Ecology

M.J.A.C. was funded by NWO-Veni grant 181002. R.A. was funded by Rohini Nilekani Philanthropies. T.A. was supported by the project UMBRAL CTM2017-86695-C3-3- R. J.F.P. was funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement no. 795315. More

1.Bullock, J. M., Kenward, R. E. & Hails, R. S. Dispersal Ecology (Blackwell, 2002).
Google Scholar 
2.Dieckmann, U., O’Hara, B. & Weisser, W. The evolutionary Ecology Of Dispersal. Trends Ecol. Evol. 14, 88–90 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Allendorf, F. W. & Luikart, G. Conservation and the Genetics of Populations (Blackwell Publishing, 2009).
Google Scholar 
4.Vøllestad, L. A. et al. Small-scale dispersal and population structure in stream-living brown trout (Salmo trutta) inferred by mark–recapture, pedigree reconstruction, and population genetics. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 69, 1513–1524 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Edelsparre, A. H., Shahid, A. & Fitzpatrick, M. J. Habitat connectivity is determined by the scale of habitat loss and dispersal strategy. Ecol. Evol. 8, 5508–5514 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Filipe, A. F. et al. Forecasting fish distribution along stream networks: Brown trout (Salmo trutta) in Europe. Divers. Distrib. 19, 1059–1071 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Cote, J., Clobert, J., Brodin, T., Fogarty, S. & Sih, A. Personality-dependent dispersal: Characterization, ontogeny and consequences for spatially structured populations. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B. 365, 4065–4076 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Cote, J. et al. Evolution of dispersal strategies and dispersal syndromes in fragmented landscapes. Ecography 40, 56–73 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Comte, L. & Olden, J. D. Fish dispersal in flowing waters: A synthesis of movement- and genetic-based studies. Fish Fish. 19, 1063–1077 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Ducatez, S. et al. Inter-individual variation in movement: is there a mobility syndrome in the large white butterfly Pieris brassicae?. Ecol. Entomol. 37, 377–385 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Clobert, E., Le Galliard, J. F., Cote, J., Meylan, S. & Massot, M. Informed dispersal, heterogeneity in animal dispersal syndromes and the dynamics of spatially structured populations. Ecol. Lett. 12, 197–209 (2009).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Stevens, V. M. et al. Dispersal syndromes and the use of life-histories to predict dispersal. Evol. Appl. 6, 630–642 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Daufresne, M., Capra, H. & Gaudin, P. Downstream displacement of post emergent brown trout: Effects of development stage and water velocity. J. Fish Biol. 67, 599–614 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Chapman, D. W. Aggressive behaviour in juvenile coho salmon as a cause of emigration. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 19, 1047–1079 (1962).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.McCarthy, I. D. Competitive ability is related to metabolic asymmetry in juvenile rainbow trout. J. Fish Biol. 59, 1002–1014 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Metcalfe, N. B., Taylor, A. C. & Thorpe, J. E. Metabolic rate, social status and life-history strategies in Atlantic salmon. Anim. Behav. 49, 431–436 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Lahti, K., Huuskonen, H., Laurila, A. & Piironen, J. Metabolic rate and aggressiveness between Brown Trout populations. Funct. Ecol. 16, 167–174 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Fraser, D. J., Weir, L. K., Darwish, T. L., Eddington, J. D. & Hutchings, J. A. Divergent compensatory growth responses within species: Linked to contrasting migrations in salmon?. Oecologia 153, 543–553 (2007).PubMed 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
19.Swain, D. P. & Holtby, L. B. Differences in morphology and agonistic behaviour in coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) rearing in a lake or its tributary stream. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 46, 1406–1414 (1989).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Kaiser, A., Merckx, T. & Van Dyck, H. Personality traits influence contest outcome, and vice versa, in a territorial butterfly. Sci. Rep. 9, 2778 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
21.Studds, C. E., Kyser, T. K. & Marra, P. P. Natal dispersal driven by environmental conditions interacting across the annual cycle of a migratory songbird. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 105, 2929–2933 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
22.Behr, D. M., McNutt, J. W., Ozgul, A. & Cozzi, G. When to stay and when to leave? Proximate causes of dispersal in an endangered social carnivore. J. Anim. Ecol. 89, 2356–2366. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.13300 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
