Ecology

1.Carlson, A. K., Phelps, Q. E. & Graeb, B. D. S. Chemistry to conservation: Using otoliths to advance recreational and commercial fisheries management. J. Fish Biol. 90, 505–527 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Ward, R. D. Genetics in fisheries management. Hydrobiologia 420, 191–201 (2000).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Tracey, S. R., Lyle, J. M. & Duhamel, G. Application of elliptical Fourier analysis of otolith form as a tool for stock identification. Fish. Res. 77, 138–147 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Ferguson, G. J., Ward, T. M. & Gillanders, B. M. Otolith shape and elemental composition: Complementary tools for stock discrimination of mulloway (Argyrosomus japonicus) in southern Australia. Fish. Res. 110, 75–83 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Campana, S. E. & Casselman, J. M. Stock discrimination using otolith shape analysis. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 50(5), 1062-1083 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Begg, G. A., Overholtz, W. J. & Munroe, N. J. The use of internal otolith morphometrics for identification of haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) stocks on Georges Bank. Fish. Bull. 99, 1–1 (2001).
Google Scholar 
7.Miyan, K., Khan, M. A., Patel, D. K., Khan, S. & Ansari, N. G. Truss morphometry and otolith microchemistry reveal stock discrimination in Clarias batrachus (Linnaeus, 1758) inhabiting the Gangetic river system. Fish. Res. 173, 294–302 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Nazir, A. & Khan, M. A. Spatial and temporal variation in otolith chemistry and its relationship with water chemistry: Stock discrimination of Sperata aor. Ecol. Freshw. Fish 28, 499–511 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Bird, J. L., Eppler, D. T. & Checkley, D. M. Jr. Comparisons of herring otoliths using Fourier series shape analysis. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 43(6), 1228-1234 (1986).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Castonguay, M., Simard, P. & Gagnon, P. Usefulness of Fourier analysis of otolith shape for Atlantic Mackerel (Scomber scombrus) stock discrimination. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 48(2), 296-302 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Friedland, K. D. & Reddin, D. G. Use of otolith morphology in stock discriminations of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 51(1), 91-98 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Vignon, M. & Morat, F. Environmental and genetic determinant of otolith shape revealed by a non-indigenous tropical fish. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 411, 231–241 (2010).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Campana, S. E., Chouinard, G. A., Hanson, J. M., Fréchet, A. & Brattey, J. Otolith elemental fingerprints as biological tracers of fish stocks. Fish. Res. 46, 343–357 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Elsdon, T. S. & Gillanders, B. M. Reconstructing migratory patterns of fish based on environmental influences on otolith chemistry. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 13, 217–235 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Stransky, C. Geographic variation of golden redfish (Sebastes marinus) and deep-sea redfish (S. mentella) in the North Atlantic based on otolith shape analysis. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 62, 1691–1698 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Grammer, G. L. et al. Coupling biogeochemical tracers with fish growth reveals physiological and environmental controls on otolith chemistry. Ecol. Monogr. 87, 487–507 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Izzo, C., Reis-Santos, P. & Gillanders, B. M. Otolith chemistry does not just reflect environmental conditions: A meta-analytic evaluation. Fish Fish. 19, 441–454 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Elsdon, T. S. & Gillanders, B. M. Fish otolith chemistry influenced by exposure to multiple environmental variables. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 313, 269–284 (2004).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Khan, M. A., Miyan, K., Khan, S., Patel, D. K. & Ansari, G. Studies on the elemental profile of otoliths and truss network analysis for stock discrimination of the threatened stinging catfish Heteropneustes fossilis (Bloch 1794) from the Ganga river and its tributaries. Zool. Stud. 51, 1195–1206 (2012).
Google Scholar 
20.Miyan, K., Khan, M. A. & Khan, S. Stock structure delineation using variation in otolith chemistry of snakehead, Channa punctata (Bloch, 1793), from three Indian rivers. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 30, 881–886 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Miyan, K., Khan, M. A., Patel, D. K., Khan, S. & Prasad, S. Otolith fingerprints reveal stock discrimination of Sperata seenghala inhabiting the Gangetic river system. Ichthyol. Res. 63, 294–301 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Fowler, A. M., Macreadie, P. I., Bishop, D. P. & Booth, D. J. Using otolith microchemistry and shape to assess the habitat value of oil structures for reef fish. Mar. Environ. Res. 106, 103–113 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Schilling, H. T. et al. Evaluating estuarine nursery use and life history patterns of Pomatomus saltatrix in eastern Australia. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 598, 187–199 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Biolé, F. G. et al. Fish stocks of Urophycis brasiliensis revealed by otolith fingerprint and shape in the Southwestern Atlantic Ocean. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 229, 106406 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
25.Maguffee, A. C., Reilly, R., Clark, R. & Jones, M. L. Examining the potential of otolith chemistry to determine natal origins of wild Lake Michigan Chinook salmon. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 76(11), 2035-2044 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Tanner, S. E., Vasconcelos, R. P., Cabral, H. N. & Thorrold, S. R. Testing an otolith geochemistry approach to determine population structure and movements of European hake in the northeast Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea. Fish. Res. 125–126, 198–205 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Andrade, H. et al. Ontogenetic movements of cod in Arctic fjords and the Barents Sea as revealed by otolith microchemistry. Polar Biol. 43, 409–421 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Warton, D. I. Why you cannot transform your way out of trouble for small counts. Biometrics 74, 362–368 (2018).MathSciNet 
PubMed 
MATH 
Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Foster, S. D. & Bravington, M. V. A Poisson-Gamma model for analysis of ecological non-negative continuous data. Environ. Ecol. Stat. 20, 533–552 (2013).MathSciNet 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Taylor, L. R. Aggregation, variance and the mean. Nature 189, 732–735 (1961).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Kendal, R. L., Coolen, I. & Laland, K. N. The role of conformity in foraging when personal and social information conflict. Behav. Ecol. 15, 269–277 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Warton, D. I., Wright, S. T. & Wang, Y. Distance-based multivariate analyses confound location and dispersion effects. Methods Ecol. Evol. 3, 89–101 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Warton, D. I., Foster, S. D., De’ath, G., Stoklosa, J. & Dunstan, P. K. Model-based thinking for community ecology. Plant Ecol. 216, 669–682 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Wang, Y., Naumann, U., Wright, S. T. & Warton, D. I. mvabund– an R package for model-based analysis of multivariate abundance data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 3, 471–474 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Niku, J., Warton, D. I., Hui, F. K. C. & Taskinen, S. Generalized linear latent variable models for multivariate count and biomass data in ecology. J. Agric. Biol. Environ. Stat. 22, 498–522 (2017).MathSciNet 
MATH 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Dunn, P. K. & Smyth, G. K. Randomized quantile residuals. J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 5, 236–244 (1996).
Google Scholar 
37.Dunn, P. K. & Smyth, G. K. Chapter 8: generalized linear models: Diagnostics. In Generalized Linear Models With Examples in R (eds. Dunn, P. K. & Smyth, G. K.) 297–331 (Springer, 2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0118-7_8.38.Hui, F. K. C., Taskinen, S., Pledger, S., Foster, S. D. & Warton, D. I. Model-based approaches to unconstrained ordination. Methods Ecol. Evol. 6, 399–411 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Hui, F. K. C. Boral–Bayesian ordination and regression analysis of multivariate abundance Data in r. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 744–750 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Popovic, G. C., Warton, D. I., Thomson, F. J., Hui, F. K. C. & Moles, A. T. Untangling direct species associations from indirect mediator species effects with graphical models. Methods Ecol. Evol. 10, 1571–1583 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Jones, C. M., Palmer, M. & Schaffler, J. J. Beyond Zar: The use and abuse of classification statistics for otolith chemistry. J. Fish Biol. 90, 492–504 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Rahman, M. A. & Awal, S. Development of captive breeding, seed production and culture techniques of snakehead fish for species conservation and sustainable aquaculture. Int. J. Adv. Agric. Environ. Eng. 3, 117–120 (2016).
Google Scholar 
43.Khan, M. A., Khan, S. & Miyan, K. Stock identification of the Channa striata inhabiting the Gangetic River System using Truss Morphometry. Russ. J. Ecol. 50, 391–396 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Phen, C., Thang, T. B., Baran, E. & Vann, L. S. Biological reviews of important Cambodian fish species, based on FishBase 2004. Volume 1: Channa striata; Channa micropeltes; Barbonymus altus; Barbonymus gonionotus; Cyclocheilichthys apogon; Cyclocheilichthys enoplos; Henicorhynchus lineatus; Henicorhynchus siamensis; Pangasius hypophthalmus; Pangasius djambal. (WorldFish Center and Inland Fisheries Research and Development Institute, 2005).45.War, M. & Haniffa, M. A. Growth and survival of larval snakehead Channa striatus (Bloch, 1793) fed different live feed organisms. Turk. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 11, 523–528 (2011).
Google Scholar 
46.Cagauan, A. G. Exotic aquatic species introduction in the Philippines for aquaculture—A threat to biodiversity or a boon to the economy?. J. Environ. Sci. Manag. 10, 48–62 (2007).
Google Scholar 
47.Jayaram, K. C. The Freshwater Fishes of the Indian Region (Narendra Publishing House, 1999).
Google Scholar 
48.Talwar, P. K. & Jhingran, A. G. Inland fishes of India and adjacent countries Vol. 2 (CRC Press, 1991).
Google Scholar 
49.R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2019).50.Libungan, L. A. & Pálsson, S. ShapeR: An R package to study otolith shape variation among fish populations. PLoS ONE 10, e0121102 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
51.Graps, A. An introduction to wavelets. IEEE Comput. Sci. Eng. 2, 50–61 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Turan, C. The use of otolith shape and chemistry to determine stock structure of Mediterranean horse mackerel Trachurus mediterraneus (Steindachner). J. Fish Biol. 69, 165–180 (2006).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Oksanen, J. vegan: Community Ecology Package. (2019).54.Venables, W. N. & Ripley, B. D. Modern applied statistics with S-PLUS (Springer Science & Business Media, 2013).
Google Scholar 
55.Warton, D. I. Raw data graphing: An informative but under-utilized tool for the analysis of multivariate abundances. Austral. Ecol. 33, 290–300 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Begg, G. A., Friedland, K. D. & Pearce, J. B. Stock identification and its role in stock assessment and fisheries management: An overview. Fish. Res. 43, 1–8 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Sengupta, B. Water Quality Status of Yamuna River (1999-2005), Assessment and Development of River Basin Series: ADSORBS/41/2006-07. Cent. Pollut. Control Board Delhi (2006).58.Bhardwaj, R., Gupta, A. & Garg, J. K. Evaluation of heavy metal contamination using environmetrics and indexing approach for River Yamuna, Delhi stretch, India. Water Sci. 31, 52–66 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.MacArthur, R. H., Wilson, E. O. The theory of island biogeography. in Monographs in Population Biology (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1967)2.Hubbell, S. P. The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography. in Monographs in Population Biology, Vol. 32 (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2001).3.Brown, J. H., Gillooly, J. F., Allen, A. P., Savage, V. M. & West, G. B. Toward a metabolic theory of ecology. Ecology 85, 1771–1789 (2004).
Google Scholar 
4.Ryther, J. Photosynthesis and fish production in the sea. Science 166, 72–76 (1969).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
5.Cushing, D. A difference in structure between ecosystems in strongly stratified waters and in those that are only weakly stratified. J. Plankton Res. 11, 1–13 (1989).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Barber, R. T. & Hiscock, M. R. A rising tide lifts all phytoplankton: growth response of other phytoplankton taxa in diatom‐dominated blooms. Glob. Biogeoch. Cycl. 20, GB4S03 (2006).
Google Scholar 
7.Siegel, D. A. et al. Global assessment of ocean carbon export by combining satellite observations and food-web models. Global Biogeochem. Cycl. 28, 181–196 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Buesseler, K. O., Boyd, P. W., Black, E. E. & Siegel, D. A. Metrics that matter for assessing the ocean biological carbon pump. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 9679–9687 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
9.Irwin, A. J., Finkel, Z. V., Schofield, O. M. & Falkowski, P. G. Scaling-up from nutrient physiology to the size-structure of phytoplankton communities. J. Plankt. Res. 28, 459–471 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Litchman, E., Klausmeier, C. A. & Yoshiyama, K. Contrasting size evolution in marine and freshwater diatoms. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 2665–2670 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
11.Tozzi, S., Schofield, O. & Falkowski, P. Historical climate change and ocean turbulence as selective agents for two key phytoplankton functional groups. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 274, 123–132 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Follows, M. J., Dutkiewicz, S., Grant, S. & Chisholm, S. W. Emergent biogeography of microbial communities in a model ocean. Science 315, 1843–1846 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
13.Gregg, W. W., Casey, N. W. & Rousseaux, C. S. Global surface ocean carbon estimates in a model forced by MERRA NASA Technical Report Series on Global Modeling and Data Assimilation. NASA TM-2013-104606, Vol. 31, 39 (2013).14.Hulburt, E. M. Competition for nutrients by marine phytoplankton in oceanic, coastal, and estuarine regions. Ecology 51, 475–484 (1970).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Siegel, D. A. Resource competition in a discrete environment: why are plankton distributions paradoxical? Limnol. Oceanogr. 43, 1133–1146 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Cyr, H., Peters, R. H. & Downing, J. A. Population density and community size structure: comparison of aquatic and terrestrial systems. Oikos 80, 139–149 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.White, E. P., Ernest, S. M., Kerkhoff, A. J. & Enquist, B. J. Relationships between body size and abundance in ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 323–330 (2007).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
18.McCauley, D. J. et al. On the prevalence and dynamics of inverted trophic pyramids and otherwise top-heavy communities. Ecol. Lett. 21, 439–454 (2018).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
19.West, G. B., Brown, J. H. & Enquist, B. J. A general model for the origin of allometric scaling laws in biology. Science 276, 122–126 (1997).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
20.West, G. B., Brown, J. H. & Enquist, B. J. The fourth dimension of life: fractal geometry and allometric scaling of organisms. Science 284, 1677–1679 (1999).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
21.Sheldon, R. W., Prakash, A. & Sutcliffe, W. Jr The size distribution of particles in the Ocean 1. Limnol. Oceanogr. 17, 327–340 (1972).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Jonasz, M. & Fournier, G. Light Scattering by Particles in Water: Theoretical and Experimental Foundations. (Elsevier, 2011).23.Huete-Ortega, M., Cermeno, P., Calvo-Díaz, A. & Maranon, E. Isometric size-scaling of metabolic rate and the size abundance distribution of phytoplankton. Proc. Royal Soc. B 279, 1815–1823 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Marañón, E. Cell size as a key determinant of phytoplankton metabolism and community structure. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 7, 241–264 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Riley, G. A., Stommel, H. M., Bumpus, D. F. Quantitative ecology of the plankton of the western North Atlantic. Bulletin of the Bingham Oceanographic Collection 12 (Yale Univ., New Haven, CT, 1949)26.Evans, G. T. & Parslow, J. S. A model of annual plankton cycles. Biol. Oceanogr. 3, 327–347 (1985).
Google Scholar 
27.Margalef, R. Perspectives in Ecological Theory. 111 pp (Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill, 1968).28.Behrenfeld, M. J. & Boss, E. S. Resurrecting the ecological underpinnings of ocean plankton blooms. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 6, 167–194 (2014).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
29.Behrenfeld, M. J. & Boss, E. S. Student’s tutorial on bloom hypotheses in the context of phytoplankton annual cycles. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 55–77 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Strom, S. L. & Buskey, E. J. Feeding, growth, and behavior of the thecate heterotrophic dinoflagellate Oblea rotunda. Limnol. Oceanogr. 38, 965–977 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Strom, S. L., Macri, E. L. & Olson, M. B. Microzooplankton grazing in the coastal Gulf of Alaska: Variations in top-down control of phytoplankton. Limnol. Oceanogr. 52, 1480–1494 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Wirtz, K. W. Who is eating whom? Morphology and feeding type determine the size relation between planktonic predators and their ideal prey. Mar. Ecol. Progr. Ser. 445, 1–12 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Kiørboe, T. How zooplankton feed: mechanisms, traits and trade-offs. Biol. Rev. 86, 311–339 (2011).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
34.Hansen, B., Bjornsen, P. K. & Hansen, P. J. The size ratio between planktonic predators and their prey. Limnol. Oceanogr. 39, 395–403 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Sommer, U. & Sommer, F. Cladocerans versus copepods: the cause of contrasting top–down controls on freshwater and marine phytoplankton. Oecologia 147, 183–194 (2006).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Hébert, M.-P., Beisner, B. E. & Maranger, R. Linking zooplankton communities to ecosystem functioning: Toward an effect-trait framework. J. Plankton Res. 39, 3–12 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
37.Fuchs, H. L. & Franks, P. J. Plankton community properties determined by nutrients and size-selective feeding. Mar. Ecol. Progr. Ser. 413, 1–15 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Sutherland, K. R., Madin, L. P. & Stocker, R. Filtration of submicrometer particles by pelagic tunicates. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 15129–15134 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Dadon-Pilosof, A., Lombard, F., Genin, A., Sutherland, K. R. & Yahel, G. Prey taxonomy rather than size determines salp diets. Limnol. Oceanogr. 64, 1996–2010 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Antoine, D., Andre, J. M. & Morel, A. Oceanic primary production 2. Estimation at global scale from satellite (coastal zone color scanner) chlorophyll. Global Biogeochem. Cycl. 10, 57–69 (1996).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Brewin, R. J. W. et al. A three-component model of phytoplankton size class for the Atlantic Ocean. Ecol. Model. 221, 1472–1483 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Marañón, E., Cermeño, P., Latasa, M. & Tadonléké, R. D. Temperature, resources, and phytoplankton size structure in the ocean. Limnol. Oceanogr. 5, 1266–1278 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Kerr, S. R., Dickie, L. M. The Biomass Spectrum: a Predator-prey Theory of Aquatic Production (Columbia University Press, 2001).44.Behrenfeld, M. J., et al. Annual boom-bust cycles of polar phytoplankton biomass revealed by space-based lidar. Nat. Geosci. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1038/NGEO2861.45.Kiorboe, T. Turbulence, phytoplankton cell size, and the structure of pelagic food-webs. Adv. Mar. Biol. 29, 1–72 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
46.DeLong, J. P. & Vasseur, D. A. Size-density scaling in protists and the links between consumer–resource interaction parameters. J. Animal Ecol. 81, 1193–1201 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Smetacek, V. Diatoms and the ocean carbon cycle. Protist 150, 25–32 (1999).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
48.Smetacek, V., Assmy, P. & Henjes, J. The role of grazing in structuring Southern Ocean pelagic ecosystems and biogeochemical cycles. Antarct. Sci. 16, 541–558 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Behrenfeld, M. J., Halsey, K. H., Boss, E., Karp-Boss, L., Milligan, A. J. & Peers, G. Thoughts on the evolution and ecological niche of diatoms. Ecol. Monogr. 2021; in press.50.Glibert, P. M. Margalef revisited: a new phytoplankton mandala incorporating twelve dimensions, including nutritional physiology. Harmful Algae 55, 25–30 (2016).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
51.Margalef, R. Life-forms of phytoplankton as survival alternatives in an unstable environment. Oceanolog. Acta 1, 493–509 (1978).
Google Scholar 
52.Cullen, J. J. & MacIntyre, J. G. Behavior, physiology and the niche of depth-regulating phytoplankton. Nato ASI Ser. G Ecol. Sci. 41, 559–580 (1998).53.Kemp, A. E. & Villareal, T. A. The case of the diatoms and the muddled mandalas: Time to recognize diatom adaptations to stratified waters. Prog. Oceanogr. 167, 138–149 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Kudela, R. M. Does horizontal mixing explain phytoplankton dynamics? Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 18235–18236 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
55.Wyatt, T. Margalef’s mandala and phytoplankton bloom strategies. Deep Sea Res. II 101, 32–49 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Waite, A., Fisher, A., Thompson, P. A. & Harrison, P. J. Sinking rate versus cell volume relationships illuminate sinking rate control mechanisms in marine diatoms. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 157, 97–108 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Moore, J. K. & Villareal, T. A. Size-ascent rate relationships in positively buoyant marine diatoms. Limnol. Oceanogr. 41, 1514–1520 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Bienfang, P. & Szyper, J. Effects of temperature and salinity on sinking rates of the centric diatom Ditylum brightwellii. Biol. Oceanogr. 1, 211–223 (1982).
Google Scholar 
59.Bienfang, P., Szyper, J. & Laws, E. Sinking rate and pigment responses to light-limitation of a marine diatom – implications to dynamics of chlorophyll maximum layers. Oceanolog. Acta 6, 55–62 (1983).CAS 

