Ecology

1.Bailey, D. L., Humm, J. L., Todd-Pokropek, A. & van Aswegen, A. Nuclear Medicine Physics: A Handbook for Teachers and Students. International Atomic Energy Agency (International Atomic Energy Agency, 2014).2.McGraw-Hill. McGraw-Hill encyclopedia of science & technology. (McGraw-Hill, 2007).3.Medawar, P. B. An unsolved problem of biology. in The uniqueness of the individual (ed. Medawar, P. B.) 44–70 (Basic Books, Inc., 1952).4.Leike, A. Demonstration of the exponential decay law using beer froth. Eur. J. Phys. 23, 21–26 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Pauly, D. On the interrelationships between natural mortality, growth parameters, and mean environmental temperature in 175 fish stocks. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 39, 175–192 (1980).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Vetter, E. F. Estimation of natural mortality in fish stocks: a review. Fish. Bull. 86, 25–43 (1988).
Google Scholar 
7.Gosselin, J., Zedrosser, A., Swenson, J. E. & Pelletier, F. The relative importance of direct and indirect effects of hunting mortality on the population dynamics of brown bears. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 282, 1–9 (2015).8.Nowak, D. J., Kuroda, M. & Crane, D. E. Tree mortality rates and tree population projections in Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Urban . Urban Green. 2, 139–147 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Hoenig, J. M. et al. The logic of comparative life history studies for estimating key parameters, with a focus on natural mortality rate. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 73, 2453–2467 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Krebs, C. J. Ecology: The Experimental Analysis of Distribution and Abundance. (Pearson Education Limited, 2014).11.Myers, R. A., Bowen, K. G. & Barrowman, N. J. Maximum reproductive rate of fish at low population sizes. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 56, 2404–2419 (1999).
Google Scholar 
12.Simpfendorfer, C. A., Bonfil, R. & Latour, R. J. Mortality estimation. in. FAO Fish. Tech. Pap. 474, 127 (2005).
Google Scholar 
13.Cortés, E. Perspectives on the intrinsic rate of population growth. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 1136–1145 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.IUCN. Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Version 14. Prepared by the Standards and Petitions Committee. Geographical 14, 1–113 (2019).15.Myers, R. A. & Worm, B. Extinction, survival or recovery of large predatory fishes. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 360, 13–20 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Conde, D. A. et al. Data gaps and opportunities for comparative and conservation biology. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 116, 9658–9664 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Gavrilov, L. & Gavrilova, N. The biology of life span: a quantitative approach. (Harwood Academic Publishers, 1991).18.Sekharan, K. Estimates of the stocks of oil sardine and mackerel in the present fishing grounds off the West coast of India. Indian J. Fish. 21, 177–182 (1974).
Google Scholar 
19.Alagaraja, K. Simple methods for estimation of parameters for assessing exploited fish stocks. Indian J. Fish. 31, 177–208 (1984).
Google Scholar 
20.Cadima, E. L. Fish stock assessment manual. FAO Fish. Tech. Pap. 393, 161 (2003).
Google Scholar 
21.Hewitt, D. A. & Hoenig, J. M. Comparison of two approaches for estimating natural mortality based on longevity. Fish. Bull. 103, 433–437 (2005).
Google Scholar 
22.Dureuil, M. et al. Unified natural mortality estimation for teleosts and elasmobranchs. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps13704 (accepted).23.Litzgus, J. D. Sex differences in longevity in the spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata). Copeia 2, 281–288 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Calder, W. A. III Body size, mortality, and longevity. J. Theor. Biol. 102, 135–144 (1983).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
25.Botkin, D. B., Janak, J. F. & Wallis, J. R. Some ecological consequences of a computer model of forest growth. J. Ecol. 60, 849–872 (1972).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Holt, S. J. A note on the relation between the mortality rate and the duration of life in an exploited fish population. Int. Comm. Northwest Atl. Fish. Res. Bull. 2, 73–75 (1965).
Google Scholar 
27.Hoenig, J. M. Should natural mortality estimators based on maximum age also consider sample size? Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 146, 136–146 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Williams, G. C. Pleiotropy, natural selection, and the evolution of senescence. Evolution 11, 398–411 (1957).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Hamilton, W. D. The moulding of senescence by natural selection. J. Theor. Biol. 12, 12–45 (1966).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
30.Kirkwood, T. B. L. Evolution of ageing. Nature 270, 301–304 (1977).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
31.Kirkwood, T. B. L. & Rose, M. R. Evolution of senescence: late survival sacrificed for reproduction. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., B 332, 15–24 (1991).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Froese, R. & Pauly, D. FishBase. World Wide Web Electronic Publication (2019). Available at: www.fishbase.org. (accessed: 6th February 2018)33.I. C. E. S. Herring (Clupea harengus) in Subarea 4 and divisions 3.a and 7.d, autumn spawners (North Sea, Skagerrak and Kattegat, eastern English Channel). in Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2019. ICES Advice 2019, her.27.3a47d 11 (2019).34.Caswell, H. & Shyu, E. Senescence, selection gradients and mortality. in The Evolution of Senescence in the Tree of Life (eds. Shefferson, R. P., Jones, O. R. & Salguero-Gómez, R.) 56–82 (Cambridge University Press, 2017). https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139939867.00435.Promislow, D. E. L. Senescence in natural populations of mammals: a comparative study. Evolution 45, 1869–1887 (1991).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
36.Sibly, R. M., Collett, D., Promislow, D. E. L., Peacock, D. J. & Harvey, P. H. Mortality rates of mammals. J. Zool. 243, 1–12 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Blumstein, D. T. & Møller, A. P. Is sociality associated with high longevity in North American birds? Biol. Lett. 4, 146–148 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Nussey, D. H., Froy, H., Lemaitre, J.-F., Gaillard, J.-M. & Austad, S. N. Senescence in natural populations of animals: Widespread evidence and its implications for bio-gerontology. Ageing Res. Rev. 12, 214–225 (2013).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
39.Salguero-Gómez, R. & Jones, O. R.. Life history trade-offs modulate the speed of senescence. in The Evolution of Senescence in the Tree of Life (eds. Shefferson, R. P., Jones, O. R. & Salguero-Gómez, R.) 403–421 (Cambridge University Press, 2017). https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139939867.02040.Hoekstra, L. A., Schwartz, T. S., Sparkman, A. M., Miller, D. A. W. & Bronikowski, A. M. The untapped potential of reptile biodiversity for understanding how and why animals age. Funct. Ecol. 34, 38–54 (2020).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
41.Bonduriansky, R. & Brassil, C. E. Rapid and costly ageing in wild male flies. Nature 420, 377 (2002).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
42.Zajitschek, F., Zajitschek, S. & Bonduriansky, R. Senescence in wild insects: Key questions and challenges. Funct. Ecol. 34, 26–37 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Roach, D. A. & Smith, E. F. Life-history trade-offs and senescence in plants. Funct. Ecol. 34, 17–25 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Jones, O. R. et al. Diversity of ageing across the tree of life. Nature 505, 169–173 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
45.Ruby, J. G., Smith, M. & Buffenstein, R. Naked mole-rat mortality rates defy Gompertzian laws by not increasing with age. Elife 7, 1–18 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Keller, L. & Genoud, M. Extraordinary lifespans in ants: a test of evolutionary theories of ageing. Nature 389, 958–960 (1997).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Cooke, G. M., Tonkins, B. M. & Mather, J. A. Care and Enrichment for Captive Cephalopods. in The Welfare of Invertebrate Animals (eds. Carere, C. & Mather, J.). 179–208 (Springer, Cham, 2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13947-6_848.Baudisch, A. et al. The pace and shape of senescence in angiosperms. J. Ecol. 101, 596–606 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Halley, J. M., Van Houtan, K. S. & Mantua, N. How survival curves affect populations’ vulnerability to climate change. PLoS One 13, 1–18 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
50.Gompertz, B. On the nature of the function expressive of the law of human mortality, and on a new mode of determining the value of life contingencies. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 115, 513–583 (1825).
Google Scholar 
51.Makeham, W. M. On the law of mortality and the construction of annuity tables. Assur. Mag. J. Inst. Actuar. 8, 301–310 (1860).Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Finch, C. E. & Pike, M. C. Maximum life span predictions from the Gompertz mortality model. J. Gerontol. Biol. Sci. 51A, 183–194 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Reznick, D. N., Bryant, M. J., Roff, D., Ghalambor, C. K. & Ghalambor, D. E. Effect of extrinsic mortality on the evolution of senescence in guppies. Nature 431, 1095–1099 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
54.Kirkwood, T. B. L. Deciphering death: a commentary on Gompertz (1825) ‘On the nature of the function expressive of the law of human mortality, and on a new mode of determining the value of life contingencies’. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 370, 1–8 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Gavrilov, L. A. & Gavrilova, N. S. New trend in old-age mortality: gompertzialization of mortality trajectory. Gerontology 65, 451–457 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Ohsumi, S. Interspecies relationships among some biological parameters in cetaceans and estimation of the natural mortality coefficient of the Southern Hemisphere minke whale. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 29, 397–406 (1979).
Google Scholar 
57.Mizroch, S. A. On the relationship between mortality rate and length in baleen whales. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 35, 505–510 (1985).
Google Scholar  More