23.Keenleyside, M. H. & Yamamoto, F. T. Territorial behaviour of juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.). Behaviour 19, 139–169 (1962).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Duckworth, R. A. & Badyaev, A. V. Coupling of dispersal and aggression facilitates the the rapid range expansion of a passerine bird. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 104, 15017–15022 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
25.Peery, C. A. & Bjornn, T. C. Dispersal of hatchery-reared chinook salmon parr following release into four Idaho streams. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 20, 19–27 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Nagata, M. & Irvine, J. R. Differential dispersal patterns of male and female masu salmon fry. J. Fish Biol. 51, 601–606 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Li, X.-Y. & Kokko, H. Sex-biased dispersal: A review of the theory. Biol. Rev. 94, 721–736. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12475 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
28.Hutchings, J. A. & Gerber, L. Sex-biased dispersal in a salmonid fish. Proc. R. Soc. B. 269, 2487–2493. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2002.2176 (2002).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
29.Bekkevold, D., Hansen, M. M. & Mensberg, K.-L.D. Genetic detection of sex-specific dispersal in historical and contemporary populations of anadromous brown trout Salmo trutta. Mol. Ecol. 13, 1707–1712. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2004.02156.x (2004).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
30.Biro, P. A. & Stamps, J. A. Do consistent individual differences in metabolic rate promote consistent individual differences in behavior?. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 653–659 (2010).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Le Galliard, J. F., Paquet, M., Cisel, M. & Montes-Poloni, L. Personality and the pace-of-life syndrome: Variation and selection on exploration, metabolism and locomotor performances. Funct. Ecol. 27, 136–144 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Cano, J. M. & Nicieza, A. G. Temperature, metabolic rate, and constraints on locomotor performance in ectotherm vertebrates. Funct. Ecol. 20, 464–470 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Van Leeuwen, T. E., Rosenfeld, J. S. & Richards, J. G. Adaptive tradeoffs in juvenile salmonid metabolism associated with habitat partitioning between coho salmon and steelhead trout in coastal streams. J. Anim. Ecol. 80, 1012–1023 (2011).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Sundström, L. F., Petersson, E., Höjesjö, J., Johnsson, J. I. & Järvi, T. Hatchery selection promotes boldness in newly hatched brown trout (Salmo trutta): Implications for dominance. Behav. Ecol. 15, 192–198 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Clobert, J., Ims, R. A. & Rousset, F. Causes, mechanisms and consequences of dispersal. In Ecology, Genetics and Evolution of Metapopulations (eds Hanski, I. & Gaggiotti, O. E.) 307–336 (Elsevier Academic Press, 2004).
Google Scholar 
36.Bohlin, T., Sundström, L. F., Johnsson, J. I., Höjesjö, J. & Pettersson, J. Density-dependent growth in brown trout: Effects of introducing wild and hatchery fish. J. Anim. Ecol. 71, 683–692 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Gerking, S. D. The restricted movement of fish populations. Biol. Rev. 34, 221–242 (1959).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Rodríguez, M. A. Restricted movement in stream fish: The paradigm is incomplete, not lost. Ecology 83, 1–13 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Sánchez-González, J.-R. & Nicieza, A. G. Phenotypic convergence of artificially reared and wild trout is mediated by shape plasticity. Ecol. Evol. 7, 5922–5929 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Webb, P. W. Body form, locomotion and foraging in aquatic vertebrates. Am. Zool. 24, 107–120 (1984).Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Blake, R. W. Fish functional design and swimming performance. J. Fish Biol. 65, 1193–1222 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Lowe, W. H. What drives long-distance dispersal? A test of theoretical predictions. Ecology 90, 1456–1462 (2009).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Nicieza, A. G. Morphological variation between geographically disjunct populations of Atlantic salmon: The effects of ontogeny and habitat shift. Funct. Ecol. 9, 448–456 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Billman, E. J. et al. Body morphology differs in wild juvenile Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha that express different migratory phenotypes in the Willamette River, Oregon, USA. J. Fish Biol. 85, 1097–1110. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12482 (2014).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
45.Langerhans, R. B. & Reznick, D. N. Ecology and Evolution of Swimming Performance in Fishes: Predicting Evolution with Biomechanics. Fish Locomotion: An Ethoecological Perspective (Science Publishers, 2010).