Google Scholar 
60.Villareal, T. A., Pilskaln, C. H., Montoya, J. P. & Dennett, M. Upward nitrate transport by phytoplankton in oceanic waters: balancing nutrient budgets in oligotrophic seas. PeerJ 2, e302 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
61.Irigoien, X., Flynn, K. J. & Harris, R. P. Phytoplankton blooms: a “loophole” in micozooplankton grazing impact? J. Plankton Res. 27, 313–321 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Bolaños, L. M., et al. Small phytoplankton dominate western North Atlantic biomass. ISME J: 1–12, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-020-0636-0 (2020).63.Guillard, R., Kilham, P. The ecology of marine planktonic diatoms. in The Biology of Diatoms, Vol. 13, 372–469 (Blackwell Oxford, 1977).64.Malviya, S. et al. Insights into global diatom distribution and diversity in the world’s ocean. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, E1516–E1525 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
65.Barton, A. D., Finkel, Z. V., Ward, B. A., Johns, D. G. & Follows, M. J. On the roles of cell size and trophic strategy in North Atlantic diatom and dinoflagellate communities. Limnol. Oceanogr. 58, 254–266 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Edwards, K. F. Mixotrophy in nanoflagellates across environmental gradients in the ocean. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 6211–6220 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
67.Boyd, P. W. Environmental factors controlling phytoplankton processes in the Southern Ocean. J. Phycol. 38, 844–861 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Fauchereau, N., Tagliabue, A., Bopp, L. & Monteiro, P. M. The response of phytoplankton biomass to transient mixing events in the Southern Ocean. Geophys. Res. Lett. 38, L17601 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Wolfe, G. V., Steinke, M. & Kirst, G. O. Grazing-activated chemical defence in a unicellular marine alga. Nature 387, 894–897 (1997).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Colin, S. P. & Dam, H. G. Effects of the toxic dinoflagellate Alexandrium fundyense on the copepod Acartia hudsonica: a test of the mechanisms that reduce ingestion rates. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 248, 55–65 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Van Donk, E., Ianora, A. & Vos, M. Induced defences in marine and freshwater phytoplankton: a review. Hydrobiol. 668, 3–19 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
72.Pohnert, G., Steinke, M. & Tollrian, R. Chemical cues, defense metabolites and the shaping of pelagic interspecific interactions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 198–204 (2007).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
73.DeMott, W. R. & Moxter, F. Foraging cyanobacteria by copepods: responses to chemical defense and resource abundance. Ecology 72, 1820–1834 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
74.Ger, K. A., Naus-Wiezer, S., De Meester, L. & Lürling, M. Zooplankton grazing selectivity regulates herbivory and dominance of toxic phytoplankton over multiple prey generations. Limnol. Oceanogr. 64, 1214–1227 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
75.Smayda, T. J. & Reynolds, C. S. Community assembly in marine phytoplankton: application of recent models to harmful dinoflagellate blooms. J. Plankt. Res. 23, 447–461 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
76.Acevedo-Trejos, E., Brandt, G., Bruggeman, J. & Merico, A. Mechanisms shaping size structure and functional diversity of phytoplankton communities in the ocean. Sci. Rep 5, 8918 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
77.Cuesta, J. A., Delius, G. W. & Law, R. Sheldon spectrum and the plankton paradox: two sides of the same coin—a trait-based plankton size-spectrum model. J. Math. Biol. 76, 67–96 (2018).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
78.Hutchinson, G. E. Ecological aspects of succession in natural populations. Amer. Nat. 75, 406–418 (1941).Article 

Google Scholar 
79.Tilman, D. Resource competition between plankton algae: an experimental and theoretical approach. Ecology 58, 338–348 (1977).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
80.Tilman, D., Mattson, M. & Langer, S. Competition and nutrient kinetics along a temperature gradient: An experimental test of a mechanistic approach to niche theory 1. Limnol. Oceanogr. 26, 1020–1033 (1981).Article 

Google Scholar 
81.Sommer, U. Nutrient competition between phytoplankton species in multispecies chemostat experiments. Archiv hydrobiol. 96, 399–416 (1983).
Google Scholar 
82.Sommer, U. Comparison between steady state and non-steady state competition: experiments with natural phytoplankton. Limnol. Oceanogr. 30, 335–346 (1985).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
83.Tilman, D. Resource Competition and Community Structure (Princeton University Press, 1982).84.Sommer, U. The role of competition for resources in phytoplankton succession. in Plankton Ecology. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. 1989, pp. 57-106.85.Burd, A. B. & Jackson, G. A. Particle aggregation. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 1, 65–90 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
86.Kahl, L. A., Vardi, A. & Schofield, O. Effects of phytoplankton physiology on export flux. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 354, 3–19 (2008).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
87.Guidi, L. et al. Effects of phytoplankton community on production, size and export of large aggregates: a world-ocean analysis. Limnol. Oceanogr. 54, 1951–1963 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
88.Kiørboe, T., Lundsgaard, C., Olesen, M. & Hansen, J. L. S. Aggregation and sedimentation processes during a spring phytoplankton bloom: a field experiment to test coagulation theory. J. Mar. Res. 52, 297–323 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
89.Prairie, J. C., Montgomery, Q. W., Proctor, K. W. & Ghiorso, K. S. Effects of phytoplankton growth phase on settling properties of marine aggregates. J. Mar. Sci. Engineer. 7, 265 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
90.Lima-Mendez, G. et al. Determinants of community structure in the global plankton interactome. Science 348, 6237 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
91.Sañudo-Wilhelmy, S. A., Gómez-Consarnau, L., Suffridge, C. & Webb, E. A. The role of B vitamins in marine biogeochemistry. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 6, 339–367 (2014).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
92.Helliwell, K. E. The roles of B vitamins in phytoplankton nutrition: new perspectives and prospects. New Phytol. 216, 62–68 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
93.Chisholm, S. W. et al. A novel free-living prochlorophyte abundant in the oceanic euphotic zone. Nature 334, 340–343 (1988).Article 

