Ecology

1.Tilman, D. et al. The influence of functional diversity and composition on ecosystem processes. Science 277, 1300–1302 (1997).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Cardinale, B. J. et al. Impacts of plant diversity on biomass production increase through time because of species complementarity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 18123–18128 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Van Ruijven, J. & Berendse, F. Diversity-productivity relationships: Initial effects, long-term patterns, and underlying mechanisms. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 695–700 (2005).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
4.Jochum, M. et al. The results of biodiversity–ecosystem functioning experiments are realistic. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1485–1494 (2020).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
5.Jing, J., Bezemer, T. M. & van der Putten, W. H. Complementarity and selection effects in early and mid-successional plant communities are differentially affected by plant-soil feedback. J. Ecol. 103, 641–647 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Tilman, D., Hill, J. & Lehman, C. Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input high-diversity grassland biomass. Science 314, 1598–1600 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
7.Mueller, K. E., Tilman, D., Fornara, D. A. & Hobbie, S. E. Root depth distribution and the diversity–productivity relationship in a long-term grassland experiment. Ecology 94, 787–793 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Hector, A., Bazeley-White, E., Loreau, M., Otway, S. & Schmid, B. Overyielding in grassland communities: testing the sampling effect hypothesis with replicated biodiversity experiments. Ecol. Lett. 5, 502–511 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Barry, K. E. et al. The future of complementarity: disentangling causes from consequences. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34, 167–180 (2019).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
10.Kulmatiski, A., Beard, K. H. & Heavilin, J. Plant-soil feedbacks provide an additional explanation for diversity-productivity relationships. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 279, 3020–3026 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Loreau, M. & Hector, A. Partitioning selection and complementarity in biodiversity experiments. Nature 412, 72–76 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
12.Tedersoo, L., Bahram, M. & Zobel, M. How mycorrhizal associations drive plant population and community biology. Science 367, 6480 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
13.Maron, J. L., Marler, M., Klironomos, J. N. & Cleveland, C. C. Soil fungal pathogens and the relationship between plant diversity and productivity. Ecol. Lett. 14, 36–41 (2011).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
14.Wang, G. et al. Soil microbiome mediates positive plant diversity‐productivity relationships in late successional grassland species. Ecol. Lett. 22, 13273 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Wright, A. J., Wardle, D. A., Callaway, R. & Gaxiola, A. The overlooked role of facilitation in biodiversity experiments. Trends Ecol. Evol. 32, 383–390 (2017).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
16.Bever, J. D., Platt, T. G. & Morton, E. R. Microbial population and community dynamics on plant roots and their feedbacks on plant communities. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 66, 265–283 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Bauer, J. T., Koziol, L. & Bever, J. D. Local adaptation of mycorrhizae communities changes plant community composition and increases aboveground productivity. Oecologia 192, 735–744 (2020).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
18.Bever, J. D. Feeback between plants and their soil communities in an old field community. Ecology 75, 1965–1977 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Hendriks, M. et al. Independent variations of plant and soil mixtures reveal soil feedback effects on plant community overyielding. J. Ecol. 101, 287–297 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Zuppinger-Dingley, D. L., Flynn, D. F. B., De Deyn, G. B., Petermann, J. S. & Schmid, B. Plant selection and soil legacy enhance long-term biodiversity effects. Ecology 97, 15–0599.1 (2015).
Google Scholar 
21.Mommer, L. et al. Lost in diversity: the interactions between soil-borne fungi, biodiversity and plant productivity. N. Phytol. 218, 542–553 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Guerrero‐Ramírez, N. R., Reich, P. B., Wagg, C., Ciobanu, M. & Eisenhauer, N. Diversity‐dependent plant–soil feedbacks underlie long‐term plant diversity effects on primary productivity. Ecosphere 10, e02704 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.van Ruijven, J., Ampt, E., Francioli, D. & Mommer, L. Do soil-borne fungal pathogens mediate plant diversity–productivity relationships? Evidence and future opportunities. J. Ecol. 108, 1810–1821 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Schnitzer, S. A. et al. Soil microbes drive the classic plant diversity–productivity pattern. Ecology 92, 296–303 (2011).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
25.Lekberg, Y. et al. Relative importance of competition and plant-soil feedback, their synergy, context dependency and implications for coexistence. Ecol. Lett. 21, 1268–1281 (2018).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
26.Cowles, J. Mechanisms of Coexistence: Implications for Biodiversity-Ecosystem Functioning Relationships in a Changing World. Dissertation, The University of Minnesota (2015).27.Forero, L. E., Grenzer, J., Heinze, J., Schittko, C. & Kulmatiski, A. Greenhouse- and field-measured plant-soil feedbacks are not correlated. Front. Environ. Sci. 7, 184 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Kulmatiski, A. & Kardol, P. in Getting Plant—Soil Feedbacks out of the Greenhouse: Experimental and Conceptual Approaches 449–472 (Springer, 2008).29.Pernilla Brinkman, E., Van der Putten, W. H., Bakker, E. J. & Verhoeven, K. J. F. Plant-soil feedback: experimental approaches, statistical analyses and ecological interpretations. J. Ecol. 98, 1063–1073 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.van der Putten, W. H. et al. Plant-soil feedbacks: the past, the present and future challenges. J. Ecol. 101, 265–276 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Rinella, M. J. & Reinhart, K. O. Toward more robust plant-soil feedback research. Ecology 99, 550–556 (2018).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
32.Crawford, K. M. et al. When and where plant‐soil feedback may promote plant coexistence: a meta‐analysis. Ecol. Lett. 22, 13278 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Clark, A. T. et al. How to estimate complementarity and selection effects from an incomplete sample of species. Methods Ecol. Evol. 10, 2141–2152 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Anacker, B. L., Klironomos, J. N., Maherali, H., Reinhart, K. O. & Strauss, S. Y. Phylogenetic conservatism in plant-soil feedback and its implications for plant abundance. Ecol. Lett. 17, 1613–1621 (2014).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
35.Mehrabi, Z. & Tuck, S. L. Relatedness is a poor predictor of negative plant–soil feedbacks. N. Phytol. 205, 1071–1075 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Kulmatiski, A., Beard, K. H., Stevens, J. R. & Cobbold, S. M. Plant-soil feedbacks: a meta-analytical review. Ecol. Lett. 11, 980–992 (2008).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
37.Beals, K. K. et al. Predicting plant-soil feedback in the field: meta-analysis reveals that competition and environmental stress differentially influence psf. Front. Ecol. Evol. 8, 191 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Kos, M., Tuijl, M. A. B., de Roo, J., Mulder, P. P. J. & Bezemer, T. M. Species-specific plant-soil feedback effects on above-ground plant-insect interactions. J. Ecol. 103, 904–914 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Bukowski, A. R. & Petermann, J. S. Intraspecific plant-soil feedback and intraspecific overyielding in Arabidopsis thaliana. Ecol. Evol. 4, 2533–2545 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Tilman, D., Wedin, D. & Knops, J. Productivity and sustainability influenced by biodiversity in grassland ecosystems. Nature 379, 718–720 (1996).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Fornara, D. A. & Tilman, D. Ecological mechanisms associated with the positive diversity–productivity relationship in an N-limited grassland. Ecology 90, 408–418 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
42.Laughlin, D. C. et al. The hierarchy of predictability in ecological restoration: are vegetation structure and functional diversity more predictable than community composition? J. Appl. Ecol. 54, 1058–1069 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Metcalfe, H., Milne, A. E., Deledalle, F. & Storkey, J. Using functional traits to model annual plant community dynamics. Ecology 101, e03167 (2020).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
44.Moulin, T., Perasso, A., Calanca, P. & Gillet, F. DynaGraM: a process-based model to simulate multi-species plant community dynamics in managed grasslands. Ecol. Modell. 439, 109345 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Putten, W. H., Bradford, M. A., Pernilla Brinkman, E., Voorde, T. F. J. & Veen, G. F. Where, when and how plant–soil feedback matters in a changing world. Funct. Ecol. 30, 1109–1121 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Eisenhauer, N., Reich, P. B. & Scheu, S. Increasing plant diversity effects on productivity with time due to delayed soil biota effects on plants. Basic Appl. Ecol. 13, 571–578 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Hawkes, C. V., Kivlin, S. N., Du, J. & Eviner, V. T. The temporal development and additivity of plant-soil feedback in perennial grasses. Plant Soil 369, 141–150 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Latz, E., Eisenhauer, N., Rall, B. C., Scheu, S. & Jousset, A. Unravelling linkages between plant community composition and the pathogen-suppressive potential of soils. Sci. Rep. 6, 1–10 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
49.Chung, Y. A. & Rudgers, J. A. Plant–soil feedbacks promote negative frequency dependence in the coexistence of two aridland grasses. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 283 (2016).50.Mahaut, L., Fort, F., Violle, C. & Freschet, G. T. Multiple facets of diversity effects on plant productivity: species richness, functional diversity, species identity and intraspecific competition. Funct. Ecol. 34, 287–298 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Barry, K. E. et al. Limited evidence for spatial resource partitioning across temperate grassland biodiversity experiments. Ecology 101, 2905 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Hooper, D. U. et al. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol. Monogr. 75, 3–35 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Pillai, P. & Gouhier, T. C. Not even wrong: the spurious measurement of biodiversity’s effects on ecosystem functioning. Ecology 100, e02645 (2019).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
54.Manning, P. et al. Transferring biodiversity-ecosystem function research to the management of ‘real-world’ ecosystems. Adv. Ecol. Res. 61, 323–356 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Fargione, J. et al. From selection to complementarity: Shifts in the causes of biodiversity-productivity relationships in a long-term biodiversity experiment. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 274, 871–876 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Helander, M. et al. Decreases mycorrhizal colonization and affects plant-soil feedback. Sci. Total Environ. 642, 285–291 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
57.Tilman, D. et al. Diversity and productivity in a long-term grassland experiment. Science 294, 843–845 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
58.Cadotte, M. W., Cavender-Bares, J., Tilman, D. & Oakley, T. H. Using phylogenetic, functional and trait diversity to understand patterns of plant community productivity. PLoS ONE 4, e5695 (2009).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
59.Kulmatiski, A., Heavilin, J. & Beard, K. H. Testing predictions of a three-species plant-soil feedback model. J. Ecol. 99, 542–550 (2011).
Google Scholar 
60.Kulmatiski, A., Beard, K. H., Grenzer, J., Forero, L. & Heavilin, J. Using plant-soil feedbacks to predict plant biomass in diverse communities. Ecology 97, 2064–2073 (2016).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar  More