Google Scholar 
46.Cano-Barbacil, C. et al. Key factors explaining critical swimming speed in freshwater fish: A review and statistical analysis for Iberian species. Sci. Rep. 10, 18947. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-75974-x (2020).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
47.Johnsson, J. I., Nöbbelin, F. & Bohlin, T. Territorial competition among wild brown trout fry: effects of ownership and body size. J. Fish Biol. 54, 469–472 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Deverill, J. I., Adams, C. E. & Bean, C. W. Prior residence, aggression and territory acquisition in hatchery-reared and wild brown trout. J. Fish Biol. 55, 868–875 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Weiss, S. & Schmutz, S. Performance of hatchery-reared brown trout and their effects on wild fish in two small Austrian streams. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 128, 302–316 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Fagan, W. F. Connectivity, fragmentation, and extinction risk in dendritic metapopulations. Ecology 83, 3243–3249 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Álvarez, D. & Nicieza, A. G. Is metabolic rate a reliable predictor of growth and survival of brown trout (Salmo trutta) in the wild?. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 62, 643–649 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Álvarez, D., Cano, J. M. & Nicieza, A. G. Microgeographic variation in metabolic rate and energy storage of brown trout: Countergradient selection or thermal sensitivity?. Evol. Ecol. 20, 345–363 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Valentin, A. E. et al. Arching effect on fish body shape in geometric morphometric studies. J. Fish Biol. 73, 623–638 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Leblanc, C. A. & Noakes, D. L. Visible Iiplant elastomer (VIE) tags for marking small rainbow trout. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 32, 716–719 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Rohlf, F. J. tpsDig2: A Program Digitize Landmarks and Outlines (Springer, 2013).
Google Scholar 
56.Zelditch, M. L., Swiderski, D. L., Sheets, H. D. & Fink, W. L. Geometric Morphometrics for Biologists: A Primer (Elsevier Academic Press, 2004).
Google Scholar 
57.Rohlf, F. J. tpsRelw: Relative Warps Analysis (Spinger, 2013).
Google Scholar 
58.Horton, R. E. Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins; hydrophysical approach to quantitative morphology. Bull. Geol. Soc. Am. 56, 275–370 (1945).Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Fraser, N. H. C., Metcalfe, N. B. & Thorpe, J. E. Temperature-dependent switch between diurnal and nocturnal foraging in salmon. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 252, 135–139 (1993).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
60.Contor, C. R. & Griffith, J. S. Nocturnal emergence of juvenile rainbow trout from winter concealment relative to light intensity. Hydrobiologia 299, 179–183 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Závorka, L., Aldvén, D., Näslund, J., Höjesjö, J. & Johnsson, J. I. Inactive trout come out at night: Behavioral variation, circadian activity, and fitness in the wild. Ecology 97, 2223–2231 (2016).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Lyon, J. P. et al. Efficiency of electrofishing in turbid lowland rivers: Implications for measuring temporal change in fish populations. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 71, 878–886 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Clark, P. J. & Evans, F. C. Distance to nearest neighbor as a measure of spatial relationships in populations. Ecology 35, 445–453 (1954).Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Baddeley, A. & Turner, R. spatstat: An R package for analyzing spatial point patterns. J. Stat. Softw. 12, 1–42 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Baddeley, A., Rubak, E. & Turner, R. Spatial Point Patterns: Methodology and Applications with R (Chapman & Hall/CRC Press Book, 2015).
Google Scholar 
66.R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R version 4.0.2: “Taking Off Again”. (2020).67.Venables, W. N. & Ripley, B. D. Modern Applied Statistics with S. (Springer, 2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-21706-268.Benjamini, Y. & Hochberg, Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Statist. Soc. B 57, 289–300 (1995).MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
69.Benjamini, Y. Discovering the false discovery rate. J. R. Stat. Soc. B 57, 405–416 (2010).MathSciNet 
MATH 
Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical information-theoretic approach. (Springer, 2002).
Google Scholar 
71.Symonds, M. R. E. & Moussalli, A. A brief guide to model selection, multimodel inference and model averaging in behavioural ecology using Akaike’s information criterion. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 65, 13–21 (2011).Article 

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

Google Scholar 
73.Richards, S. A., Whittingham, M. J. & Stephens, P. A. Model selection and model averaging in behavioural ecology: The utility of the IT-AIC framework. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 65, 77–89 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.Murray, N. J. et al. The global distribution and trajectory of tidal flats. Nature 565(7738), 222 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Bu, N. S. et al. Reclamation of coastal salt marshes promoted carbon loss from previously-sequestered soil carbon pool. Ecol. Eng. 81, 335–339 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Cui, B. S., He, Q., Gu, B. H., Bai, J. H. & Liu, X. H. China’s coastal wetlands: understanding environmental changes and human impacts for management and conservation. Wetlands 36(Suppl 1), S1–S9 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Cao, Z. Q. et al. Heavy metal pollution and the risk from tidal flat reclamation in coastal areas of Jiangsu, China. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 158, 111427 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Yin, A. J. et al. Salinity evolution of coastal soils following reclamation and intensive usage, Eastern China. Environ. Earth Sci. 75, 1281 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
6.Wang, W., Liu, H., Li, Y. Q. & Su, J. L. Development and management of land reclamation in China. Ocean Coast. Manage. 102, 415–425 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Laffoley, D. & Grimsditch, G. The Management of Natural Coastal Carbon Sinks (IUCN, 2009).
