plasmid.2019.01.003Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Brown Kav A, Sasson G, Jami E, Doron-Faigenboim A, Benhar I, Mizrahi I. Insights into the bovine rumen plasmidome. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012;109:5452–7. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1116410109Article 

Google Scholar 
Kav AB, Rozov R, Bogumil D, Sørensen SJ, Hansen LH, Benhar I, et al. Unravelling plasmidome distribution and interaction with its hosting microbiome. Environ Microbiol. 2020;22:32–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.14813Article 

Google Scholar 
Jørgensen TS, Xu Z, Hansen MA, Sørensen SJ, Hansen LH. Hundreds of circular novel plasmids and DNA elements identified in a rat cecum metamobilome. PLoS One. 2014;9:e87924. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0087924Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
He Q, Pilosof S, Tiedje KE, Ruybal-Pesántez S, Artzy-Randrup Y, Baskerville EB, et al. Networks of genetic similarity reveal non-neutral processes shape strain structure in Plasmodium falciparum. Nat Commun. 2018;9:1817. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04219-3Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Acman M, van Dorp L, Santini JM, Balloux F. Large-scale network analysis captures biological features of bacterial plasmids. Nat Commun. 2020;11:2452. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16282-wArticle 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Redondo-Salvo S, Fernández-López R, Ruiz R, Vielva L, de Toro M, Rocha EPC, et al. Pathways for horizontal gene transfer in bacteria revealed by a global map of their plasmids. Nat Commun. 2020;11:3602. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17278-2Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Savary P, Foltête JC, Moal H, Vuidel G, Garnier S. Analysing landscape effects on dispersal networks and gene flow with genetic graphs. Mol Ecol Resour. 2021;21:1167–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13333Article 

Google Scholar 
Pilosof S, He Q, Tiedje KE, Ruybal-Pesántez S, Day KP, Pascual M. Competition for hosts modulates vast antigenic diversity to generate persistent strain structure in Plasmodium falciparum. PLoS Biol. 2019;17:e3000336. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000336Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Brilli M, Mengoni A, Fondi M, Bazzicalupo M, Liò P, Fani R. Analysis of plasmid genes by phylogenetic profiling and visualization of homology relationships using Blast2Network. BMC Bioinform. 2008;9:551. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-9-551Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Fondi M, Karkman A, Tamminen MV, Bosi E, Virta M, Fani R, et al. “Every gene is everywhere but the environment selects”: global geolocalization of gene sharing in environmental samples through network analysis. Genome Biol Evol. 2016;8:1388–1400. https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evw077Article 

Google Scholar 
Tamminen M, Virta M, Fani R, Fondi M. Large-scale analysis of plasmid relationships through gene-sharing networks. Mol Biol Evol. 2012;29:1225–40. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msr292Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yamashita A, Sekizuka T, Kuroda M. Characterization of antimicrobial resistance dissemination across plasmid communities classified by network analysis. Pathogens. 2014;3:356–76. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens3020356Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pastor-Satorras R, Castellano C, Van Mieghem P, Vespignani A. Epidemic processes in complex networks. Rev Mod Phys. 2015;87:925–79. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.87.925Article 

Google Scholar 
Pilosof S, Morand S, Krasnov BR, Nunn CL. Potential parasite transmission in multi-host networks based on parasite sharing. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0117909 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0117909Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
VanderWaal KL, Atwill ER, Isbell LA, McCowan B.Linking social and pathogen transmission networks using microbial genetics in giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis).J Anim Ecol.2014;83:406–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12137Article 

Google Scholar 
Kauffman K, Werner CS, Titcomb G, Pender M, Rabezara JY, Herrera JP, et al. Comparing transmission potential networks based on social network surveys, close contacts and environmental overlap in rural Madagascar. J R Soc Interface. 2022;19:20210690. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2021.0690Article 

Google Scholar 
Dallas TA, Han BA, Nunn CL, Park AW, Stephens PR, Drake JM. Host traits associated with species roles in parasite sharing networks. Oikos. 2019;128:23–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.05602Article 

Google Scholar 
Matlock W, Chau KK, AbuOun M, Stubberfield E, Barker L, Kavanagh J, et al. Genomic network analysis of environmental and livestock F-type plasmid populations. ISME J. 2021;15:2322–35. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-021-00926-wArticle 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pilosof S, Porter MA, Pascual M, Kéfi S. The multilayer nature of ecological networks. Nat Ecol Evol. 2017;1:0101. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0101Article 

Google Scholar 
Paull SH, Song S, McClure KM, Sackett LC, Kilpatrick AM, Johnson PTJ. From superspreaders to disease hotspots: linking transmission across hosts and space. Front Ecol Environ. 2012;10:75–82. https://doi.org/10.1890/110111Article 

Google Scholar 
Hutchinson MC, Bramon Mora B, Pilosof S, Barner AK, Kéfi S, Thébault E, et al. Seeing the forest for the trees: putting multilayer networks to work for community ecology. Funct Ecol. 2019;33:206–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13237Article 

Google Scholar 
Kivelä M, Arenas A, Barthelemy M, Gleeson JP, Moreno Y, Porter MA. Multilayer networks. J Complex Netw. 2014;2:203–71. https://doi.org/10.1093/comnet/cnu016Article 

Google Scholar 
Lloyd-Smith JO, Schreiber SJ, Kopp PE, Getz WM. Superspreading and the effect of individual variation on disease emergence. Nature. 2005;438:355–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04153Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Fortuna MA, Popa-Lisseanu AG, Ibáñez C, Bascompte J. The roosting spatial network of a bird-predator bat. Ecology. 2009;90:934–44. https://doi.org/10.1890/08-0174.1Article 

Google Scholar 
Newman MEJ, Girvan M. Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys. 2004;69:026113. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.69.026113Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rosvall M, Bergstrom CT. Maps of random walks on complex networks reveal community structure. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2008;105:1118–23. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0706851105Article 

Google Scholar 
De Domenico M, Lancichinetti A, Arenas A, Rosvall M. Identifying modular flows on multilayer networks reveals highly overlapping organization in interconnected systems. Phys Rev X. 2015;5:011027. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.5.011027Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Farage C, Edler D, Eklöf A, Rosvall M, Pilosof S. Identifying flow modules in ecological networks using Infomap. Methods Ecol Evol. 2021;12:778–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.13569Article 

Google Scholar 
Popa O, Hazkani-Covo E, Landan G, Martin W, Dagan T. Directed networks reveal genomic barriers and DNA repair bypasses to lateral gene transfer among prokaryotes. Genome Res. 2011;21:599–609. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.115592.110Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Smillie C, Garcillán-Barcia MP, Francia MV, Rocha EPC, de la Cruz F. Mobility of plasmids. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2010;74:434–52. https://doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.00020-10Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Garcillán-Barcia MP, Francia MV, de la Cruz F. The diversity of conjugative relaxases and its application in plasmid classification. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2009;33:657–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6976.2009.00168.xArticle 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Coluzzi C, Guédon G, Devignes MD, Ambroset C, Loux V, Lacroix T, et al. A glimpse into the world of integrative and mobilizable elements in streptococci reveals an unexpected diversity and novel families of mobilization proteins. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:443. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.00443Article 

Google Scholar 
Moraïs S, Mizrahi I. Islands in the stream: from individual to communal fiber degradation in the rumen ecosystem. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2019;43:362–79. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsre/fuz007Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
León-Sampedro R, DelaFuente J, Díaz-Agero C, Crellen T, Musicha P, Rodríguez-Beltrán J, et al. Pervasive transmission of a carbapenem resistance plasmid in the gut microbiota of hospitalized patients. Nat Microbiol. 2021;6:606–16. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-021-00879-yArticle 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rocha LEC, Singh V, Esch M, Lenaerts T, Liljeros F, Thorson A. Dynamic contact networks of patients and MRSA spread in hospitals. Sci Rep. 2020;10:9336. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-66270-9Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lerner A, Adler A, Abu-Hanna J, Cohen Percia S, Kazma Matalon M, Carmeli Y. Spread of KPC-producing carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae: the importance of super-spreaders and rectal KPC concentration. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2015;21:470.e1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2014.12.015Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Stein RA, Katz DE. Escherichia coli, cattle and the propagation of disease. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2017;364. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fnx050.de Freslon I, Martínez-López B, Belkhiria J, Strappini A, Monti G. Use of social network analysis to improve the understanding of social behaviour in dairy cattle and its impact on disease transmission. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2019;213:47–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2019.01.006Article 

Google Scholar 
Rushmore J, Caillaud D, Hall RJ, Stumpf RM, Meyers LA, Altizer S. Network-based vaccination improves prospects for disease control in wild chimpanzees. J R Soc Interface. 2014;11:20140349. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2014.0349Article 