1.Bulgarelli, D., Schlaeppi, K., Spaepen, S., van Themaat, E. V. L. & Schulze-Lefert, P. Structure and functions of the bacterial microbiota of plants. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 64, 807–838 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
2.Reinhold-Hurek, B. & Hurek, T. Living inside plants: bacterial endophytes. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 14, 435–443 (2011).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
3.Naveed, M., Mitter, B., Reichenauer, T. G., Wieczorek, K. & Sessitsch, A. Increased drought stress resilience of maize through endophytic colonization by Burkholderia phytofirmans PsJN and Enterobacter sp FD17. Environ. Exp. Bot. 97, 30–39 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Santoyo, G., Moreno-Hagelsieb, G., del Carmen Orozco-Mosqueda, M. & Glick, B. R. Plant growth-promoting bacterial endophytes. Microbiol. Res. 183, 92–99 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
5.Ali, S., Charles, T. C. & Glick, B. R. Amelioration of high salinity stress damage by plant growth-promoting bacterial endophytes that contain ACC deaminase. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 80, 160–167 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
6.Weyens, N., van der Lelie, D., Taghavi, S. & Vangronsveld, J. Phytoremediation: plant–endophyte partnerships take the challenge. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 20, 248–254 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
7.Vandenkoornhuyse, P., Quaiser, A., Duhamel, M., Le Van, A. & Dufresne, A. The importance of the microbiome of the plant holobiont. New Phytol. 206, 1196–1206 (2015).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
8.Card, S. D. et al. Beneficial endophytic microorganisms of Brassica—A review. Biol. Control 90, 102–112 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Shahzad, R., Khan, A. L., Bilal, S., Asaf, S. & Lee, I. J. What Is there in seeds? Vertically transmitted endophytic resources for sustainable improvement in plant growth. Front. Plant Sci. 9, 24. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.00024 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
10.Truyens, S., Weyens, N., Cuypers, A. & Vangronsveld, J. Bacterial seed endophytes: genera, vertical transmission and interaction with plants. Environ. Microbiol. Rep. 7, 40–50 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Catford, J. A., Jansson, R. & Nilsson, C. Reducing redundancy in invasion ecology by integrating hypotheses into a single theoretical framework. Divers. Distrib. 15, 22–40 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.van Kleunen, M., Dawson, W. & Maurel, N. Characteristics of successful alien plants. Mol. Ecol. 24, 1954–1968 (2015).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
13.Coats, V. C. & Rumpho, M. E. The rhizosphere microbiota of plant invaders: an overview of recent advances in the microbiomics of invasive plants. Front. Microbiol. 5, 368. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2014.00368 (2014).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
14.Richardson, D. M., Allsopp, N., D’antonio, C. M., Milton, S. J. & Rejmánek, M. Plant invasions—the role of mutualisms. Biol. Rev. 75, 65–93 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Pringle, A. et al. Mycorrhizal symbioses and plant invasions. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 40, 699–715 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Sun, Z.-K. & He, W.-M. Evidence for enhanced mutualism hypothesis: Solidago canadensis plants from regular soils perform better. PLoS ONE 5, e15418. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0015418 (2010).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
17.Kowalski, K. P. et al. Advancing the science of microbial symbiosis to support invasive species management: a case study on Phragmites in the Great Lakes. Front. Microbiol. 6, 95. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2015.00095 (2015).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
18.Dai, Z. C. et al. Different growth promoting effects of endophytic bacteria on invasive and native clonal plants. Front. Plant Sci. 7, 706. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.00706 (2016).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
19.Rout, M. E. et al. Bacterial endophytes enhance competition by invasive plants. Am. J. Bot. 100, 1726–1737 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
20.Soares, M. A. et al. Functional role of bacteria from invasive Phragmites australis in promotion of host growth. Microb. Ecol. 72, 407–417 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
21.Kim, Y.-H., Kil, J.-H., Hwang, S.-M. & Lee, C.-W. Spreading and distribution of Lactuca scariola, invasive alien plant, by habitat types in Korea. Weed Turfgrass Sci. 2, 138–151 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Moon, S.-I. et al. Isolation and characterization of bio-active materials from prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola). J. Life Sci. 19, 206–212 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Lebeda, A. et al. Acquisition and ecological characterization of Lactuca serriola L germplasm collected in the Czech Republic, Germany, the Netherlands and United Kingdom. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 54, 555–562 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Mallory-Smith, C. A., Thill, D. C. & Dial, M. J. Identification of sulfonylurea herbicide-resistant prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola). Weed Technol. 4, 163–168 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Glick, B. R. Plant growth-promoting bacteria: mechanisms and applications. Scientifica 2012, 963401. https://doi.org/10.6064/2012/963401 (2012).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
26.Costa, O. Y. A., Raaijmakers, J. M. & Kuramae, E. E. Microbial extracellular polymeric substances: ecological function and impact on soil aggregation. Front. Microbiol. 9, 1636. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.01636 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
27.Alami, Y., Achouak, W., Marol, C. & Heulin, T. Rhizosphere soil aggregation and plant growth promotion of sunflowers by an exopolysaccharide-producing Rhizobiums strain isolated from sunflower roots. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 66, 3393–3398 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Sandhya, V., Grover, M., Reddy, G. & Venkateswarlu, B. Alleviation of drought stress effects in sunflower seedlings by the exopolysaccharides producing Pseudomonas putida strain GAP-P45. Biol. Fertility Soils 46, 17–26 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Vardharajula, S. Exopolysaccharide production by drought tolerant Bacillus spp and effect on soil aggregation under drought stress. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. Food Sci. 9, 51–57 (2020).
Google Scholar 
30.Kumar, S., Stecher, G. & Tamura, K. MEGA7: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 70 for bigger datasets. Mol. Biol. Evol. 33, 1870–1874 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Kang, S. H. et al. Two bacterial entophytes eliciting both plant growth promotion and plant defense on pepper (Capsicum annuum L). J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 17, 96–103 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
32.Panwar, M., Tewari, R. & Nayyar, H. Native halo-tolerant plant growth promoting rhizobacteria Enterococcus and Pantoea sp. improve seed yield of Mungbean (Vigna radiata L) under soil salinity by reducing sodium uptake and stress injury. Physiol. Mol. Biol. Plants 22, 445–459 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Selvakumar, G. et al. Characterization of a cold-tolerant plant growth-promoting bacterium Pantoea dispersa 1A isolated from a sub-alpine soil in the North Western Indian Himalayas. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 24, 955–960 (2008).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Egamberdieva, D. et al. High incidence of plant growth-stimulating bacteria associated with the rhizosphere of wheat grown on salinated soil in Uzbekistan. Environ. Microbiol. 10, 1–9 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
35.Pereira, S., Castro, P. & Research, P. Diversity and characterization of culturable bacterial endophytes from Zea mays and their potential as plant growth-promoting agents in metal-degraded soils. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 21, 14110–14123 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Sun, Z. et al. IAA producing Bacillus altitudinis alleviates iron stress in Triticum aestivum L seedling by both bioleaching of iron and up-regulation of genes encoding ferritins. Plant Soil 419, 1–11 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Pierik, R., Tholen, D., Poorter, H., Visser, E. J. W. & Voesenek, L. A. C. J. The Janus face of ethylene: growth inhibition and stimulation. Trends Plant Sci. 11, 176–183 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
38.Glick, B. R. Bacteria with ACC deaminase can promote plant growth and help to feed the world. Microbiol. Res. 169, 30–39 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
39.Cardinale, M., Grube, M., Erlacher, A., Quehenberger, J. & Berg, G. Bacterial networks and co-occurrence relationships in the lettuce root microbiota. Environ. Microbiol. 17, 239–252 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
40.Yu, Y.-C., Yum, S.-J., Jeon, D.-Y. & Jeong, H.-G. Analysis of the microbiota on lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) cultivated in South Korea to identify foodborne pathogens. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 28, 1318–1331 (2018).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
41.Brady, C. et al. Isolation of Enterobacter cowanii from Eucalyptus showing symptoms of bacterial blight and dieback in Uruguay. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 49, 461–465 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
42.Chimwamurombe, P. M., Grönemeyer, J. L. & Reinhold-Hurek, B. Isolation and characterization of culturable seed-associated bacterial endophytes from gnotobiotically grown Marama bean seedlings. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 92, fiw083. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiw083 (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
43.Gao, H. et al. Production exopolysaccharide from Kosakonia cowanii LT-1 through solid-state fermentation and its application as a plant growth promoter. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 150, 955–964 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
44.Wang, L. et al. Development of sugarcane resource for efficient fermentation of exopolysaccharide by using a novel strain of Kosakonia cowanii LT-1. Bioresour. Technol. 280, 247–254 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
45.Borlee, B. R. et al. Pseudomonas aeruginosa uses a cyclic-di-GMP-regulated adhesin to reinforce the biofilm extracellular matrix. Mol. Microbiol. 75, 827–842 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Huang, X.-F. et al. Mitsuaria sp. and Burkholderia sp. from Arabidopsis rhizosphere enhance drought tolerance in Arabidopsis thaliana and maize (Zea mays L.). Plant Soil 419, 523–539 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Marulanda, A., Barea, J.-M. & Azcón, R. Stimulation of plant growth and drought tolerance by native microorganisms (AM fungi and bacteria) from dry environments: mechanisms related to bacterial effectiveness. J. Plant Growth Regul. 28, 115–124 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Niu, X., Song, L., Xiao, Y. & Ge, W. Drought-tolerant plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria associated with foxtail millet in a semi-arid agroecosystem and their potential in alleviating drought stress. Front. Microbiol. 8, 2580. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.02580 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
49.Sandhya, V., Ali, S. Z., Grover, M., Reddy, G. & Venkateswarlu, B. Effect of plant growth promoting Pseudomonas spp. on compatible solutes, antioxidant status and plant growth of maize under drought stress. Plant Growth Regulat. 62, 21–30 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Chen, C. et al. Pantoea alhagi, a novel endophytic bacterium with ability to improve growth and drought tolerance in wheat. Sci. Rep. 7, 41564. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep41564 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
51.Mönchgesang, S. et al. Natural variation of root exudates in Arabidopsis thaliana-linking metabolomic and genomic data. Sci. Rep. 6, 1–11 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
52.Zhang, N. et al. Effects of different plant root exudates and their organic acid components on chemotaxis, biofilm formation and colonization by beneficial rhizosphere-associated bacterial strains. Plant Soil 374, 689–700 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Johnston-Monje, D. & Raizada, M. N. Conservation and diversity of seed associated endophytes in Zea across boundaries of evolution, ethnography and ecology. PLoS ONE 6, e20396. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020396 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
54.Coombs, J. T. & Franco, C. M. M. Isolation and identification of Actinobacteria from surface-sterilized wheat roots. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 69, 5603–5608. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.69.9.5603-5608.2003 (2003).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
55.Kimura, M. A simple method for estimating evolutionary rates of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. J. Mol. Evol. 16, 111–120 (1980).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Saitou, N. & Nei, M. The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 4, 406–425 (1987).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
57.Mehta, S. & Nautiyal, C. S. An efficient method for qualitative screening of phosphate-solubilizing bacteria. Curr. Microbiol. 43, 51–56 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
58.Milagres, A. M., Machuca, A. & Napoleao, D. Detection of siderophore production from several fungi and bacteria by a modification of chrome azurol S (CAS) agar plate assay. J. Microbiol. Methods 37, 1–6 (1999).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
59.Dworkin, M. & Foster, J. Experiments with some microorganisms which utilize ethane and hydrogen. J. Bacteriol. 75, 592–603 (1958).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Singh, J. K., Adams, F. G. & Brown, M. H. Diversity and function of capsular polysaccharide in Acinetobacter baumannii. Front. Microbiol. 9, 3301 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Polak-Berecka, M., Waśko, A., Skrzypek, H. & Kreft, A. Production of exopolysaccharides by a probiotic strain of Lactobacillus rhamnosus: biosynthesis and purification methods. Acta Aliment. 42, 220–228 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Tschaplinski, T. J. et al. The nature of the progression of drought stress drives differential metabolomic responses in Populus deltoides. Ann. Bot. 124, 617–626 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Michel, B. E. & Kaufmann, M. R. The osmotic potential of polyethylene glycol 6000. Plant Physiol. 51, 914–916 (1973).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Hanna, A., Berg, M., Stout, V. & Razatos, A. Role of capsular colanic acid in adhesion of uropathogenic Escherichia coli. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 69, 4474–4481 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Liu, S.-B. et al. Structure and ecological roles of a novel exopolysaccharide from the Arctic sea ice bacterium Pseudoalteromonas sp. strain SM20310. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 79, 224–230 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Dubois, M., Gilles, K. A., Hamilton, J. K., Rebers, P. & Smith, F. Colorimetric method for determination of sugars and related substances. Analyt. Chem. 28, 350–356 (1956).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Yahaghi, Z., Shirvani, M., Nourbakhsh, F. & Pueyo, J. J. Uptake and effects of lead and zinc on alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) seed germination and seedling growth: Role of plant growth promoting bacteria. S. Afr. J. Bot. 124, 573–582 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Zhang, Z. & Huang, R. Analysis of malondialdehyde, chlorophyll proline, soluble sugar, and glutathione content in Arabidopsis seedling. Bio-Protoc. 3, e817 (2013).
Google Scholar 
69.Türkan, I., Bor, M., Özdemir, F. & Koca, H. Differential responses of lipid peroxidation and antioxidants in the leaves of drought-tolerant P. acutifolius Gray and drought-sensitive P. vulgaris L. subjected to polyethylene glycol mediated water stress. Plant Sci. 168, 223–231 (2005).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar  More

SPX gene and CRISPR/Cas9 knockoutUsing the SPX domain as a query to search in the P. tricornutum genome, we found a total of six genes that harbor an SPX domain (Supplementary Table 1), including Vpt1 and Vtc4 that were recently described by Dell’Aquila et al.21. Pfam analysis of the six identified sequences in P. tricornutum resulted in the identification of the SPX domain in these proteins, which shared several conserved sites with land plants’ SPX domains (Fig. 1a, b). Phylogenetic analyses further verified the high similarity of these sequences with other known SPX domain proteins (Supplementary Fig. 1). One of these genes possesses a SPX domain as the sole functional domain (named SPX, and its encoding gene named SPX gene, from here on) while the other five (including Vpt1 and Vtc4) contain at least one other domain. From our recently published transcriptome dataset27, we found that SPX, Vpt1, and Vtc4 genes were differentially expressed (log2 Fold Change > 1 and adjusted p value  More