Google Scholar 
8.Cheong, S. et al. Coastal adaptation with ecological engineering. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 787–791 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Yang, W. et al. Seawall construction alters soil carbon and nitrogen dynamics and soil microbial biomass in an invasive Spartina alterniflora salt marsh in eastern China. Appl. Soil Ecol. 110, 1–11 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Ding, L. J., Su, J. Q., Li, H., Zhu, Y. G. & Cao, Z. H. Bacterial succession along a long-term chronosequence of paddy soil in the Yangtze River Delta, China. Soil Biol. Biochem. 104, 59–67 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Zhang, H. et al. Changes in surface soil organic/inorganic carbon concentrations and their driving forces in reclaimed coastal tidal flats. Geoderma 352, 150–159 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Han, G. X. et al. Agricultural reclamation effects on ecosystem CO2 exchange of a coastal wetland in the Yellow River Delta. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 196, 187–198 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Hargreaves, S. K. & Hofmockel, K. S. Physiological shifts in the microbial community drive changes in enzyme activity in a perennial agroecosystem. Biogeochemistry 117, 67–79 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Ramirez, K. S., Lauber, C. L., Knight, R., Bradford, M. A. & Fierer, N. Consistent effects of nitrogen fertilization on soil bacterial communities in contrasting systems. Ecology 91, 3463–3470 (2010).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
15.Rousk, J., Brookes, P. C. & Bååth, E. The microbial PLFA composition as affected by pH in an arable soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 42, 516–520 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Kamble, P. N., Gaikwad, V. B., Kuchekar, S. R. & Bååth, E. Microbial growth, biomass, community structure and nutrient limitation in high pH and salinity soils from Pravaranagar (India). Eur. J. Soil Biol. 65, 87–95 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Gao, Y. C. et al. Effects of salinization and crude oil contamination on soil bacterial community structure in the Yellow River Delta region, China. Appl. Soil Ecol. 86, 165–173 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Placella, S. A., Brodie, E. L. & Firestone, M. K. Rainfall – induced carbon oxide pulses results from sequential resuscitation of phylogenetically cluster microbial groups. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109, 10931–10936 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
19.Yuan, Y. et al. Responses of microbial community structure to land-use conversion and fertilization in southern China. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 70, 1–6 (2015).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Iost, S., Landgraf, D. & Makeschin, F. Chemical soil properties of reclaimed marsh soil from Zhejiang Province P.R. China. Geoderma 142, 245–250 (2007).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Yang, W. et al. Shift in soil organic carbon and nitrogen pools in different reclaimed lands following intensive coastal reclamation on the coasts of eastern China. Sci. Rep. 9, 5921 (2019).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
22.Assefa, D. et al. Deforestation and land use strongly effect soil organic carbon and nitrogen stock in Northwest Ethiopia. Catena 153, 89–99 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Chen, G. X., Gao, D. Z., Wang, Z. P. & Zeng, C. S. Contents of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus in sediments in aquaculture ponds for different reclamation years in Shanyutan wetlands and its pollution risk assessment. Wetland Sci. 15, 309–314 (2017).