Google Scholar 
Xue H, Cordero OX, Camas FM, Trimble W, Meyer F, Guglielmini J, et al. Eco-evolutionary dynamics of episomes among ecologically cohesive bacterial populations. MBio. 2015;6:e00552–15. https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00552-15Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Evans DR, Griffith MP, Sundermann AJ, Shutt KA, Saul MI, Mustapha MM, et al. Systematic detection of horizontal gene transfer across genera among multidrug-resistant bacteria in a single hospital. Elife. 2020;9. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.53886Abe R, Oyama F, Akeda Y, Nozaki M, Hatachi T, Okamoto Y, et al. Hospital-wide outbreaks of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae horizontally spread through a clonal plasmid harbouring bla IMP-1 in children’s hospitals in Japan. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2021;76:3314–7.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bingen EH, Desjardins P, Arlet G, Bourgeois F, Mariani-Kurkdjian P, Lambert-Zechovsky NY, et al. Molecular epidemiology of plasmid spread among extended broad-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates in a pediatric hospital. J Clin Microbiol. 1993;31:179–84. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.31.2.179-184.1993.Bai H, He LY, Wu DL, Gao FZ, Zhang M, Zou HY, et al. Spread of airborne antibiotic resistance from animal farms to the environment: dispersal pattern and exposure risk. Environ Int. 2022;158:106927 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2021.106927Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Boyland NK, Mlynski DT, James R, Brent LJN, Croft DP. The social network structure of a dynamic group of dairy cows: from individual to group level patterns. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2016;174:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2015.11.016Article 

Google Scholar 
Björk JR, Dasari M, Grieneisen L, Archie EA. Primate microbiomes over time: longitudinal answers to standing questions in microbiome research. Am J Primatol. 2019;81:e22970. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.22970Article 

Google Scholar 
Dib JR, Wagenknecht M, Farías ME, Meinhardt F. Strategies and approaches in plasmidome studies—uncovering plasmid diversity disregarding of linear elements? Front Microbiol. 2015;6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2015.00463Bankevich A, Nurk S, Antipov D, Gurevich AA, Dvorkin M, Kulikov AS, et al. SPAdes: a new genome assembly algorithm and its applications to single-cell sequencing. J Comput Biol. 2012;19:455–77. https://doi.org/10.1089/cmb.2012.0021Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rozov R, Brown Kav A, Bogumil D, Shterzer N, Halperin E, Mizrahi I, et al. Recycler: an algorithm for detecting plasmids from de novo assembly graphs. Bioinformatics. 2017;33:475–82. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btw651Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Orlek A, Stoesser N, Anjum MF, Doumith M, Ellington MJ, Peto T, et al. Plasmid classification in an era of whole-genome sequencing: application in studies of antibiotic resistance epidemiology. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:182. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.00182Article 

Google Scholar 
Komsta L, Novomestky F. Moments, cumulants, skewness, kurtosis and related tests. R package version. 2015;14.Rosvall M, Axelsson D, Bergstrom CT. The map equation. Eur Phys J Spec Top. 2010;178:13–23. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjst/e2010-01179-1Article 

Google Scholar 
Bascompte J, Jordano P, Melián CJ, Olesen JM. The nested assembly of plant–animal mutualistic networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2003;100:9383–7. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1633576100Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Vázquez DP, Poulin R, Krasnov BR, Shenbrot GI. Species abundance and the distribution of specialization in host–parasite interaction networks. J Anim Ecol. 2005;74:946–55.Article 

Google Scholar 
Fortuna MA, Stouffer DB, Olesen JM, Jordano P, Mouillot D, Krasnov BR, et al. Nestedness versus modularity in ecological networks: two sides of the same coin? J Anim Ecol. 2010;79:811–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2010.01688.xArticle 

Google Scholar 
Gillespie DT. Exact stochastic simulation of coupled chemical reactions. J Phys Chem. 1977;81:2340–61. https://doi.org/10.1021/j100540a008Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing; 2021. More