1.Astthorsson, O. S. & Palsson, O. K. Predation on euphausiids by cod, Gadus morhua, in winter in Icelandic subarctic waters. Mar. Biol. 96, 327–334 (1987).Article 

Google Scholar 
2.MacAulay, M. C., Wishner, K. F. & Daly, K. L. Acoustic scattering from zooplankton and micronekton in relation to a whale feeding site near Georges Bank and Cape Cod. Cont. Shelf Res. 15, 509–537 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Víkingsson, G. A. Feeding of fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) off Iceland – diurnal and seasonal variation and possible rates. J. Northwest Atl. Fish. Sci. 22, 77–89 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Tarling, G. A., Ensor, N. S., Fregin, T., Goodall-Copestake, W. P. & Fretwell, P. An introduction to the biology of Northern krill (Meganyctiphanes norvegica Sars). Adv. Mar. Biol. 57, 1–40 (2010).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
5.McBride, M. M. et al. Krill, climate, and contrasting future scenarios for Arctic and Antarctic fisheries. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 71, 1934–1955 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Orlova, E.L. et al. Climatic and ecological drivers of euphausiid community structure vary spatially in the Barents Sea: relationships from a long time series (1952–2009). Front. Mar. Sci. 1, 1–13 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Silva, T. et al. Long-term changes of euphausiids in shelf and oceanic habitats southwest, south and southeast of Iceland. J. Plankton Res. 36, 1262–1278 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Warner, A. J. & Hays, G. C. Sampling by the Continuous Plankton Recorder Survey. Prog. Oceanogr. 6611, 237–256 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Williams, R. & Lindley, J. A. Variability in abundance, vertical distribution and ontogenetic migrations of Thysanoessa longicaudata (Crustacea: Euphausiacea) in the north-eastern Atlantic Ocean. Mar. Biol. 69, 321–330 (1982).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Beaugrand, G., Luczak, C. & Edwards, M. Rapid biogeographical plankton shifts in the North Atlantic Ocean. Glob. Chang. Biol. 15, 1790–1803 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Edwards, M., Beaugrand, G., Helaouët, P., Alheit, J. & Coombs, S. Marine ecosystem response to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. PLoS ONE 8, e57212 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Behrenfeld, M. J. et al. Climate-driven trends in contemporary ocean productivity. Nature 444, 752–755 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
13.Harris, V., Edwards, M. & Olhede, S. C. Multidecadal Atlantic climate variability and its impact on marine pelagic communities. J. Mar. Syst. 133, 55–69 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Beaugrand, G., Edwards, M., Brander, K., Luczak, C. & Ibanez, F. Causes and projections of abrupt climate-driven ecosystem shifts in the North Atlantic. Ecol. Lett. 11, 1157–1168 (2008).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
15.Edwards, M., Beaugrand, G., Hays, G. C., Koslow, J. A. & Richardson, A. J. Multi-decadal oceanic ecological datasets and their application in marine policy and management. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 602–610 (2010).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
16.Harris, V., Olhede, S. C. & Edwards, M. Multidecadal spatial reorganisation of plankton communities in the North East Atlantic. J. Mar. Syst. 142, 16–24 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Reid, P. C. & Edwards, M. Long-term changes in the pelagos, benthos and fisheries of the North Sea. Senckenbergiana maritima. 32, 107–115 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Gregory, B., Christophe, L. & Martin, E. Rapid biogeographical plankton shifts in the North Atlantic Ocean. Glob. Chang. Biol. 15, 1790–1803 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Beaugrand, G., Brander, K. M., Alistair Lindley, J., Souissi, S. & Reid, P. C. Plankton effect on cod recruitment in the North Sea. Nature 426, 661–664 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Atkinson, A., Siegel, V., Pakhomov, E. & Rothery, P. Long-term decline in krill stock and increase in salps within the Southern Ocean. Nature 432, 100–103 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
21.Atkinson, A. et al. Krill (Euphausia superba) distribution contracts southward during rapid regional warming. Nat. Clim. Chang. 9, 142–147 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Flores, H. et al. Impact of climate change on Antarctic krill. Mar. Ecol. Progr. Ser. 458, 1–19 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Bograd, S. J., Checkley, D. A. & Wooster, W. S. CalCOFI: a half century of physical, chemical, and biological research in the California Current System. Deep Sea Res. Part II Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 50, 2349–2353 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Brinton, E. & Townsend, A. Decadal variability in abundances of the dominant euphausiid species in southern sectors of the California Current. Deep Sea Res. Part II Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 50, 2449–2472 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Polyakov, I. V. et al. Greater role for Atlantic inflows on sea-ice loss in the Eurasian Basin of the Arctic Ocean. Science 356, 285–291 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
26.Caesar, A.L., Rahmstorf, S., Robinson, A., Feulner, G. & Saba, V. Observed fingerprint of a weakening Atlantic Ocean overturning circulation.Nature 556, 191–196 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
27.Reid, P. C. et al. A biological consequence of reducing Arctic ice cover: arrival of the Pacific diatom Neodenticula seminae in the North Atlantic for the first time in 800 000 years. Glob. Chang. Biol. 13, 1910–1921 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Burrows, M. et al. Ocean community warming responses explained by thermal affinities and temperature gradients. Nat. Clim. Chang. 9, 959–963 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Biri, S. & Klein, B. North Atlantic sub‐polar gyre climate index: a new approach. J. Geophys. Res. Ocean. 124, 4222–4237 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Batten, S. et al. CPR sampling: the technical background, materials and methods, consistency and comparability. Prog. Oceanogr. 58, 193–215 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Reid, P. C. et al. The Continuous Plankton Recorder: concepts and history, from plankton indicator to undulating recorders. Prog. Oceanogr. 58, 117–173 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Richardson, A. J. et al. Using Continuous Plankton Recorder data. Prog. Oceanogr. 68, 27–74 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Dalpadado, P., Yamaguchi, A., Ellertsen, B. & Johannessen, S. Trophic interactions of macro-zooplankton (krill and amphipods) in the marginal ice zone of the Barents Sea. Deep. Sea Res. Part II Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 55, 2266–2274 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Letessier, T. B., Cox, M. J. & Brierley, A. S. Drivers of euphausiid species abundance and numerical abundance in the Atlantic Ocean. Mar. Biol. 156, 2539–2553 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Lowe, M. R., Lawson, G. L. & Fogarty, M. J. Drivers of euphausiid distribution and abundance in the Northeast U.S. Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 75, 1280–1295 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Lindley, J. A. Population dynamics and production of euphausiids. I. Thysanoessa longicaudata in the North Atlantic Ocean. Mar. Biol. 46, 121–130 (1978).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Lindley, J. A. Population dynamics and production of euphausiids II. Thysanoessa inermis and T. raschii in the North Sea and American Coastal Waters. Mar. Biol. 59, 225–233 (1980).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Lindley, J. A. Population dynamics and production of euphausiids. Mar. Biol. 71, 1–6 (1982).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Rayner, N. A. Global analyses of sea surface temperature, sea ice, and night marine air temperature since the late nineteenth century. J. Geophys. Res. 108, 4407 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Edwards, M., Johns, D. G. D., Leterme, S. C. S., Svendsen, E. & Richardson, A. J. A. Regional climate change and harmful algal blooms in the northeast Atlantic. Limnol. Oceanogr. 51, 820–829 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Hélaouët, P., Beaugrand, G. & Reygondeau, G. Reliability of spatial and temporal patterns of C. finmarchicus inferred from the CPR survey. J. Mar. Syst. 153, 18–24 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Owens, N. J. P. et al. All plankton sampling systems underestimate abundance: response to “Continuous Plankton Recorder underestimates zooplankton abundance” by J.W. Dippner and M. Krause. J. Mar. Syst. 128, 240–242 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Jonas, T. D., Walne, A., Beaugrand, G., Gregory, L. & Hays, G. C. The volume of water filtered by a Continuous Plankton Recorder sample: the effect of ship speed. J. Plankton Res. 26, 1499–1506 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.Stark, R., Grzelak, M. & Hadfield, J. RNA sequencing: The teenage years. Nat. Rev. Genet. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-019-0150-2 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