Google Scholar 
94.Caputo, A., Nylander, J. A. & Foster, R. A. The genetic diversity and evolution of diatom-diazotroph associations highlights traits favoring symbiont integration. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 366, fny297 (2019).CAS 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
95.Decelle, J. et al. An original mode of symbiosis in open ocean plankton. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 18000–18005 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
96.Decelle, J. et al. Algal remodeling in a ubiquitous planktonic photosymbiosis. Curr. Biol. 29, 968–978 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
97.Behrenfeld, M. J. et al. The North Atlantic aerosol and marine ecosystem study (NAAMES): science motive and mission overview. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 122 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
98.Menden-Deuer, S. & Lessard, E. J. Carbon to volume relationships for dinoflagellates, diatoms, and other protist plankton. Limnol. Oceanogr. 45, 569–579 (2000).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.Perissinotto, R., Mayzaud, P., Nichols, P. D. & Labat, J. P. Grazing by Pyrosoma atlanticum (Tunicata, Thaliacea) in the south Indian Ocean. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 330, 1–11 (2007).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Drits, A. V., Arashkevich, E. G. & Semenova, T. N. Pyrosoma atlanticum (Tunicata, Thaliacea): grazing impact on phytoplankton standing stock and role in organic carbon flux. J. Plankton Res. 14, 799–809 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Henschke, N. et al. Large vertical migrations of Pyrosoma atlanticum play an important role in active carbon transport. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 124, 1056–1070 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Schram, J. B., Sorensen, H. L., Brodeur, R. D., Galloway, A. W. E. & Sutherland, K. R. Abundance, distribution, and feeding ecology of Pyrosoma atlanticum in the Northern California Current. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 651, 97–110 (2020).5.O’Loughlin, J. H. et al. Implications of Pyrosoma atlanticum range expansion on phytoplankton standing stocks in the Northern California Current. Prog. Oceanogr. 188, 102424 (2020).6.Hobson, E. S. & Chess, J. Trophic relations of the blue rockfish, Sebastes mystinus, in a coastal upwelling system off northern California. in Fishery Bulletin, Vol. 86, 715–743 (National Marine Fisheries Service, 1988).7.Bulman, C. M., He, X. & Koslow, J. A. Trophic ecology of the mid-slope demersal fish community off Southern Tasmania, Australia. Mar. Freshw. Res. 53, 59–72 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Harbison, G. R. The parasites and predators of Thaliacea. in The Biology of Pelagic Tunicates (Oxford University Press, 1998).9.James, G. D. & Stahl, J. -C. Diet of southern Buller’s albatross (Diomedea bulleri bulleri) and the importance of fishery discards during chick rearing. N. Z. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 34, 435–454 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Hedd, A. & Gales, R. The diet of shy albatrosses (Thalassarche cauta) at Albatross Island, Tasmania. J. Zool. 253, 69–90 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Childerhouse, S., Dix, B. & Gales, N. Diet of New Zealand sea lions (Phocarctos hookeri) at the Auckland Islands. Wildl. Res. 28, 291–298 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Lindley, J. A., Hernández, F., Scatllar, J. & Docoito, J. Funchalia sp. (Crustacea: Penaeidae) associated with Pyrosoma atlanticum (Thaliacea: Pyrosomidae) off the Canary Islands. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK 81, 173–174 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Lebrato, M. & Jones, D. O. B. Mass deposition event of Pyrosoma atlanticum carcasses off Ivory Coast (West Africa). Limnol. Oceanogr. 54, 1197–1209 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Archer, S. K. et al. Pyrosome consumption by benthic organisms during blooms in the northeast Pacific and Gulf of Mexico. Ecology 99, 981–984 (2018).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
15.McFall-Ngai, M. et al. Animals in a bacterial world, a new imperative for the life sciences. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 110, 3229–3236 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
16.Sherr E. & Sherr B. Understanding roles of microbes in marine pelagic food webs: a brief history. in Microbial Ecology of the Oceans 27–44 (John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2008).17.Falkowski, P. G., Fenchel, T. & Delong, E. F. The microbial engines that drive earth’s biogeochemical cycles. Science 320, 1034–1039 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
18.Décima, M., Stukel, M. R., López-López, L. & Landry, M. R. The unique ecological role of pyrosomes in the Eastern Tropical Pacific. Limnol. Oceanogr. 64, 728–743 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Gauns, M., Mochemadkar, S., Pratihary, A., Roy, R. & Naqvi, S. W. A. Biogeochemistry and ecology of Pyrosoma spinosum from the Central Arabian Sea. Zool. Stud. 54, 3 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
20.Bowlby, M. R., Widder, E. A. & Case, J. F. Patterns of stimulated bioluminescence in two pyrosomes (Tunicata: Pyrosomatidae). Biol. Bull. 179, 340–350 (1990).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
21.Haddock, S. H. D., Moline, M. A. & Case, J. F. Bioluminescence in the sea. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 2, 443–493 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Swift, E., Biggley, W. H. & Napora, T. A. The bioluminescence emission spectra of Pyrosoma atlanticum, P. spinosum (Tunicata), Euphausia tenera (Crustacea) and Gonostoma sp. (Pisces). J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK 57, 817–823 (1977).23.Martínez‐García, M. et al. Ammonia-oxidizing Crenarchaeota and nitrification inside the tissue of a colonial ascidian. Environ. Microbiol. 10, 2991–3001 (2008).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
24.Donia, M. S. et al. Complex microbiome underlying secondary and primary metabolism in the tunicate-Prochloron symbiosis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 108, E1423–E1432 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
25.Kwan, J. C. et al. Host control of symbiont natural product chemistry in cryptic populations of the tunicate Lissoclinum patella. PLoS ONE 9, e95850 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
26.Purcell, J. E. & Arai, M. N. Interactions of pelagic cnidarians and ctenophores with fish: a review. Hydrobiologia. 451, 27–44 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Delannoy, C. M. J., Houghton, J. D. R., Fleming, N. E. C. & Ferguson, H. W. Mauve stingers (Pelagia noctiluca) as carriers of the bacterial fish pathogen Tenacibaculum maritimum. Aquaculture. 311, 255–257 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Lee, M. D., Kling, J. D., Araya, R. & Ceh, J. Jellyfish life stages shape associated microbial communities, while a core microbiome is maintained across all. Front. Microbiol. 9, 1534 (2018).29.Troussellier, M., Escalas, A., Bouvier, T. & Mouillot, D. Sustaining rare marine microorganisms: macroorganisms as repositories and dispersal agents of microbial diversity. Front. Microbiol. 8 (2017).30.Brodeur, R. et al. An unusual gelatinous plankton event in the NE Pacific: the Great Pyrosome Bloom of 2017. PICES Press; Sidney Vol. 26, 22–27 (Winter, 2018).31.Sutherland, K. R., Sorensen, H. L., Blondheim, O. N., Brodeur, R. D. & Galloway, A. W. E. Range expansion of tropical pyrosomes in the northeast Pacific Ocean. Ecology 99, 2397–2399 (2018).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
32.Miller, R. R. et al. Distribution of pelagic Thaliaceans, Thetys vagina and Pyrosoma Atlanticum, during a period of mass occurrence within the California current. CalCOFI Rep. 60, (2019).33.Guigand, C. M., Cowen, R. K., Llopiz, J. K. & Richardson, D. E. A coupled asymmetrical multiple opening closing net with environmental sampling system. Mar. Technol. Soc. J. 39, 22–24 (2005).34.Parada, A. E., Needham, D. M. & Fuhrman, J. A. Every base matters: assessing small subunit rRNA primers for marine microbiomes with mock communities, time series and global field samples. Environ. Microbiol. 18, 1403–1414 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
35.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 
36.Cole, J. R. et al. Ribosomal Database Project: data and tools for high throughput rRNA analysis. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, D633–D642 (2014).CAS 
Article 

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

Google Scholar 
38.O’Leary, N. A. et al. Reference sequence (RefSeq) database at NCBI: current status, taxonomic expansion, and functional annotation. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, D733–D745 (2016).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
39.Johnson, M. et al. NCBI BLAST: a better web interface. Nucleic Acids Res. 36, W5–W9 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
40.McMurdie, P. J. & Holmes, S. phyloseq: an R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PLoS ONE 8, e61217 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Clarke, K. R. Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Aust. J. Ecol. 18, 117–143 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Love, M. I., Huber, W. & Anders, S. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biol. 15, 550 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
43.McMurdie, P. J. & Holmes, S. Waste not, want not: why rarefying microbiome data is inadmissible. PLoS Comput. Biol. 10, e1003531 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
44.Duperron, S. Microbial Symbioses 168 p. (Elsevier, 2016).45.Schmitt, S. et al. Assessing the complex sponge microbiota: core, variable and species-specific bacterial communities in marine sponges. ISME J. 6, 564–576 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
46.Gloor, G. B., Macklaim, J. M., Pawlowsky-Glahn, V. & Egozcue, J. J. Microbiome datasets are compositional: and this is not optional. Front. Microbiol. 8 (2017).47.Urbanczyk, H., Ast, J. C., Higgins, M. J., Carson, J. & Dunlap, P. V. Reclassification of Vibrio fischeri, Vibrio logei, Vibrio salmonicida and Vibrio wodanis as Aliivibrio fischeri gen. nov., comb. nov., Aliivibrio logei comb. nov., Aliivibrio salmonicida comb. nov. and Aliivibrio wodanis comb. nov. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 57, 2823–2829 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
48.Stecher, G., Tamura, K. & Kumar, S. Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis (MEGA) for macOS. Mol. Biol. Evol. 37, 1237–1239 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Letunic, I. & Bork, P. Interactive Tree Of Life (iTOL) v4: recent updates and new developments. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, W256–W259 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Booth, B. C. Marine phytoplankton. A guide to naked flagellates and coccolithophorids (C. R. Tomas [ed.]). Limnol. Oceanogr. 39, 982–983 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Halse, G. R. & Syvertsen, E. E. Chapter 2—marine diatoms. in Identifying Marine Diatoms and Dinoflagellates (ed. Tomas C. R.) 5–385 (Academic Press, 1996).52.Steidinger, K. A. & Tangen, K. Chapter 3—dinoflagellates. in Identifying Marine Diatoms and Dinoflagellates (ed. Tomas C. R.) 387–584 (Academic Press, 1996).53.Daniels, C. & Breitbart, M. Bacterial communities associated with the ctenophores Mnemiopsis leidyi and Beroe ovata. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 82, 90–101 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
54.Kramar, M. K., Tinta, T., Lučić, D., Malej, A. & Turk, V. Bacteria associated with moon jellyfish during bloom and post-bloom periods in the Gulf of Trieste (northern Adriatic). PLoS ONE 14, e0198056 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
55.Hernandez-Agreda, A., Leggat, W., Bongaerts, P., Herrera, C. & Ainsworth, T. D. Rethinking the coral microbiome: simplicity exists within a diverse microbial biosphere. mBio 9, e00812–18 (2018).56.Webster, N. S. & Bourne, D. Bacterial community structure associated with the Antarctic soft coral, Alcyonium antarcticum. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 59, 81–94 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
57.Rodrigues, C. F., Hilário, A., Cunha, M. R., Weightman, A. J. & Webster, G. Microbial diversity in Frenulata (Siboglinidae, Polychaeta) species from mud volcanoes in the Gulf of Cadiz (NE Atlantic). Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 100, 83–98 (2011).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
58.McCann, J., Stabb, E. V., Millikan, D. S. & Ruby, E. G. Population dynamics of Vibrio fischeri during Infection of Euprymna scolopes. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 69, 5928–5934 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Hammann, S., Moss, A. & Zimmer, M. Sterile surfaces of Mnemiopsis leidyi; (Ctenophora) in bacterial suspension—a key to invasion success? Open J. Mar. Sci. 05, 237–246 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Hammer, T. J., Sanders, J. G. & Fierer, N. Not all animals need a microbiome. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 366, fnz117 https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fnz117 (2019).61.Nedashkovskaya, O. I., Kukhlevskiy, A. D., Zhukova, N. V. & Kim, S. B. Amylibacter ulvae sp. nov., a new alphaproteobacterium isolated from the Pacific green alga Ulva fenestrata. Arch. Microbiol. 198, 251–256 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
62.Burke, C., Thomas, T., Lewis, M., Steinberg, P. & Kjelleberg, S. Composition, uniqueness and variability of the epiphytic bacterial community of the green alga Ulva australis. ISME J. 5, 590–600 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
63.Catão, E. C. P. et al. Shear stress as a major driver of marine biofilm communities in the NW Mediterranean Sea. Front. Microbiol. 10 (2019).64.Chafee, M. et al. Recurrent patterns of microdiversity in a temperate coastal marine environment. ISME J. 12, 237–252 (2018).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
65.Bondoso, J. et al. Roseimaritima ulvae gen. nov., sp. nov. and Rubripirellula obstinata gen. nov., sp. nov. two novel planctomycetes isolated from the epiphytic community of macroalgae. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 38, 8–15 (2015).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
66.Zhu, P., Li, Q. & Wang, G. Unique microbial signatures of the Alien Hawaiian marine sponge Suberites zeteki. Microb. Ecol. 55, 406–414 (2008).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
67.Pimentel-Elardo, S., Wehrl, M., Friedrich, A. B., Jensen, P. R. & Hentschel, U. Isolation of planctomycetes from Aplysina sponges. Aquat. Microb. Ecol. 33, 239–245 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
68.da Silva Oliveira, F. A. et al. Microbial epibionts of the colonial ascidians Didemnum galacteum and Cystodytes sp. Symbiosis 59, 57–63 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Yakimov, M. M. et al. Phylogenetic survey of metabolically active microbial communities associated with the deep-sea coral Lophelia pertusa from the Apulian plateau, Central Mediterranean Sea. Deep Sea Res. A Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 53, 62–75 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Duque-Alarcón, A., Santiago-Vázquez, L. Z. & Kerr, R. G. A microbial community analysis of the octocoral Eunicea fusca. Electron. J. Biotechnol. 15, 15–15 (2012).
Google Scholar 
71.Wiegand, S., Jogler, M. & Jogler, C. On the maverick Planctomycetes. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 42, 739–760 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
72.Lage, O. M. & Bondoso, J. Planctomycetes and macroalgae, a striking association. Front. Microbiol. 5 (2014).73.Ward, A. C. & Bora, N. Diversity and biogeography of marine Actinobacteria. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 9, 279–286 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
74.Hahn, M. W. Description of seven candidate species affiliated with the phylum Actinobacteria, representing planktonic freshwater bacteria. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 59, 112–117 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
75.Gandhimathi, R. et al. Antimicrobial potential of sponge associated marine actinomycetes. J. Mycol. Méd. 18, 16–22 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
76.Abdelmohsen, U. R., Bayer, K. & Hentschel, U. Diversity, abundance and natural products of marine sponge-associated actinomycetes. Nat. Prod. Rep. 31, 381–399 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
77.Wu, Z. et al. A new tetrodotoxin-producing actinomycete, Nocardiopsis dassonvillei, isolated from the ovaries of puffer fish Fugu rubripes. Toxicon. 45, 851–859 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
78.Reichenbach, H. The ecology of the myxobacteria. Environ. Microbiol. 1, 15–21 (1999).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
79.Marshall, R. C. & Whitworth, D. E. Is “Wolf-Pack” predation by antimicrobial bacteria cooperative? Cell behaviour and predatory mechanisms indicate profound selfishness, even when working alongside Kin. BioEssays 41, 1800247 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
80.Welsh, R. M. et al. Bacterial predation in a marine host-associated microbiome. ISME J. 10, 1540–1544 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
81.Wang, Z., Kadouri, D. E. & Wu, M. Genomic insights into an obligate epibiotic bacterial predator: Micavibrio aeruginosavorus ARL-13. BMC Genomics 12, 453 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
82.Garcia, G. D. et al. Metagenomic analysis of healthy and white plague-affected Mussismilia braziliensis corals. Microb. Ecol. 65, 1076–1086 (2013).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
83.Rosales, S. M. et al. Microbiome differences in disease-resistant vs. susceptible Acropora corals subjected to disease challenge assays. Sci. Rep. 9, 18279 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
84.Evans, A. G. L. et al. Predatory activity of Myxococcus xanthus outer-membrane vesicles and properties of their hydrolase cargo. Microbiology 158, 2742–2752 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
85.Sudo, S. & Dworkin, M. Bacteriolytic enzymes produced by Myxococcus xanthus. J. Bacteriol. 110, 236–245 (1972).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
86.Tessler, M. et al. A putative chordate luciferase from a cosmopolitan tunicate indicates convergent bioluminescence evolution across phyla. Sci. Rep. 10, 17724 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
87.Berger, A. et al. Microscopic and Genetic Characterization of Bacterial Symbionts With Bioluminescent Potential in Pyrosoma Atlanticum. Frontiers in Marine Science. 8 https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.606818 (2021).88.Leisman, G., Cohn, D. H. & Nealson, K. H. Bacterial origin of luminescence in marine animals. Science 208, 1271–1273 (1980).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
89.Mackie, G. O. & Bone, Q. Luminescence and associated effector activity in Pyrosoma (Tunicata: Pyrosomida). Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 202, 483–495 (1978).Article 