Overmann, J., Abt, B. & Sikorski, J. Present and future of culturing bacteria. Annual Review of Microbiology 71, 711–730 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
O’Leary, N. A. et al. Reference sequence (RefSeq) database at NCBI: current status, taxonomic expansion, and functional annotation. Nucleic Acids Research 44, D733 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Bobay, L. M. & Ochman, H. Biological species are universal across life’s domains. Genome Biology and Evolution 9, 491–501 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Magnabosco, C., Moore, K., Wolfe, J. & Fournier, G. Dating phototrophic microbial lineages with reticulate gene histories. Geobiology 16, 179–189 (2018).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Louca, S. et al. Function and functional redundancy in microbial systems. Nature Ecology & Evolution 2, 936–943 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Jain, C., Rodriguez-R, L. M., Phillippy, A. M., Konstantinidis, K. T. & Aluru, S. High throughput ANI analysis of 90 K prokaryotic genomes reveals clear species boundaries. Nature Communications 9, 5114 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Zhu, Q. et al. Phylogenomics of 10,575 genomes reveals evolutionary proximity between domains bacteria and archaea. Nature Communications 10, 5477 (2019).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Royalty, T.M. & Steen, A.D. Quantitatively partitioning microbial genomic traits among taxonomic ranks across the microbial tree of life. mSphere 4 (2019).Murray, C. S., Gao, Y. & Wu, M. Re-evaluating the evidence for a universal genetic boundary among microbial species. Nature Communications 12, 4059 (2021).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Powell, S. et al. eggNOG v4.0: nested orthology inference across 3686 organisms. Nucleic Acids Research 42, D231–D239 (2014).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Stoddard, S. F., Smith, B. J., Hein, R., Roller, B. R. & Schmidt, T. M. rrnDB: improved tools for interpreting rRNA gene abundance in bacteria and archaea and a new foundation for future development. Nucleic Acids Research 43, D593–D598 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Douglas, G. M. et al. Picrust2 for prediction of metagenome functions. Nature Biotechnology 38, 685–688 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wemheuer, F. et al. Tax4Fun2: prediction of habitat-specific functional profiles and functional redundancy based on 16S rRNA gene sequences. Environmental Microbiome 15, 1–12 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Louca, S., Parfrey, L. W. & Doebeli, M. Decoupling function and taxonomy in the global ocean microbiome. Science 353, 1272–1277 (2016).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wu, D. et al. A phylogeny-driven genomic encyclopaedia of bacteria and archaea. Nature 462, 1056–1060 (2009).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Louca, S. & Pennell, M. W. A general and efficient algorithm for the likelihood of diversification and discrete-trait evolutionary models. Systematic Biology 69, 545–556 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Tyson, G. W. et al. Community structure and metabolism through reconstruction of microbial genomes from the environment. Nature 428, 37–43 (2004).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sharon, I. & Banfield, J. F. Genomes from metagenomics. Science 342, 1057–1058 (2013).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Parks, D. H. et al. Recovery of nearly 8,000 metagenome-assembled genomes substantially expands the tree of life. Nature Microbiology 2, 1533–1542 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chen, L. X., Anantharaman, K., Shaiber, A., Eren, A. M. & Banfield, J. F. Accurate and complete genomes from metagenomes. Genome Research 30, 315–333 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Konstantinidis, K. T. & Tiedje, J. M. Genomic insights that advance the species definition for prokaryotes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102, 2567–2572 (2005).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kim, M., Oh, H. S., Park, S. C. & Chun, J. Towards a taxonomic coherence between average nucleotide identity and 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity for species demarcation of prokaryotes. Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology 64, 346–351 (2014).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Shapiro, B.J. What microbial population genomics has taught us about speciation. In Polz, M.F. & Rajora, O.P. (eds.) Population Genomics: Microorganisms, 31–47 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, 2019).Olm, M. R. et al. Consistent metagenome-derived metrics verify and delineate bacterial species boundaries. mSystems 5, e00731–19 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lagkouvardos, I., Overmann, J. & Clavel, T. Cultured microbes represent a substantial fraction of the human and mouse gut microbiota. Gut Microbes 8, 493–503 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Zhang, Z., Wang, J., Wang, J., Wang, J. & Li, Y. Estimate of the sequenced proportion of the global prokaryotic genome. Microbiome 8, 1–9 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Aramaki, T. et al. KofamKOALA: KEGG Ortholog assignment based on profile HMM and adaptive score threshold. Bioinformatics 36, 2251–2252 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Mira, A., Ochman, H. & Moran, N. A. Deletional bias and the evolution of bacterial genomes. Trends in Genetics 17, 589–596 (2001).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Morris, J. J., Lenski, R. E. & Zinser, E. R. The Black Queen Hypothesis: evolution of dependencies through adaptive gene loss. MBio 3, e00036–12 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Giovannoni, S. J., Cameron Thrash, J. & Temperton, B. Implications of streamlining theory for microbial ecology. ISME Journal 8, 1553–1565 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Nayfach, S., Shi, Z. J., Seshadri, R., Pollard, K. S. & Kyrpides, N. C. New insights from uncultivated genomes of the global human gut microbiome. Nature 568, 505–510 (2019).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gary, P.R. Adjusting for nonresponse in surveys. In Smart, J.C. (ed.) Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, chap. 8, 411–449 (Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 2007).Maguire, F. et al. Metagenome-assembled genome binning methods with short reads disproportionately fail for plasmids and genomic islands. Microbial Genomics 6, mgen000436 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Huerta-Cepas, J. et al. eggnog 5.0: a hierarchical, functionally and phylogenetically annotated orthology resource based on 5090 organisms and 2502 viruses. Nucleic Acids Research 47, D309–D314 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Abdel-Hamid, A.M., Solbiati, J.O., Cann, I.K.O., Sariaslani, S. & Gadd, G.M. Insights into lignin degradation and its potential industrial applications, vol. 82, chap. 1, 1–28 (Academic Press, 2013).El-Bondkly, A.M. Sequence analysis of industrially important genes from trichoderma. In Biotechnology and biology of Trichoderma, chap. 28, 377–392 (Elsevier, 2014).Dawood, A. & Ma, K. Applications of microbial β-mannanases. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology 8 (2020).Khelaifia, S., Raoult, D. & Drancourt, M. A versatile medium for cultivating methanogenic archaea. PLOS ONE 8, e61563 (2013).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Khelaifia, S. et al. Aerobic culture of methanogenic archaea without an external source of hydrogen. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases 35, 985–991 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Michał, B. et al. Phymet2: a database and toolkit for phylogenetic and metabolic analyses of methanogens. Environmental Microbiology Reports 10, 378–382 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Albright, S. & Louca, S. Trait biases in microbial reference genomes, figshare., https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.6055004.v1 (2022).Castelle, C. J. & Banfield, J. F. Major new microbial groups expand diversity and alter our understanding of the tree of life. Cell 172, 1181–1197 (2018).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Murray, A. E. et al. Roadmap for naming uncultivated archaea and bacteria. Nature Microbiology 5, 987–994 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Palleroni, N. J. Prokaryotic diversity and the importance of culturing. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 72, 3–19 (1997).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Langille, M. G. et al. Predictive functional profiling of microbial communities using 16S rRNA marker gene sequences. Nature Biotechnology 31, 814–821 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Tran, P. Q. et al. Depth-discrete metagenomics reveals the roles of microbes in biogeochemical cycling in the tropical freshwater Lake Tanganyika. The ISME Journal 15, 1971–1986 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kroeger, M. E. et al. New biological insights into how deforestation in amazonia affects soil microbial communities using metagenomics and metagenome-assembled genomes. Frontiers in Microbiology 9, 1635 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Nathani, N. M. et al. 309 metagenome assembled microbial genomes from deep sediment samples in the Gulfs of Kathiawar Peninsula. Scientific Data 8, 194 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Irazoqui, J. M., Eberhardt, M. F., Adjad, M. M., Amadio, A. F. & Collado, M. C. Identification of key microorganisms in facultative stabilization ponds from dairy industries, using metagenomics. PeerJ 10, e12772 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Hwang, Y. et al. Leave no stone unturned: individually adapted xerotolerant Thaumarchaeota sheltered below the boulders of the Atacama Desert hyperarid core. Microbiome 9, 234 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Tully, B., Wheat, C. G., Glazer, B. T. & Huber, J. A dynamic microbial community with high functional redundancy inhabits the cold, oxic subseafloor aquifer. ISME Journal 12, 1–16 (2018).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Vanwonterghem, I., Jensen, P. D., Rabaey, K. & Tyson, G. W. Genome-centric resolution of microbial diversity, metabolism and interactions in anaerobic digestion. Environmental Microbiology 18, 3144–3158 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Glasl, B. et al. Comparative genome-centric analysis reveals seasonal variation in the function of coral reef microbiomes. The ISME Journal 14, 1435–1450 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Robbins, S. J. et al. A genomic view of the reef-building coral Porites lutea and its microbial symbionts. Nature Microbiology 4, 2090–2100 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Engelberts, J. P. et al. Characterization of a sponge microbiome using an integrative genome-centric approach. The ISME Journal 14, 1100–1110 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bowerman, K. L. et al. Disease-associated gut microbiome and metabolome changes in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Nature Communications 11, 5886 (2020).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chen, Y. J. et al. Hydrodynamic disturbance controls microbial community assembly and biogeochemical processes in coastal sediments. The ISME Journal 16, 750–763 (2022).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hugerth, L. W. et al. Metagenome-assembled genomes uncover a global brackish microbiome. Genome Biology 16, 279 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Alneberg, J. et al. Ecosystem-wide metagenomic binning enables prediction of ecological niches from genomes. Communications Biology 3, 119 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Di Cesare, A. et al. Genomic comparison and spatial distribution of different Synechococcus phylotypes in the Black Sea. Frontiers in Microbiology 11, 1979 (2020).
Google Scholar 
van Vliet, D. M. et al. The bacterial sulfur cycle in expanding dysoxic and euxinic marine waters. Environmental Microbiology 23, 2834–2857 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Dalcin Martins, P. et al. Enrichment of novel Verrucomicrobia, Bacteroidetes, and Krumholzibacteria in an oxygen-limited methane- and iron-fed bioreactor inoculated with Bothnian Sea sediments. MicrobiologyOpen 10, e1175 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Stewart, R. D. et al. Compendium of 4,941 rumen metagenome-assembled genomes for rumen microbiome biology and enzyme discovery. Nature Biotechnology 37, 953–961 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Segura-Wang, M., Grabner, N., Koestelbauer, A., Klose, V. & Ghanbari, M. Genome-resolved metagenomics of the chicken gut microbiome. Frontiers in Microbiology 12, 726923 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Ruuskanen, M. O. et al. Microbial genomes retrieved from High Arctic lake sediments encode for adaptation to cold and oligotrophic environments. Limnology and Oceanography 65, S233–S247 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Haas, S., Desai, D. K., LaRoche, J., Pawlowicz, R. & Wallace, D. W. R. Geomicrobiology of the carbon, nitrogen and sulphur cycles in Powell Lake: a permanently stratified water column containing ancient seawater. Environmental Microbiology 21, 3927–3952 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Spasov, E. et al. High functional diversity among Nitrospira populations that dominate rotating biological contactor microbial communities in a municipal wastewater treatment plant. The ISME Journal 14, 1857–1872 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Vigneron, A. et al. Genomic evidence for sulfur intermediates as new biogeochemical hubs in a model aquatic microbial ecosystem. Microbiome 9, 46 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Galambos, D., Anderson, R. E., Reveillaud, J. & Huber, J. A. Genome-resolved metagenomics and metatranscriptomics reveal niche differentiation in functionally redundant microbial communities at deep-sea hydrothermal vents. Environmental Microbiology 21, 4395–4410 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Stewart, R. D. et al. Assembly of 913 microbial genomes from metagenomic sequencing of the cow rumen. Nature Communications 9, 870 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Xing, P. et al. Stratification of microbiomes during the holomictic period of Lake Fuxian, an alpine monomictic lake. Limnology and Oceanography 65, S134–S148 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Zhang, S., Hu, Z. & Wang, H. Metagenomic analysis exhibited the co-metabolism of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons by bacterial community from estuarine sediment. Environment International 129, 308–319 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lin, Y., Wang, L., Xu, K., Li, K. & Ren, H. Revealing taxon-specific heavy metal-resistance mechanisms in denitrifying phosphorus removal sludge using genome-centric metaproteomics. Microbiome 9, 67 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Liu, L. et al. High-quality bacterial genomes of a partial-nitritation/anammox system by an iterative hybrid assembly method. Microbiome 8, 155 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kantor, R. S. et al. Bioreactor microbial ecosystems for thiocyanate and cyanide degradation unravelled with genome-resolved metagenomics. Environmental Microbiology 17, 4929–4941 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zhou, Z. et al. Gammaproteobacteria mediating utilization of methyl-, sulfur- and petroleum organic compounds in deep ocean hydrothermal plumes. The ISME Journal 14, 3136–3148 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Reysenbach, A. L. et al. Complex subsurface hydrothermal fluid mixing at a submarine arc volcano supports distinct and highly diverse microbial communities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117, 32627–32638 (2020).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hou, J. et al. Microbial succession during the transition from active to inactive stages of deep-sea hydrothermal vent sulfide chimneys. Microbiome 8, 102 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Campanaro, S. et al. Metagenomic analysis and functional characterization of the biogas microbiome using high throughput shotgun sequencing and a novel binning strategy. Biotechnology for Biofuels 9, 26 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Singleton, C. M. et al. Connecting structure to function with the recovery of over 1000 high-quality metagenome-assembled genomes from activated sludge using long-read sequencing. Nature Communications 12, 2009 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Diamond, S. et al. Mediterranean grassland soil C–N compound turnover is dependent on rainfall and depth, and is mediated by genomically divergent microorganisms. Nature Microbiology 4, 1356–1367 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rasigraf, O. et al. Microbial community composition and functional potential in Bothnian Sea sediments is linked to Fe and S dynamics and the quality of organic matter. Limnology and Oceanography 65, S113–S133 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rissanen, A. J. et al. Vertical stratification patterns of methanotrophs and their genetic controllers in water columns of oxygen-stratified boreal lakes. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 97, fiaa252 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Campanaro, S. et al. New insights from the biogas microbiome by comprehensive genome-resolved metagenomics of nearly 1600 species originating from multiple anaerobic digesters. Biotechnology for Biofuels 13, 25 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Almeida, A. et al. A unified catalog of 204,938 reference genomes from the human gut microbiome. Nature Biotechnology 39, 105–114 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zhou, Z. et al. Genome- and community-level interaction insights into carbon utilization and element cycling functions of hydrothermarchaeota in hydrothermal sediment. mSystems 5 (2020).Pachiadaki, M. G. et al. Charting the complexity of the marine microbiome through single-cell genomics. Cell 179, 1623–1635.e11 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Martijn, J., Vosseberg, J., Guy, L., Offre, P. & Ettema, T. J. G. Deep mitochondrial origin outside the sampled alphaproteobacteria. Nature 557, 101–105 (2018).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Greenlon, A. et al. Global-level population genomics reveals differential effects of geography and phylogeny on horizontal gene transfer in soil bacteria. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, 15200–15209 (2019).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hervé, V. et al. Phylogenomic analysis of 589 metagenome-assembled genomes encompassing all major prokaryotic lineages from the gut of higher termites. PeerJ 8, e8614 (2020).