2.Gutzwiller, F. et al. Dynamics of Wolbachia pipientis gene expression across the Drosophila melanogaster life cycle. G3 Genes Genomes Genet. 5, 2843–2856 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
3.Bennuru, S. et al. Stage-specific transcriptome and proteome analyses of the filarial parasite Onchocerca volvulus and its Wolbachia endosymbiont. MBio 7, e02028-e2116 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Baião, G. C., Schneider, D. I., Miller, W. J. & Klasson, L. The effect of Wolbachia on gene expression in Drosophila paulistorum and its implications for symbiont-induced host speciation. BMC Genom. 20, 465 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
5.Werren, J. H., Baldo, L. & Clark, M. E. Wolbachia: Master manipulators of invertebrate biology. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 6, 741–751 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
6.Zug, R. & Hammerstein, P. Still a host of hosts for Wolbachia: Analysis of recent data suggests that 40% of terrestrial arthropod species are infected. PLoS One 7, e38544 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
7.Sazama, E. J., Bosch, M. J., Shouldis, C. S., Ouellette, S. P. & Wesner, J. S. Incidence of Wolbachia in aquatic insects. Ecol. Evol. 7, 1165–1169 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Detcharoen, M., Arthofer, W., Schlick-Steiner, B. C. & Steiner, F. M. Wolbachia megadiversity: 99% of these microorganismic manipulators unknown. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 95, fiz151 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
9.Hosokawa, T., Koga, R., Kikuchi, Y., Meng, X. Y. & Fukatsu, T. Wolbachia as a bacteriocyte-associated nutritional mutualist. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 107, 769–774 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
ADS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
10.Teixeira, L., Ferreira, Á. & Ashburner, M. The bacterial symbiont Wolbachia induces resistance to RNA viral infections in Drosophila melanogaster. PLoS Biol. 6, 2753–2763 (2008).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Hedges, L. M., Brownlie, J. C., O’Neill, S. L. & Johnson, K. N. Wolbachia and virus protection in insects. Science (80-). 322, 702–702 (2008).CAS 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
12.Osborne, S. E., Leong, Y. S., O’Neill, S. L. & Johnson, K. N. Variation in antiviral protection mediated by different Wolbachia strains in Drosophila simulans. PLoS Pathog. 5, e1000656 (2009).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
13.Cattel, J., Martinez, J., Jiggins, F., Mouton, L. & Gibert, P. Wolbachia-mediated protection against viruses in the invasive pest Drosophila suzukii. Insect Mol. Biol. 25, 595–603 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
14.Ranz, J. M., Castillo-Davis, C. I., Meiklejohn, C. D. & Hartl, D. L. Sex-dependent gene expression and evolution of the Drosophila transcriptome. Science (80-). 300, 1742–1745 (2003).CAS 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
15.Herbert, R. I. & McGraw, E. A. The nature of the immune response in novel Wolbachia-host associations. Symbiosis 74, 225–236 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Woodford, L. et al. Vector species-specific association between natural Wolbachia infections and avian malaria in black fly populations. Sci. Rep. 8, 4188 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
17.Huigens, M. E., De Almeida, R. P., Boons, P. A. H., Luck, R. F. & Stouthamer, R. Natural interspecific and intraspecific horizontal transfer of parthenogenesis-inducing Wolbachia in Trichogramma wasps. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 271, 509–515 (2004).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Detcharoen, M., Arthofer, W., Jiggins, F. M., Steiner, F. M. & Schlick-Steiner, B. C. Wolbachia affect behavior and possibly reproductive compatibility but not thermoresistance, fecundity, and morphology in a novel transinfected host, Drosophila nigrosparsa. Ecol. Evol. 10, 4457–4470 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Woolfit, M. et al. Genomic evolution of the pathogenic Wolbachia strain, wMelPop. Genome Biol. Evol. 5, 2189–2204 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Suh, E., Mercer, D. R., Fu, Y. & Dobson, S. L. Pathogenicity of life-shortening Wolbachia in Aedes albopictus after transfer from Drosophila melanogaster. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 75, 7783–7788 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
21.McGraw, E. A., Merritt, D. J., Droller, J. N. & O’Neill, S. L. Wolbachia-mediated sperm modification is dependent on the host genotype in Drosophila. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 268, 2565–2570 (2001).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Xie, J., Vilchez, I. & Mateos, M. Spiroplasma bacteria enhance survival of Drosophila hydei attacked by the parasitic wasp Leptopilina heterotoma. PLoS One 5, e12149 (2010).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
23.Hutchence, K. J., Fischer, B., Paterson, S. & Hurst, G. D. D. How do insects react to novel inherited symbionts? A microarray analysis of Drosophila melanogaster response to the presence of natural and introduced Spiroplasma. Mol. Ecol. 20, 950–958 (2011).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
24.O’Grady, P. M. & DeSalle, R. Phylogeny of the genus Drosophila. Genetics 209, 1–25 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Kellermann, V., Van Heerwaarden, B., Sgrò, C. M. & Hoffmann, A. A. Fundamental evolutionary limits in ecological traits drive Drosophila species distributions. Science (80-). 325, 1244–1246 (2009).CAS 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
26.Bächli, G., Viljoen, F., Escher, S. A. & Saura, A. The Drosophilidae (Diptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark (Brill, 2005).27.Kinzner, M.-C. et al. Life-history traits and physiological limits of the alpine fly Drosophila nigrosparsa (Diptera: Drosophilidae): A comparative study. Ecol. Evol. 8, 2006–2020 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Kinzner, M.-C. et al. Major range loss predicted from lack of heat adaptability in an alpine Drosophila species. Sci. Total Environ. 695, 133753 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
ADS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
29.Kinzner, M.-C. et al. Oviposition substrate of the mountain fly Drosophila nigrosparsa (Diptera: Drosophilidae). PLoS One 11, e0165743 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
30.Cicconardi, F. et al. Chemosensory adaptations of the mountain fly Drosophila nigrosparsa (Insecta: Diptera) through genomics’ and structural biology’s lenses. Sci. Rep. 7, 43770 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
31.Tratter Kinzner, M. et al. Is temperature preference in the laboratory ecologically relevant for the field? The case of Drosophila nigrosparsa. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 18, e00638 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Arthofer, W. et al. Genomic resources notes accepted 1 August 2014–30 September 2014. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 15, 228–229 (2015).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
33.Cicconardi, F., Marcatili, P., Arthofer, W., Schlick-Steiner, B. C. & Steiner, F. M. Positive diversifying selection is a pervasive adaptive force throughout the Drosophila radiation. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 112, 230–243 (2017).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
34.Verspoor, R. L. & Haddrill, P. R. Genetic diversity, population structure and Wolbachia infection status in a worldwide sample of Drosophila melanogaster and D. simulans populations. PLoS One 6, e26318 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
35.Lints, F. A. Size in relation to development-time and egg-density in Drosophila melanogaster. Nature 197, 1128–1130 (1963).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
36.Clemson, A. S., Sgrò, C. M. & Telonis-Scott, M. Thermal plasticity in Drosophila melanogaster populations from eastern Australia: Quantitative traits to transcripts. J. Evol. Biol. 29, 2447–2463 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
37.Morozova, T. V., Anholt, R. H. & Mackay, T. F. Transcriptional response to alcohol exposure in Drosophila melanogaster. Genome Biol. 7, R95 (2006).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
38.Elya, C., Zhang, V., Ludington, W. B. & Eisen, M. B. Stable host gene expression in the gut of adult Drosophila melanogaster with different bacterial mono-associations. PLoS One 11, e0167357 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
39.Chrostek, E. et al. Wolbachia variants induce differential protection to viruses in Drosophila melanogaster: A phenotypic and phylogenomic analysis. PLoS Genet. 9, e1003896 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
40.Zhang, B. et al. Comparative transcriptome analysis of chemosensory genes in two sister leaf beetles provides insights into chemosensory speciation. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 79, 108–118 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
41.Gazara, R. K. et al. De novo transcriptome sequencing and comparative analysis of midgut tissues of four non-model insects pertaining to Hemiptera, Coleoptera, Diptera and Lepidoptera. Gene 627, 85–93 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
42.Braig, H. R., Zhou, W., Dobson, S. L. & O’Neill, S. L. Cloning and characterization of a gene encoding the major surface protein of the bacterial endosymbiont Wolbachia pipientis. J. Bacteriol. 180, 2373–2378 (1998).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