Google Scholar 
24.Whitting, G. J. & Chanton, J. P. Greenhouse carbon balance of wetlands: methane emission versus carbon sequestration. Tellus B. 53, 521–528 (2001).ADS 

Google Scholar 
25.Wissing, L. et al. Management-induced organic carbon accumulation in paddy soils: the role of organo-mineral associations. Soil Tillage. Res. 126, 60–71 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Xing, W. L., Cheng, X. R., Xiong, J., Yuan, H. J. & Yu, M. K. Variations in soil biological properties in poplar plantations along coastal reclamation stages. Appl. Soil Ecol. 154, 103649 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Grybos, M., Davranche, M., Gruau, G., Petitjean, P. & Pedrot, M. Increasing pH drives organic matter solubilization from wetland soils under reducing conditions. Geoderma 154, 13–19 (2009).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Krishnamoorthy, R., Kim, K., Kim, C. & Sa, T. Changes of arbuscular mycorrhizal traits and community structure with respect to soil salinity in a coastal reclamation land. Soil Biol. Biochem. 72, 1–10 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Chodak, M., Gołębiewski, M., Morawska-Płoskonka, J., Kuduk, K. & Niklińska, M. Diversity of microorganisms from forest soils differently polluted with heavy metals. Appl. Soil Ecol. 64, 7–14 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Peay, K. G., Baraloto, C. & Fine, P. V. Strong coupling of plant and fungal community structure across western Amazonian rainforests. ISME J. 7, 1852–1861 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Santonja, M. et al. Plant litter mixture partly mitigates the negative effects of extended drought on soil biota and litter decomposition in a Mediterranean oak forest. J. Ecol. 105, 801–815 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Yang, W. et al. Response of the soil microbial community composition and biomass to a short-term Spartina alterniflora invasion in a coastal wetland of eastern China. Plant Soil 408, 443–456 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Anderson, C. R. et al. Biochar induced soil microbial community change: Implications for biogeochemical cycling of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus. Pedobiologia 54, 309–320 (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Mavi, M. S. & Marschner, P. Salinity affects the response of soil microbial activity and biomass to addition of carbon and nitrogen. Soil Res. 51, 68–75 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Xie, X. F. et al. Comparison of random forest and multiple linear regression models for estimation of soil extracellular enzyme activities in agricultural reclaimed coastal saline land. Ecol. Indic. 120, 106925 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Mohammad, M. J., Malkawi, H. I. & Shibli, R. Effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and phosphorus fertilization on growth and nutrient uptake of barley grown on soils with different levels of salts. J. Plant Nutr. 26, 125–137 (2003).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Cui, X. C., Hu, J. L., Wang, J. J., Yang, J. S. & Lin, X. G. Reclamation negatively influences arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal community structure and diversity in coastal saline-alkaline land in Eastern China as revealed by Illumina sequencing. Appl. Soil Ecol. 98, 140–149 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Guo, X. & Gong, J. Differential effects of abiotic factors and host plant traits on diversity and community composition of root-colonizing arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in a salt-stressed ecosystem. Mycorrhiza 24, 79–94 (2014).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Yamato, M., Yagame, T., Yoshimura, Y. & Iwase, K. Effect of environmental gradient in coastal vegetation on communities of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi associated with Ixeris repens (Asteraceae). Mycorrhiza 22, 622–630 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Strickland, M. S. & Rousk, J. Considering fungal :bacterial dominance in soils: Methods, controls, and ecosystem implications. Soil Biol. Biochem. 42, 1385–1395 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Collins, C. G., Stajich, J. E., Weber, S. E., Pombubpa, N. & Diez, J. M. Shrub range expansion alters diversity and distribution of soil fungal communities across an alpine elevation gradient. Mol. Ecol. 27, 2461–2476 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Yang, W. et al. Soil fungal communities vary with invasion by the exotic Spartina alternifolia Loisel. in coastal salt marshes of eastern China. Plant Soil 442, 215–232 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Yang, W. et al. Exotic Spartina alterniflora Loisel. invasion significantly shifts soil bacterial communities with the successional gradient of saltmarsh in eastern China. Plant Soil 449, 97–115 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Wang, C. et al. Responses of soil microbial community to continuous experimental nitrogen additions for 13 years in a nitrogen-rich tropical forest. Soil Biol. Biochem. 121, 103–112 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Högberg, M. N., Baath, E., Nordgren, A., Arnebrant, K. & Högberg, P. Contrasting effects of nitrogen availability on plant carbon supply to mycorrhizal fungi and saprotrophs: A hypothesis based on field observations in boreal forests. New Phytol. 160, 225–238 (2003).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