Google Scholar 
von Appen, W.J. The expedition PS114 of the research vessel POLARSTERN to the Fram Strait in 2018. Tech. Rep., Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research (2018).Dombrowski, N., Seitz, K. W., Teske, A. P. & Baker, B. J. Genomic insights into potential interdependencies in microbial hydrocarbon and nutrient cycling in hydrothermal sediments. Microbiome 5, 106 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Yu, J. et al. Dna-stable isotope probing shotgun metagenomics reveals the resilience of active microbial communities to biochar amendment in oxisol soil. Frontiers in Microbiology 11, 587972 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Forster, S. C. et al. A human gut bacterial genome and culture collection for improved metagenomic analyses. Nature Biotechnology 37, 186–192 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gharechahi, J. et al. Metagenomic analysis reveals a dynamic microbiome with diversified adaptive functions to utilize high lignocellulosic forages in the cattle rumen. The ISME Journal 15, 1108–1120 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Meier, D. V., Imminger, S., Gillor, O. & Woebken, D. Distribution of mixotrophy and desiccation survival mechanisms across microbial genomes in an arid biological soil crust community. mSystems 6, e00786–20 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Haro-Moreno, J. M. et al. Dysbiosis in marine aquaculture revealed through microbiome analysis: reverse ecology for environmental sustainability. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 96, fiaa218 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Haro-Moreno, J. M. et al. Fine metagenomic profile of the Mediterranean stratified and mixed water columns revealed by assembly and recruitment. Microbiome 6, 128 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Dong, X. et al. Metabolic potential of uncultured bacteria and archaea associated with petroleum seepage in deep-sea sediments. Nature Communications 10, 1816 (2019).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Poghosyan, L. et al. Metagenomic profiling of ammonia- and methane-oxidizing microorganisms in two sequential rapid sand filters. Water Research 185, 116288 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Paula, D. M., Jeroen, F., Hugh, M. & Meng, M. L. & J., W.M. Wetland sediments host diverse microbial taxa capable of cycling alcohols. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 85, 00189–19 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Aromokeye, D. A. et al. Crystalline iron oxides stimulate methanogenic benzoate degradation in marine sediment-derived enrichment cultures. The ISME Journal 15, 965–980 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Borchert, E. et al. Deciphering a marine bone-degrading microbiome reveals a complex community effort. mSystems 6, e01218–20 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Osvatic, J. T. et al. Global biogeography of chemosynthetic symbionts reveals both localized and globally distributed symbiont groups. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, e2104378118 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Boeuf, D. et al. Biological composition and microbial dynamics of sinking particulate organic matter at abyssal depths in the oligotrophic open ocean. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, 11824–11832 (2019).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Woodcroft, B. J. et al. Genome-centric view of carbon processing in thawing permafrost. Nature 560, 49–54 (2018).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Alqahtani, M. F. et al. Enrichment of Marinobacter sp. and halophilic homoacetogens at the biocathode of microbial electrosynthesis system inoculated with Red Sea brine pool. Frontiers in Microbiology 10, 2563 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Haroon, M. F., Thompson, L. R., Parks, D. H., Hugenholtz, P. & Stingl, U. A catalogue of 136 microbial draft genomes from Red Sea metagenomes. Scientific Data 3, 160050 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Vavourakis, C. D. et al. A metagenomics roadmap to the uncultured genome diversity in hypersaline soda lake sediments. Microbiome 6, 1–18 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Cabello-Yeves, P. J. et al. Microbiome of the deep Lake Baikal, a unique oxic bathypelagic habitat. Limnology and Oceanography 65, 1471–1488 (2020).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Vavourakis, C. D. et al. Metagenomes and metatranscriptomes shed new light on the microbial-mediated sulfur cycle in a siberian soda lake. BMC Biology 17, 69 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Waterworth, S. C., Isemonger, E. W., Rees, E. R., Dorrington, R. A. & Kwan, J. C. Conserved bacterial genomes from two geographically isolated peritidal stromatolite formations shed light on potential functional guilds. Environmental Microbiology Reports 13, 126–137 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Huddy, R. J. et al. Thiocyanate and organic carbon inputs drive convergent selection for specific autotrophic Afipia and Thiobacillus strains within complex microbiomes. Frontiers in Microbiology 12, 643368 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Emerson, J. B. et al. Diverse sediment microbiota shape methane emission temperature sensitivity in Arctic lakes. Nature Communications 12, 5815 (2021).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chiri, E. et al. Termite gas emissions select for hydrogenotrophic microbial communities in termite mounds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, e2102625118 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gong, G., Zhou, S., Luo, R., Gesang, Z. & Suolang, S. Metagenomic insights into the diversity of carbohydrate-degrading enzymes in the yak fecal microbial community. BMC Microbiology 20, 302 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Zhou, S. et al. Characterization of metagenome-assembled genomes and carbohydrate-degrading genes in the gut microbiota of Tibetan pig. Frontiers in Microbiology 11, 595066 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Tully, B. J., Graham, E. D. & Heidelberg, J. F. The reconstruction of 2,631 draft metagenome-assembled genomes from the global oceans. Scientific Data 5, 170203 (2018).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lavrinienko, A. et al. Two hundred and fifty-four metagenome-assembled bacterial genomes from the bank vole gut microbiota. Scientific Data 7, 312 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Peng, X. et al. Genomic and functional analyses of fungal and bacterial consortia that enable lignocellulose breakdown in goat gut microbiomes. Nature Microbiology 6, 499–511 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dudek, N. K. et al. Novel microbial diversity and functional potential in the marine mammal oral microbiome. Current Biology 27, 3752–3762.e6 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pinto, A. J. et al. Metagenomic evidence for the presence of comammox nitrospira-like bacteria in a drinking water system. mSphere 1, e00054–15 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Zaremba-Niedzwiedzka, K. et al. Asgard archaea illuminate the origin of eukaryotic cellular complexity. Nature 541, 353–358 (2017).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nobu, M. K. et al. Catabolism and interactions of uncultured organisms shaped by eco-thermodynamics in methanogenic bioprocesses. Microbiome 8, 111 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Butterfield, C. N. et al. Proteogenomic analyses indicate bacterial methylotrophy and archaeal heterotrophy are prevalent below the grass root zone. PeerJ 4, e2687 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Castelle, C. J. et al. Protein family content uncovers lineage relationships and bacterial pathway maintenance mechanisms in DPANN Archaea. Frontiers in Microbiology 12, 660052 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Alteio, L. V. et al. Complementary metagenomic approaches improve reconstruction of microbial diversity in a forest soil. mSystems 5, e00768–19 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Shaiber, A. et al. Functional and genetic markers of niche partitioning among enigmatic members of the human oral microbiome. Genome Biology 21, 292 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Jungbluth, S. P., Amend, J. P. & Rappé, M. S. Metagenome sequencing and 98 microbial genomes from Juan de Fuca Ridge flank subsurface fluids. Scientific Data 4, 170037 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sheik, C. S. et al. Dolichospermum blooms in Lake Superior: DNA-based approach provides insight to the past, present and future of blooms. Journal of Great Lakes Research 48, 1191–1205 (2022).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Barnum, T. P. et al. Genome-resolved metagenomics identifies genetic mobility, metabolic interactions, and unexpected diversity in perchlorate-reducing communities. The ISME Journal 12, 1568–1581 (2018).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Julian, D. et al. Coastal ocean metagenomes and curated metagenome-assembled genomes from Marsh Landing, Sapelo Island (Georgia, USA). Microbiology Resource Announcements 8, e00934–19 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Breister, A. M. et al. Soil microbiomes mediate degradation of vinyl ester-based polymer composites. Communications Materials 1, 101 (2020).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Fu, H., Uchimiya, M., Gore, J. & Moran, M. A. Ecological drivers of bacterial community assembly in synthetic phycospheres. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117, 3656–3662 (2020).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nobu, M. K. et al. Thermodynamically diverse syntrophic aromatic compound catabolism. Environmental Microbiology 19, 4576–4586 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pasolli, E. et al. Extensive unexplored human microbiome diversity revealed by over 150,000 genomes from metagenomes spanning age, geography, and lifestyle. Cell 176, 649–662 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nayfach, S. et al. A genomic catalog of Earth’s microbiomes. Nature Biotechnology 39, 499–509 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Li, Z. et al. Deep sea sediments associated with cold seeps are a subsurface reservoir of viral diversity. The ISME Journal 15, 2366–2378 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bay, S. K. et al. Trace gas oxidizers are widespread and active members of soil microbial communities. Nature Microbiology 6, 246–256 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Seyler, L. M., Trembath-Reichert, E., Tully, B. J. & Huber, J. A. Time-series transcriptomics from cold, oxic subseafloor crustal fluids reveals a motile, mixotrophic microbial community. The ISME Journal 15, 1192–1206 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Herold, M. et al. Integration of time-series meta-omics data reveals how microbial ecosystems respond to disturbance. Nature Communications 11, 5281 (2020).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dong, X. et al. Thermogenic hydrocarbon biodegradation by diverse depth-stratified microbial populations at a Scotian Basin cold seep. Nature Communications 11, 5825 (2020).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Thompson, L. R. et al. Metagenomic covariation along densely sampled environmental gradients in the Red Sea. The ISME Journal 11, 138–151 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dominik, S., Daniela, Z., Anja, P., Katharina, R. & Rolf, D. Metagenome-assembled genome sequences from different wastewater treatment stages in Germany. Microbiology Resource Announcements 10, e00504–21 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Langwig, M. V. et al. Large-scale protein level comparison of Deltaproteobacteria reveals cohesive metabolic groups. The ISME Journal 16, 307–320 (2022).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rezaei Somee, M. et al. Distinct microbial community along the chronic oil pollution continuum of the Persian Gulf converge with oil spill accidents. Scientific Reports 11, 11316 (2021).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gilroy, R. et al. Metagenomic investigation of the equine faecal microbiome reveals extensive taxonomic diversity. PeerJ 10, e13084 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Bhattarai, B., Bhattacharjee, A. S., Coutinho, F. H. & Goel, R. K. Viruses and their interactions with bacteria and archaea of hypersaline Great Salt Lake. Frontiers in Microbiology 12, 701414 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Liu, L. et al. Microbial diversity and adaptive strategies in the Mars-like Qaidam Basin, North Tibetan Plateau, China. Environmental Microbiology Reports (2022).Lin, H. et al. Mercury methylation by metabolically versatile and cosmopolitan marine bacteria. The ISME Journal 15, 1810–1825 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Martnez-Pérez, C. et al. Lifting the lid: nitrifying archaea sustain diverse microbial communities below the Ross Ice Shelf. SSRN (2020).Zhang, L. et al. Metagenomic insights into the effect of thermal hydrolysis pre-treatment on microbial community of an anaerobic digestion system. Science of The Total Environment 791, 148096 (2021).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Starr, E. P. et al. Stable-isotope-informed, genome-resolved metagenomics uncovers potential cross-kingdom interactions in rhizosphere soil. mSphere 6, e00085–21 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Matthew, C. et al. Archaeal and bacterial metagenome-assembled genome sequences derived from pig feces. Microbiology Resource Announcements 11, 01142–21 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Wang, Y., Zhao, R., Liu, L., Li, B. & Zhang, T. Selective enrichment of comammox from activated sludge using antibiotics. Water Research 197, 117087 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gilroy, R. et al. Extensive microbial diversity within the chicken gut microbiome revealed by metagenomics and culture. PeerJ 9, e10941 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Chen, Y. H. et al. Salvaging high-quality genomes of microbial species from a meromictic lake using a hybrid sequencing approach. Communications Biology 4, 996 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Beach, N. K., Myers, K. S., Donohue, T. J. & Noguera, D. R. Metagenomes from 25 low-abundance microbes in a partial nitritation anammox microbiome. Microbiology Resource Announcements 11, 00212–22 (2022).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Solanki, V. et al. Glycoside hydrolase from the GH76 family indicates that marine Salegentibacter sp. Hel_I_6 consumes alpha-mannan from fungi. The ISME Journal 16, 1818–1830 (2022).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hiraoka, S. et al. Diverse DNA modification in marine prokaryotic and viral communities. Nucleic Acids Research 50, 1531–1550 (2022).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Haryono, M.A.S. et al. Recovery of high quality metagenome-assembled genomes from full-scale activated sludge microbial communities in a tropical climate using longitudinal metagenome sampling. Frontiers in Microbiology 13 (2022).Rodrguez-Ramos, J.A. et al. Microbial genome-resolved metaproteomic analyses frame intertwined carbon and nitrogen cycles in river hyporheic sediments. Research Square (2021).Kim, M., Cho, H. & Lee, W. Y. Distinct gut microbiotas between southern elephant seals and Weddell seals of Antarctica. Journal of Microbiology 58, 1018–1026 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Voorhies, A. A. et al. Cyanobacterial life at low O2: community genomics and function reveal metabolic versatility and extremely low diversity in a Great Lakes sinkhole mat. Geobiology 10, 250–267 (2012).CAS 