Google Scholar 
90.Nyholm, S. V. & McFall-Ngai, M. The winnowing: establishing the squid–vibrio symbiosis. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2, 632–642 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
91.Takemura, A. F., Chien, D. M. & Polz M. F. Associations and dynamics of Vibrionaceae in the environment, from the genus to the population level. Front. Microbiol. 5 (2014).92.Barnes, E. M., Carter, E. L. & Lewis, J. D. Predicting microbiome function across space is confounded by strain-level differences and functional redundancy across taxa. Front. Microbiol. 11 (2020).93.Tian, L. et al. Deciphering functional redundancy in the human microbiome. bioRxiv 176313 https://doi.org/10.1101/176313 (2017).94.Kaeding, A. J. et al. Phylogenetic diversity and cosymbiosis in the bioluminescent symbioses of “Photobacterium mandapamensis”. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 73, 3173–3182 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
95.Baker, L. J. et al. Diverse deep-sea anglerfishes share a genetically reduced luminous symbiont that is acquired from the environment. eLife 8 e47606 (2019).96.Godeaux, J. E. A., Bone, Q. & Braconnot, J. C. Anatomy of Thaliacea. in The Biology of Pelagic Tunicates (Oxford University Press, 1998).97.Alldredge, A. L. & Madin, L. P. Pelagic tunicates: unique herbivores in the marine plankton. BioScience. 32, 655–663 (1982).Article 

Google Scholar 
98.Bone, Q., Carre, C. & Ryan, K. P. The endostyle and the feeding filter in salps (Tunicata). J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK 80, 523–534 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
99.Sutherland, K. R., Madin, L. P. & Stocker, R. Filtration of submicrometer particles by pelagic tunicates. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 107, 15129–15134 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
100.Dadon-Pilosof, A. et al. Surface properties of SAR11 bacteria facilitate grazing avoidance. Nat. Microbiol. 2, 1608–1615 (2017).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
101.Larson, R. J. Daily ration and predation by medusae and ctenophores in Saanich Inlet, B.C., Canada. Neth. J. Sea Res. 21, 35–44 (1987).Article 

Google Scholar 
102.Suchman, C. L., Daly, E. A., Keister, J. E., Peterson, W. T. & Brodeur, R. D. Feeding patterns and predation potential of scyphomedusae in a highly productive upwelling region. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 358, 161–172 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
103.Bennke, C. M. et al. The distribution of phytoplankton in the Baltic Sea assessed by a prokaryotic 16S rRNA gene primer system. J. Plankton Res. 40, 244–254 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
104.Green, B. R. Chloroplast genomes of photosynthetic eukaryotes. Plant J. 66, 34–44 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
105.Luo, J. Y. et al. Gelatinous zooplankton-mediated carbon flows in the global oceans: a data-driven modeling study. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles. 34, e2020GB006704 (2020).106.Dadon‐Pilosof, A., Lombard, F., Genin, A., Sutherland, K. R. & Yahel, G. Prey taxonomy rather than size determines salp diets. Limnol. Oceanogr. 64, 1996–2010 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
107.Brand, A., Liz, A., Micah, A., Marjorie, H. & Jo, S. Beyond Authorship: Attribution, Contribution, Collaboration, and Credit. Learned Publishing. 28, 151–155 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.Stanley, D. & Stout, J. Pollinator sharing between mass-flowering oilseed rape and co-flowering wild plants: implications for wild plant pollination. Plant Ecol. 215, 315–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-014-0301-7 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Kovacs-Hostyanszki, A. et al. Contrasting effects of mass-flowering crops on bee pollination of hedge plants at different spatial and temporal scales. Ecol. Appl. 23, 1938–1946. https://doi.org/10.1890/12-2012.1 (2013).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
3.Holzschuh, A. et al. Mass-flowering crops dilute pollinator abundance in agricultural landscapes across Europe. Ecol. Lett. 19, 1228–1236. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12657 (2016).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
4.Potts, S. G. et al. Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 345–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2010.01.007 (2010).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
5.Kremen, C., Williams, N. M. & Thorp, R. W. Crop pollination from native bees at risk from agricultural intensification. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99, 16812–16816. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.262413599 (2002).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
6.Ollerton, J., Erenler, H., Edwards, M. & Crockett, R. Pollinator declines: extinctions of aculeate pollinators in Britain and the role of large-scale agricultural changes. Science 346, 1360–1362. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1257259 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
7.Kovacs-Hostyanszki, A. et al. Ecological intensification to mitigate impacts of conventional intensive land use on pollinators and pollination. Ecol. Lett. 20, 673–689. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12762 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
8.Tscharntke, T., Klein, A. M., Kruess, A., Steffan-Dewenter, I. & Thies, C. Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity: ecosystem service management. Ecol. Lett. 8, 857–874. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00782.x (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Holland, J. M. et al. Semi-natural habitats support biological control, pollination and soil conservation in Europe: a review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-017-0434-x (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Garibaldi, L. A. et al. Stability of pollination services decreases with isolation from natural areas despite honey bee visits. Ecol. Lett. 14, 1062–1072. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01669.x (2011).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
11.Bartomeus, I. et al. Contribution of insect pollinators to crop yield and quality varies with agricultural intensification. PeerJ 2, e328. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.328 (2014).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
12.Holzschuh, A., Dudenhoffer, J. H. & Tscharntke, T. Landscapes with wild bee habitats enhance pollination, fruit set and yield of sweet cherry. Biol. Conserv. 153, 101–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.04.032 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Marini, L. et al. Crop management modifies the benefits of insect pollination in oilseed rape. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 207, 61–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2015.03.027 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Persson, A. S. & Smith, H. G. Seasonal persistence of bumblebee populations is affected by landscape context. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 165, 201–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2012.12.008 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Rundlof, M., Persson, A. S., Smith, H. G. & Bommarco, R. Late-season mass-flowering red clover increases bumble bee queen and male densities. Biol. Conserv. 172, 138–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.02.027 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Westphal, C., Steffan-Dewenter, I. & Tscharntke, T. Mass flowering oilseed rape improves early colony growth but not sexual reproduction of bumblebees. J. Appl. Ecol. 46, 187–193. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2008.01580.x (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Williams, N. M., Regetz, J. & Kremen, C. Landscape-scale resources promote colony growth but not reproductive performance of bumble bees. Ecology 93, 1049–1058. https://doi.org/10.1890/11-1006.1 (2012).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
18.Steffan-Dewenter, I., Munzenberg, U., Burger, C., Thies, C. & Tscharntke, T. Scale-dependent effects of landscape context on three pollinator guilds. Ecology 83, 1421–1432. https://doi.org/10.2307/3071954 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Steffan-Dewenter, I., Münzenberg, U. & Tscharntke, T. Pollination, seed set and seed predation on a landscape scale. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 268, 1685–1690. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2001.1737 (2001).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Bartual, A. et al. The potential of different semi-natural habitats to sustain pollinators and natural enemies in European agricultural landscapes. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 279, 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2019.04.009 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Ewers, R. M. & Didham, R. K. Confounding factors in the detection of species responses to habitat fragmentation. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 81, 117–142. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1464793105006949 (2006).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
22.Blaauw, B. R. & Isaacs, R. Larger patches of diverse floral resources increase insect pollinator density, diversity, and their pollination of native wild flowers. Basic Appl. Ecol. 15, 701–711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2014.10.001 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Martin, E. A. et al. The interplay of landscape composition and configuration: new pathways to manage functional biodiversity and agroecosystem services across Europe. Ecol. Lett. 22, 1083–1094. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13265 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
24.Bihaly, Á., Dóra, V., Lajos, K. & Sárospataki, M. Effect of semi-natural habitat patches on the pollinator assemblages of sunflower in an intensive agricultural landscape. Tájökológiai Lapok 16, 45–52 (2018).
Google Scholar 
25.Foldesi, R. et al. Relationships between wild bees, hoverflies and pollination success in apple orchards with different landscape contexts. Agric. For. Entomol. 18, 68–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/afe.12135 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Sárospataki, M. et al. The role of local and landscape level factors in determining bumblebee abundance and richness. Acta Zool. Acad. Sci. Hung. 62, 387–407. https://doi.org/10.17109/AZH.62.4.387.2016 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Schellhorn, N. A., Gagic, V. & Bommarco, R. Time will tell: resource continuity bolsters ecosystem services. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 524–530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2015.06.007 (2015).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
28.Tscharntke, T. et al. Landscape moderation of biodiversity patterns and processes: eight hypotheses. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 87, 661–685. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2011.00216.x (2012).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
29.Stephens, A. E. A. & Myers, J. H. Resource concentration by insects and implications for plant populations. J. Ecol. 100, 923–931. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2012.01971.x (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Tscheulin, T., Neokosmidis, L., Petanidou, T. & Settele, J. Influence of landscape context on the abundance and diversity of bees in Mediterranean olive groves. Bull. Entomol. Res. 101, 557–564. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007485311000149 (2011).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
31.Kennedy, C. M. et al. A global quantitative synthesis of local and landscape effects on wild bee pollinators in agroecosystems. Ecol. Lett. 16, 584–599. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12082 (2013).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
32.Eurostat. Archive: Main annual crop statistics, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Main_annual_crop_statistics&oldid=389868#Oilseeds (2018).33.KSH. STADAT tables – Agriculture. http://www.ksh.hu/docs/hun/xstadat/xstadat_eves/i_omn007b.html. (KSH, 2019).34.Hevia, V. et al. Bee diversity and abundance in a livestock drove road and its impact on pollination and seed set in adjacent sunflower fields. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 232, 336–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.08.021 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Silva, C. et al. Bee pollination highly improves oil quality in sunflower. Sociobiology 65, 583–590. https://doi.org/10.13102/sociobiology.v65i4.3367 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Terzić, S., Miklič, V. & Čanak, P. Review of 40 years of research carried out in Serbia on sunflower pollination. OCL 24, D608 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Perrot, T. et al. Experimental quantification of insect pollination on sunflower yield, reconciling plant and field scale estimates. Basic Appl. Ecol. 34, 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2018.09.005 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Martin, C. S. & Farina, W. M. Honeybee floral constancy and pollination efficiency in sunflower (Helianthus annuus) crops for hybrid seed production. Apidologie 47, 161–170 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.DeGrandi-Hoffman, G. & Watkins, J. C. The foraging activity of honey bees Apis mellifera and non—Apis bees on hybrid sunflowers (Helianthus annuus) and its influence on cross—pollination and seed set. J. Apic. Res. 39, 37–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.2000.11101019 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Cerrutti, N. & Pontet, C. Differential attractiveness of sunflower cultivars to the honeybee Apis mellifera L. OCL 23, D204 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Chambó, E. D., Garcia, R. C., Oliveira, N. T. E. D. & Duarte-Júnior, J. B. Honey bee visitation to sunflower: effects on pollination and plant genotype. Sci. Agric. 68, 647–651 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Oz, M., Karasu, A., Cakmak, I., Goksoy, A. T. & Turan, Z. M. Effects of honeybee (Apis mellifera) pollination on seed set in hybrid sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Afr. J. Biotechnol. 8 (2009).43.Puškadija, Z. et al. Influence of weather conditions on honey bee visits (Apis mellifera carnica) during sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) blooming period. Poljoprivreda 13, 230–233 (2007).
Google Scholar 
44.Greenleaf, S. S. & Kremen, C. Wild bees enhance honey bees’ pollination of hybrid sunflower. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103, 13890–13895 (2006).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Nderitu, J., Nyamasyo, G., Kasina, M. & Oronje, M. Diversity of sunflower pollinators and their effect on seed yield in Makueni District, Eastern Kenya. Span. J. Agric. Res. 6, 271–278 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Carvalheiro, L. G. et al. Natural and within-farmland biodiversity enhances crop productivity. Ecol. Lett. 14, 251–259. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01579.x (2011).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
47.Sardiñas, H. S. & Kremen, C. Pollination services from field-scale agricultural diversification may be context-dependent. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 207, 17–25 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Riedinger, V., Renner, M., Rundlof, M., Steffan-Dewenter, I. & Holzschuh, A. Early mass-flowering crops mitigate pollinator dilution in late-flowering crops. Landscape Ecol. 29, 425–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9973-y (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Bennett, A. B. & Isaacs, R. Landscape composition influences pollinators and pollination services in perennial biofuel plantings. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 193, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.04.016 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Lowenstein, D. M., Huseth, A. S. & Groves, R. L. Response of wild bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Anthophila) to surrounding land cover in Wisconsin pickling cucumber. Environ. Entomol. 41, 532–540. https://doi.org/10.1603/EN11241 (2012).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
51.Pfister, S. C. et al. Dominance of cropland reduces the pollen deposition from bumble bees. Sci. Rep. 8, 13873. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-31826-3 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
52.Gathmann, A. & Tscharntke, T. Foraging ranges of solitary bees. J. Anim. Ecol. 71, 757–764. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2656.2002.00641.x (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Greenleaf, S. S., Williams, N. M., Winfree, R. & Kremen, C. Bee foraging ranges and their relationship to body size. Oecologia 153, 589–596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-007-0752-9 (2007).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
54.Lihoreau, M., Chittka, L., Le Comber, S. C. & Raine, N. E. Bees do not use nearest-neighbour rules for optimization of multi-location routes. Biol. Lett. 8, 13–16. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2011.0661 (2012).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
55.Berger-Tal, O. & Bar-David, S. Recursive movement patterns: review and synthesis across species. Ecosphere 6, 149. https://doi.org/10.1890/es15-00106.1 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Wesserling, J. Habitatwahl und Ausbreitungsverhalten von Stechimmen (Hymenoptera: Aculeata) in Sandgebieten unterschiedlicher Sukzessionsstadien, University of Karlsruhe, (1996).57.Hagler, J. R., Mueller, S., Teuber, L. R., Machtley, S. A. & Van Deynze, A. Foraging range of honey bees, Apis mellifera, in alfalfa seed production fields. J. Insect Sci. 11, 144 (2011).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
58.Couvillon, M. J. et al. Honey bee foraging distance depends on month and forage type. Apidologie 46, 61–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13592-014-0302-5 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Beekman, M. & Ratnieks, F. L. W. Long-range foraging by the honey-bee, Apis mellifera L.. Funct. Ecol. 14, 490–496. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2435.2000.00443.x (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Gary, N. E., Witherell, P. C. & Lorenzen, K. Effect of age on honey bee foraging distance and pollen collection. Environ. Entomol. 10, 950–952 (1981).Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Walther-Hellwig, K. & Frankl, R. Foraging habitats and foraging distances of bumblebees, Bombus spp. (Hym., Apidae), in an agricultural landscape. J. Appl. Entomol. 124, 299–306. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0418.2000.00484.x (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Dramstad, W. E. Do bumblebees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) really forage close to their nests?. J. Insect Behav. 9, 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02213863 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Knight, M. E. et al. An interspecific comparison of foraging range and nest density of four bumblebee (Bombus) species. Mol. Ecol. 14, 1811–1820 (2005).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Wolf, S. & Moritz, R. F. Foraging distance in Bombus terrestris L. (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Apidologie 39, 419–427 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Osborne, J. L. et al. Bumblebee flight distances in relation to the forage landscape. J. Anim. Ecol. 77, 406–415 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Zurbuchen, A. et al. Maximum foraging ranges in solitary bees: only few individuals have the capability to cover long foraging distances. Biol. Conserv. 143, 669–676 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Hopfenmuller, S., Steffan-Dewenter, I. & Holzschuh, A. Trait-specific responses of wild bee communities to landscape composition, configuration and local factors. PLoS ONE 9, e104439. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0104439 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
68.Hung, K. J., Kingston, J. M., Albrecht, M., Holway, D. A. & Kohn, J. R. The worldwide importance of honey bees as pollinators in natural habitats. Proc R Soc Biol Sci Ser B 285, 20172140. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.2140 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Requier, F. et al. Honey bee diet in intensive farmland habitats reveals an unexpectedly high flower richness and a major role of weeds. Ecol. Appl. 25, 881–890. https://doi.org/10.1890/14-1011.1 (2015).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
70.Bonoan, R. E., Gonzalez, J. & Starks, P. T. The perils of forcing a generalist to be a specialist: lack of dietary essential amino acids impacts honey bee pollen foraging and colony growth. J. Apic. Res. 59, 95–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.2019.1656702 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Di Pasquale, G. et al. Influence of pollen nutrition on honey bee health: Do pollen quality and diversity matter?. PLoS ONE 8, e72016. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0072016 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
72.Di Pasquale, G. et al. Variations in the availability of pollen resources affect honey bee health. PLoS ONE 11, e0162818. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162818 (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
73.Alaux, C., Ducloz, F., Crauser, D. & Le Conte, Y. Diet effects on honeybee immunocompetence. Biol. Lett. 6, 562–565. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2009.0986 (2010).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
74.Colwell, M. J., Williams, G. R., Evans, R. C. & Shutler, D. Honey bee-collected pollen in agro-ecosystems reveals diet diversity, diet quality, and pesticide exposure. Ecol. Evol. 7, 7243–7253. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3178 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
75.Zhang, G., St. Clair, A. L., Dolezal, A., Toth, A. L. & O’Neal, M. Honey Bee (Hymenoptera: Apidea) pollen forage in a highly cultivated agroecosystem: limited diet diversity and its relationship to virus resistance. J. Econ. Entomol. 113, 1062–1072 (2020).76.QGIS Development Team. QGIS Geographic Information System. Open Source Geospatial Foundation. http://qgis.osgeo.org. (2009).77.FÖMI. MePAR, the Hungarian Agricultural Land Parcel Identification System, accessed 22 November 2019 http://www.mepar.hu/ (2016).78.McGarigal, K., Cushman, S. & Ene, E. Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Categorical and Continuous Maps. available from http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html. (University of Massachusetts, 2012).79.McGarigal, K. FRAGSTATS help. Documentation for FRAGSTATS, 4. (2014).80.McGarigal, K. (2017). Landscape metrics for categorical map patterns. Lecture Notes. Available online: accessed 28 Feb 2021 http://www.umass.edu/landeco/teaching/landscape_ecology/schedule/chapter9_metrics.pdf.81.R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. version 3.6.0. https://www.R-project.org. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020).82.Paradis, E. & Schliep, K. ape 5.0: an environment for modern phylogenetics and evolutionary analyses in R. Bioinformatics 35, 526–528. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bty633 (2019).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
83.Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Usinglme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67, https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 (2015).84.Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (Springer, 2016).
Google Scholar 
85.DHARMa: Residual Diagnostics for Hierarchical (Multi-Level / Mixed) Regression Models. v. 0.3.3.0. (2020).86.Fox, J. & Weisberg, S. An R Companion to Applied Regression, Third edition. Sage, Thousand Oaks CA. https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/jfox/Books/Companion/. (2019). More