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

Google Scholar 
44.Patro, R., Duggal, G., Love, M. I., Irizarry, R. A. & Kingsford, C. Salmon provides fast and bias-aware quantification of transcript expression. Nat. Methods 14, 417–419 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
45.R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020), https://www.R-project.org.46.Soneson, C., Love, M. I. & Robinson, M. D. Differential analyses for RNA-seq: Transcript-level estimates improve gene-level inferences. F1000Research 4, 1521 (2016).PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Thurmond, J. et al. FlyBase 2.0: The next generation. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, D759–D765 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
48.Hardcastle, T. J. & Kelly, K. A. BaySeq: Empirical Bayesian methods for identifying differential expression in sequence count data. BMC Bioinform. 11, 422 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Huang, D. W., Sherman, B. T. & Lempicki, R. A. Bioinformatics enrichment tools: Paths toward the comprehensive functional analysis of large gene lists. Nucleic Acids Res. 37, 1–13 (2009).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
50.Gaujoux, R. & Seoighe, C. A flexible R package for nonnegative matrix factorization. BMC Bioinform. 11, 367 (2010).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
51.Oksanen, J. et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.5-6. (2019) https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/vegan/.52.Love, M. I., Huber, W. & Anders, S. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biol. 15, 550 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
53.Wickham, H. ggplot2. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Comput. Stat. 3, 180–185 (2011).54.Wittkopp, P. J. Variable gene expression in eukaryotes: A network perspective. J. Exp. Biol. 210, 1567–1575 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
55.Lin, Y., Chen, Z.-X., Oliver, B. & Harbison, S. T. Microenvironmental gene expression plasticity among individual Drosophila melanogaster. G3 Genes Genomes Genet. 6, 4197–4210 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
56.Kristensen, T. N., Sørensen, P., Pedersen, K. S., Kruhøffer, M. & Loeschcke, V. Inbreeding by environmental interactions affect gene expression in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 173, 1329–1336 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Dunning, L. T., Dennis, A. B., Sinclair, B. J., Newcomb, R. D. & Buckley, T. R. Divergent transcriptional responses to low temperature among populations of alpine and lowland species of New Zealand stick insects (Micrarchus). Mol. Ecol. 23, 2712–2726 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
58.Lambert, A. J. & Brand, M. D. Reactive oxygen species production by mitochondria. In Mitochondrial DNA. Methods in Molecular Biology (ed. Stuart, J. A.) vol. 554 165–181 (Humana Press, 2009).
Google Scholar 
59.Kurz, M. et al. Structural and functional characterization of the oxidoreductase α-DsbA1 from Wolbachia pipientis. Antioxidants Redox Signal. 11, 1485–1500 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Zug, R. & Hammerstein, P. Wolbachia and the insect immune system: What reactive oxygen species can tell us about the mechanisms of Wolbachia-host interactions. Front. Microbiol. 6, 1201 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Ratzka, C., Gross, R. & Feldhaar, H. Endosymbiont tolerance and control within insect hosts. Insects 3, 553–572 (2012).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Pan, X. et al. Wolbachia induces reactive oxygen species (ROS)-dependent activation of the Toll pathway to control dengue virus in the mosquito Aedes aegypti. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 109, E23-31 (2012).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
63.Brennan, L. J., Haukedal, J. A., Earle, J. C., Keddie, B. & Harris, H. L. Disruption of redox homeostasis leads to oxidative DNA damage in spermatocytes of Wolbachia-infected Drosophila simulans. Insect Mol. Biol. 21, 510–520 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
64.Blagrove, M. S. C., Arias-Goeta, C., Failloux, A.-B. & Sinkins, S. P. Wolbachia strain wMel induces cytoplasmic incompatibility and blocks dengue transmission in Aedes albopictus. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109, 255–260 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
ADS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
65.Andrews, E. S., Crain, P. R., Fu, Y., Howe, D. K. & Dobson, S. L. Reactive oxygen species production and Brugia pahangi survivorship in Aedes polynesiensis with artificial Wolbachia infection types. PLoS Pathog. 8, e1003075 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Oliveira, M. F. et al. Haem detoxification by an insect. Nature 400, 517–518 (1999).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
ADS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
67.Paiva-Silva, G. O. et al. A heme-degradation pathway in a blood-sucking insect. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 103, 8030–8035 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
68.Levi, S. & Rovida, E. The role of iron in mitochondrial function. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Gen. Subj. 1790, 629–636 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Kremer, N. et al. Wolbachia interferes with ferritin expression and iron metabolism in insects. PLoS Pathog. 5, e1000630 (2009).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
70.Kremer, N. et al. Influence of Wolbachia on host gene expression in an obligatory symbiosis. BMC Microbiol. 12, S7 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
71.Peng, Y., Nielsen, J. E., Cunningham, J. P. & McGraw, E. A. Wolbachia infection alters olfactory-cued locomotion in Drosophila spp. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 74, 3943–3948 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Peng, Y. & Wang, Y. Infection of Wolbachia may improve the olfactory response of Drosophila. Chin. Sci. Bull. 54, 1369–1375 (2009).
Google Scholar 
73.Fattouh, N., Cazevieille, C. & Landmann, F. Wolbachia endosymbionts subvert the endoplasmic reticulum to acquire host membranes without triggering ER stress. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 13, e0007218 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
74.Chagas-Moutinho, V. A., Silva, R., de Souza, W. & Motta, M. C. Identification and ultrastructural characterization of the Wolbachia symbiont in Litomosoides chagasfilhoi. Parasit. Vectors 8, 74 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
75.Serbus, L. R., Casper-Lindley, C., Landmann, F. & Sullivan, W. The genetics and cell biology of Wolbachia-host interactions. Annu. Rev. Genet. 42, 683–707 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
76.Ping, Y. et al. Linking Aβ42-induced hyperexcitability to neurodegeneration, learning and motor deficits, and a shorter lifespan in an Alzheimer’s model. PLoS Genet. 11, e1005025 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
77.Ping, Y. et al. Shal/Kv4 channels are required for maintaining excitability during repetitive firing and normal locomotion in Drosophila. PLoS One 6, e16043 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
78.Ping, Y. & Tsunoda, S. Inactivity-induced increase in nAChRs upregulates Shal K+ channels to stabilize synaptic potentials. Nat. Neurosci. 15, 90–97 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
79.Kim, W. J., Jan, L. Y. & Jan, Y. N. A PDF/NPF neuropeptide signaling circuitry of male Drosophila melanogaster controls rival-induced prolonged mating. Neuron 80, 1190–1205 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
80.King, A. N. et al. A peptidergic circuit links the circadian clock to locomotor activity. Curr. Biol. 27, 1915-1927.e5 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
81.Kim, Y. J., Žitňan, D., Galizia, C. G., Cho, K. H. & Adams, M. E. A command chemical triggers an innate behavior by sequential activation of multiple peptidergic ensembles. Curr. Biol. 16, 1395–1407 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
82.Rapaport, F. et al. Comprehensive evaluation of differential gene expression analysis methods for RNA-seq data. Genome Biol. 14, 3158 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
83.Kvam, V. M., Liu, P. & Si, Y. A comparison of statistical methods for detecting differentially expressed genes from RNA-seq data. Am. J. Bot. 99, 248–256 (2012).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
84.Guo, Y., Li, C. I., Ye, F. & Shyr, Y. Evaluation of read count based RNAseq analysis methods. BMC Genom. 14, S2 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar  More