Google Scholar 
McDaniel, E. A. et al. Tbasco: trait-based comparative ‘omics identifies ecosystem-level and niche-differentiating adaptations of an engineered microbiome. ISME Communications 2, 111 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Wang, W. et al. Contrasting bacterial and archaeal distributions reflecting different geochemical processes in a sediment core from the Pearl River Estuary. AMB Express 10, 16 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Mandakovic, D. et al. Genome-scale metabolic models of Microbacterium species isolated from a high altitude desert environment. Scientific Reports 10, 5560 (2020).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wang, Y. et al. Seasonal prevalence of ammonia-oxidizing archaea in a full-scale municipal wastewater treatment plant treating saline wastewater revealed by a 6-year time-series analysis. Environmental Science & Technology 55, 2662–2673 (2021).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bulzu, P. A. et al. Casting light on Asgardarchaeota metabolism in a sunlit microoxic niche. Nature Microbiology 4, 1129–1137 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Karen, J. et al. Hydrogen-oxidizing bacteria are abundant in desert soils and strongly stimulated by hydration. mSystems 5, e01131–20 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Rust, M. et al. A multiproducer microbiome generates chemical diversity in the marine sponge Mycale hentscheli. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117, 9508–9518 (2020).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Podowski, J. C., Paver, S. F., Newton, R. J. & Coleman, M. L. Genome streamlining, proteorhodopsin, and organic nitrogen metabolism in freshwater nitrifiers. mBio 13, e02379–21 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Coutinho, F. H. et al. New viral biogeochemical roles revealed through metagenomic analysis of Lake Baikal. Microbiome 8, 163 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Philippi, M. et al. Purple sulfur bacteria fix N2 via molybdenum-nitrogenase in a low molybdenum Proterozoic ocean analogue. Nature Communications 12, 4774 (2021).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Katie, S. et al. Eight metagenome-assembled genomes provide evidence for microbial adaptation in 20,000- to 1,000,000-year-old Siberian permafrost. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 87, e00972–21 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Mert, K. et al. Unexpected abundance and diversity of phototrophs in mats from morphologically variable microbialites in Great Salt Lake, Utah. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 86, e00165–20 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Patin, N. V. et al. Gulf of Mexico blue hole harbors high levels of novel microbial lineages. The ISME Journal 15, 2206–2232 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wang, J., Tang, X., Mo, Z. & Mao, Y. Metagenome-assembled genomes from Pyropia haitanensis microbiome provide insights into the potential metabolic functions to the seaweed. Frontiers in Microbiology 13, 857901 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Burgsdorf, I. et al. Lineage-specific energy and carbon metabolism of sponge symbionts and contributions to the host carbon pool. The ISME Journal 16, 1163–1175 (2022).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Suarez, C. et al. Disturbance-based management of ecosystem services and disservices in partial nitritation-anammox biofilms. npj Biofilms and Microbiomes 8, 47 (2022).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kumar, D. et al. Textile industry wastewaters from Jetpur, Gujarat, India, are dominated by Shewanellaceae, Bacteroidaceae, and Pseudomonadaceae harboring genes encoding catalytic enzymes for textile dye degradation. Frontiers in Environmental Science 9, 720707 (2021).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Seitz, V. A. et al. Variation in root exudate composition influences soil microbiome membership and function. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 88, e00226–22 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Lindner, B. G. et al. Toward shotgun metagenomic approaches for microbial source tracking sewage spills based on laboratory mesocosms. Water Research 210, 117993 (2022).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yancey, C. E. et al. Metagenomic and metatranscriptomic insights into population diversity of microcystis blooms: Spatial and temporal dynamics of mcy genotypes, including a partial operon that can be abundant and expressed. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 88, e02464–21 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Liu, L. et al. Charting the complexity of the activated sludge microbiome through a hybrid sequencing strategy. Microbiome 9, 205 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Speth, D. R. et al. Microbial communities of Auka hydrothermal sediments shed light on vent biogeography and the evolutionary history of thermophily. The ISME Journal 16, 1750–1764 (2022).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Blyton, M. D. J., Soo, R. M., Hugenholtz, P. & Moore, B. D. Maternal inheritance of the koala gut microbiome and its compositional and functional maturation during juvenile development. Environmental Microbiology 24, 475–493 (2022).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nuccio, E. E. et al. Niche differentiation is spatially and temporally regulated in the rhizosphere. The ISME Journal 14, 999–1014 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jaffe, A. L. et al. Long-term incubation of lake water enables genomic sampling of consortia involving planctomycetes and candidate phyla radiation bacteria. mSystems 7, e00223–22 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Cabral, L. et al. Gut microbiome of the largest living rodent harbors unprecedented enzymatic systems to degrade plant polysaccharides. Nature Communications 13, 629 (2022).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Blyton, M. D. J., Soo, R. M., Hugenholtz, P. & Moore, B. D. Characterization of the juvenile koala gut microbiome across wild populations. Environmental Microbiology 24, 4209–4219 (2022).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Xu, B. et al. A holistic genome dataset of bacteria, archaea and viruses of the Pearl River estuary. Scientific Data 9, 49 (2022).MathSciNet 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Royo-Llonch, M. et al. Compendium of 530 metagenome-assembled bacterial and archaeal genomes from the polar Arctic Ocean. Nature Microbiology 6, 1561–1574 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sun, J., Prabhu, A., Aroney, S. T. N. & Rinke, C. Insights into plastic biodegradation: community composition and functional capabilities of the superworm (Zophobas morio) microbiome in styrofoam feeding trials. Microbial Genomics 8, 000842 (2022).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kim, M. et al. Higher pathogen load in children from Mozambique vs. USA revealed by comparative fecal microbiome profiling. ISME Communications 2, 74 (2022).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Kelly, J. B., Carlson, D. E., Low, J. S. & Thacker, R. W. Novel trends of genome evolution in highly complex tropical sponge microbiomes. Microbiome 10, 164 (2022).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bray, M. S. et al. Phylogenetic and structural diversity of aromatically dense pili from environmental metagenomes. Environmental Microbiology Reports 12, 49–57 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cabello-Yeves, P. J. et al. α-cyanobacteria possessing form IA RuBisCO globally dominate aquatic habitats. The ISME Journal 16, 2421–2432 (2022).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Berben, T. et al. The Polar Fox Lagoon in Siberia harbours a community of Bathyarchaeota possessing the potential for peptide fermentation and acetogenesis. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 115, 1229–1244 (2022).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Tamburini, F. B. et al. Short- and long-read metagenomics of urban and rural South African gut microbiomes reveal a transitional composition and undescribed taxa. Nature Communications 13, 926 (2022).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kantor, R. S., Miller, S. E. & Nelson, K. L. The water microbiome through a pilot scale advanced treatment facility for direct potable reuse. Frontiers in Microbiology 10, 993 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Muratore, D. et al. Complex marine microbial communities partition metabolism of scarce resources over the diel cycle. Nature Ecology & Evolution 6, 218–229 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Zhou, Y. L., Mara, P., Cui, G. J., Edgcomb, V. P. & Wang, Y. Microbiomes in the challenger deep slope and bottom-axis sediments. Nature Communications 13, 1515 (2022).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, H. et al. Metagenome sequencing and 768 microbial genomes from cold seep in South China Sea. Scientific Data 9, 480 (2022).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zhuang, J. L., Zhou, Y. Y., Liu, Y. D. & Li, W. Flocs are the main source of nitrous oxide in a high-rate anammox granular sludge reactor: insights from metagenomics and fed-batch experiments. Water Research 186, e116321 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Shiffman, M. E. et al. Gene and genome-centric analyses of koala and wombat fecal microbiomes point to metabolic specialization for eucalyptus digestion. PeerJ 5, 4075 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Murphy, S. M. C., Bautista, M. A., Cramm, M. A. & Hubert, C. R. J. Diesel and crude oil biodegradation by cold-adapted microbial communities in the Labrador Sea. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 87, e00800–21 (2021).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Suarez, C. et al. Metagenomic evidence of a novel family of anammox bacteria in a subsea environment. Environmental Microbiology 24, 2348–2360 (2022).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dharamshi, J.E. et al. Genomic diversity and biosynthetic capabilities of sponge-associated chlamydiae. The ISME Journal (2022).Florian, P. O., Hugo, R. & Mathieu, A. Recovery of metagenome-assembled genomes from a human fecal sample with pacific biosciences high-fidelity sequencing. Microbiology Resource Announcements 11, e00250–22 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Bloom, S. M. et al. Cysteine dependence of Lactobacillus iners is a potential therapeutic target for vaginal microbiota modulation. Nature Microbiology 7, 434–450 (2022).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Aylward, F. O. et al. Diel cycling and long-term persistence of viruses in the ocean’s euphotic zone. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, 11446–11451 (2017).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Parks, D. H., Imelfort, M., Skennerton, C. T., Hugenholtz, P. & Tyson, G. W. CheckM: assessing the quality of microbial genomes recovered from isolates, single cells, and metagenomes. Genome Research 25, 1043–1055 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bowers, R. M. et al. Minimum information about a single amplified genome (MISAG) and a metagenome-assembled genome (MIMAG) of bacteria and archaea. Nature biotechnology 35, 725 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chaumeil, P. A., Mussig, A. J., Hugenholtz, P. & Parks, D. H. GTDB-Tk: a toolkit to classify genomes with the Genome Taxonomy Database. Bioinformatics 36, 1925–1927 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Louca, S. The rates of global bacterial and archaeal dispersal. ISME Journal 16, 159–167 (2021).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Ondov, B. D. et al. Mash: fast genome and metagenome distance estimation using minhash. Genome Biology 17, 132 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Müllner, D. fastcluster: Fast hierarchical, agglomerative clustering routines for R and Python. Journal of Statistical Software 53, 1–18 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Kinene, T., Wainaina, J., Maina, S., Boykin, L.M. & Kliman, R.M. Methods for rooting trees, vol. 3, 489–493 (Academic Press, Oxford, 2016).Louca, S. & Doebeli, M. Efficient comparative phylogenetics on large trees. Bioinformatics 34, 1053–1055 (2018).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rees, J. A. & Cranston, K. Automated assembly of a reference taxonomy for phylogenetic data synthesis. Biodiversity Data Journal 5, e12581 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Heck, K. et al. Evaluating methods for purifying cyanobacterial cultures by qPCR and high-throughput Illumina sequencing. Journal of Microbiological Methods 129, 55–60 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cornet, L. et al. Consensus assessment of the contamination level of publicly available cyanobacterial genomes. PLOS ONE 13, e0200323 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Alneberg, J. et al. Genomes from uncultivated prokaryotes: a comparison of metagenome-assembled and single-amplified genomes. Microbiome 6, 173 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Eddy, S. R. Accelerated profile HMM searches. PLoS Computational Biology 7, e1002195 (2011).ADS 
MathSciNet 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Buchfink, B., Xie, C. & Huson, D. H. Fast and sensitive protein alignment using DIAMOND. Nature Methods 12, 59–60 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Pedregosa, F. et al. Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research 12, 2825–2830 (2011).MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar  More