1.Marlon, J. R. et al. Climate and human influences on global biomass burning over the past two millennia. Nat. Geosci. 1, 697–702 (2008).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Pausas, J. G. & Keeley, J. E. A burning story: the role of fire in the history of life. BioScience 59, 593–601 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Dennison, P. E., Brewer, S. C., Arnold, J. D. & Mortiz, M. A. Large wildfire trends in the western United States, 1984–2011. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 2928–2933 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Abatzoglou, J. T. & Williams, A. P. Impact of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across western US forests. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 11770–11775 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Westerling, A. L., Hidalgo, H. G., Cayan, D. R. & Swetnam, T. W. Warming and earlier spring increase western U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science 313, 940–943 (2006).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Westerling, A. L. R. Increasing western US forest wildfire activity: Sensitivity to changes in the timing of spring. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 371, 1–10 (2016).
Google Scholar 
7.Schwartz, M. W. et al. Increasing elevation of fire in the Sierra Nevada and implications for forest change. Ecosphere 6, 1–10 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Trujillo, E., Molotch, N. P., Goulden, M. L., Kelly, A. E. & Bales, R. C. Elevation-dependent influence of snow accumulation on forest greening. Nat. Geosci. 5, 705–709 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Trouet, V., Taylor, A. H., Wahl, E. R., Skinner, C. N. & Stephens, S. L. Fire-climate interactions in the American West since 1400 CE. Geophys. Res. Lett. 37, 1–5 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Kitchen, S. G. Climate and human influences on historical fire regimes (AD 1400–1900) in the eastern Great Basin (USA). Holocene 26, 397–407 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Klimaszewski-Patterson, A., Weisberg, P. J., Mensing, S. A. & Scheller, R. M. Using paleolandscape modeling to investigate the impact of native American–set fires on pre-Columbian forests in the Southern Sierra Nevada, California, USA. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geographers 108, 1635–1654 (2018).
Google Scholar 
12.Taylor, A. H., Trouet, V., Skinner, C. N. & Stephens, S. Socioecological transitions trigger fire regime shifts and modulate fire-climate interactions in the Sierra Nevada, USA, 1600-2015 CE. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 13684–13689 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Ryan, K. C., Knapp, E. E. & Varner, J. M. Prescribed fire in North American forests and woodlands: history, current practice, and challenges. Front. Ecol. Environ. 11, e15–e24 (2013).14.Herring, E. M., Anderson, R. S. & San Miguel, G. L. Fire, vegetation, and Ancestral Puebloans: a sediment record from Prater Canyon in Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado, USA. Holocene 24, 853–863 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Liebmann, M. J. et al. Native American depopulation, reforestation, and fire regimes in the Southwest United States, 1492-1900 CE. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, E696–E704 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Swetnam, T. W. et al. Multiscale perspectives of fire, climate and humans in Western North America and the Jemez Mountains, USA. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 371, (2016).17.Levis, C. et al. Persistent effects of pre-Columbian plant domestication on Amazonian forest composition. Science 358, 925–931 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
18.Maezumi, S. Y. et al. The legacy of 4,500 years of polyculture agroforestry in the eastern Amazon. Nat. Plants 4, 540–547 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Vale, T. R. The Pre-European landscape of the United States: Pristine or Humanized? in Fire, Native Peoples, and the Natural Landscape 1–39 (Island Press, 2002).20.Lightfoot, K. G. & Lopez, V. The study of indigenous management practices in California: an introduction. California Archaeol. 5, 209–219 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Oswald, W. W. et al. Conservation implications of limited Native American impacts in pre-contact New England. Nat. Sustain. 3, 241–246 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Vachula, R. S., Russell, J. M. & Huang, Y. Climate exceeded human management as the dominant control of fire at the regional scale in California’s Sierra Nevada. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 104011 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Baker, W. L. Indians and Fire in the Rocky Mountains: The Wilderness Hypothesis Renewed. in Fire, Native Peoples, and the Natural Landscape 41–76 (2002).24.Kimmerer, R. W. & Lake, F. K. Maintaining the Mosaic: the role of indigenous burning in land management. J. Forestry 99, 36–41 (2001).
Google Scholar 
25.Power, M. J. et al. Human fire legacies on ecological landscapes. Front. Earth Sci. 6, 1–6 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Keeley, J. E. Native American impacts on fire regimes of the California coastal ranges. J. Biogeogr. 29, 303–320 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Lightfoot, K. G., Parrish, O., Panich, L. M. & Schneider, T. D. California Indians and Their Environment: An Introduction (Univ. California Press, 2009).28.Ryan, K. C., Jones, A. T., Koerner, C. L. & Lee, K. M. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Cultural Resources and Archaeology. Vol. 3., 224. Rocky Mountain Research Station General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42 (US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 2012).29.Roos, C. I., Zedeño, M. N., Hollenback, K. L. & Erlick, M. M. H. Indigenous impacts on North American Great Plains fire regimes of the past millennium. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 8143–8148 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Thomas, D. H. The 1981 Alta Toquima Village project: A Preliminary Report. Desert Research Institute Social Sciences and Humanities Publications Technical Report 27, 1–202 (Desert Research Institute Social Sciences and Humanities Publications, 1982).31.Benedict, J. B. Footprints in the snow: high-altitude cultural ecology of the Colorado Front Range, USA. Arctic Alpine Res. 24, 1–16 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Stevens, N. E. Changes in prehistoric land use in the Alpine Sierra Nevada: a regional exploration using temperature-adjusted obsidian hydration rates. J. California Great Basin Anthropol. 25, 187–205 (2005).
Google Scholar 
33.Klimaszewski-Patterson, A. & Mensing, S. Paleoecological and paleolandscape modeling support for pre-Columbian burning by Native Americans in the Golden Trout Wilderness Area, California, USA. Landscape Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-020-01081-x (2020).34.Swetnam, T. W., Allen, C. D. & Betancourt, J. L. Applied historical ecology: using the past to manage for the future. Ecol. Appl. 9, 1189–1206 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Roos, C. I., Williamson, G. J. & Bowman, D. M. Is anthropogenic pyrodiversity invisible in paleofire records? Fire 2, 42 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Marlon, J. R. et al. Global biomass burning: a synthesis and review of Holocene paleofire records and their controls. Quat. Sci. Rev. 65, 5–25 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Bowman, D. M. et al. The human dimension of fire regimes on Earth. J. Biogeogr. 38, 2223–2236 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Adolf, C. et al. The sedimentary and remote-sensing reflection of biomass burning in Europe. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 27, 199–212 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Vachula, R. S. A meta-analytical approach to understanding the charcoal source area problem. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 562, 110111 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2020.110111 (2021).40.Munoz, S. E., Gajewski, K. & Peros, M. C. Synchronous environmental and cultural change in the prehistory of the northeastern United States. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 22008–22013 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Peros, M. C., Munoz, S. E., Gajewski, K. & Viau, A. E. Prehistoric demography of North America inferred from radiocarbon data. J. Archaeol. Sci. 37, 656–664 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Brown, P. M., Heyerdahl, E. K., Kitchen, S. G. & Weber, M. H. Climate effects on historical fires (1630-1900) in Utah. Int. J. Wildland Fire 17, 28–39 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Li, J. et al. Interdecadal modulation of El Niño amplitude during the past millennium. Nat. Clim. Change 1, 114–118 (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Gedalof, Z. & Peterson, D. L. & Mantua, N. J. Atmospheric, climatic, and ecological controls on extreme wildfire years in the Northwestern United States. Ecol. Appl. 15, 154–174 (2005).45.Morgan, P., Hardy, C. C., Swetnam, T. W., Rollins, M. G. & Long, D. G. Mapping fire regimes across time and space: Understanding coarse and fine-scale fire patterns. Int. J. Wildland Fire 10, 329–342 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Marchetti, D. W., Harris, M. S., Bailey, C. M., Cerling, T. E. & Bergman, S. Timing of glaciation and last glacial maximum paleoclimate estimates from the Fish Lake Plateau, Utah. Quat. Res. 75, 183–195 (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Kemperman, J. A. & Barnes, B. V. Clone size in American aspens. Can. J. Botany 54, 2603–2607 (1976).Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Mitton, J. B. & Grant, M. C. Genetic variation and the natural history of quaking Aspen. BioScience 46, 25–31 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Wood, S. N. Generalized Additive Models: an Introduction with R (Chapman and Hall, 2006).50.Hastie, T. & Tibshirani, R. Generalized additive models. Stat. Sci. 1, 297–318 (1992).
Google Scholar 
51.Madsen, D. B. & Simms, S. R. The Fremont complex: a behavioral perspective. J. World Prehistory 12, 255–336 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Massimino, J. & Metcalfe, D. New form for the formative. Utah Archaeol. 12, 1–16 (1999).
Google Scholar 
53.Coltrain, J. B. & Leavitt, S. W. Climate and diet in Fremont prehistory: economic variability and abandonment of maize agriculture in the Great Salt Lake Basin. Am. Antiquity 67, 453–485 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Magargal, K. E., Parker, A. K., Vernon, K. B., Rath, W. & Codding, B. F. The ecology of population dispersal: modeling alternative basin-plateau foraging strategies to explain the Numic expansion. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 29, 1–14 (2017).
Google Scholar 
55.Thomson, M. J., Balkovič, J., Krisztin, T. & MacDonald, G. M. Simulated impact of paleoclimate change on Fremont Native American maize farming in Utah, 850–1449 CE, using crop and climate models. Quat. Int. 507, 95–107 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Finley, J. B., Robinson, E., Derose, R. J. & Hora, E. Multidecadal climate variability and the florescence of Fremont societies in Eastern Utah. American Antiquity 85, 93–112 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Janetski, J. C. Archaeology and Native American history at Fish Lake, Central Utah. vol. 16 (Museum of Peoples and Cultures, Brigham Young University, 2010).58.Fowler, C. S. in Handbook of North American Indians (eds. Sturtevant, W. C. & D’Azevedo, W. L.) vol. 11, 64–97 (Smithsonian Institution, 1986).59.Sullivan, A. P. & Mink, P. B. Theoretical and socioecological consequences of fire foodways. Am. Antiquity 83, 619–638 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Mann, M. E. et al. Global signatures and dynamical origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly. Science 326, 1256–1260 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Woodhouse, C. A., Meko, D. M., MacDonald, G. M., Stahle, D. W. & Cook, E. R. A 1,200-year perspective of 21st century drought in southwestern North America. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 21283–21288 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Meko, D. M. et al. Medieval drought in the upper Colorado River Basin. Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, 1–5 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Salzer, M. W. & Kipfmueller, K. F. Reconstructed temperature and precipitation on a millennial timescale from tree-rings in the southern Colorado Plateau, U.S.A. Clim. Change 70, 465–487 (2005).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Knight, T. A., Meko, D. M. & Baisan, C. H. A bimillennial-length tree-ring reconstruction of precipitation for the Tavaputs Plateau, Northeastern Utah. Quat. Res. 73, 107–117 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Margolis, E. Q. & Swetnam, T. W. Historical fire-climate relationships of upper elevation fire regimes in the south-western United States. Int. J. Wildland Fire 22, 588–598 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Calder, W. J., Parker, D., Stopka, C. J., Jiménez-Moreno, G. & Shuman, B. N. Medieval warming initiated exceptionally large wildfire outbreaks in the Rocky Mountains. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 13261–13266 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Bliege, R. B., Codding, B. F., Kauhanen, P. G. & Bird, D. W. Aboriginal hunting buffers climate-driven fire-size variability in Australia’s spinifex grasslands. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 10287–10292 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Parisien, M. A. et al. The spatially varying influence of humans on fire probability in North America. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 075005 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Codding, B. F. et al. Socioecological dynamics structuring the spread of farming in the North American Basin-Plateau Region. Environ. Archaeol. (in review).70.Robinson, E., Nicholson, C. & Kelly, R. L. The importance of spatial data to open-access national archaeological databases and the development of paleodemography research. Adv. Archaeol. Pract. 7, 395–408 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Marlon, J. R. et al. Long-term perspective on wildfires in the western USA. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 535–543 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Kent McAdoo, J., Schultz, B. W. & Swanson, S. R. Aboriginal precedent for active management of sagebrush-perennial grass communities in the Great Basin. Rangeland Ecol. Manag. 66, 241–253 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
73.Heyerdahl, E. K., Brown, P. M., Kitchen, S. G. & Weber, M. H. Multicentury Fire and Forest Histories at 19 sites in Utah and Eastern Nevada. Rocky Mountain Research Station General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-261WWW, 192 (US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 2011).74.Charles, K. Long-term Vegetation Change on Utah’s Fishlake National Forest: A Study in Repeat Photography (Utah State Univ., 2003).75.USDA Forest Service. Fishlake National Forest (N.F.), Salina Planning Unit: Environmental Impact Statement. 1–125 (USDA Forest Service, 1976).76.Morris, J. L., Brunelle, A., Munson, A. S., Spencer, J. & Power, M. J. Holocene vegetation and fire reconstructions from the Aquarius Plateau, Utah, USA. Quat. Int. 310, 111–123 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
77.MTBS Data Access: Fire Level Geospatial Data. (2020, November – last revised). MTBS Project (USDA Forest Service/U.S. Geological Survey). Available online: http://mtbs.gov/direct-download [2020, December 15].78.Kitzberger, T., Falk, D. A., Westerling, A. L. & Swetnam, T. W. Direct and indirect climate controls predict heterogeneous early-mid 21st century wildfire burned area across western and boreal North America. PLoS ONE 12, e0188486 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
79.Dean, W. E. Jr. Determination of carbonate and organic matter in calcareous sediments and sedimentary rocks by loss on ignition: comparision with other methods. J. Sediment. Petrol. 44, 242–248 (1974).CAS 