46.Joergensen, R. G. & Wichern, F. Quantitative assessment of the fungal contribution to microbial tissue in soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 40, 2977–2991 (2008).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Xu, S. Q. et al. Comparison of microbial community composition and diversity in native coastal wetlands and wetlands that have undergone long-term agricultural reclamation. Wetlands 37, 99–108 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Vangestel, M., Merckx, R. & Vlassak, K. Microbial biomass responses to soil drying and rewetting-the fate of fast-growing and slow-growing microorganisms in soils from different climates. Soil Biol. Biochem. 25, 109–123 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Farrell, M. Microbial utilisation of biochar-derived carbon. Sci. Total Environ. 465, 288–297 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
50.Luo, S. S. Aggregate-related changes in soil microbial communities under different ameliorant applications in saline-sodic soils. Geoderma 329, 108–117 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Tripathi, B. M. et al. Tropical soil bacterial communities in Malaysia: pH dominates in the equatorial tropics too. Microb. Ecol. 64, 474–484 (2012).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
52.Fierer, N. & Jackson, R. B. The diversity and biogeography of soil bacterial communities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103, 626–631 (2006).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
53.Huang, Y. M., Liu, D. & An, S. S. Effects of slope aspect on soil nitrogen and microbial properties in the Chinese Loess region. Catena 125, 135–145 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Bossio, D. A., Fleck, J. A., Scow, K. M. & Fujii, R. Alteration of soil microbial communities and water quality in restored wetlands. Soil Biol. Biochem. 38, 1223–1233 (2006).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Chang, E. H., Chen, C. P., Tian, G. L. & Chiu, C. Y. Replacement of natural hardwood forest with planted bamboo and cedar in a humid subtropical mountain affects soil microbial community. Appl. Soil Ecol. 124, 146–154 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Cao, Y. S. et al. Soil microbial community composition under Eucalyptus plantations of different age in subtropical China. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 46, 128–135 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Vance, E. D., Brookes, P. C. & Jenkinson, D. S. An extraction method for measuring microbial biomass C. Soil Biol. Biochem. 19, 703–707 (1987).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Bossio, D. A. & Scow, K. M. Impacts of carbon and flooding on soil microbial communities: Phospholipid fatty acid profiles and substrate utilization patterns. Microbial. Ecol. 35, 265–278 (1998).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Bååth, E. & Anderson, T. H. Comparison of soil fungal/bacterial ratios in a pH gradient using physiological and PLFA-based techniques. Soil Biol. Biochem. 35, 955–963 (2003).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
60.Kourtev, P. S., Ehrenfeld, J. G. & Häggblom, M. Exotic plant species alter the microbial community structure and function in the soil. Ecology 83, 3152–3166 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.Ryan RP, Germaine K, Franks A, Ryan DJ, Dowling DN. Bacterial endophytes: recent developments and applications. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2008;278:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6968.2007.00918.x.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
2.Rodriguez R, White J Jr, Arnold A, Redman R. Fungal endophytes: diversity and functional roles. New Phytol. 2009;182:314–30.Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Wilson D. Endophyte: the evolution of a term, and clarification of its use and definition Oikos. 1995;73:274–6.4.Harrison JG, Griffin EA. The diversity and distribution of endophytes across biomes, plant phylogeny and host tissues: How far have we come and where do we go from here?. Environ Microbiol. 2020;22:2107–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.14968.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
5.Clay K, Schardl C. Evolutionary origins and ecological consequences of endophyte symbiosis with grasses. Am Nat. 2002;160:S99–S127. https://doi.org/10.1086/342161.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
6.Rudgers JA, Afkhami ME, Rúa MA, Davitt AJ, Hammer S, Huguet VM. A fungus among us: broad patterns of endophyte distribution in the grasses. Ecology. 2009;90:1531–9. https://doi.org/10.1890/08-0116.1.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
7.Clay K, Holah J. Fungal endophyte symbiosis and plant diversity in successional fields. Science. 1999;285:1742–4. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.285.5434.1742.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
8.Afkhami ME, Strauss SY. Native fungal endophytes suppress an exotic dominant and increase plant diversity over small and large spatial scales. Ecology. 2016;97:1159–69. https://doi.org/10.1890/15-1166.1.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
9.Rudgers JA, Clay K. An invasive plant–fungal mutualism reduces arthropod diversity. Ecol Lett. 2008;11:831–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01201.x.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
10.Gorischek AM, Afkhami ME, Seifert EK, Rudgers JA. Fungal symbionts as manipulators of plant reproductive biology. Am Nat. 2013;181:562–70. https://doi.org/10.1086/669606.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
11.Malloch D, Blackwell M. Dispersal of fungal diaspores. The fungal community: Its organization and role in the ecosystem. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc; 1992. p. 147–71.
Google Scholar 
12.Devarajan P, Suryanarayanan T. Evidence for the role of phytophagous insects in dispersal of non-grass fungal endophytes. Fungal Divers. 2006;23:111–9.