1.Hoegh-Guldberg, O. et al. Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification. Science 318, 1737–1742 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
2.Frölicher, T. L., Fischer, E. M. & Gruber, N. Marine heatwaves under global warming. Nature 560, 360–364 (2018).PubMed 
Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
3.Oliver, E. C. J. et al. Projected marine heatwaves in the 21st century and the potential for ecological impact. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 1–12 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.LaJeunesse, T. C. et al. Systematic revision of symbiodiniaceae highlights the antiquity and diversity of coral endosymbionts. Curr. Biol. 28, 2570-2580.e6 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Hoegh-Guldberg, O. Climate change, coral bleaching and the future of the world’ s coral reefs. Ove Hoegh-Guldberg (1998).6.Hughes, T. P. et al. Spatial and temporal patterns of mass bleaching of corals in the Anthropocene. Science (80-.) 359, 80–83 (2018).CAS 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
7.Van Hooidonk, R., Maynard, J. A., Manzello, D. & Planes, S. Opposite latitudinal gradients in projected ocean acidification and bleaching impacts on coral reefs. Glob. Chang. Biol. 20, 103–112 (2014).PubMed 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
8.Muller, E. M., Rogers, C. S., Spitzack, A. S. & Van Woesik, R. Bleaching increases likelihood of disease on Acropora palmata (Lamarck) in Hawksnest Bay, St John, US Virgin Islands. Coral Reefs 27, 191–195 (2008).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
9.Cróquer, A. & Weil, E. Changes in Caribbean coral disease prevalence after the 2005 bleaching event. Dis. Aquat. Organ. 87, 33–43 (2009).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Grottoli, A. G. et al. The cumulative impact of annual coral bleaching can turn some coral species winners into losers. Glob. Chang. Biol. 20, 3823–3833 (2014).PubMed 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
11.Schoepf, V. et al. Annual coral bleaching and the long-term recovery capacity of coral. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 282, 20151887 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
12.Neal, B. P. et al. Caribbean massive corals not recovering from repeated thermal stress events during 2005–2013. Ecol. Evol. 7, 1339–1353 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Alvarez-Filip, L., Dulvy, N. K., Gill, J. A., Côté, I. M. & Watkinson, A. R. Flattening of Caribbean coral reefs: Region-wide declines in architectural complexity. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 276, 3019–3025 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Pratchett, M. S., Hoey, A. S., Wilson, S. K., Messmer, V. & Graham, N. A. J. Changes in biodiversity and functioning of reef fish assemblages following coral bleaching and coral loss. Diversity 3, 424–452 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Poloczanska, E. S. et al. Responses of marine organisms to climate change across oceans. Front. Mar. Sci. 3, 1–21 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Pinsky, M. L., Selden, R. L. & Kitchel, Z. J. Climate-driven shifts in marine species ranges: Scaling from organisms to communities. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 12, 153–179 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Kleypas, J. A., McManu, J. W. & Mene, L. A. B. Environmental limits to coral reef development: Where do we draw the line?. Am. Zool. 39, 146–159 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Descombes, P. et al. Forecasted coral reef decline in marine biodiversity hotspots under climate change. Glob. Chang. Biol. 21, 2479–2487 (2015).PubMed 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
19.Vergés, A. et al. The tropicalization of temperate marine ecosystems: Climate-mediated changes in herbivory and community phase shifts. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 281, 20140846 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Mies, M. et al. South Atlantic coral reefs are major global warming refugia and less susceptible to bleaching. Front. Mar. Sci. 7, 1–13 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
21.Perry, C. T. & Larcombe, P. Marginal and non-reef-building coral environments. Coral Reefs 22, 427–432 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Loiola, M. et al. Structure of marginal coral reef assemblages under different turbidity regime. Mar. Environ. Res. 147, 138–148 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Beger, M., Sommer, B., Harrison, P. L., Smith, S. D. A. & Pandolfi, J. M. Conserving potential coral reef refuges at high latitudes. Divers. Distrib. 20, 245–257 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Glynn, P. W. Coral reef bleaching: Facts, hypotheses and implications. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2, 495–509 (1996).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
25.Semmler, R. F., Hoot, W. C. & Reaka, M. L. Are mesophotic coral ecosystems distinct communities and can they serve as refugia for shallow reefs?. Coral Reefs 36, 433–444 (2017).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
26.Rocha, L. A. et al. Mesophotic coral ecosystems are threatened and ecologically distinct from shallow water reefs. Science (8-.) 361, 281–284 (2018).CAS 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
27.Eckert, R. J., Studivan, M. S. & Voss, J. D. Populations of the coral species Montastraea cavernosa on the Belize Barrier Reef lack vertical connectivity. Sci. Rep. 9, 1–11 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Serrano, X. M. et al. Geographic differences in vertical connectivity in the Caribbean coral Montastraea cavernosa despite high levels of horizontal connectivity at shallow depths. Mol. Ecol. 23, 4226–4240 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Serrano, X. M. et al. Long distance dispersal and vertical gene flow in the Caribbean brooding coral Porites astreoides. Sci. Rep. 6, 1–12 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
30.Morais, J. & Santos, B. A. Limited potential of deep reefs to serve as refuges for tropical Southwestern Atlantic corals. Ecosphere 9, e02281 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Torda, G. et al. Rapid adaptive responses to climate change in corals. Nat. Clim. Chang. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3374 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Danielle, C. et al. Dynamic symbioses reveal pathways to coral survival through prolonged heatwaves. Nat Commun. 11(1), https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19169-y. (2020)33.D’Angelo, C. & Wiedenmann, J. Impacts of nutrient enrichment on coral reefs: New perspectives and implications for coastal management and reef survival. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 7, 82–93 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Donovan, M.K.et al. Local conditions magnify coral loss after marine heatwaves. Science 372(6545), 977–980. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abd9464. (2021)CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Hughes, T. et al. Climate change, Human impacts, and the resilience of coral reefs. Laser Induced Damage Opt. Mater. 2009 7504, 75041H (2003).36.Carilli, J. E., Norris, R. D., Black, B. A., Walsh, S. M. & McField, M. Local stressors reduce coral resilience to bleaching. PLoS ONE 4, 1–5 (2009).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
37.Donner, S. D., Heron, S. F. & Skirving, W. J. Future scenarios: A review of modelling efforts to predict the future of coral reefs in an era of climate change. 159–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-69775-6_10 (2018).38.McLeod, E. et al. Warming seas in the coral triangle: Coral reef vulnerability and management implications. Coast. Manag. 38, 518–539 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Maynard, J. A. et al. Vulnerability to coral reefs. 1–8 (2019).40.Leão, Z. M. A. N., Kikuchi, R. K. P. & Testa, V. Corals and coral reefs of Brazil. Latin Am. Coral Reefs https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-044451388-5/50003-5 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Leão, Z. M. A. N. & Kikuchi, R. K. P. A relic coral fauna threatened by global changes and human activities, Eastern Brazil. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 51, 599–611 (2005).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
42.Francini-Filho, R. B. & De Moura, R. L. Dynamics of fish assemblages on coral reefs subjected to different management regimes in the Abrolhos Bank, eastern Brazil. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 18, 1166–1179 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Moura, R. L. et al. Spatial patterns of benthic megahabitats and conservation planning in the Abrolhos Bank. Cont. Shelf Res. 70, 109–117 (2013).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
44.Vergés, A. et al. Tropicalisation of temperate reefs: Implications for ecosystem functions and management actions. Funct. Ecol. 33, 1000–1013 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Yamano, H., Sugihara, K. & Nomura, K. Rapid poleward range expansion of tropical reef corals in response to rising sea surface temperatures. Geophys. Res. Lett. 38, (2011).46.Precht, W. F. & Aronson, R. B. Climate flickers and range shifts of reef corals. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2, 307 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Aued, A. W. et al. Large-scale patterns of benthic marine communities in the brazilian province. PLoS ONE 13, 1–15 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
48.Sully, S., Burkepile, D. E., Donovan, M. K., Hodgson, G. & van Woesik, R. A global analysis of coral bleaching over the past two decades. Nat. Commun. 10, 1–5 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Phillips, N. A Companion to the e-Book “YaRrr!: The Pirate’s Guide to R”. (2017).50.R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (2020).51.Banha, T. N. S. et al. Low coral mortality during the most intense bleaching event ever recorded in subtropical Southwestern Atlantic reefs. Coral Reefs https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-019-01856-y (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Oliveira, U. D. R., Gomes, P. B., Cordeiro, R. T. S., De Lima, G. V. & Pérez, C. D. Modeling impacts of climate change on the potential habitat of an endangered Brazilian endemic coral: Discussion about deep sea refugia. PLoS ONE 14, 1–24 (2019).
Google Scholar 
53.Cowen, R. K. & Sponaugle, S. Larval dispersal and marine population connectivity. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 1, 443–466 (2009).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Price, N. N. et al. Global biogeography of coral recruitment: Tropical decline and subtropical increase. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 621, 1–17 (2019).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
55.Cacciapaglia, C. & van Woesik, R. Reef-coral refugia in a rapidly changing ocean. Glob. Chang. Biol. 21, 2272–2282 (2015).PubMed 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
56.Baird, A. H. et al. A decline in bleaching suggests that depth can provide a refuge from global warming in most coral taxa. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 603, 257–264 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
57.Bongaerts, P., Ridgway, T., Sampayo, E. M. & Hoegh-Guldberg, O. Assessing the ‘deep reef refugia’ hypothesis: Focus on Caribbean reefs. Coral Reefs 29, 1–19 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Coles, S. L. et al. Evidence of acclimatization or adaptation in Hawaiian corals to higher ocean temperatures. PeerJ 2018, 1–24 (2018).
Google Scholar 
59.Bay, R. A., Rose, N. H., Logan, C. A. & Palumbi, S. R. Genomic models predict successful coral adaptation if future ocean warming rates are reduced. Sci. Adv. 3, 1–10 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Wooldridge, S., Done, T., Berkelmans, R., Jones, R. & Marshall, P. Precursors for resilience in coral communities in a warming climate: A belief network approach. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 295, 157–169 (2005).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
61.Mazzei, E. F. et al. Newly discovered reefs in the southern Abrolhos Bank, Brazil: Anthropogenic impacts and urgent conservation needs. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 114, 123–133 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Duarte, G. A. S. et al. Heat waves are a major threat to turbid coral reefs in Brazil. Front. Mar. Sci. 7, 179 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Ferreira L.C. et al. Different responses of massive and branching corals to a major heatwave at the largest and richest reef complex in South Atlantic. Mar. Biol. 168(5), https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-021-03863-6. (2021)64.Teixeira, C. D. et al. Sustained mass coral bleaching (2016–2017) in Brazilian turbid-zone reefs: taxonomic, cross-shelf and habitat-related trends. Coral Reefs https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-019-01789-6 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
65.França, F. M. et al. Climatic and local stressor interactions threaten tropical forests and coral reefs. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 375, 20190116 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Mumby, P. J. & Harborne, A. R. Marine reserves enhance the recovery of corals on Caribbean reefs. PLoS ONE 5, 1–7 (2010).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
67.Kwiatkowski, L. et al. Twenty-first century ocean warming, acidification, deoxygenation, and upper ocean nutrient decline from CMIP6 model projections. Biogeosci. Discuss. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2020-16 (2020).68.Jokiel, P. L. Evaluating the assumptions involved. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 73, 550–557 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Matz, M. V., Treml, E. A. & Haller, B. C. Estimating the potential for coral adaptation to global warming across the Indo-West Pacific. Glob. Chang. Biol. 26, 3473–3481 (2020).PubMed 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
70.Tyberghein, L. et al. Bio-ORACLE: A global environmental dataset for marine species distribution modelling. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 21, 272–281 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Assis, J. et al. Bio-ORACLE v2.0: Extending marine data layers for bioclimatic modelling. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 27, 277–284 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Sbrocco, E. J. & Barber, P. H. MARSPEC: Ocean climate layers for marine spatial ecology. Ecology 94, 979–979 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
73.Hijmans, J. R. et al. Package ‘ raster ’ R topics documented (2016).74.Sappington, J. M., Longshore, K. M. & Thompson, D. B. Quantifying landscape ruggedness for animal habitat analysis: A case study using bighorn sheep in the Mojave desert. J. Wildl. Manag. 71, 1419–1426 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
75.IPCC. Climate Change 2014 Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014).76.Fox, J. & Weisberg, S. Multivariate Linear Models in R. An R Companion to Appl. Regres. 1–31 (2011).77.Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N., Walker, N. J., Saveliev, A. A. & Smith, G. M. Required Pre-knowledge : A Linear Regression. Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R 1, (2009).78.Martins, T. G., Simpson, D., Lindgren, F. & Rue, H. Bayesian computing with INLA: New features. (2012).79.Rue, H., Martino, S. & Chopin, N. Approximate Bayesian inference for latent Gaussian models by using integrated nested Laplace approximations. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat. Methodol. 71, 319–392 (2009).MathSciNet 
MATH 
Article 

Google Scholar 
80.Lindgren, F., Rue, H. & Lindström, J. An explicit link between Gaussian fields and Gaussian MARKOV random fields: The stochastic partial differential equation approach. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat. Methodol. 73, 423–498 (2011).MathSciNet 
MATH 
Article 

Google Scholar 
81.Muñoz, F., Pennino, M. G., Conesa, D., López-Quílez, A. & Bellido, J. M. Estimation and prediction of the spatial occurrence of fish species using Bayesian latent Gaussian models. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 27, 1171–1180 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
82.Held, L., Schrödle, B. & Rue, H. Posterior and cross-validatory predictive checks: A comparison of MCMC and INLA. Stat. Model. Regres. Struct. Festschrift Honour Ludwig Fahrmeir 1–20 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7908-2413-183.Watanabe, S. Asymptotic equivalence of Bayes cross validation and widely applicable information criterion in singular learning theory. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 11, 3571–3594 (2010).MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
84.Roos, M. & Held, L. Sensitivity analysis in Bayesian generalized linear mixed models for binary data. Bayesian Anal. 6, 259–278 (2011).MathSciNet 
MATH 
Article 

Google Scholar 
85.Fonseca, V. P., Pennino, M. G., de Nóbrega, M. F., Oliveira, J. E. L. & de Figueiredo Mendes, L. Identifying fish diversity hot-spots in data-poor situations. Mar. Environ. Res. 129, 365–373 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
86.Pennino, M. G., Vilela, R., Bellido, J. M. & Velasco, F. Balancing resource protection and fishing activity: The case of the European hake in the northern Iberian Peninsula. Fish. Oceanogr. 28, 54–65 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
87.Martínez-Minaya, J. et al. A hierarchical Bayesian Beta regression approach to study the effects of geographical genetic structure and spatial autocorrelation on species distribution range shifts. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 19, 929–943 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