Google Scholar 
80.Reimer, P. J. et al. Intcal13 and Marine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50,000 years cal Bp. Radiocarbon 55, 1869–1887 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
81.Blaauw, M. & Christen, J. A. Flexible paleoclimate age-depth models using an autoregressive gamma process. Bayesian Anal. 6, 457–474 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
82.Higuera, P. E., Brubaker, L. B., Anderson, P. M., Hu, F. S. & Brown, T. A. Vegetation mediated the impacts of postglacial climate change on fire regimes in the south-central Brooks Range, Alaska. Ecol. Monographs 79, 201–219 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
83.Crema, E. R., Bevan, A. & Shennan, S. Spatio-temporal approaches to archaeological radiocarbon dates. J. Archaeol. Sci. 87, 1–9 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
84.Kelly, R. L., Surovell, T. A., Shuman, B. N. & Smith, G. M. A continuous climatic impact on Holocene human population in the Rocky Mountains. Proc. Natl Ac. Sci. USA 110, 443–447 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
85.Shennan, S. et al. Regional population collapse followed initial agriculture booms in mid-Holocene Europe. Nat Commun. 4, 31–34 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
86.Bevan, A. & Crema, E. rcarbon v1. 2.0: Methods for calibrating and analysing radiocarbon dates, https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/rcarbon/index.html (2018).87.Contreras, D. A. & Meadows, J. Summed radiocarbon calibrations as a population proxy: A critical evaluation using a realistic simulation approach. J. Archaeol. Sci. 52, 591–608 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
88.Wood, S. N. Package ‘mgvc,’ https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/mgcv/mgcv.pdf (2017). More

High-throughput sequencing resultsA total of 26 million COI reads, 19 million raw 18S V1-V2 reads,, 14 million 18S V4 reads, and 17 million 16S V4–V5 reads were obtained from three Illumina HiSeq runs of amplicon libraries built from pooled triplicate PCRs of 22 environmental samples, 2 extraction blanks, and 4–6 PCR blanks (Supplementary Table S4 online). The in situ pump yielded less raw reads for COI and 16S (Supplementary Fig. S1 online, F = 4.02–14.4, p = 0.0003–0.03), while more raw reads were recovered from both water sampling methods with 18S V4 (F = 6.5, p = 0.007). Water samples generally yielded fewer raw clusters (F = 5.1–35.1, p = 3.2 × 10−6–0.02), except for 18S V4 where numbers were comparable across sample types (Supplementary Fig. S1 online).Bioinformatic processing (quality filtering, error correction, chimera removal, and clustering for metazoans) reduced read numbers to 20 million for COI, 12 million for 18S V1–V2, 11 million for 18S V4, and 10 million for 16S V4–V5, resulting in 10,351 and 17,608 raw OTUs for COI and 18S V1–V2 respectively; 35,538 raw 18S V4 ASVs, and 62,646 raw 16S ASVs (Supplementary Table S4 online). For eukaryote markers, 17–55% of the raw reads remained in PCR blanks after bioinformatic processing, while 50–75% remained in extraction blanks and 52–87% in true samples. In contrast, with 16S, these values were at 87% for PCR blanks, 67% for extraction blanks, and 29–73% for true samples. Thus, negative control samples accounted for 7–13% of bioinformatically processed reads with eukaryotes, compared to 27% with prokaryotes. The vast majority of 16S reads generated by negative controls belonged to a common contaminant of Phusion polymerase kits, which is well amplified in low concentration samples such as negative controls. These reads however accounted for  20 µm size class, and the sampling box targeting both the 2–20 µm and the 0.2–2 µm size classes, detected different community assemblages. For protists, the in situ pump detected higher proportions of ASVs for Bacillariophyta, Ciliophora, Labyrinthulea, or Phaeodarea, while the sampling box detected more cryptophytes, haptophytes, MAST, and telonemians (Fig. 3 18S V4). For prokaryotes, the sampling box detected more diversity in the Alphaproteobacteria, Chloroflexi, or Marinimicrobia (Fig. 3 16S V4–V5). More