Google Scholar 
13.Lodge DJ, Fisher P, Sutton B. Endophytic fungi of Manilkara bidentata leaves in Puerto Rico. Mycologia. 1996;88:733–8.14.Paine RT. A note on trophic complexity and community stability. Am Nat. 1969;103:91–93. https://doi.org/10.1086/282586.Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Jenkins SH, Busher PE. Castor canadensis, Mammalian Species. 1979. https://doi.org/10.2307/3503787.16.Hajishengallis G, Darveau RP, Curtis MA. The keystone-pathogen hypothesis. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2012;10:717–25. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro2873.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
17.Jousset A, Bienhold C, Chatzinotas A, Gallien L, Gobet A, Kurm V, et al. Where less may be more: How the rare biosphere pulls ecosystems strings. ISME J. 2017;11:853–62. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2016.174.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
18.Hassani MA, Durán P, Hacquard S. Microbial interactions within the plant holobiont. Microbiome. 2018;6:58. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-018-0445-0.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
19.Rockman MV. The QTN program and the alleles that matter for evolution: all that’s gold does not glitter. Evolution. 2012;66:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01486.x.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
20.Beckers GJ, Conrath U. Priming for stress resistance: from the lab to the field. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2007;10:425–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2007.06.002.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
21.Hartmann A, Rothballer M, Hense BA, Schröder P. Bacterial quorum sensing compounds are important modulators of microbe-plant interactions. Front Plant Sci. 2014;5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2014.00131.22.Friesen ML, Porter SS, Stark SC, von Wettberg EJ, Sachs JL, Martinez-Romero E. Microbially mediated plant functional traits. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2011;42:23–46. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102710-145039.Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Hardoim PR, Van Overbeek LS, Berg G, Pirttilä AM, Compant S, Campisano A, et al. The hidden world within plants: ecological and evolutionary considerations for defining functioning of microbial endophytes. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2015;79:293–320. https://doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.00050-14.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
24.Doty SL. Growth-promoting endophytic fungi of forest trees. In: Pirttilä AM, Frank AC, editors. Endophytes of forest trees: biology and applications. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2011;151–6.
Google Scholar 
25.Arnold AE, Herre EA. Canopy cover and leaf age affect colonization by tropical fungal endophytes: Ecological pattern and process in Theobroma cacao (Malvaceae). Mycologia. 2003;95:388–98. http://www.mycologia.org.unr.idm.oclc.org/content/95/3/388. Accessed 12 Dec 2016.Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Busby PE, Peay KG, Newcombe G. Common foliar fungi of Populus trichocarpa modify melampsora rust disease severity. New Phytol. 2016;209:1681–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13742.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
27.Christian N, Herre EA, Mejia LC, Clay K. Exposure to the leaf litter microbiome of healthy adults protects seedlings from pathogen damage. Proc R Soc B. 2017;284:20170641. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.0641.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
28.Cheplick GP, Cho R. Interactive effects of fungal endophyte infection and host genotype on growth and storage in Lolium perenne. New Phytol. 2003;158:183–91. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-8137.2003.00723.x.Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Zahn G, Amend AS. Foliar fungi alter reproductive timing and allocation in arabidopsis under normal and water-stressed conditions. 2019. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/519678v1.30.Christian N, Herre EA, Clay K. Foliar endophytic fungi alter patterns of nitrogen uptake and distribution in Theobroma cacao. New Phytol. 2019;222:1573–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15693.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
31.Rosado BHP, Almeida LC, Alves LF, Lambais MR, Oliveira RS. The importance of phyllosphere on plant functional ecology: a phyllo trait manifesto. New Phytol. 2018;219:1145–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15235.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
32.Mejía LC, Herre EA, Sparks JP, Winter K, García MN, Van Bael SA, et al. Pervasive effects of a dominant foliar endophytic fungus on host genetic and phenotypic expression in a tropical tree. Front Microbiol. 2014;5:479.33.Dupont PY, Eaton CJ, Wargent JJ, Fechtner S, Solomon P, Schmid J, et al. Fungal endophyte infection of ryegrass reprograms host metabolism and alters development. New Phytol. 2015;208:1227–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13614.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
34.Dinkins RD, Nagabhyru P, Graham MA, Boykin D, Schardl CL. Transcriptome response of Lolium arundinaceum to its fungal endophyte Epichloë coenophiala. New Phytol. 2017;213:324–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.14103.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
35.Welsh S, North American species of astragalus Linnaeus (Leguminosae): a taxonomic revision. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University; 2007.36.Knaus BJ. Morphometric architecture of the most taxon-rich species in the U.S. Flora: Astragalus lentiginosus (Fabaceae). Am J Bot. 2010;97;1816–26. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.0900145.37.Baucom DL, Romero M, Belfon R, Creamer R. Two new species of undifilum, fungal endophytes of astragalus (locoweeds) in the United States. Botany. 2012;90:866–75. https://doi.org/10.1139/b2012-056.Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Woudenberg JHC, Groenewald JZ, Binder M, Crous PW. Alternaria redefined. Stud Mycol. 2013;75:171–212. https://doi.org/10.3114/sim0015.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