Our framework to predict unknown associations between known viruses and potential mammalian hosts or susceptible species comprised three distinct perspectives: viral, mammalian and network. Each perspective produced predictions from a unique vantage point (that of each virus, each mammal, and the network connecting them respectively). Subsequently, their results were consolidated via majority voting. This approach suggested that 20,832 (median, 90% CI = [2,736, 97,062], hereafter values in square brackets represent 90% CI) unknown associations potentially exist between our mammals and their known viruses, (18,920 [2,440, 91,517] in wild or semi-domesticated mammals). Number of unknown associations predicted by each perspective individually were as follows: mammalian only = 41,537 [4,275, 23,8971], viral only = 21,352 [2,536, 95,630], and network only = 76,081 [27,738, 20,5814]. Our results indicated a ~4.29-fold increase ([~1.43, ~16.33]) in virus-mammal associations (~4.89 [~1.5, ~19.81] in wild and semi-domesticated mammals).Additionally, we trained an independent pipeline including only the 3534 supported by evidence extracted from meta-data accompanying nucleotide sequences, as indexed in EID2 (55.82% of all associations – see Methods section and Supplementary Results 8). Our sequence-evidence pipeline indicated that 15,721 (median, 90% CI = [1,603, 88,553]) unknown associations could potentially exist (13,930 [1,298, 83,043] in wild or semi-domesticated mammals).In the following subsections we first illustrate the mechanism of our framework via an example, then further explore the predictive power of our approach for viruses and mammals.ExampleOur multi-perspective framework generates predictions for each known or unknown virus-mammal association (2,722,656 possible associations between 1,896 viruses and 1,436 terrestrial mammals). We highlight this functionality using two examples (Fig. 1). West Nile virus (WNV) a flavivirus with wide host range, and the bat Rousettus leschenaultia (order: Chiroptera). We first consider each of our perspectives separately, and then showcase how these perspectives are consolidated to produce final predictions.Fig. 1: Example showcasing final and intermediate predictions of West Nile Virus (WNV), and Rousettus leschenaultii.Panel A Top 60 predicted mammalian species susceptible to WNV. Mammals were ordered by mean probability of predictions derived from mammalian (all models), viral (WNV models) and network perspectives, and top 60 were selected. Circles represent the following information in order: 1) whether the association is known (documented in our sources) or not (potential or undocumented). Hosts are omitted for known associations. 2) Mean probability of the three perspectives (per association). 3) Median mammalian perspective probabilities of predicted associations. These probabilities are obtained from 3000 models (50 replicate models for each mammal), trained with viral features – SMOTE class balancing. 4) Median viral perspective probabilities of predicted associations (50 WNV replicate models trained with mammalian features – SMOTE class balancing). 5) Median network perspective probabilities of predicted associations (100 replicate models, balanced under-sampling). 6) Taxonomic order of predicted susceptible species. Orders are shortened as follows: Artiodactyla (Art), Carnivora (Crn), Chiroptera (Chp), primates (Prm), Rodentia (Rod), and Others (Oth). Panel B Top 50 predicted viruses of R. leschenaultii. Viruses were ordered by mean probability of predictions derived from mammalian (R. leschenaultii models), viral (all models) and network perspectives. Circles as per Panel A. Baltimore represents Baltimore classification. Panel C Median probability of predicted WNV-mammal associations in each of the three perspectives per mammalian order. Points represent susceptible species predicted by voting (at least two of the three perspectives – n = 137). Median ensemble probability is computed in each perspective (50 replicate models for each virus/mammal, 100 replicate network models). Predictions derived from each perspective at 0.5 probability cut-off. Supplementary Data 1 presents full WNV results. Panel D Median probability of virus-R. leschenaultii associations in the three perspectives per Baltimore group. Points represent susceptible species predicted by voting (at least two of the three perspectives – n = 64), predictions are derived as per panel C. Supplementary Data 2 lists full results for R. leschenaultii. Supplementary Fig. 7 illustrate the results when research effort into viruses and mammals is included in mammalian and viral perspectives, respectively.Full size image1) The mammalian perspective: our mammalian perspective models, trained with features expressing viral traits (Table 1), suggested a median of 90 [17, 410] unknown associations between WNV and terrestrial mammals could form when predicting virus-mammal associations based on viral features alone – a ~2.61-fold increase [~1.3, ~8.32]. Similarly, our results indicated that 64 [4, 331] new associations could form between our selected mammal (R. leschenaultia) and our viruses – a ~4.37-fold increase [~1.21, ~18.42] (Supplementary Results 4).Table 1 Viral traits & features used to build our mammalian models.Full size table(2) The viral perspective: our viral models, trained with features expressing mammalian traits (Table 2), indicated a median of 48 [0, 214] new hosts of WNV (~1.86- fold increase [~1, 4.82]). Results for our example mammal (R. leschenaultia) suggested 18 [3, 76], existing viruses could be found in this host (~1.95-fold increase [~1.16, ~5.00]) – Supplementary Results 5).Table 2 mammalian traits & features used to build our viral models.Full size table(3) The network perspective: Our network models indicated a median of 721 [448, 1,317] (~13.88 [9, 24.52] fold increase) unknown associations between WNV and terrestrial mammals, and that 246 [91, 336] existing viruses could be found in our selected host (R. leschenaultia), equivalent to a ~13.95 [~5.79, ~18.68] fold increase (Supplementary Results 6).Considering that each of the above perspectives approached the problem of predicting virus-mammal associations from a different angle, the agreement between these perspectives varied. In the case of WNV: mammalian and viral perspectives achieved 92.3% agreement [72.6%–98.5%]; mammals and network perspectives had 55.3% agreement [33.4%–69.5%]; and viruses and network had 52.9% agreement [19.8%–68.7%]. In the case of R. leschenaultia these numbers were as follows: 96.15% [82.44%, 99.58%], 87.24% [76.37%, 95.04%], and 87.61% [75.90%, 95.25%], respectively. The agreements between our perspectives across the 2,722,656 possible associations were as follows: 98.04% [90.36%, 99.73%] between mammalian and viral perspectives, 96.71% [88.62%, 98.92%] between mammalian and network perspectives, and 97.11% [91.57%, 98.95%] between viral and network perspectives.After voting, our framework suggested that a median of 117 [15, 509] new or undetected associations could be missing between WNV and terrestrial mammals (~3.45-fold increase [~1.3, ~12.2]). Similarly, our results indicated that R. leschenaultia could be susceptible to an additional 45 [5, 235] viruses that were not captured in our input (~1.37-fold increase [~1.26, ~13.37]). Figure 1 illustrates top predicted and detected associations for WNV (Supplementary Data 1) and R. leschenaultia (Supplementary Data 2). Supplementary Results 1 illustrate results with research effort into viruses, and mammals included as a predictor in our mammalian and viral perspective models, respectively. Predictions with and without research effort incorporated into models trained in these perspectives broadly agreed.Relative importance of viral featuresOur multi-perspective approach trained a suite of models for each mammalian species with two or more known viruses (n = 699, response variable = 1 if the virus is known to associate with the focal mammalian species, 0 otherwise). This enabled us to assess the relative importance (influence) of viral traits (Table 1) to each of our mammalian models. This in turn showcased variations of how these viral traits contribute to the models at the level of individual species (e.g. humans), and at an aggregated level (e.g. by order or domestication status). The results, highlighted in Fig. 2A, indicate that mean phylogenetic (median = 95.4% [75.6%, 100%]) and mean ecological (90.90% [43.50%, 100%]) distances between potential and known hosts of each virus were the top predictors of associations between the focal host and each of the input viruses. Maximum phylogenetic breadth was also important (74.7 0%, [16.60%, 100%]).Fig. 2: Results (viruses).Panel A Variable importance (relative contribution) of viral traits to mammalian perspective models. Variable importance is calculated for each constituent ensemble (n = 699) of our mammalian perspective (median of a suite of 50 replicate models, trained with viral features, with SMOTE sampling), and then aggregated (mean) per each reported group (columns). Panel B – Number of known and new mammalian species associated with each virus. Rabies lyssavirus was excluded from panel B to allow for better visualisation. Top 40 (by number of new hosts) are labelled. Species in bold have over 150 predicted hosts (Supplementary Data 3 lists details of these viruses including CI). Panel C Predicted number of viruses per species of wild and semi-domesticated mammals (group by mammalian order). Following orders (clockwise) are presented: Artiodactyla, Carnivora, Chiroptera, Perissodactyla, Primates, and Rodentia. Source of the silhouette graphics is PhyloPic.org. (Supplementary Data 4 lists aggregated results per mammalian order). Circles represent each mammalian species (with predicted viruses > 0), coloured by number of known viruses previously not associated with this species. Boxplots indicate median (centre), the 25th and 75th percentiles (bounds of box) and inter quantile range (whiskers) and are aggregated at the order level. Large red circles with error bars (90% CI) illustrate the median number of known viruses per species in each order. Number of species presented (n) is as follows: All = 1293 (Artiodactyla = 104, Carnivora = 177, Chiroptera = 548, Perissodactyla = 11, Primates = 171, and Rodentia = 282); Group I = 666 (94, 109, 156, 10, 160, 137); Group II = 371 (32, 120, 111, 1, 54, 53); Group III = 410 (87,62,123,9,51,78); Group IV = 739 (98, 102, 221, 9, 148, 161); Group V = 1129 (87, 173, 528, 8, 107, 226); Group VI = 358 (55, 64, 30, 6, 139, 64); and Group VII = 110 (3,2,53,1,43,8). Supplementary Fig. 8 presents results derived with research effort into mammalian hosts and viruses included in the constituent models trained in the viral and mammalian perspectives, respectively.Full size imageMammalian host rangeOur results suggested that the average mammalian host range of our viruses is 14.33 [4.78, 54.53] (average fold increase of ~3.18 [~1.23, ~9.86] in number of hosts detected per virus). Overall, RNA viruses had the average host range of 21.65 [7.01, 82.96] hosts (~4.00- fold increase [~1.34, ~14.15]). DNA viruses, on the other hand, had 7.85 [2.81, 29.47] hosts on average (~2.43 [~1.14, ~6.89] fold increase). Table 3 lists the results of our framework at Baltimore group level and selected family and transmission routes of our viruses. Figure 2 illustrates predicted mammalian host range of our viruses (Fig. 2B, Supplementary Data 3), and the increase in predicted number of viruses per species in species-rich mammalian orders of interest (Fig. 2C, Supplementary Data 4).Table 3 Predicted range of susceptible mammalian species of viruses per Baltimore group, family (top 15 families, ranked by fold increase) and transmission route.Full size tableRelative importance of mammalian featuresWe trained a suite of models for each virus species with two or more known mammalian hosts (n = 556, response variable = 1 if the mammal is known to associate with the focal virus species, 0 otherwise). This allowed us to calculate relative importance of mammalian traits (Table 2) to our viral models. We were also able to capture variations in how these features contribute to our viral models at various levels (e.g. Baltimore classification, or transmission route) as highlighted in Fig. 3A. Our results indicated that distances to known hosts of viruses were the top predictor of associations between the focal virus and our terrestrial mammals. The breakdown was: 1) mean phylogenetic distance – all viruses = 98.75% [93.01%, 100%], DNA = 99.48% [96.03%, 100%], RNA = [91.93%, 100%]; 2) mean ecological distance all viruses = 94.39% [71.86%, 100%], DNA = 96.36% [80.99%, 100%], RNA = [69.48%, 100%]. In addition, life-history traits significantly improved our models, in particular: longevity (all viruses = 60.9% [12.12%, 98.88%], DNA = 68.03% [11.22%, 99.69%], RNA = [13.55%, 96.37%]); body mass (all viruses = 62.92% [5.4%, 97.65%], DNA = 72.75% [18.49%, 100%], RNA = 57.45% [4.32%, 95.5%]); and reproductive traits (all viruses = 53.37% [5.67%, 95.99%]%, DNA = 59.46% [8.27%, 99.32%], RNA = 50.17% [4.85%, 92.17%]).Fig. 3: Results (Mammals).Panel A Variable importance (relative contribution) of mammalian traits to viral perspective models. Variable importance is calculated for each constituent model (n = 556) of our viral perspective (trained with mammalian features), and then aggregated (median) per each reported group (columns). Panel B Number of known and new viruses associated with each mammal. Labelled mammals are as follows: top 4 (by number of new viruses) for each of Artiodactyla, Carnivora, Chiroptera, Primates, Rodentia, and other orders. Species in bold have 100 or more predicted viruses (Supplementary Data 5). Panel C Top 18 genera (by number of predicted wild or semi-domesticated mammalian host species) in selected orders (Other indicated results for all orders not included in the first five circles). Each order figure comprises the following circles (from outside to inside): 1) Number of hosts predicted to have an association with viruses within the viral genus. 2) Number of hosts detected to have association. 3) Number of hosts predicted to harbour viral zoonoses (i.e. known or predicted to share at least one virus species with humans). 4) Number of hosts predicted to share viruses with domesticated mammals of economic significance (domesticated mammals in orders: Artiodactyla, Carnivora, Lagomorpha and Perissodactyla). 5) Baltimore classification of the selected genera (Supplementary Data 6). Supplementary Fig. 9 presents results derived with research effort into mammalian hosts and viruses included in the constituent models trained in the viral and mammalian perspectives, respectively.Full size imageWild and semi-domesticated susceptible mammalian hosts of virusesour framework indicated ~4.28 -fold increase [~1.2, ~14.64] of the number of virus species in wild and or semi-domesticated mammalian hosts (16.86 [4.95, 68.5] viruses on average per mammalian species). These results indicated an average of 13.45 [1.73, 65.04] unobserved virus species for each wild or semi-domesticated mammalian host (known viruses that are yet to be associated with these mammals). Our framework highlighted differences in the number of viruses predicted per order (Table 4). Figure 3 illustrates the predicted number of viruses in wild or semi-domesticated mammal by mammalian host range (Fig. 3B, Supplementary Data 5), and the top 18 virus genera (per number of host-virus associations) in selected orders (Fig. 3C, Supplementary Data 6). Supplementary Results 1 lists the results with the inclusion of research effort into mammalian species in our viral perspective models.Table 4 Predicted number of viruses per top 15 orders by fold increase in number of viruses predicted in wild or semi-domesticated mammalian hosts (per species).Full size tableNetwork perspective – Potential motifs
We quantified the topology of the network linking virus and mammal species by means of counts of potential motifs21. Figure 4 illustrates how potential motifs are captured in our network. Briefly, for each virus-mammal association for which we want to make predictions (n = 2,722,656, of which 6,331 are supported by our evidence, see methods section), we “force insert” this focal association into our network (Fig. 4A, B) and enumerate all instances of 3 (n = 2), 4 (n = 6), and 5-node (n = 20) potential motifs in which this association might feature if it actually existed21 (Fig. 4C visualises these different motifs). Following this process, a features-set is generated comprising the counts potential motifs for all included associations. Figure 4D illustrates the count of motifs (logged) grouped by mammalian order and virus Baltimore classification.Fig. 4: The network perspective – potential motifs (subgraphs) in our virus-host bipartite network.A The concept of potential motif. The association TBEV-P. leo is a forced insertion into the network prior to calculating motifs for the association. B Motifs space: networks represent 2 steps and 3 steps ego networks (union) of host (here P. leo) and virus (TBEV). 1, 2 and 3 step ego networks comprise the counting space for TBEV-P. leo potential motifs. Dark grey nodes represent viruses, light grey nodes represent hosts. Size of nodes is adjusted to represent overall number of hosts or viruses with known associations to the node. Red edges represent nodes reachable from the mammal (P. leo) in 1 or 2 steps (links). Blue edges represent nodes reachable from the virus (TBEV) with 1 or 2 steps (links). Humans and rabies virus were excluded from these networks. C 3, 4 and 5-node potential motifs in our virus-host bipartite network. Circles represent viruses and squares represent mammals. Red circles represent the focal virus (v), and blue squares represent the focal mammal (m) of the association v-m for which the motifs are being counted (dashed yellow line). This association has two states: either already known (documented in EID2), or unknown. Grey lines illustrate existing associations in our network. D Motifs counts. Heatmap illustrating distribution of motif-features (counts of potential motifs per each focal association) in our bipartite network, grouped by mammalian order and Baltimore classification. The counts are logged to allow for better visualisation. E Variable importance (relative contribution) of motif-features (variables) to our network perspective models (SVM-RW). Motifs (subgraphs) are coloured by the number of nodes (K = 3, 4, 5). Boxplots indicate median (centre), the 25th and 75th percentiles (bounds of box) and inter quantile range (whiskers). Points represent variable importance in individual runs (n = 100). Research effort into both viruses and mammals is included as independent variables in our network models (coloured in yellow).Full size imageRelative importance of network (motif) featuresFigure 4E illustrates that M4.1 was the most important feature in our network models: median = 100% [90.19%, 100%]. Followed by: M5.1 = 97.84% [89.19%, 99.93%], M5.7 = 98.8 97.22% [87.7%, 98.77%] and M4.6 = 96.75% [86.13%, 100%]. Research effort of viruses and mammals had relative importance = 90.26% [82.94%, 95.36%], 88.42% [78.38%, 94.87%] respectively. Overall, 5-node motif-features had median relative influence = 75.06% [1.21%, 98.14%]; whereas 3 and 4-node motif-features had relative influence = 71.69% [55.76%, 85.34%], and 61.06% [27.14%, 100%], respectively. Supplementary Fig. 29 illustrate the partial dependence of network perspective models on each of our network features.ValidationWe validated our framework in three ways: 1) against a held-out test set; 2) by systematically removing selected known viral-mammalian associations and attempting to predict them; and 3) against external data source, comprising viral-mammalian associations extracted using an exhaustive literature search targeting wild mammals and their viruses4,30.Our held-out test set comprised 15% of all data (randomly selected, n = 407,265; 954 known virus-mammal associations, see methods below). We removed this set from our network, computed network features (motifs), and trained constituent models in each perspective with the remainder data. We then estimated our framework performance metrics against the held-out test set. Our framework achieved overall AUC = 0.938 [0.862–0.959], F1-Score = 0.284 [0.464–0.124], and TSS = 0.876 [0.724–0.918], when trained without including research effort in its mammalian and viral perspectives. When research effort was included in these perspectives, performance metrics were as follows: AUC = 0.920 [0.823, 0.944], F1-Score = 0.272 [0.526, 0.093], and TSS = 0.840 [0.646, 0.888].The performance of our voting approach was better than any individual perspective, or combination of perspectives (Supplementary Tables 8–11). The most significant improvement was in F1-score, where individual perspectives scores were as follows: network = 0.104 [0.210–0.051], mammalian = 0.115 [0.009–0.064] (0.131 [0.284–0.035] with research effort), and viral = 0.181 [0.374–0.074] (0.196 [0.373–0.067]).Additionally, we conducted a systematic test to predict removed virus-mammal associations. In this test, we systematically removed one known virus-mammal association at a time from our framework, recalculated all inputs (including from network) and attempted to predict these removed associations. Our framework succeeded in predicting 90% of removed associations (90.70% for associations removed for viruses, 89.92% for associations removed from mammals, Supplementary Results 3).Finally, our framework predicted 84.02% [77.69%, 89.60%] of the externally obtained viral-mammalian associations (with detection quality  > 0) where both host and virus were included in our pipeline, and 77.82% [68.46%, 86.51%] (any detection quality). When including research effort in our mammalian and viral perspectives, these results were: 84.47% [78.15%, 89.60%], and 78.41% [68.83%, 86.37%], respectively. More