COVID-19 vs. MoMoThe COVID-19 official deaths and MoMo ED time series overlaped for the period from 3 March 2020 to 1 January 2021 for Spain and its 19 regions (Fig. 2). In general, there was good agreement between both datasets, meaning that most of MoMo ED were related to COVID-19 deaths. During the first wave, the most important differences were observed in Spain, Madrid, Cataluña, Castilla-La Mancha, and Castilla y León. Before 22 June in Spain, MoMo ED showed 15,445 accumulated deaths more than the official COVID-19 deaths, which is beyond the error band. That difference comes basically from the four regions with the largest numbers of deaths (Madrid, Cataluña, Castilla-La Mancha, and Castilla y León). Table 1 shows the accumulated values before 22 June, which were used to estimate the CFR for Spain and its 19 regions according to the third phase of the National Seroprevalence Study4,5. For all regions, the CFR estimated from MoMo ED was larger than the CFR estimated from COVID-19 deaths. In particular, Asturias, Canarias, and Murcia were twice as large. Ceuta and Melilla dramatically increased their CFR from MoMo ED, although that may be biased due to their small populations and numbers of deaths.Similarly, the same variables for the period from 23 June to 29 November 2020 are reported in Table 2. In Spain, MoMo ED showed 6173 accumulated deaths more than the official COVID-19 deaths. This difference is a third of the difference observed prior to 22 June; because this is within the error band, there was a significant improvement in the detection of COVID-19 deaths in this period. Figure 2 also shows a general agreement between MoMo ED and official COVID-19 deaths time series after the first wave, with the exception of late July and early August. These differences were due to two heat waves that were responsible for at least 25% of the MoMo ED16.Infections estimated from COVID-19 deathsTo illustrate the delay between official daily infections data and REMEDID estimated daily infections, we applied REMEDID from COVID-19 deaths assuming CFR = 100%. Figure 3 shows the current IO21 and the infections associated with COVID-19 deaths for the first wave. The latter in Spain reached a maximum on 13 March 2020 (Table 3), the day before the national government decreed a state of emergency and national lockdown. Thus, the adopted measures had an immediate effect, which was observed in the official data IO21 7 days later (20 March). This delay is similar to the incubation period (mean 5.78 days2), which could be explained because official infections were reported when symptoms appeared. This delay reached 16 days when we compared with earlier version IO20 (not shown), which highlights the usefulness of the methodology to reinterpret official data from very early stages of the pandemic. On the other hand, the maximum number of deaths was reached on 1 April, which was 19 days after the inferred infection maximum, bringing this delay close to the 20 days expected between infection and death (Figs. 1, 3).Figure 3Official COVID-19 infections and deaths, and estimated infections with case fatality ratio (CFR) of 100% in Spain during the first wave. Left y-axis: COVID-19 daily infections IO21 (blue curve). Right y-axis: COVID-19 deaths (orange curve) and its REMEDID-estimated infections with CFR = 100% (red curve). All curves are for Spain. Thin blue and orange curves are daily data, and thick curves are smoothed by 14-day running mean. Arrows show delays between the maximum of inferred infections and maxima from COVID-19 deaths (orange arrows) and COVID-19 infections (blue arrows). Solid arrows are expected delays, dotted while arrows are observed delays.Full size imageTable 3 Date of first infection for REMEDID estimated daily infections from COVID-19 deaths (IRO) and from MoMo Excess Deaths (ED) (IRM), and for official COVID-19 daily infections released on June 2020 (IO20) and on February 2021 (IO21).Full size tableWe applied REMEDID to the official COVID-19 deaths with the corresponding estimated CFRs (see “Data” section) to obtain the time series of estimated daily infections, hereafter referred to as IRO. Figure 4 shows IRO and the accumulated infections for Spain and its 19 regions. Note that in Spain, IRO are amplified versions of inferred infections in Fig. 3. In Spain, the first infection, according to IRO,, is on 8 January 2020 (Table 3), 43 days before the first infection was officially reported on 20 February 2020 according to IO20. By contrast, IO21 places the first infection on 1 January 2020. Spain reached the maximum number of IRO on 13 March, a day before the state of emergency and lockdown were enforced (Table 4). On 14 March, IO20 = 1832, and IO21 = 7478; however, IRO = 63,727 (CI 95% 60,050–67,403), 35 and 9 times IO20 and IO21, respectively (Table 5). This implies that on that day, IO20 and IO21 only reported 2.9% (CI 95% 2.7–3.1%) and 11.7% (CI 95% 11.1–12.5%) of new infections, respectively. Although detection of infections clearly improved from IO20 to IO21, almost 90% of the infections are still not documented in the peak of the first wave. The situation is similar for the accumulated infections before 22 June 2020, as reported by the National Seroprevalence Study4,5.Figure 4Daily and accumulated infections for official COVID-19 daily infections (IO21), and daily infections estimated from COVID-19 deaths (IRO). Lines are daily infections and refer to the y-axis on the right; bars are accumulated infections and refer to the y-axis on the left. Red lines and cyan bars are official COVID-19 data; orange lines and blue bars are inferred infections with case fatality ratio (CFR) in Table 1. Thin orange lines correspond to the CFR confidence interval.Full size imageTable 4 Date of the most prominent relative maxima, for Spain and the 19 regions, of the REMEDID estimated daily infections from COVID-19 deaths (IRO) and from MoMo excess deaths (ED) (IRM), and official COVID-19 daily infections (IO21).Full size tableTable 5 REMEDID estimated daily infections from COVID-19 deaths (IRO) and from MoMo excess deaths (ED) (IRM) on 14 March, and for official COVID-19 daily infections released on June 2020 (IO20) and released on February 2021 (IO21).Full size tableIn almost all regions, IO20 showed a delay of 1 month or more between the first infection and IRO (Table 3). No delay in IO21 occurred in Islas Baleares, Castilla-León, and Galicia, while in three regions (Cataluña, Madrid, and La Rioja), the first case occurred earlier than the first case of IRO. However, 6 regions had delays of 15 days and other 6 regions had delays of 1 month. According to IRO, all regions except Ceuta and Melilla had some infections in January, but in IO21 only 6 regions had infections in that month. In all scenarios, the first infections were in Madrid and Cataluña.During the first wave, according to IRO most of the regions had maximum daily infections around 14 March. In Madrid, the maximum was reached on 11 March, coinciding with the educational centres closing and an official warning by the regional government (Table 4). Asturias was the last region to reach peak infections (25–26 March). The maximum percentage of documented cases (12.6%, CI 95% 9.2–18.4%) occurred in Asturias on 14 March, but in the other regions, only between 1.2 and 8% of the infections were documented (Table 5).Figure 4 shows how the IO21 and IRO curves of Spain and the 19 different regions fluctuated following the same pattern until the middle of June 2020, but thereafter, they showed different patterns. This reflects the fact that the Spanish government had decreed the control measures for the whole nation until June, but thereafter, each regional government implemented its own control measures. For example, some regions (e.g., Aragón, Islas Baleares, Cantabria, Comunidad Valenciana, Extremadura, Galicia, Murcia, País Vasco, and La Rioja) had two peaks, but others had only one. An apparent maximum on 22 June in Islas Baleares is an artifact produced by the interpolation for transition from the two CFRs. Although beyond the scope of this work, it would be very interesting to investigate the effects of the different control measures implemented on the corresponding IRO for the 19 regions.The Spanish COVID-19s wave reached a maximum of daily infections on 22 October from IRO and on 26 October from IO21. The delay of 4 days is similar to the mean incubation period (5.78 days2). The estimated number of new infections is still larger than the documented cases, but the shapes of the two curves are more similar in the second wave than in the first wave (Fig. S1). The same is true for the 19 regions, most of which had the largest peak around 22–26 October, with the exceptions of Canarias and Madrid, which reached maxima in late August and early September, respectively.Infections from MoMo excess deathsAssuming that MoMo ED accounts for both recorded and non-recorded COVID-19 deaths, negative deaths are meaningless, and they were set to zero. Then, the associated daily infections can be estimated, as in “Infections estimated from COVID-19 deaths” section, with a CFR of 100% from MoMo ED for Spain (Fig. 5). Note two main differences between this time series and that estimated from official COVID-19 deaths: (1) MoMo data present an error band that was inherited by the estimated infections; (2) MoMo ED estimated infections reached a maximum of 1443 (CI 99% 1329–1547), doubling the 776 inferred daily infections from official COVID-19 deaths in Fig. 3. This is because maximum MoMo ED was 1,584 (CI 99% 1468–1686) and maximum COVID-19 official deaths was 828, both estimated from the 14-day running mean time series. The maximum of inferred infections was reached on 13 March, just one day prior to the state of emergency and lockdown. The expected and observed delays with respect to official infections and MoMo ED were similar to those observed for estimated infections from official COVID-19 deaths. Error bounds of the estimated infections in Fig. 5 were computed from the MoMo ED error bounds. However, it should be highlighted that the combination of the error bounds from MoMo ED and the estimated CFRs might lead to unrealistic error estimates. To avoid this, the error estimates in Fig. 6 were estimated from the MoMo ED time series (no error bounds) and the error bounds of the estimated CFRs.Figure 5Official COVID-19 infections, MoMo Excess Deaths (ED), and estimated infections with case fatality ratio (CFR) of 100% in Spain during the first wave. Left y-axis: COVID-19 daily infections IO21 (blue curve). Right y-axis: MoMo ED (orange curve) and its REMEDID-estimated infections with CFR = 100% (red curve). All curves are for Spain. Thin blue and orange curves are daily data, and thick curves are smoothed by 14-days running mean. Dashed curves represent the error estimate of MoMo ED (orange) and inferred infections (red). Arrows show delays between the maximum of inferred infections and maxima from MoMo ED (orange arrows) and COVID-19 infections (blue arrows). Solid arrows are expected delays, dotted while arrows are observed delays.Full size imageFigure 6Daily and accumulated infections for official COVID-19 daily infections (IO21), and daily infections estimated from MoMo Excess Deaths (ED) (IRM). Lines are daily infections and refer to the y-axis on the right; and bars are accumulated infections and refer to the y-axis on the left. Red lines and cyan bars are for official COVID-19 data; and orange lines and blue bars are for inferred infections with case fatality ratio (CFR) in Table 1. Thin orange lines represent the error estimate of inferred infections.Full size imageThe REMEDID was applied to the MoMo ED with the corresponding CFRs (see “Data” section) to obtain the estimated daily infections, which will be referred hereafter as IRM. The IRM were calculated for Spain and its 19 regions and are depicted in Fig. 6, as well as the accumulated IRM. In Spain, the first infection shown by IRM happened on 9 January, with an error estimate from 9 to 10 January, 41 to 42 days before the first documented infection of IO20 on 20 February 2020 (Table 3). The maximum IRM was 77,855 (CI 95% 73,364–82,347) reached on 13 March. On 14 March, IRM showed 14,128 infections more than IRO (Table 5). Notice that the CFR used with MoMo ED data was larger than the one used with official COVID-19 deaths data, which makes this difference even more remarkable, because the larger the CFR the lower the estimated infections. Therefore, if the true CFRs, which are unknown, were used in both cases, IRM would double IRO on 14 March, as happened when a CFR of 100% was used (Figs. 3, 5). Notice that with the CFRs used, the IRM and IRO resulted in the same accumulated infections on 22 June and 29 November, matching the results of the seroprevalence study. Nevertheless, IRM showed 42 times more cases than IO20 and 10 times more than IO21 on 14 March, detection of official cases of only 2.4% (2.2–2.5%) and 9.6% (9.1–10.2%), respectively.Table 3 shows the estimated date of first infection for Spain and by region. Note that the first cases of IRM in Spain were on 9 January and in Aragón, Canarias, and Navarra on 8 January, which is possible because significant excess deaths in a region may not become significant for the whole country. In general, the maxima of daily infections were closer to those on 14 March in IRM than in IRO. During the first wave, all regions showed a single maximum, except for Ceuta, Melilla, and Murcia, which showed two maxima (Fig. 6). In general, the IRM time series in all regions were similar during that period. The official data clearly under-detected infections during the first wave. On 14 March, IRM were comparable to IRO, overlapping CI in all regions, but not in Spain as a whole (Table 5). During the second wave, there was improved detection of cases with differences among regions. More