Differences in mucus physicochemical factors and nutrient elements among electrical stimuliPhysical and chemical factorsMucus contains electrolytes, such as potassium and multivalent calcium and magnesium ions, which participate in the osmoregulation of the earthworm body to maintain the metabolic balance of the organism7,23. When earthworms are subjected to different stimuli, the mucus composition changes10. As shown in Fig. 1a, earthworms produced mucus with significant (P  More

This study provides quantitative data for Ocyropsis spp. feeding mechanisms and in situ data for gut contents during both day and night to begin assessing their trophic role in oceanic waters. Previous studies qualitatively described the feeding pattern of Ocyropsis spp.15 whereby this animal uses a unique capture mechanism among lobate ctenophores: direct transfer from lobe to mouth and encounters involving the mouth actively grabbing copepod prey24. These previous observations are confirmed as Ocyropsis spp. is able to deploy its dexterous, prehensile mouth to effectively capture prey within the lobes (Figs. 2, 3) and quantitative assessments of predation are also provided. It should be noted that while Ocyropsis spp. are known to occasionally consume a wide variety of prey types and sizes15, this study focuses only on copepod prey because our field data showed recognizable prey in Ocyropsis spp. guts was almost exclusively copepods.For example, mean speed of the mouth is less than 6 mm s−1 during predation events on copepods. Thus, while it may look rapid to the human eye, this is far below the escape swimming speeds exhibited by many copepods which are capable of moving at speeds of up to 500 mm s−125,26. Our observations show that the mechanism of capture is thus not reliant on grabbing copepods from the water between the ctenophore lobes with the mouth, but rather aided by copepod contact with the ctenophore lobes. Copepods between the lobes swam only with a speed of 7.94 mm s−1 (S.D. 7.25), to which the average mouth speed (5.83 mm s−1 (S.D. 1.68)) is comparable (Table 1). This suggests that Ocyropsis is able to reduce copepod swimming activity either by trapping them against the lobes (lobes respond to contact by prey) and/or the use of some form of adhesion or chemical that acts to reduce copepod activity. This unusual form of predation using a prehensile mouth allows Ocyropsis to be highly effective predators without the use of prey capturing tentillae seen in other lobate species.The presence of multiple prey has the potential to disrupt a raptorial type feeder such as Ocyropsis spp. more so than other lobates, since they lack tentillae, which would allow them to capture multiple prey simultaneously. Instead Ocyropsis spp. transfer one prey at a time directly from lobe to mouth15,27. So how is this ctenophore able to maintain such a high overall capture rate? The answer appears to be that Ocyropsis will modulate the number of attempts with the prehensile mouth depending on the number of prey present. For example, we did not observe any captures on the first attempt with the mouth with multiple prey, but the animals made up to 8 attempts at capturing the nearest copepod. This is in contrast to single copepod encounters in which ctenophores captured copepods on the first attempt 61% of the time and rarely made over 2 attempts, never exceeding 3 attempts (Figs. 3a, 5a, Table 1). This demonstrates Ocyropsis spp. can adjust its behavior to maintain high overall capture success when presented with multiple simultaneous prey. It is also interesting to note that the resulting increase in handling time due to making more attempts during multiple prey encounters is still lower than the handling time for most other lobates dealing with single prey27,28. It is not clear how often Ocyropsis spp. need to deal with multiple copepods simultaneously in nature, as oceanic waters contain characteristically low ctenophore prey densities compared to coastal zones9,29, however prey can be highly patchy and it appears that the unique prey capture mechanism of Ocyropsis spp. is still able to operate effectively in high density patches by increasing the number of attempts before aborting the attack which could serve as a means to maintain similar ingestion rates to single prey encounters.Typically, the feeding sequence of a ctenophore involves capture of prey in sticky colloblast cells and retraction of tentillae and/or ciliary transport of prey to the mouth15,27,30. These feeding mechanisms result in a range of handling times ranging from 2.5 s for Bolinopsis. infundibulum28 to nearly 22 min for Pleurobrachia bachei27. Capture rates can also be quite high, with overall capture success rates up to 74% for Mnemiopsis leidyi2,3. We found Ocyropsis has a relatively fast mean handling time of 6.3 s when a single copepod was present between the lobes, but handling time increased by approximately 2.5-fold if multiple prey were present. Overall capture success rates were comparable to the highly effective coastal ctenophore, M. leidyi, with a 71% success rate with single prey present and 81% capture rates if multiple prey were present between the lobes. Thus, Ocyropsis spp. are able to capture prey with high efficiency despite the differences in feeding mechanics compared to coastal lobate ctenophores. Additionally, since encounter rates of planktivores are directly related to the time spent searching for prey and time spent handling prey27, the relatively short handling time of Ocyropsis spp. and their direct feeding mechanism may allow them to sample more water and encounter a larger proportion of the available prey population than other species.Diel patterns of prey consumptionMany planktivorous species exhibit higher gut fullness at night31,32, due to higher prey availability in surface waters as a result of a diel vertical migration33,34. In situ gut content images showed that Ocyropsis spp. had a significantly higher gut fullness at night (12.4%) compared to during the day (4.2%) (Fig. 7). Ocyropsis spp. also had higher numbers of prey per individual gut at night, although overall biomass was not significantly different between night and day (Fig. 7). This can be explained by differences in prey characteristics; prey observed in the gut during the day were significantly larger (Table 2). This may be due to an ability to feed more selectively during the day since overall prey densities are lower. It should also be considered that turbulence in surface waters is, on average, much lower at night compared to daytime35 and that even small amounts of turbulence can negatively impact ctenophore feeding36,37. Therefore, smaller prey may have a higher likelihood of evading detection of Ocyropsis during the day compared to night, especially since these animals are most frequently observed in the upper 15 m of oceanic waters.Kremer, et al.38 estimates that O. crystallina requires 252 prey items to sustain itself. On average, Ocyropsis spp. in this study consume over 500 prey d−1. This exceeds their metabolic demands and suggests the observed population, on the western edge of the Gulf Stream, are likely to be actively growing and reproducing. The time required to digest prey items averaged 44 min for Ocyropsis which is faster than many, but not all, gelatinous zooplankton39,40,41. Digestion times of other gelatinous taxa span a range of times from 15 min to over 7 h at 20 °C40 and are impacted by size and number of prey per gut as well as temperature39,42,43. Digestion observations were performed at an ambient temperature of 25 °C and thus, these numbers represent a conservative estimate because the temperature of the water from which the animals were collected was 26.7–27.4 °C. Ocyropsis spp. would likely experience an increase in digestion rate with increased temperature.Digestion time was not impacted by the number of prey in the gut or by ctenophore body length. This differs from trends seen in other gelatinous taxa, such as A. aurita, M. leidyi, and B. infundibulum, where increasing body size resulted in faster digestion time39,40 and where increasing number of prey in the gut leads to longer digestion times39,40,41. In this study however, ctenophores were offered only a few copepods to ingest, thus it is likely they were not fed enough prey to satiate and slow the digestion process. Also worth considering is that the metabolic rate of O. crystallina does not appear to be affected by body size38. Though metabolic rates were not measured, this aligns with our finding that body size had no significant effect on digestion time. Analysis of in situ gut contents showed a significant positive logarithmic relationship between ctenophore length and total prey biomass per gut (Fig. 8). Individuals smaller than 20 mm in this study typically had fewer than the average number of copepods per gut (19), and larger individuals were the main driver of this relationship. This suggests that small Ocyropsis ( More