1.Cunningham, A. A., Daszak, P. & Wood, J. L. N. One health, emerging infectious diseases and wildlife: two decades of progress? Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 372, 20160167 (2017).2.Suzan, G., Esponda, F., Carrasco-Hernández, R. & Aguirre, A. A. in New Directions in Conservation Medicine: Applied Cases of Ecological Health (eds. Aguirre, A. A., Ostfeld, R. & Daszak, P.). 135–150 (Oxford University Press USA, 2012).3.Hussain, S., Ram, M. S., Kumar, A., Shivaji, S. & Umapathy, G. Human presence increases parasitic load in endangered lion-tailed macaques (Macaca silenus) in its fragmented rainforest habitats in Southern India. PLoS ONE 8, 1–8 (2013).
Google Scholar 
4.Junge, R. E., Barrett, M. A. & Yoder, A. D. Effects of anthropogenic disturbance on indri (Indri indri) health in Madagascar. Am. J. Primatol. 73, 632–642 (2011).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Friggens, M. M. & Beier, P. Anthropogenic disturbance and the risk of flea-borne disease transmission. Oecologia 164, 809–820 (2010).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Woodroffe, R. et al. Contact with domestic dogs increases pathogen exposure in endangered African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus). PLoS ONE 7, e30099 (2012).7.Crowl, T. A., Crist, T. O., Parmenter, R. R., Belovsky, G. & Lugo, A. E. The spread of invasive species and infectious disease as drivers of ecosystem change. Front. Ecol. Environ. 6, 238–246 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Keesing, F., Holt, R. D. & Ostfeld, R. S. Effects of species diversity on disease risk. Ecol. Lett. 9, 485–498 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Gámez-Virués, S. et al. Landscape simplification filters species traits and drives biotic homogenization. Nat. Commun. 6, 8568 (2015).10.Alberdi, A., Aizpurua, O., Bohmann, K., Zepeda-Mendoza, M. L. & Gilbert, M. T. P. Do vertebrate gut metagenomes confer rapid ecological adaptation? Trends Ecol. Evol. 31, 689–699 (2016).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
11.Hooper, L. V., Littman, D. R. & Macpherson, A. J. Interactions between the microbiota and the immune system. Science 336, 1268–1273 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Shapira, M. Gut microbiotas and host evolution: scaling up symbiosis. Trends Ecol. Evol. 31, 539–549 (2016).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
13.Brugman, S. et al. A comparative review on microbiota manipulation: lessons from fish, plants, livestock, and human research. Front. Nutr. 5, 1–15 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
14.Wasimuddin et al. Astrovirus infections induce age-dependent dysbiosis in gut microbiomes of bats. ISME J. 12, 2883–2893 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Wasimuddin et al. Adenovirus infection is associated with altered gut microbial communities in a non-human primate. Sci. Rep. 9, 1–12 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Wilkins, L. J., Monga, M. & Miller, A. W. Defining dysbiosis for a cluster of chronic diseases. Sci. Rep. 9, 1–10 (2019).
Google Scholar 
17.Brüssow, H. Problems with the concept of gut microbiota dysbiosis. Microb. Biotechnol. 13, 423–434 (2020).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
18.Otto, S. P. Adaptation, speciation and extinction in the Anthropocene. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 285, 20182047 (2018).19.Amato, K. R. et al. Habitat degradation impacts black howler monkey (Alouatta pigra) gastrointestinal microbiomes. ISME J. 7, 1344–1353 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Ingala, M. R., Becker, D. J., Bak Holm, J., Kristiansen, K. & Simmons, N. B. Habitat fragmentation is associated with dietary shifts and microbiota variability in common vampire bats. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5228 (2019)21.Juan, P. A. S., Hendershot, J. N., Daily, G. C. & Fukami, T. Land-use change has host-specificinfluenc on avian gut microbiomes. ISME J. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-019-0535-4 (2019)22.Barelli, C. et al. Habitat fragmentation is associated to gut microbiota diversity of an endangered primate: implications for conservation. Sci. Rep. 5, 14862 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
23.de Juan, S., Thrush, S. F. & Hewitt, J. E. Counting on β-diversity to safeguard the resilience of estuaries. PLoS ONE 8, 1–11 (2013).
Google Scholar 
24.Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach (Springer, 2002).25.Oksanen, J. et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.5-5. https://github.com/vegandevs/vegan (2019).26.Nakagawa, S. & Cuthill, I. C. Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists. Biol. Rev. 82, 591–605 (2007).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
27.Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988).28.Gillingham, M. A. F. et al. Offspring microbiomes differ across breeding sites in a panmictic species. Front. Microbiol. 10, 35 (2019).29.Anderson, M. J. Distance-based tests for homogeneity of multivariate dispersions. Biometrics 62, 245–253 (2006).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
30.Mandal, S. et al. Analysis of composition of microbiomes: a novel method for studying microbial composition. Microb. Ecol. Heal. Dis. 26, 1–7 (2015).
Google Scholar 
31.Douglas, G. M. et al. PICRUSt2 for prediction of metagenome functions. Nat. Biotechnol. 38, 669–673 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
32.Louca, S. & Doebeli, M. Efficient comparative phylogenetics on large trees. Bioinformatics 34, 1053–1055 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Barbera, P. et al. EPA-ng: massively parallel evolutionary placement of genetic sequences. Syst. Biol. 68, 365–369 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Czech, L., Barbera, P. & Stamatakis, A. Genesis and Gappa: processing, analyzing and visualizing phylogenetic (placement) data. Bioinformatics 36, 3263–3265 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Nyhus, P. J. Human—wildlife conflict and coexistence. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 41, 143–171 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Foden, W. B. et al. Climate change vulnerability assessment of species. WIREs Clim. Chang. 10, 1–36 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Beck, J. M. et al. Multicenter comparison of lung and oral microbiomes of HIV-infected and HIV-uninfected individuals. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 192, 1335–1344 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Pita, L., Rix, L., Slaby, B. M., Franke, A. & Hentschel, U. The sponge holobiont in a changing ocean: from microbes to ecosystems. Microbiome 6, 46 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Rosado, P. M. et al. Marine probiotics: increasing coral resistance to bleaching through microbiome manipulation. ISME J. 13, 921–936 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Wang, L. et al. Corals and their microbiomes are differentially affected by exposure to elevated nutrients and a natural thermal anomaly. Front. Mar. Sci. 5, 1–16 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Zaneveld, J. R., McMinds, R. & Thurber, R. V. Stress and stability: applying the Anna Karenina principle to animal microbiomes. Nat. Microbiol. 2, 17121 (2017).42.Rocca, J. D. et al. The Microbiome Stress Project: toward a global meta-analysis of environmental stressors and their effects on microbial communities. Front. Microbiol. 10, 3272 (2019).43.Gillingham, M. A. F. et al. Bioaccumulation of trace elements affects chick body condition and gut microbiome in greater flamingos. Sci. Total Environ. 761, 143250 (2020).44.Chase, J. M. Stochastic community assembly causes higher biodiversity in more productive environments. Science 328, 1388–1392 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
45.Jiménez, R. R., Alvarado, G., Estrella, J. & Sommer, S. Moving beyond the host: unraveling the skin microbiome of endangered Costa Rican amphibians. Front. Microbiol. 10, 1–18 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Wang, J. et al. Phylogenetic beta diversity in bacterial assemblages across ecosystems: deterministic versus stochastic processes. ISME J. 7, 1310–1321 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Chase, J. M. & Myers, J. A. Disentangling the importance of ecological niches from stochastic processes across scales. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 366, 2351–2363 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Pound, K. L., Lawrence, G. B. & Passy, S. I. Beta diversity response to stress severity and heterogeneity in sensitive versus tolerant stream diatoms. Divers. Distrib. 25, 374–384 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Zhou, J. & Ning, D. Stochastic Community Assembly: does it matter in microbial ecology? Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 81, 1–32 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Nicholas, R. A. J. & Ayling, R. D. Mycoplasma bovis: disease, diagnosis, and control. Res. Vet. Sci. 74, 105–112 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
51.Ley, D. H. in Diseases of Poultry (eds. et al.) (Blackwell Publishing, 2008).52.Groebel, K., Hoelzle, K., Wittenbrink, M. M., Ziegler, U. & Hoelzle, L. E. Mycoplasma suis invades porcine erythrocytes. Infect. Immun. 77, 576–584 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
53.do Nascimento, N. C., Santos, A. P., Guimaraes, A. M. S., Sanmiguel, P. J. & Messick, J. B. Mycoplasma haemocanis—the canine hemoplasma and its feline counterpart in the genomic era. Vet. Res. 43, 66 (2012).54.Hardham, J. M. et al. Transfer of Bacteroides splanchnicus to Odoribacter gen. nov. as Odoribacter splanchnicus comb. nov., and description of Odoribacter denticanis sp. nov., isolated from the crevicular spaces of canine periodontitis patients. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 58, 103–109 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
55.Kaakoush, N. O. Insights into the role of Erysipelotrichaceae in the human host. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 5, 1–4 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
56.Ormerod, K. L. et al. Genomic characterization of the uncultured Bacteroidales family S24-7 inhabiting the guts of homeothermic animals. Microbiome 4, 1–17 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Herrmann, E. et al. RNA-based stable isotope probing suggests Allobaculum spp. as particularly active glucose assimilators in a complex murine microbiota cultured in vitro. Biomed Res. Int. 2017, 1829685 (2017).58.Greetham, H. L. et al. Allobaculum stercoricanis gen. nov., sp. nov., isolated from canine feces. Anaerobe 10, 301–307 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
59.Silva, Y. P., Bernardi, A. & Frozza, R. L. The role of short-chain fatty acids from gut microbiota in gut-brain communication. Front. Endocrinol. 11, 1–14 (2020).60.Wiegel, J., Tanner, R. & Rainey, F. A. in The Prokaryotes: Volume 4: Bacteria: Firmicutes, Cyanobacteria (eds. Dworkin, M., Falkow, S., Rosenberg, E., Schleifer, K.-H. & Stackebrandt, E.) 654–678 (Springer US, 2006).61.Tamanai-Shacoori, Z. et al. Roseburia spp.: a marker of health? Future Microbiol 12, 157–170 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
62.Freier, T. A., Beitz, D. C., Li, L. & Hartman, P. A. Characterization of Eubacterium coprostanoligenes sp. nov., a Cholesterol-Reducing Anaerobe. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 44, 137–142 (1994).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
63.Venegas, D. P. et al. Short chain fatty acids (SCFAs)-mediated gut epithelial and immune regulation and its relevance for inflammatory bowel diseases. Front. Immunol. 10, 277 (2019).64.MetaCyc. MetaCyc Pathway: pyrimidine deoxyribonucleotides biosynthesis from CTP. https://biocyc.org/META/NEW-IMAGE?type=PATHWAY&object=PWY-7210&show-citations=T (2020).65.Caspi, R. et al. The MetaCyc database of metabolic pathways and enzymes. Nucleic Acids Res. 46, D633–D639 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
66.MetaCyc. MetaCyc Pathway: poly(glycerol phosphate) wall teichoic acid biosynthesis. https://biocyc.org/META/NEW-IMAGE?type=PATHWAY&object=TEICHOICACID-PWY (2020).67.Brown, S., Santa Maria, J. P. & Walker, S. Wall teichoic acids of gram-positive bacteria. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 67, 313–336 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
68.MetaCyc. MetaCyc Pathway: L-lysine biosynthesis II. https://metacyc.org/META/NEW-IMAGE?type=PATHWAY&object=PWY-2941 (2020).69.Hutton, C. A., Perugini, M. A. & Gerrard, J. A. Inhibition of lysine biosynthesis: an evolving antibiotic strategy. Mol. Biosyst. 3, 458–465 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
70.Wanner, S. et al. Wall teichoic acids mediate increased virulence in Staphylococcus aureus. Nat. Microbiol. 2, 1–12 (2017).
Google Scholar 
71.MetaCyc. MetaCyc Pathway: formaldehyde assimilation II (assimilatory RuMP Cycle). https://biocyc.org/META/NEW-IMAGE?type=PATHWAY&object=PWY-1861 (2020).72.Chen, N. H., Djoko, K. Y., Veyrier, F. J. & McEwan, A. G. Formaldehyde stress responses in bacterial pathogens. Front. Microbiol. 7, 1–17 (2016).
Google Scholar 
73.Tauseef, S. M., Premalatha, M., Abbasi, T. & Abbasi, S. A. Methane capture from livestock manure. J. Environ. Manag. 117, 187–207 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
74.Dale, V. H., Brown, S., Calderón, M. O., Montoya, A. S. & Martínez, R. E. Estimating baseline carbon emissions for the eastern Panama Canal watershed. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang 8, 323–348 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
75.Schmid, J. et al. Ecological drivers of Hepacivirus infection in a neotropical rodent inhabiting landscapes with various degrees of human environmental change. Oecologia https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-018-4210-7 (2018)76.Adler, G. H. & Beatty, R. P. Changing reproductive rates in a neotropical forest rodent, Proechimys semispinosus. J. Anim. Ecol. 66, 472 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
77.Adler, G. H. Fruit and seed exploitation by Central American spiny rats, Proechimys semispinosus. Stud. Neotrop. Fauna Environ. 30, 237–244 (1995).78.Hoch, G. A. & Adler, G. H. Removal of black palm (Astrocaryum standleyanum) seeds by spiny rats (Proechimys semispinosus). J. Trop. Ecol. 13, 51–58 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
79.Endries, M. J. & Adler, G. H. Spacing patterns of a tropical forest rodent, the spiny rat (Proechimys semispinosus), in Panama. J. Zool. 265, 147–155 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
80.Adler, G. H. The island syndrome in isolated populations of a tropical forest rodent. Oecologia 108, 694–700 (1996).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
81.Caporaso, J. G. et al. Global patterns of 16S rRNA diversity at a depth of millions of sequences per sample. PNAS 108, 4516–4522 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
82.Caporaso, J. G. et al. QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat. Methods 7, 335–336 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
83.Menke, S. et al. Oligotyping reveals differences between gut microbiomes of free-ranging sympatric Namibian carnivores (Acinonyx jubatus, Canis mesomelas) on a bacterial species-like level. Front. Microbiol. 5, 526 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
84.Bolyen, E. et al. Reproducible, interactive, scalable and extensible microbiome data science using QIIME 2. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 852–857 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
85.Callahan, B. J. et al. DADA2: high-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat. Methods 13, 581–583 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
86.Callahan, B. J., Mcmurdie, P. J. & Holmes, S. P. Exact sequence variants should replace operational taxonomic units in marker-gene data analysis. ISME J. 11, 2639–2643 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
87.Quast, C. et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: Improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, 590–596 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
88.Yilmaz, P. et al. The SILVA and ‘All-species Living Tree Project (LTP)’ taxonomic frameworks. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, 643–648 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
89.Glöckner, F. O. et al. 25 years of serving the community with ribosomal RNA gene reference databases and tools. J. Biotechnol. 261, 169–176 (2017).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
90.Pedregosa, F. et al. Scikit-learn: machine learning in python. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 12, 2825–2830 (2011).91.Price, M. N., Dehal, P. S. & Arkin, A. P. FastTree 2—āpproximately maximum-likelihood trees for large alignments. PLoS ONE 5, e9490 (2010).92.Huson, D. H. & Scornavacca, C. Dendroscope 3: an interactive tool for rooted phylogenetic trees and networks. Syst. Biol. 61, 1061–1067 (2012).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
93.R. Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.r-project.org/index.html (2017).94.McMurdie, P. J. & Holmes, S. phyloseq: An R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PLoS ONE 8, e61217 (2013).95.Davis, N. M., Proctor, Di. M., Holmes, S. P., Relman, D. A. & Callahan, B. J. Simple statistical identification and removal of contaminant sequences in marker-gene and metagenomics data. Microbiome 6, 1–14 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
96.Shannon, C. E. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 27, 379–423 (1948).Article 