Study site and speciesThe sub-tropical forest analysed in this study is located in China, Yunnan, Xishuangbanna, Mengla county, Village Quingyanzhai (#94) N 21.802068, E 101.380214, geodetic datum WGS84 (Fig. 6). The site is characterized by a rocky outcrop rising 30–50 m over surrounding rubber plantations, harbouring about 20 ha of relict dry tropical forest. The outcrop sides are steep and mainly covered with bamboo. The top area is colonized by shrubs and 10–15 m high trees (a few trees on the slopes are much higher). The most conspicuous species is Quercus yiwuensis Y.C. Hsu & H.W. Jen. In March 2017 we selected four individual trees of Q. yiwuensis, and an equal number of Pistacia weinmannifolia Franch, and Beilschmiedia percoriacea C.K. Allen that were also numerous on the site. Plants were identified by the authors in the field and labelled. Botanical specimens were deposited in the School of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China.Figure 6Map of the study site with approximate position of analysed trees (aerial perspective from Google Maps 2018). GPS positions were obtained less than 1 m from the tree trunks. The distance from N3 to B1 is approximately 60 m.Full size imageQ. yiwuensis was designated P-tree (P1, P2, P3, P4) because we consistently found the orchid Panisea uniflora Lindl. growing on this phorophyte species. P. weinmannifolia was designated B-tree (B1, B2, B3, B4) because it harboured the orchid species Bulbophyllum odoratissimum (Sw) Lindl. (Supplementary Fig. S2 a-d). On P. weinmannifolia trees no P. uniflora was observed, while B. odoratissimum was never found on Q. yiwuensis trees. Both tree species were richly colonized by several other orchid species. Beilschmiedia percoriacea trees were designated neutral tree, N-tree (N1, N2, N3, N4), because neither of the two target orchid species grew on them. The latter tree species carried several lichens and a single fern species (Lepisorus sp.), but only in one instance was observed to carry an orchid epiphyte (Coelogyne sp.).GPS positions of investigated trees were obtained less than 1 m from the trunk (Fig. 6). Accuracy is about 3 m. Accuracy in altitude readings is about 100 m. Distance between degrees of latitude is 111 km. At N 21.78978 the distance between degrees of longitude is 103 km, which means that the last digit in the 5-digit decimal degrees corresponds to 1.11 m in latitude and 1.03 m in longitude.The trees were labelled with different colours as follows:

P-trees (carrying P. uniflora and other epiphytes, but not B. odoratissimum), identified as Q. yiwuensis, with red labels (P1 N 21.79880, E 101.37909, 1073; P2 N 21.79882, E 101.37923, 1072; P3 N 21.79878, E 101.37947, 1074; P4 N 21.79878, E 101.37904, 1073).

B-trees (carrying B. odoratissimum and other epiphytes, but not P. uniflora), identified as P. weinmannifolia, with blue labels (B1 N 21.79878, E 101.37950, 1074; B2 N 21.79880, E 101.37938, 1078; B3 N 21.79881, E 101.37931, 1083; B4 N 21.79884, E 101.37923, 1076).

N-trees (carrying epiphytes, but neither B. odoratissimum nor P. uniflora), identified as B. percoriacea, with yellow labels (N1 N 21.79873, E 101.37905, 1064; N2 N 21.79868, E 101.37908, 1072; N3 N 21.79883, E 101.37893, 1071; N4 N 21.79879, E 101.37895, 1071).

The point of access to the outcrop top area was located at the Western edge (N 21.79880, E 101.37827, 1058, Fig. 6).

SamplingFor each of the twelve selected trees, breast height circumference (BH = 130 cm above ground) was measured. Approximate total height was determined by Nikon Laser Forestry Pro or estimated if sighting lines were interfered by other vegetation.The lowermost individual of the target orchid species was recorded in relation to BH. Bark samples were collected, and bark features recorded at BH, by target orchid, and 50 cm above target orchid or BH, whichever was highest point. In N-trees, where there were no target orchids, sampling was thus at BH, BH + 50 cm, and BH + 100 cm.Sampling on each tree involved approximately 12 cm2 bark cut out with a sterile knife and rubber gloves to prevent cross-contamination, for pH-analysis, metabarcoding, fungal isolation and chemical analysis. Besides, 3 bark cores were taken by trephor sampler (16 mm, 2 mm diam., Costruzioni Meccaniche Carabin Carlo) for water holding measurement.Roots of target orchids were sampled, from three adult individual plants on each P- and B-tree. No permissions were necessary to collect plant samples, using a protocol that avoided plant damages. All plants were left in the exact location where they were found in the sampling site, after collecting the small portions of bark and root material for the study. All experiments including the collection of plant material in this study are in compliance with relevant institutional, national, and international guidelines and legislation.All fresh material collected from the sampling site was first kept in cool boxes, brought to the laboratory, and processed within three days.Fungal isolation from barkFor each sample, half of the bark material and orchid roots were kept at − 80 °C for subsequent metabarcoding analysis. The rest of bark (about 2 g for each sample) was immediately processed for fungal isolation. The large bark portions were ground into powder using a sterile mortar and pestle; 5 ml were reserved for pH measurement, while the rest was suspended in a final volume 50 ml sterile water solution in a sterile centrifuge tube. The tube was shaken with Vortex vibration meter thoroughly and solution aliquots were spread homogenously onto isolation medium plates. For each bark sample, aliquots of 500, 300, 200, and 100 μl, were spread per triplicate to one plate each of PDA (Potato Dextrose Agar) medium, containing ampicillin (50 μg/mL) and streptomycin (50 μg/ml) to inhibit bacterial growth49,50. A diluted solution was also made by mixing 1 ml of the original solution with 9 ml sterile water and plated. Petri dishes were incubated at room temperature (23–25 °C) in the dark for up to 2 months to allow the development of slow-growing mycelia. Fast growing fungal strains started to grow after about two days. Colonies showing different morphology and appearance were transferred to fresh plates to obtain pure cultures. In the following days, other slower growing mycelia were available in the Petri dishes and were also regularly picked up and isolated onto new PDA plates every 2 days. All isolated fungal strains were stored at 4 °C for further analysis. All strains were deposited in the LP Culture Collection (personal culture collection held in the laboratory of Prof. Lorenzo Pecoraro), at the School of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China.Molecular and morphological analysis of bark culturable fungiThe identification of isolated fungal colonies was performed using DNA sequencing combined with microscopy. Total genomic DNA from isolated fungi was extracted following the cetyltrimethyl ammonium bromide (CTAB) method modified from Doyle and Doyle51. Fungal ITS regions were PCR-amplified using the primer pair ITS1F/ITS452 following the procedure described in Pecoraro et al.37 for PCR reaction, thermal cycling, and purification of PCR products. Controls with no DNA were included in every amplification experiment in order to test for the presence of laboratory contamination from reagents and reaction buffers. Purified DNA amplicons were sequenced with the same primer pair used for amplification. DNA sequencing was performed at the GENEWIZ Company, Tianjin, China.Sequences were edited to remove vector sequences and to ensure correct orientation and assembled using Sequencher 4.1 for MacOsX (Genes Codes, Ann Arbor, MI). Sequence analysis was conducted with BLAST searches against the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) sequence database (GenBank; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/BLAST/index.html) to determine the closest sequence matches that enabled taxonomic identification. DNA sequences were deposited in GenBank (Accession Nos. MW603206 – MW603451). Fungal morphological characters (hyphae, pseudohyphae, conidiophores, conidia, poroconidia, arthroconidia, etc.) were examined using a Nikon ECLIPSE Ci microscope for the identification of isolates following the standard taxonomic keys53,54,55,56,57.Assessment of bark and orchid associated fungal community using Illumina sequencingBark and orchid root samples were pulverized in a sterile mortar, and genomic DNA was extracted using the FastDNA® Spin Kit as described by the manufacturer (MP Biomedicals, Solon, OH, USA)58,59. In total, this resulted in 60 DNA samples, including 36 from bark (3 sampling points for each tree × 12 trees) and 24 from orchid roots (3 orchid individuals sampled on each P- and B-tree × 8 trees; the 4 individual N-trees were not used for orchid sampling because they did not carry the study orchid species). Subsequently, amplicon libraries were created using two primer combinations targeting the internal transcribed spacer 2 (ITS-2): ITS7F and ITS4R60 was used as universal fungal primer pair to target nearly all fungal species, while ITS361 and ITS4OF62 was used to more specifically target orchid mycorrhizal fungi. Previous research has shown that most universal fungal primers have multiple mismatches to many species of the orchid-associating basidiomycetes, in particular in Tulasnellaceae family46,58,63. Since the goal of the present work was to analyse the total fungal community in the orchid-phorophyte environment (bark and orchid roots), as well as more specifically detect the orchid mycorrhizal fungi in the studied samples, it was necessary to combine two different primer pairs to characterise the whole investigated fungal diversity47,64,65,66. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification was performed in 50 μl reaction volume, containing 38 μl steril distilled water, 5 μl 10 × buffer (100 mM Tris–HCl pH 8.3, 500 mM KCl, 11 mM MgCl2, 0.1% gelatin), 1 μl of dNTP mixture of 10 mM concentration, 0.25 μM of each primer, 1.5 U of RED TaqTM DNA polymerase (Sigma) and approximately 10 μg of extracted genomic DNA. PCR conditions were as follows: 1 cycle of 95 °C for 5 min initial denaturation before thermocycling, 30 cycles of 94 °C for 40 s denaturation, 45 s annealing at various temperatures following Taylor and McCormick62, 72 °C for 40 s elongation, followed by 1 cycle of 72 °C for 7 min extension. To minimize PCR bias, three PCRs were pooled for each sample. The resulting PCR products were electrophoresed in 1% agarose gel with ethidium bromide and purified with the QIAEX II Gel Extraction Kit (QIAGEN). Amplicon libraries were generated using the NEB Next Ultra DNA Library Prep Kit for Illumina (New England Biolabs, USA) following the manufacturer’s instructions to add index codes. Samples were sequenced using the Illumina MiSeq PE 250 sequencing platform (Illumina Inc., San Diego, CA) at Shanghai Majorbio Bio‐Pharm Technology Co., Ltd. (Shanghai, China).Bioinformatics of fungal sequencesSequences originated from the total (ITS7F and ITS4R primers) and orchid-associated (ITS3 and ITS4OF primers) fungi datasets were processed separately. Raw reads were merged with a minimum overlap of 30 nucleotides, and the primer sequences were trimmed off. Subsequently, reads were filtered by discarding all sequences with expected error  > 1. The quality-filtered reads were denoised using the UNOISE3 algorithm67 to create zero-radius operational taxonomic units (zOTUs), with chimera removal. All the steps were performed using USEARCH v.1168. Raw sequences have been deposited in the Sequences Read Archive (SRA) of NCBI as BioProject ID PRJNA702612. The fungal zOTUs were assigned to taxonomic groups using the Blast algorithm by querying against the UNITE + INSD fungal ITS database (version 7.2, released on 10 October 2017)69 using the sintax algorithm with 0.8 cutoff70. The zOTUs originated with the orchid-associated fungal primers were manually screened for possible orchid-associated mycorrhizal families based on the information provided in Table 12.1 in Dearnaley et al.71, and only these were retained for further analysis in this dataset.To attempt removing spurious counts due to cross-talk (assignment of reads to a wrong sample) we removed all the zOTUs represented by less than 0.02% of reads in each sample, which is more conservative than previous error estimates72. The datasets were rarefied to the minimum sequencing depth (23,419 for total fungi and 13,074 for orchid-associated fungi), zOTUs present in less than three samples and low abundant zOTUs (with relative abundance  More