This paper describes the complexity of gravitational fractals in terms of global and local dimensions. They are presented in Table 1.Table 1 Global and local dimensions of gravitational fractals and attraction basins.Full size tableThe fractal in hexagonal CPT space, shown in Fig. 1, has a very rich structure, and therefore its characterization by means of fractal dimensions requires two approaches: (1) a global approach treating the fractal as a complex whole and (2) a local approach which allows us to determine the dimension of its fragments which are particularly interesting from a research perspective (see also Table 1). In the subsequent part of the paper, the results obtained are presented and interpreted according to the division in the table.Global dimension of boundaries of gravity attraction basinsTwo types of fractal dimensions have been thus far used in this analysis, i.e., the box and ruler dimensions. Figure 3 shows the distribution of the values of these dimensions determined for the boundaries of attraction as a function of space friction μ.Figure 3Comparison of the variability of the global ruler and box dimensions. Legend: The edge of all attraction basins is a function of the μ coefficient; 1–edges of all basins, 2–entire basins.Full size imageFigure 3 empirically confirms a fact known from chaos theory that whenever a fractal represents full chaos, the ruler dimension may be greater than 2 (Peitgen et al.33, 192–209), whereas the box dimension never exceeds this extreme value. Clearly, for a certain value of μ (in this case μ = 0.19), the numerical values of both types of dimensions are identical.In the bottom part of Fig. 3, line 1 illustrates the variability of the shapes of the attraction basins of individual cities depending on the value of μ, i.e., space resistance. The initially extremely complex shapes of the boundaries are smoothed to take the form of straight lines in the case of a large value of μ (μ = 0.52).In turn, line 2 illustrates not only the boundaries of the attraction basins, but also their internal structure. Clearly, the initially chaotic impacts of individual cities on the agent (μ = 0.005) are gradually smoothed out, so that in the final stage of the process they fully stabilize. This means that each city has a geometrically identical basin of attraction. Hence, if the agent is in the attraction basin of city 1 (purple color), it will always be attracted only by that city. This rule also applies to the other cities. It is obvious that the random process occurring at μ = 0.09 is then replaced by a strictly deterministic one. When chaos becomes complete order (Banaszak et al.15, the numerical values of both types of dimensions appear to stabilize at the level of 1.Global dimension of the boundary of each separate attraction basinFigure 1 also shows the geometric image of the attraction basins of individual cities. They were almost identical, and therefore also the fractal dimensions of the boundaries of these basins must match. The validity of this proposition is confirmed by Fig. 4. Six lines representing the distribution of the fractal dimension of the boundaries of the six basins coincide with almost full accuracy. Further analysis of Fig. 4 allows us to infer the conclusion that there is almost total chaos at the value db = 1.9021 (μ = 0.005). On the other hand, as space resistance increases to the value of μ = 0.22, there is a rapid decrease in the value of the fractal dimension of the boundary of each basin to the level of 1.2628; when μ = 0.34, then db = 1.2382. In that case, the value of the fractal dimension stabilizes, and at μ = 0.46, db = 1.2444 and finally for μ = 0.52, db reaches the value of 1.0412. The icons presented in Fig. 4 in lines 1 and 2 have slightly different structures than the icons in Fig. 3, due to different values of μ in certain cases.Figure 4The box dimension of the edges of the attraction basins depending on the μ coefficient (separately for each attractor). Legend: 1–boundaries of single attraction basins, 2–entire basins.Full size imageThe global dimension of the attraction basin of each city as an irregular geometric figureThe full symmetry of the basins of attraction of individual cities can be disturbed by the shape of the geometric figure on which the deterministic fractal is modeled. Such a situation occurs in the present case. Due to the fact that the fractal in Fig. 1 is formed on the surface of a square, the final basins of attraction of cities 1, 3, 4 and 6 are obviously larger than those of cities 2 and 5. Of course, these differences do not occur when considering the surface inside the hexagon.In Fig. 5, the line marked in black color represents the average value of the fractal dimension of the basins of attraction of individual cities, the value of which is (overline{{d }_{b}}=1.77). It can be seen that at very high values of the fractal dimension in the range (1.750, 1.775), there are db oscillations around this line. This is precisely the effect of modeling the fractal on the surface of the square, rather than the properties of this fractal. Therefore, (overline{{d }_{b}}=1.77) should be regarded as the global dimension of the basin of attraction (of each city) treated as an irregular figure.Figure 5Box dimension of the attraction basins as a geometric irregular figure in the gravitational fractal. Legend: 1-basins of the first city, 2-basins of the second city, 7-basins of all cities.Full size imageLocal dimensions of the boundary of the selected characteristic fragmentsFigure 6 presents fractal dimensions, with the Box and Ruler as functions of μ, and the boundaries of the attraction basins of individual cities occurring in all fragments A, …, E.Figure 6Distribution of the values of fractal dimensions of the boundaries of the attraction basins identified in selected fragments of a fractal; Legend: (A, D)-fragments marked in Fig. 1.Full size imageIt is evident that the structures of Fig. 6 (Box and Ruler) are almost identical. This means that, as has been stated earlier, when describing complex fractal objects, it does not really matter which type of dimension is used.Of interest here is the variability of the structure of both figures along with the increase in the value of the parameter μ. Fragments A, …, E (see Fig. 1) are characterized by high complexity, i.e. the intertwining attraction basins of the individual attractors (cities). This observation is confirmed by the numerical results of both fractal dimensions whose values are in the range (1.68–1.82). To illustrate the spatial complexity of these fragments, and thus their dimensions, by way of example, two fractal fragments are considered below: fragments A and D (see also Fig. 7).Figure 7Box dimension of the edge of each gravitation basin in A and D. Legend: The icons show the variability of the fragments A and D due to the share of the attraction basins of individual cities (3, 4 and 6).Full size imageFigure 6 offers important conclusions concerning the organization of social and economic life in the geographical area surrounding individual cities (attractors).