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

Google Scholar 
98.Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. M. & Walker, S. C. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).99.Mcmurdie, P. J. & Holmes, S. Waste not, want not: why rarefying microbiome data is inadmissible. PLoS Comput. Biol. 10, e1003531 (2014).100.Kim, Y. S., Unno, T., Kim, B.-Y. & Park, M. Sex differences in gut microbiota. World J. Mens. Health 38, 48–60 (2020).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
101.Kolodny, O. et al. Coordinated change at the colony level in fruit bat fur microbiomes through time. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 116–124 (2019).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
102.Kartzinel, T. R., Hsing, J. C., Musili, P. M., Brown, B. R. P. & Pringle, R. M. Covariation of diet and gut microbiome in African megafauna. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 23588–23593 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
103.Zuur, A., Ieno, E. N., Walker, N., Saveliev, A. A. & Smith, G. M. Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R (Springer Science & Business Media, 2009).104.Nakagawa, S. & Schielzeth, H. A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4, 133–142 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
105.Brooks, M. E. et al. glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling. R. J. 9, 378–400 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
106.Lozupone, C. & Knight, R. UniFrac: a new phylogenetic method for comparing microbial communities. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71, 8228–8235 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
107.Lozupone, C. A., Hamady, M., Kelley, S. T. & Knight, R. Quantitative and qualitative β diversity measures lead to different insights into factors that structure microbial communities. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 73, 1576–1585 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
108.Anderson, M. J. Permutational Multivariate Analysis of Variance (PERMANOVA). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118445112.stat07841. (2017)109.Anderson, M. J. & Walsh, D. C. I. PERMANOVA, ANOSIM, and the Mantel test in the face of heterogeneous dispersions: what null hypothesis are you testing? Ecol. Monogr. 83, 557–574 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
110.Li, H. et al. Pika population density is associated with the composition and diversity of gut microbiota. Front. Microbiol. 7, 1–9 (2016).
Google Scholar 
111.Weiss, S. et al. Normalization and microbial differential abundance strategies depend upon data characteristics. Microbiome 5, 1–18 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
112.Benjamini, Y. & Hochberg, Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 57, 289–300 (1995).
Google Scholar 
113.Fackelmann, G. gfackelmann/human-encroachment-into-wildlife-gut-microbiomes: Release 1.0.0. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4725220. (2021) More