1.Falkowski PG, Fenchel T, Delong EF. The microbial engines that drive Earth’s biogeochemical cycles. Science. 2008;320:1034–9.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
2.Arnosti C. Microbial extracellular enzymes and the marine carbon cycle. Ann Rev Mar Sci. 2011;3:401–25.PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
3.Arnosti C, Bell C, Moorhead DL, Sinsabaugh RL, Steen AD, Stromberger M, et al. Extracellular enzymes in terrestrial, freshwater, and marine environments: perspectives on system variability and common research needs. Biogeochemistry. 2013;117:5–21.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
4.Moorhead DL, Rinkes ZL, Sinsabaugh RL, Weintraub MN. Dynamic relationships between microbial biomass, respiration, inorganic nutrients and enzyme activities: informing enzyme-based decomposition models. Front Microbiol. 2013;4:223.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Li M, Gao Y, Qian W-J, Shi L, Liu Y, Nelson WC, et al. Targeted quantification of functional enzyme dynamics in environmental samples for microbially mediated biogeochemical processes. Environ Microbiol Rep. 2017;9:512–21.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
6.Song H-S, Thomas DG, Stegen JC, Li M, Liu C, Song X, et al. Regulation-structured dynamic metabolic model provides a potential mechanism for delayed enzyme response in denitrification process. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:1866.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Khersonsky O, Tawfik DS. Enzyme promiscuity: a mechanistic and evolutionary perspective. Annu Rev Biochem. 2010;79:471–505.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
8.Baier F, Copp JN, Tokuriki N. Evolution of enzyme superfamilies: comprehensive exploration of sequence-function relationships. Biochemistry. 2016;55:6375–88.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
9.Sebastián M, Niell FX. Alkaline phosphatase activity in marine oligotrophic environments: implications of single-substrate addition assays for potential activity estimations. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2004;277:285–90.Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Catrina I, O’Brien PJ, Purcell J, Nikolic-Hughes I, Zalatan JG, et al. Probing the origin of the compromised catalysis of E. coli alkaline phosphatase in its promiscuous sulfatase reaction. J Am Chem Soc. 2007;129:5760–5.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Sunden F, AlSadhan I, Lyubimov AY, Ressl S, Wiersma-Koch H, Borland J, et al. Mechanistic and evolutionary insights from comparative enzymology of phosphomonoesterases and phosphodiesterases across the alkaline phosphatase superfamily. J Am Chem Soc. 2016;138:14273–87.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Yang K, Metcalf WW. A new activity for an old enzyme: Escherichia coli bacterial alkaline phosphatase is a phosphite-dependent hydrogenase. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2004;101:7919–24.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
13.Copley SD. Shining a light on enzyme promiscuity. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2017;47:167–75.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
14.Steen AD, Vazin JP, Hagen SM, Mulligan KH, Wilhelm SW. Substrate specificity of aquatic extracellular peptidases assessed by competitive inhibition assays using synthetic substrates. Aquat Micro Ecol. 2015;75:271–81.Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Ivars-Martínez E, D’Auria G, RodrÍGuez-Valera F, SÁNchez-Porro C, Ventosa A, et al. Biogeography of the ubiquitous marine bacterium Alteromonas macleodii determined by multilocus sequence analysis. Mol Ecol. 2008;17:4092–106.PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
16.Tada Y, Taniguchi A, Nagao I, Miki T, Uematsu M, Tsuda A, et al. Differing growth responses of major phylogenetic groups of marine bacteria to natural phytoplankton blooms in the western North Pacific Ocean. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2011;77:4055–65.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Schubert M, Lindgreen S, Orlando L. AdapterRemoval v2: rapid adapter trimming, identification, and read merging. BMC Res Notes. 2016;9:88.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Li D, Liu C, Luo R, Sadakane K, Lam T. MEGAHIT: an ultra-fast single-node solution for large and complex metagenomics assembly via succinct de Bruijn graph. Bioinformatics. 2015;31:1674–6.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
19.Hyatt D, Chen GL, Locascio PF, Land ML, Larimer FW, Hauser LJ. Prodigal: prokaryotic gene recognition and translation initiation site identification. BMC Bioinforma. 2010;11:119.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
20.Bushnell B. “BBMap: a fast, accurate, splice-aware aligner,” in Proceedings of the 9th Annual Genomics of Energy & Environment Meeting. Walnut Creek, CA, USA; 2014.21.Scholz J, Besir H, Strasser C, Suppmann S. A new method to customize protein expression vectors for fast, efficient and background free parallel cloning. BMC Biotechnol. 2013;13:12.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.McLoughlin SY, Jackson C, Liu JW, Ollis DL. Growth of Escherichia coli coexpressing phosphotriesterase and glycerophosphodiester phosphodiesterase, using paraoxon as the sole phosphorus source. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2004;70:404–12.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Britton J, Dyer RP, Majumdar S, Raston CL, Weiss GA. Ten-minute protein purification and surface tethering for continuous-flow biocatalysis. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 2017;56:2296–301.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Ortiz-Tena JG, Rühmann B, Sieber V. Colorimetric determination of sulfate via an enzyme cascade for high-throughput detection of sulfatase activity. Anal Chem. 2018;90:2526–33.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
25.Huitema C, Horsman G. Analyzing enzyme kinetic data using the powerful statistical capabilities of R. 2018. http://biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/316588v1.26.Rainer SF. Soft-bottom benthic communities in Otago Harbour and Blueskin Bay, New Zealand. New Zealand Oceanographic Institute Memoir 80; 1981.27.Grove SL, Probert PK. Sediment macrobenthos of upper Otago Harbour, New Zealand. New Zeal J Mar Fresh. 1999;33:469–80.28.Hoppe HG. Significance of exoenzymatic activities in the ecology of brackish water: measurements by means of methylumbelliferyl-substrates. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 1983;11:299–308.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Yamaguchi T, Sato M, Hashihama F, Ehama M, Shiozaki T, Takahashi K, et al. Basin‐scale variations in labile dissolved phosphoric monoesters and diesters in the central North Pacific Ocean. J Geophys Res Oceans. 2019;124:3058–72.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Baltar F, Lundin D, Palovaara J, Lekunberri I, Reinthaler T, Herndl GJ, et al. Prokaryotic responses to ammonium and organic carbon reveal alternative CO2 fixation pathways and importance of alkaline phosphatase in the mesopelagic North Atlantic. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:1670.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Yamaguchi H, Arisaka H, Seki M, Adachi M, Kimura K, Tomaru Y. Phosphotriesterase activity in marine bacteria of the genera Phaeobacter, Ruegeria, and Thalassospira. Int Biodeter Biodegr. 2016;115:186–91.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Davidi D, Noor E, Liebermeister W, Bar-Even A, Flamholz A, Tummler K, et al. Global characterization of in vivo enzyme catalytic rates and their correspondence to in vitro kcat measurements. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2016;113:3401–6.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
33.Paytan A, Cade-Menum BJ, McLaughlin K, Faul KL. Selective phosphorus regeneration of sinking marine particles: evidence from 31P-NMR. Mar Chem. 2003;82:55–70.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Wu J, Wang P, Wang Y. Cytotoxic and mutagenic properties of alkyl phosphotriester lesions in Escherichia coli cells. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018;46:4013–21.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.McCarthy JG, Edington BV, Schendel PF. Inducible repair of phosphotriesters in Escherichia coli. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1983;80:7380–4.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
36.Helbert W. Marine polysaccharide sulfatases. Front Mar Sci. 2017;4:6.Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Wegner CE, Richter-Heitmann T, Klindworth A, Klockow C, Richter M, Achstetter T, et al. Expression of sulfatases in Rhodopirellula baltica and the diversity of sulfatases in the genus Rhodopirellula. Mar Genomics. 2013;9:51–61.PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
38.Canfield DE, Farquhar J. Animal evolution, bioturbation, and the sulfate concentration of the oceans. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009;106:8123–7.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
39.Luo HW, Benner R, Long RA, Hu JJ. Subcellular localization of marine bacterial alkaline phosphatases. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA. 2009;106:21219–23.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
40.Wu J-R, Shien J-H, Shieh HK, Hu C-C, Gong S-R, Chen L-Y, et al. Cloning of the gene and characterization of the enzymatic properties of the monomeric alkaline phosphatase (PhoX) from Pasteurella multocida strain X-73. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2007;267:113–20.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
41.Kageyama H, Tripathi K, Rai AK, Cha-um S, Waditee-Sirisattha R, Takabe T. An alkaline phosphatase/phosphodiesterase, PhoD, induced by salt stress and secreted out of the cells of Aphanothece halophytica, a halotolerant cyanobacterium. Appl Environ Micro. 2011;77:5178–83.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Rodriguez F, Lillington J, Johnson S, Timmel CR, Lea SM, Berks BC. Crystal structure of the Bacillus subtilis phosphodiesterase PhoD reveals an iron and calcium-containing active site. J Biol Chem. 2014;289:30889–99.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Noskova Y, Likhatskaya G, Terentieva N, Son O, Tekutyeva L, Balabanova L. A novel alkaline phosphatase/phosphodiesterase, CamPhoD, from marine bacterium Cobetia amphilecti KMM 296. Mar Drugs. 2019;17:657.CAS 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Dyhrman ST, Ammerman JW, Van, Mooy BAS. Microbes and the marine phosphorus cycle. Oceanography. 2007;20:110–6.Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Larson TJ, Ehrmann M, Boos W. Periplasmic glycerophosphodiester phosphodiesterase of Escherichia coli, a new enzyme of the glp regulon. J Biol Chem. 1983;258:5428–32.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
46.van Veen HW. Phosphate transport in prokaryotes: molecules, mediators and mechanisms. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. 1997;72:299–315.PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
47.Parthasarathy S, Parapatla H, Nandavaram A, Palmer T, Siddavattam D. Organophosphate hydrolase is a lipoprotein and interacts with Pi-specific transport system to facilitate growth of Brevundimonas diminuta using op insecticide as source of phosphate. J Biol Chem. 2016;291:7774–85.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Hong T, Kong A, Lam J, Young L. Periplasmic alkaline phosphatase activity and abundance in Escherichia coli B23 and C29 during exponential and stationary phase. J Exp Microbiol Immunol. 2007;11:8–13.
Google Scholar 
49.Baltar F, Arístegui J, Gasol J, Yokokawa T, Herndl GJ. Bacterial versus archaeal origin of extracellular enzymatic activity in the Northeast Atlantic deep waters. Micro Ecol. 2013;65:277–88.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Thomson B, Wenley J, Currie K, Hepburn C, Herndl GJ, Baltar F. Resolving the paradox: continuous cell-free alkaline phosphatase activity despite high phosphate concentrations. Mar Chem. 2019;214:103671.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Lei L, Cherukuri KP, Alcolombri U, Meltzer D, Tawfik DS. The dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP) lyase and lyase-like cupin family consists of bona fide DMSP lyases as well as other enzymes with unknown function. Biochemistry. 2018;57:3364–77.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
52.Ferla MP, Brewster JL, Hall KR, Evans GB, Patrick WM. Primordial‐like enzymes from bacteria with reduced genomes. Primordial-like enzymes from bacteria with reduced genomes. Mol Microbiol. 2017;105:508–24.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar  More