1.Power, A. G. Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 365, 2959–2971 (2010).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
2.Huang, D.-Y. et al. New fossil insect order Permopsocida elucidates major radiation and evolution of suction feeding in hemimetabolous insects (Hexapoda: Acercaria). Sci. Rep. 6, 23004 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Grimaldi, D. A., Peñalver, E., Barrón, E., Herhold, H. W. & Engel, M. S. Direct evidence for eudicot pollen-feeding in a Cretaceous stinging wasp (Angiospermae; Hymenoptera, Aculeata) preserved in Burmese amber. Commun. Biol. 2, 408 (2019).4.Bao, T., Wang, B., Li, J. & Dilcher, D. Pollination of Cretaceous flowers. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 24707–24711 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
5.Peris, D. et al. Generalist pollen-feeding beetles during the mid-Cretaceous. iScience 23, 100913 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Ahrens, D., Schwarzer, J. & Vogler, A. P. The evolution of scarab beetles tracks the sequential rise of angiosperms and mammals. Proc. R. Soc. B 281, 20141470 (2014).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
7.Farrell, B. D. ‘Inordinate fondness’ explained: why are there so many beetles? Science 281, 555–559 (1998).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
8.Faegri, K. & van der Pijl, L. The Principles of Pollination Ecology (Pergamon, 1979).9.Poinar, G., Lambert, J. B. & Wu, Y. Araucarian source of fossiliferous Burmese amber: spectroscopic and anatomical evidence. J. Bot. Res. Inst. Tex. 1, 449–455 (2007).
Google Scholar 
10.Davies, E. H. Palynological Analysis and Age Assignments of Two Burmese Amber Sample Sets (Branta Biostratigraphy for Leeward Capital, 2001).11.Barrón, E. et al. Palynology of Aptian and upper Albian (lower Cretaceous) amber-bearing outcrops of the southern margin of the Basque-Cantabrian basin (northern Spain). Cretac. Res. 52, 292–312 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Azar, D., Dejax, J. & Masure, E. Palynological analysis of amber-bearing clay from the lower Cretaceous of central Lebanon. Acta Geol. Sin. Engl. Ed. 85, 942–949 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Barrón, E., Comas-Rengifo, M. J. & Elorza, L. Contribuciones al estudio palinológico del Cretácico Inferior de la Cuenca Vasco-Cantábrica: los afloramientos ambarigenos de Peñacerrada (España). Coloq. Paleontol. 52, 135–156 (2001).
Google Scholar 
14.Cai, C. et al. Basal polyphagan beetles in mid-Cretaceous amber from Myanmar: biogeographic implications and long-term morphological stasis. Proc. R. Soc. B 286, 20182175 (2019).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
15.Mao, Y. Y. et al. Various amberground marine animals on Burmese amber with discussions on its age. Palaeoentomology 1, 91–103 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Shi, G. et al. Age constraint on Burmese amber based on U–Pb dating of zircons. Cretac. Res. 37, 155–163 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Yu, T. et al. An ammonite trapped in Burmese amber. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 11345–11350 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
18.Jelínek, J. & Cline, A. R. in Handbook of Zoology, Arthropoda: Insecta, Coleoptera, Beetles Morphology and Systematics (eds Leschen, R. A. B. et al.) Vol. 2 386–390 (Walter De Gruyter, 2010).19.Hisamatsu, S. A review of the Japanese Kateretidae fauna (Coleoptera: Cucujoidea). Acta Entomol. Musei Natl Pragae 36, 551–585 (2011).
Google Scholar 
20.Peris, D. & Jelínek, J. Atypical short elytra in Cretaceous short-winged flower beetles (Coleoptera: Kateretidae). Palaeoentomology 2, 505–514 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Peris, D. & Jelínek, J. Syninclusions of two new species of short-winged flower beetle (Coleoptera: Kateretidae) in mid-Cretaceous Kachin amber (Myanmar). Cretac. Res. 106, 104264 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Poinar, G. & Brown, A. E. Furcalabratum burmanicum gen. et sp. nov., a short-winged flower beetle (Coleoptera: Kateretidae) in mid-Cretaceous Myanmar amber. Cretac. Res. 84, 240–244 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Kirejtshuk, A. G. New species of nitidulid beetles (Coleoptera, Nitidulidae) of the Australian region. Entomol. Obozr. 65, 559–573 (1986).
Google Scholar 
24.Timerman, D., Greene, D. F., Ackerman, J. D., Kevan, P. G. & Nardone, E. Pollen aggregation in relation to pollination vector. Int. J. Plant Sci. 175, 681–687 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Thomson, P. W. & Pflug, H. D. Pollen und sporen des mitteleuropäischen Tertiärs. Palaeontogr. Abt. B 94, 1–138 (1953).
Google Scholar 
26.Tekleva, M. V. & Maslova, N. P. A diverse pollen assemblage found on Friisicarpus infructescences (Platanaceae) from the Cenomanian–Turonian of Kazakhstan. Cretac. Res. 57, 131–141 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Takahashi, K. Upper Cretaceous and lower Paleogene microfloras of Japan. Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol. 5, 227–234 (1967).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Nadel, H., Peña, J. E. & Peña, J. E. Identity, behavior, and efficacy of nitidulid beetles (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae) pollinating commercial Annona species in Florida. Environ. Entomol. 23, 878–886 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Sakai, S. A review of brood-site pollination mutualism: plants providing breeding sites for their pollinators. J. Plant Res. 115, 0161–0168 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Williams, G. & Adam, P. A review of rainforest pollination and plant–pollinator interactions with particular reference to Australian subtropical rainforests. Aust. Zool. 29, 177–212 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Klavins, S. D., Kellogg, D. W., Krings, M., Taylor, E. L. & Taylor, T. N. Coprolites in a Middle Triassic cycad pollen cone: evidence for insect pollination in early cycads? Evol. Ecol. Res. 7, 479–488 (2005).
Google Scholar 
32.Chadwick, C. E., Stevenson, D. W. & Norstog, K. J. The roles of Tranes lyterioides and T. sparsus Boh. (Col., Curculiodidae) in the pollination of Macrozamia communis (Zamiaceae). In The Biology, Structure, and Systematics of the Cycadales: Proc. CYCAD 90, the 2nd International Conference on Cycad Biology (eds. Stevenson, D. W. & Norstog, K. J.) 77–88 (Palm & Cycad Societies of Australia, 1993).33.Post, D. C., Page, R. E. & Erickson, E. H. Honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) queen feces: source of a pheromone that repels worker bees. J. Chem. Ecol. 13, 583–591 (1987).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
34.Weiss, H. B. & Boyd, W. M. Insect feculæ. J. N. Y. Entomol. Soc. 58, 154–168 (1950).
Google Scholar 
35.Lancucka-Srodoniowa, M. Tertiary coprolites imitating fruits of the Araliaceae. Acta Soc. Bot. Pol. 33, 469–473 (1964).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Scott, A. C. Trace fossils of plant–arthropod interactions. Short Courses Paleontol. 5, 197–223 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Weiss, H. B. & Boyd, W. M. Insect feculæ, II. J. N. Y. Entomol. Soc. 60, 25–30 (1952).
Google Scholar 
38.Parker, F. D., Tepedino, V. J. & Bohart, G. E. Notes on the biology of a common sunflower bee, Melissodes (Eumelissodes) agilis Cresson. J. N. Y. Entomol. Soc. 89, 43–52 (1981).
Google Scholar 
39.Sarzetti, L. C., Labandeira, C. C. & Genise, J. F. Reply to: Melittosphex (Hymenoptera: Melittosphecidae), a primitive bee and not a wasp. Palaeontology 52, 484 (2008).
Google Scholar 
40.Ohl, M. & Engel, M. S. Die Fossilgeschichte der Bienen und ihrer nächsten Verwandten (Hymenoptera: Apoidea). Denisia 20, 687–700 (2007).
Google Scholar 
41.Pant, D. D. & Singh, R. Preliminary observations on insect–plant relationships in Allahabad plants of Cycas. Palms Cycads 32, 10–14 (1990).
Google Scholar 
42.Labandeira, C. C. The paleobiology of pollination and its precursors. Paleontol. Soc. Pap. 6, 233–270 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Procheş, Ş. & Johnson, S. D. Beetle pollination of the fruit-scented cones of the South African cycad Stangeria eriopus. Am. J. Bot. 96, 1722–1730 (2009).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
44.Tarno, H. et al. Types of frass produced by the ambrosia beetle Platypus quercivorus during gallery construction, and host suitability of five tree species for the beetle. J. For. Res. 16, 68–75 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Friis, E. M., Pedersen, K. R. & Crane, P. R. Fossil floral structures of a basal angiosperm with monocolpate, reticulate-acolumellate pollen from the Early Cretaceous of Portugal. Grana 39, 226–239 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Nambudiri, E. M. V. & Binda, P. L. Dicotyledonous fruits associated with coprolites from the upper Cretaceous (Maastrichtian) Whitemud Formation, southern Saskatchewan, Canada. Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol. 59, 57–66 (1989).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Lupia, R., Herendeen, P. S. & Keller, J. A. A new fossil flower and associated coprolites: evidence for angiosperm–insect interactions in the Santonian (Late Cretaceous) of Georgia, U.S.A. Int. J. Plant Sci. 163, 675–686 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Zhang, L. et al. The water lily genome and the early evolution of flowering plants. Nature 577, 79–84 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Coiro, M., Doyle, J. A. & Hilton, J. How deep is the conflict between molecular and fossil evidence on the age of angiosperms? New Phytol. 223, 83–99 (2019).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
50.Liu, Z.-J., Huang, D., Cai, C. & Wang, X. The core eudicot boom registered in Myanmar amber. Sci. Rep. 8, 16765 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
51.Friis, E. M. & Pedersen, K. R. in Palynology: Principles and Applications (ed. Jansonius, J.) 409–426 (American Association of Stratigraphic Palynologists Foundation, 1996).52.Schönenberger, J. & Friis, E. M. Fossil flowers of ericalean affinity from the Late Cretaceous of southern Sweden. Am. J. Bot. 88, 467–480 (2001).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
53.The Angiosperm Phylogeny Group et al. An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG IV. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 181, 1–20 (2016).54.Peris, D. et al. False blister beetles and the expansion of gymnosperm–insect pollination modes before angiosperm dominance. Curr. Biol. 27, 897–904 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
55.Cai, C. et al. Beetle pollination of cycads in the Mesozoic. Curr. Biol. 28, 2806–2812 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar  More