Study siteThe experiment was conducted at Madingley Wood, Cambridgeshire, UK (0◦3.2´E, 52◦12.9´N) during summer 2018. Madingley Wood is an established field site with an ongoing long-term study of the blue tit and great tit populations. During the autumn and winter birds are caught from feeding stations using mist nets and they are fitted with British Trust of Ornithology (BTO) ID rings. Since 2012, blue tits and great tits have been fitted with RFID tags (BTO Special Methods permit to HMR), which enables collecting data remotely about their foraging behavior and social relationships. The study site has 90 nest boxes that are monitored annually during the breeding season. In 2018 chicks (n = 325) fledged successfully from 45 nest boxes (blue tits = 21, great tits = 24) and they were all ringed and fitted with RFID tags when they were approximately 10 days old. Because new juvenile flocks were arriving at our study site throughout the summer, we also conducted several mist-netting and ringing sessions in July and August to maintain a high proportion of blue tits and great tits ringed and RFID tagged for the experiments (on average 89%, see below). The study protocol was approved by the Animal Users Committee at the Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge.Food itemsWe investigated birds’ foraging choices by offering them colored almond flakes at bird feeders that were distributed throughout the wood. Before beginning the experiments, we allowed the birds to become familiar with the food items by providing plain ‘control’ almonds (plain and not colored) in paired feeders (1.5 m apart) at three locations (approximately 170 m from each other). The feeders were surrounded with metal cages to exclude larger birds, and we placed plastic buckets under the feeders to collect any spilled almonds and minimize birds’ opportunities to forage from the ground. We introduced the feeders at the beginning of June when the nestlings had fledged and were beginning to forage independently, and continued to provide these plain almonds in between our learning experiments (Fig. 3c).In the learning experiments, almond flakes were dyed with non-toxic food dye (Classikool Concentrated Droplet Food Colouring). We used three different color pairs: green (Leaf Green) and red (Bright Red), purple (Lavender Purple) and blue (Royal Blue), and orange (Satsuma Orange) and yellow (Dandelion Yellow). Almond flakes were dyed by soaking them for approximately 20 min in a solution of 900 ml of water and 30 ml of food dye and then left to air dry for 48 h. In the avoidance learning experiments, we made half of the almond flakes unpalatable by soaking them for one hour in 67% solution of chloroquine phosphate, following previously established methods from avoidance learning studies with birds in captivity14,23,24,25. The food dye was added to the solution during the last 20 min.Red and green are common colors used by aposematic, or cryptic prey, respectively9. Therefore, we investigated whether blue tits and great tits had initial color biases towards these colors before starting the main experiment. Because we did not want the birds in our study population to have any experience of the colors before the main experiment, this pilot study was conducted in Newbury, which is 130 km from our main study site. Birds were simultaneously presented with two feeders containing red and green almonds (both palatable) for 30 min and the number of almonds of each color taken by blue tits or great tits was recorded using binoculars. The position of the feeders was switched after 15 min to control for any preferences for feeder location, and the test was repeated on 9 different days. We did not find any evidence that birds had initial color preferences (t-test: t = 0, df = 15.69, p = 1). For the other two learning experiments, we chose color pairs that were available as a food dye and as different from red and green in the visible spectrum as possible to avoid generalization across experiments. These color pairs (blue/purple and yellow/orange) had similar contrast ratios as green and red, based on their RGB values (measured from photographs, see Supplementary Information). Although avian and human vision is different, the discriminability of colors is likely to be similar51, and rapid avoidance learning in each experiment shows that all colors were easily distinguishable. This was the main requirement for testing social information use, and subtle differences in color pair discriminability should only introduce noise to our data but not influence our conclusions.Learning experiments with colored almondsWe conducted three avoidance learning experiments with different color pairs throughout the summer: red/green, blue/purple, and yellow/orange (unpalatable/palatable). In addition, we conducted a reversal-learning experiment with the blue/purple color pair by making both colors palatable after birds had acquired avoidance to blue almonds. Each experiment followed a similar protocol, in which birds were presented with colored almonds at the same three feeding stations where they were previously offered plain almonds. Each feeding station had two feeders, where one contained the palatable color and the other contained the unpalatable color (except in the reversal learning test when both colors were palatable). We switched the side of the feeders every day to make sure that birds learned to associate palatability with an almond color and not a feeder position. The feeders were filled at least once a day (or more often if necessary) to make sure that birds always had access to both colors. We continued each avoidance learning experiment until >90% of all recorded visits were to the feeder with palatable almonds, indicating that most birds in the population had learned to discriminate the colors. This took 7 days in the red/green experiment and 8 days in the other two color pairs (blue/purple and yellow/orange). The reversal learning experiment was finished after 9 days when 50% of the visits were to the previously unpalatable color (blue), indicating that most birds had reversed their learned avoidance towards it.Recording visits to feedersWe monitored visits to all feeders using RFID antennas and data loggers (Francis Scientific Instruments, Ltd) that scanned birds’ unique RFID tag codes when they landed on a perch attached to the feeder. During the learning experiments, each day we also recorded videos from all three feeding stations (using Go Pro Hero Action Camera and Canon Legria HF R66 Camcorder). From the videos, we monitored the proportion of blue tits and great tits that did not have RFID tags and were therefore not recorded when visiting the feeders. We calculated the estimated RFID tag coverage for each day of the experiments by watching at least 100 visits to the feeders from the videos (divided equally among the three feeding stations) and recording whether blue tits and great tits had an RFID tag or not. We realized that the number of untagged individuals was very high (approximately 50% of all visiting birds) when we started the experiment with the first color pair (red/green; see Supplementary Fig. 3). We, therefore, stopped the experiment after two days and caught birds from the feeding stations with mist nets to fit RFID tags to new individuals. To maintain a high number of individuals RFID tagged for the other color pairs, we conducted a mist netting session a day before starting each experiment, as well as 4–5 days after it. We always switched the feeders back to containing plain almonds during mist-netting sessions to ensure that this would not interfere with the learning experiments. Apart from the first two days of the red/green experiment, the RFID tag coverage was on average 89% throughout the experiments (varying between 80 and 95%, Supplementary Fig. 3).Birds were recorded every time that they visited the feeders, i.e., landed on the RFID antenna. However, it is possible that birds did not take the almond during every visit. To get an estimate of how often birds landed on the antenna without taking the almond, and whether this differed between palatable and unpalatable colors, we analyzed the visits to the feeders from the video recordings. We watched videos from the five first days of each experiment (i.e., different color pairs) and analyzed 60 visits to each color (divided approximately equally among the three feeding stations). We recorded whether the feeding event happened (birds ate the almond at the feeder or flew away with it) or whether birds left the feeder without sampling the almond. Because the number of visits to the unpalatable feeder was low during the last days of the avoidance learning experiments, we decided not to analyze avoidance learning videos after day five (but recorded visits from all days of the reversal learning experiment). We found that in avoidance learning experiments birds started to ‘reject’ unpalatable almonds after two days, i.e., they sometimes landed on the feeder but flew away without taking the almond (see Supplementary Fig. 4a). This change was not observed at palatable feeders where birds continued to consume almonds at a similar rate as at the beginning of the experiment (Supplementary Fig. 4a). In reversal learning, the proportion of visits that did not include a feeding event did not differ between purple and blue almonds: birds showed similar hesitation towards both colors at the beginning of the experiment, but this wariness decreased when the experiment progressed, with birds taking the almond during most of their visits (Supplementary Fig. 4b).Statistical analyses and model validationForaging choices in learning experimentsWe first analyzed how birds’ foraging choices changed during the learning experiments using generalized linear mixed-effects models with a binomial error distribution. The number of times an individual visited each feeder on each day of the experiment was used as a bounded response variable, and this was explained by species (blue tit/great tit), individuals’ age (juvenile/adult), and day of the experiment (continuous variable), as well as bird identity as a random effect. When analyzing avoidance learning, initial exploration of data suggested that results were similar across all three experiments, so we combined the experiments in the same model. To investigate whether learning curves differed between the species or age groups, the day of the experiment was included as a second-order polynomial term, and we started model selections with models that included a three-way interaction between species, age, and day2. Best-fitting models were selected based on Akaike’s information criterion (see Supplementary Tables 1 and 2).Social networkTo investigate if birds used social information in their foraging choices, we first constructed a social network of the bird population based on their visits to feeders outside of the learning experiments, i.e., when birds were presented with plain almonds (in total 92 days, see Supplementary Information for the robustness of analysis to exclusion of network data before or after the experiment). We used only these data as individuals were likely to vary in their hesitation to visit novel colored almonds. We used a Gaussian mixture model to detect the clusters of visits (‘gathering events’) at the feeders52 and then calculated association strengths between individuals based on how often they were observed in the same group (gambit of the group approach). These associations (network edges) were calculated using the simple ratio index, SRI35.$$frac{x}{x+{y}_{{mathrm{A}}}+{y}_{{mathrm{B}}}+{y}_{{{mathrm{AB}},}}}$$
(2)
where x is the number of samples where individuals A and B co-occurred in the same group, yA is the number of samples where only individual A was seen, yB is the number of samples where only individual B was seen, and yAB is the number of samples where both A and B were observed in the same sample but not together. Network associations, therefore, estimated the probability that two individuals were in the same group at a given time, with the values scaled between 0 (never observed in the same group) and 1 (always observed in the same group).Social information use during avoidance learning: model descriptionIf social avoidance learning was occurring, then the more birds observed negative responses of others feeding on the unpalatable feeder, the less likely they would be to choose the unpalatable feeder themselves. Thus, we expected the probability of bird j choosing the unpalatable option at time t to decrease with ({R}_{-,j}left(tright)) (the real number of negative feeding events observed by j prior to time t). Likewise, if appetitive social learning was occurring, then the more birds observed positive responses of others feeding on the palatable feeder, the more likely they would be to choose the palatable feeder themselves (rather than the unpalatable feeder). So, we also expected the probability of j choosing the unpalatable option at time t to decrease as ({R}_{+,j}left(tright),)(the real number of positive events observed by j prior to time t) increased.However, we could not test for an effect of ({R}_{-,j}left(tright)) and ({R}_{+,j}left(tright)) directly, since birds often ate the almond away from the feeder, and therefore the real number of observed feeding events could not be measured. Instead, we aimed to test for a pattern following the social network that is consistent with these social learning processes. We reasoned that the probability that one individual i, observes a specific feeding event by another individual j, was proportional to the network connection between them, aij (probability they are in the same feeding group at a given time). Therefore, in each avoidance learning experiment (i.e., different color pair), we calculated the expected number of negative feeding events observed, prior to each choice (occurring at time t) as$${O}_{-,i}left(tright)={sum }_{j}{N}_{-,j}left(tright){a}_{{ij}},$$
(3)
where ({N}_{-,j}left(tright)) was the number of times j had visited unpalatable almonds prior to time t (i ≠ j), and summation is across all birds in the network, and likewise for the expected number of positive feeding events:$${O}_{+,i}left(tright)={sum }_{j}{N}_{+,j}left(tright){a}_{{ij}},$$
(4)
where ({N}_{+,j}left(tright)) was the number of times j had visited palatable almonds prior to time t (i ≠ j).We analyzed whether the expected observations of positive and/or negative feeding events of others influenced the foraging choices in the avoidance learning experiments using generalized linear mixed-effects models with a binomial error distribution. We used each choice (i.e., visit a feeder) as a binary response variable (1 = unpalatable chosen, 0 = palatable chosen), with the probability that unpalatable feeder is chosen on feeding event E given by ({p}_{E}={p}_{-,{i}(E)}left({t}_{E}right)), where i(E) is the individual that fed during event E and ({t}_{E}) is the time at which event E occurred. We then modeled the probability of i choosing the unpalatable option at time t as:$${p}_{-,i}left(tright)={rm{logit}}left(alpha +{beta }_{{rm{asoc}}+}{N}_{+,i}left(tright)+{beta }_{{rm{asoc}}-}{N}_{-,i}left(tright)+{beta }_{{rm{soc}}+}{O}_{+,i}left(tright)+{beta }_{s{rm{oc}}-}{O}_{-,i}left(tright)+{{{{rm{B}}}}}_{i}right),$$
(5)
where ({N}_{+,i}left(tright)) is the number of times a choosing individual had visited the palatable feeder (positive personal information), ({N}_{-,i}left(tright)) is the number of times a choosing individual had visited the unpalatable feeder (negative personal information), ({O}_{+,i}left(tright)) is the expected number of observed positive (positive social information) and ({O}_{-,i}left(tright)) observed negative feeding events (negative social information). Bird identity was included as a random effect, ({{rm{{B}}}}_{i}) (age and species were later added as variables, see below). Parameters ({beta }_{{rm{asoc}}+}) and ({beta }_{{rm{asoc}}-}) are the effects of asocial learning about the palatable and unpalatable foods, ({beta }_{{rm{soc}}+}) is the effect of social learning about the palatable food, and ({beta }_{{rm{soc}}-})is the effect of social avoidance learning about the unpalatable food. Estimation of these parameters, with associated Wald tests and confidence intervals, allowed us to make inferences about which effects were operating and the size of these effects. To aid model fitting we standardized all predictor variables and then back-transformed the effects to the original scale (see Supplementary Tables 3–5 for the model outputs). To assess the importance of asocial and social effects, we also ran separate models that excluded either asocial or social parameters and compared them to the initial model in Eq. (5) using Akaike’s information criterion (see Supplementary Table 6). However, in most cases, this reduced model fit significantly, and we, therefore, kept all parameters in the final models.Our approach took ({O}_{-,{i}}left(tright)) as a measure of ({R}_{-,j}left(tright)), and ({O}_{+,{i}}left(tright)) as a measure of ({R}_{+,j}left(tright))-, which we termed the ‘expected’ number of observations of each type. Strictly speaking, ({O}_{-,{i}}left(tright)) and ({O}_{+,{i}}left(tright)) were upper limits on the expected number of observations, assuming that birds observed all feeding events in the groups in which they were present, whereas only an unknown proportion of such events (({p}_{o})) was observed. Therefore, the real expected number of negative/positive observations would be (Eleft({R}_{-,j}left(tright)right)={p}_{o}{O}_{-,{i}}left(tright)) and (Eleft({R}_{+,j}left(tright)right)={p}_{o}{O}_{+,{i}}left(tright)) respectively. Thus, the coefficient, ({beta }_{{rm{soc}}-}), for the effect of ({O}_{-,{i}}left(tright)) could be interpreted as ({beta }_{s{rm{oc}}-}={p}_{o}acute{{beta }_{{rm{soc}}-}}) where (acute{{beta }_{s{rm{oc}}-}}) is the effect per observation. Note that since ({p}_{o}le 1), and(,{beta }_{{rm{soc}}-}=acute{{beta }_{s{rm{oc}}-}}{p}_{o}), ({beta }_{s{rm{oc}}-}) is more likely to underestimate than overestimate the effect per observation of a negative feeding event. An analogous argument applies to the coefficient, ({beta }_{{rm{soc}}+}), for the effect of ({O}_{+,{i}}left(tright)).Social information use during avoidance learning: extension to test for species effectsAfter fitting the initial model shown in Eq. (5), we further broke down the model to test whether individuals were more likely to learn socially by observing conspecifics than heterospecifics. This was done by splitting the expected number of observed positive and negative feeding events to observations of conspecifics (({O}_{+{rm{C}},i}left(tright)), ({O}_{-{rm{C}},i}left(tright))) and heterospecifics (({O}_{+{rm{H}},i}left(tright)), ({O}_{-{rm{H}},i}left(tright))), and including these in the model as separate explanatory variables thus:$${p}_{-,i}(t)={rm{logit}}left(begin{array}{c}alpha +{beta }_{{rm{asoc}}+}{N}_{+,i}(t)+{beta }_{{rm{asoc}}-}{N}_{-,i}(t)\ +{beta }_{{rm{soc}},+{rm{H}}}{O}_{+{rm{H}},i}(t)+{beta }_{{rm{soc}},-{rm{H}}}{O}_{-{rm{H}},i}(t)\ +{beta }_{{rm{soc}},+{rm{C}}}{O}_{+{rm{C}},i}(t)+{beta }_{{rm{soc}},-{rm{C}}}{O}_{-{rm{C}},i}(t) \ +{{{{rm{B}}}}}_{i}end{array}right)$$
(6a)
with ({beta }_{{rm{soc}},-{rm{H}}}) and ({beta }_{{rm{soc}},-{rm{C}}}) giving the effect of a negative observation of a heterospecific and conspecific, respectively, whereas ({beta }_{{rm{soc}},+{rm{H}}}) and ({beta }_{{rm{soc}},+{rm{C}}}) give the effect of positive observation of a heterospecific and conspecific, respectively. In general –/+ subscripts refer to negative/positive feeding events and C/H subscripts to feeding events by conspecifics/heterospecifics. By re-parameterizing the model thus:$${p}_{-,i}left(tright)={rm{logit}}left(begin{array}{c}alpha +{beta }_{{rm{asoc}}+}{N}_{+,i}left(tright)+{beta }_{{rm{asoc}}-}{N}_{-,i}left(tright) \ +{beta }_{{rm{soc}},{rm{H}}+}{O}_{+,i}left(tright)+{beta }_{{rm{soc}},{rm{H}}-}{O}_{-,i}left(tright)\ +left({beta }_{{rm{soc}},{rm{C}}+}-{beta }_{{rm{soc}},{rm{H}}+}right){O}_{+{rm{C}},i}left(tright)+left({beta }_{{rm{soc}},{rm{C}}-}-{beta }_{{rm{soc}},{rm{H}}-}right){O}_{-{rm{C}},i}left(tright)\ +{{{{rm{B}}}}}_{i}end{array}right)$$
(6b)
we were able to test for a difference between observations of negative feeds by conspecifics and heterospecifics (left({beta }_{{rm{soc}},{rm{C}}-}-{beta }_{{rm{soc}},{rm{H}}-}right)) and between observations of positive feeds by conspecifics and heterospecifics (left({beta }_{{rm{soc}},{rm{C}}+}-{beta }_{{rm{soc}},{rm{H}}+}right)).For all experiments there was no evidence for a difference between ({beta }_{{rm{soc}},-{rm{H}}}) and ({beta }_{{rm{soc}},-{rm{C}}}) (yellow/orange: Z = 0.803, p = 0.42; red/green: Z = 0.065, p = 0.95; blue/purple: Z = 1.113, p = 0.27). However, there was some evidence of a difference between ({beta }_{{rm{soc}},+{rm{H}}}) and ({beta }_{{rm{soc}},+{rm{C}}}) in two of the three experiments (yellow/orange: Z = 1.359, p = 0.17; red/green: Z = 1.417, p = 0.16; blue/purple: Z = 0.729, p = 0.47). Consequently, we reduced the model down to:$${p}_{-,i}left(tright)={rm{logit}}left(begin{array}{c}alpha +{beta }_{{rm{asoc}}+}{N}_{+,i}left(tright)+{beta }_{{rm{asoc}}-}{N}_{-,i}left(tright)\ +{beta }_{{rm{soc}},-}{O}_{-,i}left(tright)+{beta }_{{rm{soc}},+{rm{H}}}{O}_{+{rm{H}},i}left(tright)+{beta }_{{rm{soc}},+{rm{C}}}{O}_{+{rm{C}},i}left(tright)\ +{{{{rm{B}}}}}_{i}end{array}right)$$
(7)
for further analysis, i.e., with different effects for observations of conspecific/heterospecific positive feeds, but not of negative feeds. We did this for all color combinations (including blue/purple) to allow comparison across experiments (see Table 1). The R code used to run these models can be found in Supplementary data53 in ‘GLMM models Orange Yellow final.r’.Social information use during avoidance learning: simulations to test for a network effectNext, we tested whether the social effects we detected followed the social network. When using a network-based diffusion analysis (NBDA43), researchers can compare a network model with one in which the network has homogeneous connections among all individuals, but we found this to be unreliable for our model. Instead, we used a simulation approach to generate a null distribution for the null hypothesis of homogeneous social effects, taking the size of the social effects from the fitted models. We ran 1000 simulations (using the same procedure described above) for all social effects that were found to be significant in each avoidance learning model (each color pair; see Table 1). The total number of expected observations was kept equal, but we homogenized the observation effect across all birds by replacing the probability of bird i observing a feed by bird j, previously ({a}_{{ij}}), with ({sum }_{i}{a}_{{ij}}/n), where n is the number of birds in the experiment, (i.e., all birds had the same probability of observing each feeding event). The model was fitted to the simulated data each time to extract the Z value (Wald test statistic) of the social effect of interest. The distribution of these values was then used as a null distribution to test whether our observed social effect differed from the effects that did not follow the social network. To this end, we calculated the proportion of simulations that yielded a Z value as extreme or more extreme than that observed (judged by distance in either direction from the mean of the null distribution). The R code used to run these simulations can be found in Supplementary data53 in ‘Simulations to test if network effects follow network Orange Yellow.r’.Social information use during avoidance learning: extension to test for age effectsWe then aimed to test whether each of the three social effects detected differed based on the age class of the observed individual (adult versus juveniles). We, therefore, split the negative expected observations ({O}_{-,i}left(tright)) into the expected observations of adults ({O}_{-{rm{A}},i}left(tright)) and juveniles ({O}_{-{rm{J}},i}left(tright)), each with its associated coefficient in the model ({beta }_{{rm{soc}},-{rm{A}}}) and ({beta }_{{rm{soc}},-{rm{J}}}). Likewise, we split positive observations of conspecifics as ({O}_{+{rm{CA}},i}left(tright)) and ({O}_{+{rm{CJ}},i}left(tright)) and positive observations of heterospecifics as ({O}_{+{rm{HA}},i}left(tright)) and ({O}_{+{rm{HJ}},i}left(tright)) to give the model:$${p}_{-,i}left(tright)={rm{logit}}left(begin{array}{c}alpha +{beta }_{{rm{asoc}}+}{N}_{+,i}left(tright)+{beta }_{{rm{asoc}}-}{N}_{-,i}left(tright)\ +{beta }_{{rm{soc}},-{rm{A}}}{O}_{-{rm{A}},i}left(tright)+{beta }_{{rm{soc}},-{rm{J}}}{O}_{-{rm{J}},i}left(tright)\ +{beta }_{{rm{soc}},+{rm{HA}}}{O}_{+{rm{HA}},i}left(tright)+{beta }_{{rm{soc}},+{rm{HJ}}}{O}_{+{rm{HJ}},i}left(tright)\ +{beta }_{{rm{soc}},+{rm{CA}}}{O}_{+{rm{CA}},i}left(tright)+{beta }_{{rm{soc}},+{rm{CJ}}}{O}_{+{rm{CJ}},i}left(tright)\ +{{{{rm{B}}}}}_{i}end{array}right)$$
(8a)
As before, –/+ subscripts refer to negative/positive feeding events, C/H subscripts to feeding events by conspecifics/heterospecifics, and A/J subscripts to feeding events by adults/juveniles. We also fitted a re-parameterized version allowing us to test for a difference between expected observations of adults and observations of juveniles for each of the three social effects:$${p}_{-,i}left(tright)={rm{logit}}left(begin{array}{c}alpha +{beta }_{{rm{asoc}}+}{N}_{+,i}left(tright)+{beta }_{{rm{asoc}}-}{N}_{-,i}left(tright)\ +{beta }_{{rm{soc}},-{rm{J}}}{O}_{-,i}left(tright)+left({{beta }_{{rm{soc}},-{rm{A}}}-beta }_{{rm{soc}},-{rm{J}}}right){O}_{-{rm{A}},i}left(tright)\ +{beta }_{{rm{soc}},+{rm{H}}}{O}_{+{rm{H}},i}left(tright)+left({{beta }_{{rm{soc}},+{rm{HA}}}-beta }_{{rm{soc}},+{rm{HJ}}}right){O}_{+{rm{JA}},i}left(tright)\ +{beta }_{{rm{soc}},+{rm{C}}}{O}_{+{rm{C}},i}left(tright)+left({{beta }_{{rm{soc}},+{rm{CA}}}-beta }_{{rm{soc}},+{rm{CJ}}}right){O}_{+{rm{CA}},i}left(tright)\ +{{{{rm{B}}}}}_{i}end{array}right)$$
(8b)
The R code used to run these models can be found in Supplementary data53 in ‘GLMM models Orange Yellow final.r’. The main results of each model are presented in Table 2 and full model outputs in Supplementary Tables 3–5.Social information use during reversal learningTo investigate social information use during reversal learning, we used the order of acquisition diffusion analysis (OADA), a variant of NBDA43, which explores the order in which individuals acquire a behavioral trait44. The rate of social transmission between two individuals is assumed to be linearly proportional to their network connection, and the spread of trait acquisition is therefore predicted to follow the network patterns if individuals are using social information. We used NBDA to investigate whether the order of individuals’ first visit to the previously unpalatable blue almonds (mimics) followed the network. We fitted several different models that included (i) only asocial learning, (ii) social transmission of information following a homogeneous network (equal associations among all individuals), or (iii) social transmission of information following our observed network. Models that included social transmission were further divided into models with equal or different transmission rates from adults and juveniles, and from conspecifics and heterospecifics, by constructing separate networks for each adult/juvenile and conspecific/heterospecific combination. To investigate whether asocial or social learning rates differed between blue tits and great tits, we included species as an individual-level variable. We then compared different social transmission models that assumed that species differed in both asocial and social learning rates, only in asocial or only in social learning rates, or that they did not differ in either (see Table 3). The best-supported model was selected using a model-averaging approach with Akaike’s information criterion corrected for small sample sizes. All analyses were conducted with the software R.3.6.154, using lme455, asnipe56, and NBDA57 packages.Reporting summaryFurther information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article. More