Study siteThis study was conducted at La Selva Biological Station, located in the lowland Atlantic forest of Costa Rica (10°26′ N, 83°59′ W). The mean annual temperature is 26 °C; mean annual precipitation is 4 m and all months have mean precipitation  > 100 mm39. La Selva has undulating topography, with elevation varying between 10 and 140 m above sea level. La Selva Biological Station includes multiple land uses; our analysis includes 103.5 hectares of forest, comprising 33.0 ha of old-growth forest and 70.5 ha of forests with past human disturbance (secondary forests, abandoned agroforestry, abandoned plantation, selectively-logged forests); here, we refer to all areas with past human disturbance as “secondary forests”. This study area does not include the full extent of old-growth or secondary forests at La Selva—we focused our drone data collection on this area because it contained the most severe apparent disturbance from the blowdown. Forests with past human disturbance have been naturally regenerating for a range of time (since 1955–1988); we excluded secondary forests with regeneration starting after 1988.Lidar dataWe use two airborne lidar datasets to quantify dynamics in canopy structure and ACD. Data were collected in 2009 and 2019 (Supplementary Table 2). Data from 2009 were collected by a fixed-wing aircraft over the entire reserve; data from 2019 were collected using the Brown Platform for Autonomous Remote Sensing40. We focused on an area 1.4 km2 in size that includes the region of most severe damage from the blowdown (Supplementary Fig. 1). Both lidar sensors were discrete-return systems. To minimize variation in lidar height estimates from variable laser beam divergence and detector characteristics, we only used data from first returns for all analyses. For the 2019 drone-based lidar with higher native point density and a wider scan angle range40, we limited our analysis to lidar returns with scan angle ± 15 degrees and randomly subsampled data to a homogenous resolution of 10 pts m−2. Previous research demonstrates that lidar data collected above densities of 1 pts m−2 have similar predictive power for determining many forest properties (including tree height, tree density, and basal area)41; both lidar datasets in this study are above this density threshold. All lidar data were projected using EPSG 32,616.For all lidar data, we calculated height above ground using a digital terrain model (DTM) created from lidar data collected in 2006 and validated using 4184 independent measurements within the old-growth forest (intercept =  − 0.406, slope = 0.999, r2 = 0.994, RMSE = 1.85 m; Supplementary Table 2)42. We verified that the horizontal geolocation accuracy with  More

Examining the serum metabolome profiles of bighorn sheep captured by the three primary techniques used to capture wild ungulates revealed significant changes in polar metabolite levels between the different animal groups, and trends that persisted throughout the analyses when directly comparing, in a pairwise fashion, specific capture techniques. Results from PLS-DA modeling and analysis of the top 15 metabolites that contribute most (VIP  > 1.2) to the separation of the three capture groups revealed that amino acid levels of tryptophan, valine, isoleucine, phenylalanine, and proline were highest in animals captured by dart, with intermediate levels in animals capture using dropnets, and lowest in animals captured using the helicopter method (Fig. 3A). One-way ANOVA analyses identified additional amino acids that displayed similar decreasing level trends from dart to dropnet to helicopter capture (dart  > drop net  > helicopter) methods, and included arginine, asparagine, aspartate, cysteine, glutamate, and glutamine, glycine, histidine, leucine, lysine, serine, and tyrosine (Fig. 4). These metabolite level changes suggest a shift in amino acid metabolism, and a potentially higher catabolism of these compounds as a function of increasingly more energetically intense and possibly more stressful capture methods such as helicopter capture.Of these amino acids, aspartate, glycine, and glutamate function as precursors for neurotransmitter synthesis, and may therefore be valuable indicators of the capture techniques’ impacts on animal health and changes to their physiological state. Glutamate is a fundamental component of nitrogen excretion in the urea cycle, and its lower serum levels in animals captured by helicopter support the idea of altered metabolite flow through the urea cycle. In addition to these patterns, decreasing levels of aspartate were observed in samples of dropnet and helicopter captured animals compared to the levels found in the dart-captured animals. The change regarding urea cycle alterations also manifested itself in differential serum urea levels, with fold changes (FC) between the groups decreasing significantly with capture techniques, with a mean FC difference of 1.4 for the dart-captured group, 0.26 for the dropnet-captured group, and − 0.3 for the helicopter-captured animals (Supplementary Table S2). As urea recycling is a prominent feature of ruminant metabolism and urea flux can rapidly change, the urea concentration changes observed between the three capture techniques support an impact on urea cycle intermediates29. While the trend of an overall decrease in urea cycle intermediates parallels a similar trend in amino acid concentrations, the extent to which amino acid metabolism is linked to changes in urea cycle activity is difficult to evaluate due to the nature of nitrogen recycling in the rumen of these ruminants.Other metabolites found in significantly higher concentrations in the serum samples of dart-captured animals compared to the two other techniques included: formate, glucose, 3-hydroxybutyrate, dimethylamine, carnitine (Fig. 3A). Propionate, which was observed to be higher in the dart and dropnet captured animals than that of helicopter captured animals (Fig. 4) is of interest, as it is the main precursor for glucose synthesis in the liver of ruminants30, and potentially reflect a higher dependence of ruminants on gluconeogenesis due to the almost complete conversion of available dietary carbohydrates to volatile fatty acids in the rumen31. As animal capture via nets increases physical activity as the animals struggle to free themselves from entanglement, generally resulting in longer times animals are under physical restraint, as well as the increased physical exertion and stress as they attempt to flee the pursuing helicopter, the observed decrease in serum propionate levels may reflect increased needs to generate glucose de novo via gluconeogenesis.This interpretation of the metabolite data is reinforced by the observation of significantly elevated levels of O-acetylcarnitine in the drop net and helicopter net gun animal capture groups compared to the darted animals (Fig. 4). As an important element of the carnitine/acyl-carnitine shuttle and import of fatty acids into the mitochondria for β-oxidation, acyl-carnitine is a major contributor to the flow of acyl groups into the TCA cycle, and a robust indicator of cardiac output and, by extension, TCA cycle activity levels in mammals32. Additional metabolites that displayed distinctly increasing trends based on capture method (dart  More