1.De Kauwe, M. G. et al. Do land surface models need to include differential plant species responses to drought? Examining model predictions across a mesic-xeric gradient in Europe. Biogeosciences 12, 7503–7518 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Smith, N. G. & Keenan, T. F. Mechanisms underlying leaf photosynthetic acclimation to warming and elevated CO2 as inferred from least‐cost optimality theory. Global Change Biol. 26, 5202–5216 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Farquhar, G. D., von Caemmerer, S. & Berry, J. A. A biochemical model of photosynthetic CO2 assimilation in leaves of C3 species. Planta 149, 78–90 (1980).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
4.Wullschleger, S. D. Biochemical limitations to carbon assimilation in C3 plants—a retrospective analysis of the A/Ci curves from 109 Species. J. Exp. Bot. 44, 907–920 (1993).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Lloyd, J., Bloomfield, K., Domingues, T. F. & Farquhar, G. D. Photosynthetically relevant foliar traits correlating better on a mass vs an area basis: of ecophysiological relevance or just a case of mathematical imperatives and statistical quicksand? New Phytol. 199, 311–321 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
6.De Kauwe, M. G. et al. A test of the ‘one-point method’ for estimating maximum carboxylation capacity from field-measured, light-saturated photosynthesis. New Phytol. 210, 1130–1144 (2015).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
7.Ferreira Domingues, T. et al. Biome-specific effects of nitrogen and phosphorus on the photosynthetic characteristics of trees at a forest-savanna boundary in Cameroon. Oecologia 178, 659–672 (2015).PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Domingues, T. F. et al. Co-limitation of photosynthetic capacity by nitrogen and phosphorus in West Africa woodlands. Plant, Cell Environ. 33, 959–980 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Walker, A. P. et al. The relationship of leaf photosynthetic traits -VcmaxandJmax- to leaf nitrogen, leaf phosphorus, and specific leaf area: a meta-analysis and modeling study. Ecol. Evol. 4, 3218–3235 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Wang, H. et al. Towards a universal model for carbon dioxide uptake by plants. Nat. Plants 3, 734–741 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
11.Smith, N. G. et al. Global photosynthetic capacity is optimized to the environment. Ecol. Lett. 22, 506–517 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Prentice, I. C., Dong, N., Gleason, S. M., Maire, V. & Wright, I. J. Balancing the costs of carbon gain and water transport: testing a new theoretical framework for plant functional ecology. Ecol. Lett. 17, 82–91 (2014).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
13.Givnish, T. J. On the Economy of Plant Form and Function: Proceedings of the Sixth Maria Moors Cabot Symposium, Vol. 6 (Cambridge University Press, 1986).14.Maire, V. et al. Global effects of soil and climate on leaf photosynthetic traits and rates. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 24, 706–717 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Franklin, O. et al. Organizing principles for vegetation dynamics. Nat. Plants 6, 444–453 (2020).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
16.Ali, A. A. et al. A global scale mechanistic model of photosynthetic capacity (LUNA V1.0). Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 587–606 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Dewar, R. et al. New insights into the covariation of stomatal, mesophyll and hydraulic conductances from optimization models incorporating nonstomatal limitations to photosynthesis. New Phytol. 217, 571–585 (2017).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
18.Caldararu, S., Thum, T., Yu, L. & Zaehle, S. Whole-plant optimality predicts changes in leaf nitrogen under variable CO 2 and nutrient availability. New Phytol. 225, 2331–2346 (2019).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
19.Wright, I. J. et al. The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature 428, 821–827 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Wang, H. et al. The China Plant Trait Database: toward a comprehensive regional compilation of functional traits for land plants. Ecology 99, 500–500 (2017).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
21.Wang, H. et al. Photosynthetic responses to altitude: an explanation based on optimality principles. New Phytol. 213, 976–982 (2016).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
22.Lavergne, A. et al. Historical changes in the stomatal limitation of photosynthesis: empirical support for an optimality principle. New Phytol. 225, 2484–2497 (2019).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
23.Maire, V. et al. The coordination of leaf photosynthesis links C and N fluxes in C3 plant species. PLoS ONE 7, e38345 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Fürstenau Togashi, H. et al. Thermal acclimation of leaf photosynthetic traits in an evergreen woodland, consistent with the coordination hypothesis. Biogeosciences 15, 3461–3474 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
25.Kumarathunge, D. P. et al. Acclimation and adaptation components of the temperature dependence of plant photosynthesis at the global scale. New Phytol. 222, 768–784 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
26.Wright, I. J., Reich, P. B. & Westoby, M. Strategy shifts in leaf physiology, structure and nutrient content between species of high- and low-rainfall and high- and low-nutrient habitats. Funct. Ecol. 15, 423–434 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Rogers, A. The use and misuse of V c,max in earth system models. Photosynth. Res. 119, 15–29 (2013).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
28.Dong, N. et al. Leaf nitrogen from first principles: field evidence for adaptive variation with climate. Biogeosciences 14, 481–495 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Reich, P. B. & Schoettle, A. W. Role of phosphorus and nitrogen in photosynthetic and whole plant carbon gain and nutrient use efficiency in eastern white pine. Oecologia 77, 25–33 (1988).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
30.Raaimakers, D., Boot, R. G. A., Dijkstra, P. & Pot, S. Photosynthetic rates in relation to leaf phosphorus content in pioneer versus climax tropical rainforest trees. Oecologia 102, 120–125 (1995).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
31.Goll, D. S. et al. Nutrient limitation reduces land carbon uptake in simulations with a model of combined carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus cycling. Biogeosciences 9, 3547–3569 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Reich, P. B., Oleksyn, J. & Wright, I. J. Leaf phosphorus influences the photosynthesis–nitrogen relation: a cross-biome analysis of 314 species. Oecologia 160, 207–212 (2009).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
33.Evans, J. R. Photosynthesis and nitrogen relationships in leaves of C3 plants. Oecologia 78, 9–19 (1989).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
34.Reich, P. B., Walters, M. B., Ellsworth, D. S. & Uhl, C. Photosynthesis-nitrogen relations in Amazonian tree species. Oecologia 97, 62–72 (1994).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
35.Kattge, J., Knorr, W., Raddatz, T. & Wirth, C. Quantifying photosynthetic capacity and its relationship to leaf nitrogen content for global-scale terrestrial biosphere models. Global Change Biol. 15, 976–991 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Evans, J. R. & Clarke, V. C. The nitrogen cost of photosynthesis. J. Exp. Bot. 70, 7–15 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
37.Marschner, H. in Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants, 405–435 (Elsevier, 1995).38.Niinemets, Ü., Wright, I. J. & Evans, J. R. Leaf mesophyll diffusion conductance in 35 Australian sclerophylls covering a broad range of foliage structural and physiological variation. J. Exp. Bot. 60, 2433–2449 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
39.Malhi, Y. et al. The variation of productivity and its allocation along a tropical elevation gradient: a whole carbon budget perspective. New Phytol. 214, 1019–1032 (2016).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
40.Wang, H. et al. Acclimation of leaf respiration consistent with optimal photosynthetic capacity. Global Change Biol. 26, 2573–2583 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Peng, Y., Bloomfield, K. J. & Prentice, I. C. A theory of plant function helps to explain leaf-trait and productivity responses to elevation. New Phytol. 226, 1274–1284, (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
42.Gvozdevaite, A. et al. Leaf-level photosynthetic capacity dynamics in relation to soil and foliar nutrients along forest–savanna boundaries in Ghana and Brazil. Tree Physiol. 38, 1912–1925 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
43.Terrer, C. et al. Nitrogen and phosphorus constrain the CO 2 fertilization of global plant biomass. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 684–689 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Meir, P. et al. in Advances in Photosynthesis and Respiration, 89–105 (Springer International Publishing, 2017).45.Luo, X. & Keenan, T. F. Global evidence for the acclimation of ecosystem photosynthesis to light. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1351–1357 (2020).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
46.Stocker, B. D. et al. P-model v1.0: an optimality-based light use efficiency model for simulating ecosystem gross primary production. Geosci. Model Dev. 13, 1545–1581 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Lavergne, A., Sandoval, D., Hare, V. J., Graven, H. & Prentice, I. C. Impacts of soil water stress on the acclimated stomatal limitation of photosynthesis: insights from stable carbon isotope data. Global Change Biol. 26, 7158–7172 (2020).48.Zhou, S., Duursma, R. A., Medlyn, B. E., Kelly, J. W. G. & Prentice, I. C. How should we model plant responses to drought? An analysis of stomatal and non-stomatal responses to water stress. Agric. For. Meteorol. 182-183, 204–214 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Zhou, S. et al. Short-term water stress impacts on stomatal, mesophyll and biochemical limitations to photosynthesis differ consistently among tree species from contrasting climates. Tree Physiol. 34, 1035–1046 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
50.Katul, G., Manzoni, S., Palmroth, S. & Oren, R. A stomatal optimization theory to describe the effects of atmospheric CO2 on leaf photosynthesis and transpiration. Ann. Bot. 105, 431–442 (2009).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Manzoni, S. et al. Optimizing stomatal conductance for maximum carbon gain under water stress: a meta-analysis across plant functional types and climates. Funct. Ecol. 25, 456–467 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Medlyn, B. E. et al. Reconciling the optimal and empirical approaches to modelling stomatal conductance. Global Change Biol. 17, 2134–2144 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Crous, K. Y. et al. Photosynthesis of temperate Eucalyptus globulus trees outside their native range has limited adjustment to elevated CO2 and climate warming. Global Change Biol. 19, 3790–3807 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Zhou, S.-X., Medlyn, B. E. & Prentice, I. C. Long-term water stress leads to acclimation of drought sensitivity of photosynthetic capacity in xeric but not riparian Eucalyptus species. Ann. Bot. 117, 133–144 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
55.Smith, N. G. & Dukes, J. S. Short-term acclimation to warmer temperatures accelerates leaf carbon exchange processes across plant types. Global Change Biol. 23, 4840–4853 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Katul, G., Leuning, R. & Oren, R. Relationship between plant hydraulic and biochemical properties derived from a steady‐state coupled water and carbon transport model. Plant, Cell Environ. 26, 339–350 (2003).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Stocker, B. D. et al. Quantifying soil moisture impacts on light use efficiency across biomes. New Phytol. 218, 1430–1449 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Kattge, J. & Knorr, W. Temperature acclimation in a biochemical model of photosynthesis: a reanalysis of data from 36 species. Plant, Cell Environ. 30, 1176–1190 (2007).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
59.van der Plas, F. et al. Plant traits alone are poor predictors of ecosystem properties and long-term ecosystem functioning. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1602–1611 (2020).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
60.Quesada, M. et al. Succession and management of tropical dry forests in the Americas: review and new perspectives. For. Ecol. Manag. 258, 1014–1024 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Phillips, O. L. et al. Drought–mortality relationships for tropical forests. New Phytol. 187, 631–646 (2010).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
62.Laliberté, E., Lambers, H., Burgess, T. I. & Wright, S. J. Phosphorus limitation, soil-borne pathogens and the coexistence of plant species in hyperdiverse forests and shrublands. New Phytol. 206, 507–521 (2014).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
63.Conroy, J. P., Smillie, R. M., Küppers, M., Bevege, D. I. & Barlow, E. W. Chlorophyll a fluorescence and photosynthetic and growth responses of pinus radiata to phosphorus deficiency, drought stress, and high CO2. Plant Physiol. 81, 423–429 (1986).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Loustau, D., Brahim, M. B., Gaudillere, J. P. & Dreyer, E. Photosynthetic responses to phosphorus nutrition in two-year-old maritime pine seedlings. Tree Physiol. 19, 707–715 (1999).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
65.Warren, C. R. & Adams, M. A. Phosphorus affects growth and partitioning of nitrogen to Rubisco in Pinus pinaster. Tree Physiol. 22, 11–19 (2002).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
66.Bloomfield, K. J., Farquhar, G. D. & Lloyd, J. Photosynthesis–nitrogen relationships in tropical forest tree species as affected by soil phosphorus availability: a controlled environment study. Funct. Plant Biol. 41, 820–832 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
67.Crous, K. Y., Ósvaldsson, A. & Ellsworth, D. S. Is phosphorus limiting in a mature Eucalyptus woodland? Phosphorus fertilisation stimulates stem growth. Plant Soil 391, 293–305 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Sivak, M. N. & Walker, D. A. Photosynthesis in vivo can be limited by phosphate supplY. New Phytol. 102, 499–512 (1986).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Kiirats, O., Cruz, J. A., Edwards, G. E. & Kramer, D. M. Feedback limitation of photosynthesis at high CO2 acts by modulating the activity of the chloroplast ATP synthase. Funct. Plant Biol. 36, 893–901 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
70.Ellsworth, D. S., Crous, K. Y., Lambers, H. & Cooke, J. Phosphorus recycling in photorespiration maintains high photosynthetic capacity in woody species. Plant, Cell Environ. 38, 1142–1156 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Zhang, S. & Dang, Q. L. Effects of carbon dioxide concentration and nutrition on photosynthetic functions of white birch seedlings. Tree Physiol. 26, 1457–1467 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
72.Lambers, H. et al. Proteaceae from severely phosphorus-impoverished soils extensively replace phospholipids with galactolipids and sulfolipids during leaf development to achieve a high photosynthetic phosphorus-use-efficiency. New Phytol. 196, 1098–1108 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
73.Meir, P., Levy, P. E., Grace, J. & Jarvis, P. G. Photosynthetic parameters from two contrasting woody vegetation types in West Africa. Plant Ecol. 192, 277–287 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
74.Kull, O. Acclimation of photosynthesis in canopies: models and limitations. Oecologia 133, 267–279 (2002).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
75.Field, C. & Mooney, H. in On the Economy of Plant Form and Function: Proceedings of the Sixth Maria Moors Cabot Symposium, Evolutionary Constraints on Primary Productivity, Adaptive Patterns of Energy Capture in Plants, Harvard Forest, August 1983 (Cambridge University Press, 1986).76.Niinemets, Ü. Research review. Components of leaf dry mass per area – thickness and density – alter leaf photosynthetic capacity in reverse directions in woody plants. New Phytol. 144, 35–47 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
77.Lloyd, J. et al. Optimisation of photosynthetic carbon gain and within-canopy gradients of associated foliar traits for Amazon forest trees. Biogeosciences 7, 1833–1859 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
78.Anten, N. P. R. Optimal photosynthetic characteristics of individual plants in vegetation stands and implications for species coexistence. Ann. Bot. 95, 495–506 (2004).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
79.Alton, P. B. & North, P. Interpreting shallow, vertical nitrogen profiles in tree crowns: a three-dimensional, radiative-transfer simulation accounting for diffuse sunlight. Agric. For. Meteorol. 145, 110–124 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
80.Rogers, A. et al. A roadmap for improving the representation of photosynthesis in Earth system models. New Phytol. 213, 22–42 (2017).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
81.Tosens, T. & Laanisto, L. Mesophyll conductance and accurate photosynthetic carbon gain calculations. J. Exp. Bot. 69, 5315–5318 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
82.Niinemets, Ü., Díaz-Espejo, A., Flexas, J., Galmés, J. & Warren, C. R. Importance of mesophyll diffusion conductance in estimation of plant photosynthesis in the field. J. Exp. Bot. 60, 2271–2282 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
83.Farquhar, G. D., O’Leary, M. H. & Berry, J. A. On the relationship between carbon isotope discrimination and the intercellular carbon dioxide concentration in leaves. Funct. Plant Biol. 9, 121–137 (1982).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
84.Bernacchi, C. J., Singsaas, E. L., Pimentel, C., Portis, A. R. Jr & Long, S. P. Improved temperature response functions for models of Rubisco-limited photosynthesis. Plant, Cell Environ. 24, 253–259 (2001).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
85.Bernacchi, C. J., Pimentel, C. & Long, S. P. In vivo temperature response functions of parameters required to model RuBP-limited photosynthesis. Plant, Cell Environ. 26, 1419–1430 (2003).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
86.Scafaro, A. P. et al. Strong thermal acclimation of photosynthesis in tropical and temperate wet-forest tree species: the importance of altered Rubisco content. Global Change Biol. 23, 2783–2800 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
87.Warton, D. I., Wright, I. J., Falster, D. S. & Westoby, M. Bivariate line-fitting methods for allometry. Biol. Rev. 81, 259–291 (2006).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
88.Team, R. C. R.: a Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2018).89.Atkin, O. K. et al. Global variability in leaf respiration in relation to climate, plant functional types and leaf traits. New Phytol. 206, 614–636 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
90.Bahar, N. H. A. et al. Leaf-level photosynthetic capacity in lowland Amazonian and high-elevation Andean tropical moist forests of Peru. New Phytol. 214, 1002–1018 (2016).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
91.Bloomfield, K. J. et al. The validity of optimal leaf traits modelled on environmental conditions. New Phytol. 221, 1409–1423 (2018).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
92.Cernusak, L. A., Hutley, L. B., Beringer, J., Holtum, J. A. M. & Turner, B. L. Photosynthetic physiology of eucalypts along a sub-continental rainfall gradient in northern Australia. Agric. For. Meteorol. 151, 1462–1470 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
93.Xu, H. Y., et al. Predictability of leaf traits with climate and elevation: a case study in Gongga Mountain, China. Tree Physiol. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpab003 (2021).94.Walker, A. P., et al. A Global Data Set of Leaf Photosynthetic Rates, Leaf N and P, and Specific Leaf Area (Oak Ridge National Laboratory Distributed Active Archive Center, 2014). https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/1224.95.Kattge, J. et al. TRY–a global database of plant traits. Global Change Biol. 17, 2905–2935 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
96.Collatz, G. J., Ribas-Carbo, M. & Berry, J. A. Coupled photosynthesis-stomatal conductance model for leaves of C4 plants. Funct. Plant Biol. 19, 519 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
97.Rogers, A., Serbin, S. P., Ely, K. S., Sloan, V. L. & Wullschleger, S. D. Terrestrial biosphere models underestimate photosynthetic capacity and CO2 assimilation in the Arctic. New Phytol. 216, 1090–1103 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
98.Burnett, A. C., Davidson, K. J., Serbin, S. P. & Rogers, A. The “one‐point method” for estimating maximum carboxylation capacity of photosynthesis: a cautionary tale. Plant, Cell Environ. 42, 2472–2481 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
99.Harris, I., Jones, P. D., Osborn, T. J. & Lister, D. H. Updated high-resolution grids of monthly climatic observations–the CRU TS3.10 Dataset. Int. J. Climatol. 34, 623–642 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
100.Jones, H. G. Plants and Microclimate (Cambridge University Press, 2009).101.Weedon, G. P. et al. The WFDEI meteorological forcing data set: WATCH forcing data methodology applied to ERA-interim reanalysis data. Water Resour. Res. 50, 7505–7514 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
102.Davis, T. W. et al. Simple process-led algorithms for simulating habitats (SPLASH v.1.0): robust indices of radiation, evapotranspiration and plant-available moisture. Geosci. Model Dev. 10, 689–708 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
103.Berberan-Santos, M. N., Bodunov, E. N. & Pogliani, L. On the barometric formula. Am. J. Phys. 65, 404–412 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
104.Peng, Y., et al. Dataset of Global Climate and Nutrient Controls of Photosynthetic Capacity (Zenodo, 2021). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4568148. More