1.IPCC Climate Change 2014: Synthesis report. In Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Core Writing Team et al.) (IPCC, 2014).
Google Scholar 
2.Keogan, K. et al. Global phenological insensitivity to shifting ocean temperatures among seabirds. Nat. Clim. Chang. 8, 313–318 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Chambers, L. E. et al. Phenological changes in the southern hemisphere. PLoS ONE 8, E75514 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Thackeray, S. J. et al. Phenological sensitivity to climate across taxa and trophic levels. Nature 535, 241–245 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Forrest, J. & Miller-Rushing, A. J. Toward a synthetic understanding of the role of phenology in ecology and evolution. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Series B Biol. Sci. 365, 3101–3112 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Møller, A. P., Rubolini, D. & Lehikoinen, E. Populations of migratory bird species that did not show a phenological response to climate change are declining. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 105, 16195–16200 (2008).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Hipfner, J. M. Matches and mismatches: Ocean climate, prey phenology and breeding success in a zooplanktivorous seabird. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 368, 295–304 (2008).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Moyes, K. et al. Advancing breeding phenology in response to environmental change in a wild red deer population. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 2455–2469 (2011).ADS 
Article 

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

Google Scholar 
10.Hauser, D. D. et al. Decadal shifts in autumn migration timing by Pacific Arctic beluga whales are related to delayed annual sea ice formation. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 2206–2217 (2017).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Beltran, R. S., Kirkham, A. L., Breed, G. A., Ward Testa, J. & Burns, J. M. Reproductive success delays moult phenology in a polar mammal. Sci. Rep. 9, 1–12 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Oosthuizen, W. C. et al. Individual heterogeneity in life-history trade-offs with age at first reproduction in capital breeding elephant seals. Popul. Ecol. 61, 421–435 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Ling, J. K. The skin and hair of the southern elephant seal, Mirounga leonina (Linn). IV. Annual cycle of pelage follicle activity and moult. Aust. J. Zool. 60, 259–271 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Johanos, T. C., Becker, B. L. & Ragen, T. J. Annual reproductive cycle of the female Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi). Mar. Mamm. Sci. 10, 13–30 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Beltran, R. S., Burns, J. M. & Breed, G. A. Convergence of biannual moulting strategies across birds and mammals. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 285, 20180318 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Boyd, I., Arnbom, T. & Fedak, M. Water flux, body composition, and metabolic rate during moult in female southern elephant seals (Mirounga leonina). Physiol. Zool. 66, 43–60 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Postma, M., Bester, M. N. & De Bruyn, P. J. N. Spatial variation in female southern elephant seal mass change assessed by an accurate non-invasive photogrammetry method. Antarct. Sci. 25, 731–740 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Paterson, W. et al. Seals like it hot: Changes in surface temperature of harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) from late pregnancy to moult. J. Therm. Biol. 37, 454–461 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Slip, D. J. & Burton, H. R. Population status and seasonal haulout patterns of the southern elephant seal (Mirounga leonina) at Heard Island. Antarct. Sci. 11, 38–47 (1999).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Kirkman, S. et al. Variation in the timing of moult in southern elephant seals at Marion Island. S. Afr. J. Wildlife Res. 33, 79–84 (2003).
Google Scholar 
21.Ling, J. & Bryden, M. Southern elephant seal Mirounga leonina (Linnaeus), 1758. In Handbook of Marine Mammals Vol. 2 (eds Ridgway, S. H. & Harrison, R. J.) 297–327 (Academic Press, 1981).
Google Scholar 
22.Constable, A. J. et al. Climate change and southern ocean ecosystems I: how changes in physical habitats directly affect marine biota. Glob. Change Biol. 20, 3004–3025 (2014).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Rogers, A. et al. Antarctic futures: An assessment of climate-driven changes in ecosystem structure, function, and service provisioning in the Southern Ocean. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 12, 87–120 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Hindell, M. A. & Burton, H. R. Seasonal haul-out patterns of the southern elephant seal (Mirounga leonina L.), at Macquarie Island. J. Mammal. 69, 81–88 (1988).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Postma, M., Bester, M. N. & De Bruyn, P. J. N. Age-related reproductive variation in a wild marine mammal population. Polar Biol. 36, 719–729 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Le Boeuf, B. J. & Laws, R. M. Elephant seals: An introduction to the genus. In Elephant Seals: Population Ecology, Behavior, and Physiology (eds Le Beouf, B. J. & Laws, R. M.) 1–28 (University Of California Press, 1994).Chapter 

Google Scholar 
27.De Bruyn, P. J. N. et al. Sex at sea: Alternative mating system in an extremely polygynous mammal. Anim. Behav. 82, 445–451 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Oosthuizen, W. C., Pradel, R., Bester, M. N. & De Bruyn, P. J. N. Making use of multiple surveys: Estimating breeding probability using a multievent-robust design capture-recapture model. Ecol. Evolut. 9, 836–848 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Bester, M. N. et al. The marine mammal programme at the Prince Edward Islands: 38 years of research. Afr. J. Mar. Sci. 33, 511–521 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Pistorius, P. A., De Bruyn, P. J. N. & Bester, M. N. Population dynamics of southern elephant seals: A synthesis of three decades of demographic research at Marion Island. Afr. J. Mar. Sci. 33, 523–534 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Pistorius, P. A., Bester, M. N. & Kirkman, S. P. Survivorship of a declining population of southern elephant seals, Mirounga leonina, in relation to age, sex and cohort. Oecologia 121, 201–211 (1999).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Oosthuizen, W. C., Bester, M. N., Altwegg, R., McIntyre, T. & De Bruyn, P. J. N. Decomposing the variance in southern elephant seal weaning mass: Partitioning environmental signals and maternal effects. Ecosphere 6, 139 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Daniel, R. G., Jemison, L. A., Pendleton, G. W. & Crowley, S. M. Molting phenology of harbor seals on Tugidak Island, Alaska. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 19, 128–140 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Chaise, L. L. et al. Local weather and body condition influence habitat use and movements on land of molting female southern elephant seals (Mirounga leonina). Ecol. Evol. 8, 6081–6090 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Dingemanse, N. J. & Dochtermann, N. A. Quantifying individual variation in behaviour: Mixed-effect modelling approaches. J. Anim. Ecol. 82, 39–54 (2013).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Burnham, K. P., Anderson, D. R. & Huyvaert, K. P. AIC model selection and multimodel inference in behavioral ecology: Some background, observations, and comparisons. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 65, 23–35 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Zuur, A., Ieno, E. N., Walker, N., Saveliev, A. A. & Smith, G. M. Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R (Springer Science & Business Media, 2009).MATH 
Book 

Google Scholar 
38.Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2020). https://www.R-project.org/.40.Nakagawa, S. & Schielzeth, H. Repeatability for Gaussian and non-Gaussian data: A practical guide for biologists. Biol. Rev. 85, 935–956 (2010).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
41.Nakagawa, S. & Schielzeth, H. A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4, 133–142 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Grosbois, V. et al. Assessing the impact of climate variation on survival in vertebrate populations. Biol. Rev. 83, 357–399 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Forcada, J., Trathan, P. N. & Murphy, E. J. Life history buffering in Antarctic mammals and birds against changing patterns of climate and environmental variation. Glob. Change Biol. 14, 2473–2488 (2008).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Bradshaw, C. J., Hindell, M. A., Sumner, M. D. & Michael, K. J. Loyalty pays: Potential life-history consequences of fidelity to marine foraging regions by southern elephant seals. Anim. Behav. 68, 1349–1360 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Cotté, C., Park, Y.-H., Guinet, C. & Bost, C.-A. Movements of foraging king penguins through marine mesoscale eddies. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 274, 2385–2391 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Barbraud, C. & Weimerskirch, H. Antarctic birds breed later in response to climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 103, 6248–6251 (2006).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Hindell, M. A. et al. Long-term breeding phenology shift in royal penguins. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1563–1571 (2012).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Zimova, M. et al. Function and underlying mechanisms of seasonal colour moulting in mammals and birds: What keeps them changing in a warming world?. Biol. Rev. 93, 1478–1498 (2018).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Thompson, P. & Rothery, P. Age and sex differences in the timing of moult in the common seal, Phoca vitulina. J. Zool. 212, 597–603 (1987).Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Cronin, M., Gregory, S. & Rogan, E. Moulting phenology of the harbour seal in south-west Ireland. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK 94, 1079–1086 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Kirkman, S. et al. Variation in the timing of the breeding haulout of female southern elephant seals at Marion Island. Aust. J. Zool. 52, 379–388 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Hindell, M. A., Slip, D. J. & Burton, H. R. Body mass loss of moulting female southern elephant seals, Mirounga leonina, at Macquarie Island. Polar Biol. 14, 275–278 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Carlini, A., Marquez, M., Daneri, G. & Poljak, S. Mass changes during their annual cycle in females of southern elephant seals at King George Island. Polar Biol. 21, 234–239 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Worthy, G. A. J., Morris, P. A., Costa, D. P. & Le Boeuf, B. J. Moult energetics of the northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris). J. Zool. 227, 257–265 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Arnbom, T., Fedak, M. & Rothery, P. Offspring sex ratio in relation to female size in southern elephant seals, Mirounga leonina. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 35, 373–378 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Proffitt, K. M., Garrott, R. A., Rotella, J. J. & Wheatley, K. E. Environmental and senescent related variations in Weddell seal body mass: Implications for age-specific reproductive performance. Oikos 116, 1683–1690 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Bérubé, C. H., Festa-Bianchet, M. & Jorgenson, J. T. Individual differences, longevity, and reproductive senescence in bighorn ewes. Ecology 80, 2555–2565 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Oosthuizen, W. C., Péron, G., Pradel, R., Bester, M. N. & De Bruyn, P. J. N. Positive early-late life-history trait correlations in elephant seals. Ecology 102, e03288. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.3288 (2021).59.Kirby, V. L. & Ortiz, C. L. Hormones and fuel regulation in fasting elephant seals. In Elephant Seals: Population Ecology, Behavior, and Physiology (eds Le Beouf, B. J. & Laws, R. M.) 374–386 (University of California Press, 1994).Chapter 

Google Scholar 
60.Yochem, P. K. & Stewart, B. S. Hair and fur. In Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals 3rd edn (eds Würsig, B. et al.) 447–448 (Academic Press, 2018).Chapter 

Google Scholar 
61.Ashwell-Erickson, S., Fay, F., Elsner, R. & Wartzok, D. Metabolic correlates of molting and regeneration of pelage in Alaskan harbour and spotted seals (Phoca vitulina and Phoca largha). Can. J. Zool. 64, 1086–1092 (1986).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Laws, R. M. & Sinha, A. A. Reproduction. In Antarctic Seals: Research Methods and Techniques (ed. Laws, R. M.) 228–267 (Cambridge University Press, 1993).Chapter 

Google Scholar 
63.Smout, S., King, R. & Pomeroy, P. Environment-sensitive mass changes influence breeding frequency in a capital breeding marine top predator. J. Anim. Ecol. 89, 384–396 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Clutton-Brock, T. & Sheldon, B. C. Individuals and populations: the role of long-term, individual-based studies of animals in ecology and evolutionary biology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 562–573 (2010).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Cordes, L. S. & Thompson, P. M. Variation in breeding phenology provides insights into drivers of long-term population change in harbour seals. Proc. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 280, 20130847 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Barbraud, C. et al. Contrasted demographic responses facing future climate change in Southern Ocean seabirds. J. Anim. Ecol. 80, 89–100 (2011).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Atkinson, S., DeMaster, D. P. & Calkins, D. G. Anthropogenic causes of the western Steller sea lion Eumetopias jubatus population decline and their threat to recovery. Mamm. Rev. 38, 1–18 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Desprez, M., McMahon, C. R., Hindell, M. A., Harcourt, R. & Gimenez, O. Known unknowns in an imperfect world: incorporating uncertainty in recruitment estimates using multi-event capture-recapture models. Ecol. Evol. 3, 4658–4668 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Griffen, B. D. Reproductive skipping as an optimal life history strategy in the southern elephant seal, Mirounga leonina. Ecol. Evol. 8, 9158–9170 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Rohwer, S., Viggiano, A. & Marzluff, J. M. Reciprocal tradeoffs between moult and breeding in albatrosses. Condor 113, 61–70 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Grissot, A., Graham, I. M., Quinn, L., Bråthen, V. S. & Thompson, P. M. Breeding status influences timing but not duration of moult in the northern fulmar Fulmarus glacialis. Ibis 162, 446–459 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Condit, R., Beltran, R.S., Robinson, P.W., Crocker, D.E. & Costa, D.P. Birth timing after the long feeding migration in elephant seals. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.02.324210 (in review). More