1.

Out of all the separated fragments, only in fragment A do we find the attraction basins of all the cities intertwined across the entire range of variation μ, i.e. (0.00–0.48). Hence, the graph of fractal dimension (db) (blue line) as a function of μ is continuous, and when the resistance of space is the greatest (μ = 0.48), the fractal dimension d = 1.00. This means that chaos has given way to total order, and fragment A has been symmetrically divided between cities 1 and 6. Hence, there are two colors left, namely red and purple.

2.

A similar situation occurs in the case of fragment D (yellow line), where the attraction basins of individual cities intertwine continuously within the range: 0.00 ≤ μ ≤ 0.46. Beyond the value of 0.46, the entire fragment D is filled with purple: the closest city 1 dominates it.

The research conducted here also confirms the conclusions presented in previous works by Banaszak et al.15,16 concerning the transformation of chaos into spatial order, which means the stabilization of permanent dominance, usually of one attractor (city). Thus, with regard to fragments A and D, in fragment A there is a constant dominance (in half of the area) of cities 1 and 6, from the limit value of μ = 0.24 onward. In the case of fragment D, beginning with the value of μ = 0.36, only city 1 dominates (purple). That is, in the final phase of establishing the order in spatial interactions in the arrangement of areas A and D, the role of the dominant attractor (city) is played by city 1 (purple).Due to the symmetry of Fig. 1, similar effects can be observed in other parts of this fractal, located symmetrically in relation to A, …, E (see Supplementary Material).Figures 1 and 6 confirm the findings, known in the theory of city development, that urban (and other) centers rise in the hierarchy (or their rank decreases), depending on the external and internal factors conditioning their development. In the model used in this study, the parameter μ represents external factors (space resistance). If μ values are low, all cities are attractive from the point of view of spatial interactions and create their own but symmetrical basins of attraction. When the resistance of space increases, one city becomes the dominant center, and its basin of attraction is a uniform compact isotropic surface.However, this is not a simple mechanism, since, as has been demonstrated by simulation experiments described in this paper, within a certain range of μ values, another city (attractor) may dominate the others during chaotic interactions. The dynamic history of urban development confirms this observation, for example, in relation to historical capitals of some countries that have lost their functions as administrative capitals.Local dimension of the boundary of each attraction basin in a selected fragment of a fractalFragments A, …, E (Fig. 1 and the Supplementary Material) consist of mutually intertwined basins of attraction (six cities) whose boundaries with complicated courses have a fractal dimension, e.g. a box dimension.Figure 7(fragment A) shows the distribution of db as a function of μ in this fragment. In the case of total internal chaos, the fractal dimension of the boundaries of the attraction basins of all cities is identical and amounts to 1.9152. A clear differentiation of db is noticeable from μ = 0.1 onward. It should also be noted that orange and blue, red and purple, yellow and green lines mutually coincide. The red–purple line tend towards db = 1 as μ increases. However, orange, blue, yellow and green lines reach a value of db = 0.The fractal dimension db = 1.0 is most closely represented by the blue line (city 2), then the red line (city 6) and the purple line (city 1). Since these lines almost coincide, and the red and purple lines are the last to reach the value db = 1, at μ = 0.48, fragment A is symmetrically covered in red and purple. Therefore, with very high spatial resistance, fragment A is dominated by two cities, namely by 1 and 6.In turn, Fig. 7(fragment D) illustrates the variability of the fractal dimension of boundaries of the attraction basins in this fragment. This dimension depends on the complexity of the mosaic patterns formed in this fragment, with varying μ values. When the values of μ are close to zero, all cities contribute to filling the space of fragment D. When μ = 0.18, city 1 (purple color) falls out of the competition for space, but only up to the value of μ = 0.24, when it starts to compete again with other cities. From the point of view of spatial interactions, in the final phase of this process (μ = 0.44), city 2 (blue) and city 6 (red) dominate to a small extent, because cities 3, 4 and 6, starting from μ = 0.3, do not play any role in fragment D.Figure 7 shows that the value μ = 0.3 is a characteristic point. It is a locus where all the curves representing the attraction basins of individual cities meet. As has already been stated, three of them lose their influence over the space of fragment D.Local dimensions of parts of the attraction basins treated as an irregular geometric figureIn each of the selected fragments A, …, E, some of the boundaries of the attraction basins of individual cities are distributed differently. They create certain holes in the form of irregularly colored mosaic patterns that have a certain fractal dimension. To present its variability, fragments A and D were used again. Figure 8 shows the distribution of db values depending on the value of μ.Figure 8Local dimensions of parts of the attraction basins treated as an irregular geometric figure in (A) and (D). Legend: The icons illustrate the variability of the shape of some of the attraction basins of individual cities in fragment (A) and (D) for cities 3, 4 and 6.Full size imageThe function has several characteristic points. Up to the value of μ = 0.04, attraction basins show a jumble in which no predominant color or shape can be identified. The fractal dimension is then: db = 1.7697. From this value onwards, where μ = 0.042, the interior of fragment A becomes increasingly ordered. With a value of μ = 0.125, the city’s attraction basins 3 and 4 begin to disappear in fragment A. The same happens to the city attraction basins 2 and 5 for the value of μ = 0.24.The final effect of the increase in space resistance (with μ = 0.50) leads to the filling of fragment A with two colors, i.e., purple and red. This means that cities 1 and 6, have won the competition for the space of fragment A. In this case, the fractal dimensions db equal 1.90.Figure 8 presents the variability of the fractal dimension and the effects of the competition for space between cities in fragment D. As is the case in fragment A and all others, i.e. B, C and E (see the Annex with Supplementary Material), the intertwined attraction basins are represented by the area consisting of an endless number of differently colored dots. Hence, up to the value of μ = 0.042, fragment D is dominated by pure spatial chaos that extends over its entire area. It is characterized by the fractal dimension db = 1.7697. This means that with an increase in the value of μ, for the emergence of an irregular shape of a geometric figure, chaos must be accompanied by an increase in the value of the fractal dimension. Its limiting value is number 2. Then, spatial dominance is usually gained by one city and the examined fragment is filled with one color (‘the winner takes it all’).This is precisely the situation in Fig. 8 where city 1 (purple color) has apparently won the competition. Since this color fills area D completely, we find the plausible result db = 2.0. More