39.Cook D, Gardner DR, Martinez A, Robles CA, Pfister JA. Screening for swainsonine among South American astragalus species. Toxicon. 2017;139:54–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxicon.2017.09.014.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
40.Molyneux RJ, James LF. Loco intoxication: indolizidine alkaloids of spotted locoweed (Astragalus lentiginosus). Science. 1982;216:190–1. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.6801763.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
41.Cook D, Gardner DR, Ralphs MH, Pfister JA, Welch KD, Green BT. Swainsoninine concentrations and endophyte amounts of Undifilum oxytropis in different plant parts of Oxytropis sericea. J Chem Ecol. 2009;35:1272–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-009-9710-9.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
42.Harrison JG, Parchman TL, Cook D, Gardner DR, Forister ML. A heritable symbiont and host-associated factors shape fungal endophyte communities across spatial scales. J Ecol. 2018;106:2274–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12967.Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Grum DS, Cook D, Baucom D, Mott IW, Gardner DR, Creamer R, et al. Production of the alkaloid swainsonine by a fungal endophyte in the host Swainsona canescens. J Nat Prod. 2013;76:1984–8. https://doi.org/10.1021/np400274n.44.Cook D, Gardner DR, Pfister JA. Swainsonine-containing plants and their relationship to endophytic fungi. J Agric Food Chem. 2014;62:7326–34. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf501674r.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
45.Panaccione DG, Beaulieu WT, Cook D. Bioactive alkaloids in vertically transmitted fungal endophytes. Funct Ecol. 2014;28:299–314. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12076.Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Thompson DC, Knight JL, Sterling TM, Murray LW. Preference for specific varieties of woolly locoweed by a specialist weevil, Cleonidius trivittatus (Say). Southwest Entomol. 1995;20:325–325.
Google Scholar 
47.Parker JE. Effects of insect herbivory by the four-lined locoweed weevil, Cleonidius trivittatus (say) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), on the alkaloid swainsonine in locoweeds Astragalus mollissimus and Oxytropis sericea. Ph.D. thesis. Las Cruces, New Mexico: New Mexico State University; 2008.48.Creamer R, Baucom D. Fungal endophytes of locoweeds: a commensal relationship? J Plant Physiol Pathol. 2013;1. https://doi.org/10.4172/2329-955X.1000104.49.Lu H, Quan H, Zhou Q, Ren Z, Xue R, Zhao B, et al. Endogenous fungi isolated from three locoweed species from rangeland in western China. Afr J Microbiol Res. 2017;11:155–70. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJMR2016.8392.Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Schulthess FM, Faeth SH. Distribution, abundances, and associations of the endophytic fungal community of Arizona fescue (Festuca arizonica). Mycologia. 1998;90:569–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/00275514.1998.12026945.Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Cook D, Gardner DR, Pfister JA, Stonecipher CA, Robins JG, Morgan JA. Effects of elevated CO2 on the swainsonine chemotypes of Astragalus lentiginosus and Astragalus mollissimus. J Chem Ecol. 2017;43:307–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-017-0820-5.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
52.Oldrup E, McLain-Romero J, Padilla A, Moya A, Gardner D, Creamer R. Localization of endophytic undifilum fungi in locoweed seed and influence of environmental parameters on a locoweed in vitro culture system. Botany. 2010;88:512–21. https://doi.org/10.1139/B10-026.Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Gardner DR, Molyneux RJ, Ralphs MH. Analysis of swainsonine: extraction methods, detection, and measurement in populations of locoweeds (oxytropis spp.). J Agric Food Chem. 2001;49:4573–80.Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Högberg P. 15N natural abundance in soil–plant systems. New Phytol. 1997;137:179–203. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/new-phytologist/article/tansley-review-no-95-15n-natural-abundance-in-soilplant-systems/304069FD5C8283EDB78D0AA594465E71. Accessed 2 Jul 2017.Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Wang Y, Qian P-Y. Conservative fragments in bacterial 16S rRNA genes and primer design for 16S ribosomal DNA amplicons in metagenomic studies. PLoS ONE. 2009;4:e7401. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0007401.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
56.White TJ, Bruns T, Lee S, Taylor J. Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics. In Innis MA, Glefand DH, Sninsky JJ, White TJ, editors, PCR protocols: a guide to methods and applications. London: Academic Press; 1990.57.Harrison JG, Calder WJ, Shuman B, Buerkle CA, The quest for absolute abundance: the use of internal standards for DNA-based community ecology. Mol Ecol Resour. 2020, https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13247.58.Tourlousse DM, Yoshiike S, Ohashi A, Matsukura S, Noda N, Sekiguchi Y. Synthetic spike-in standards for high-throughput 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017;45:e23–e23. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkw984.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
59.Edgar RC. Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics. 2010;26:2460–1.Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Rognes T, Flouri T, Nichols B, Quince C, Mahé F, “VSEARCH: a versatile open source tool for metagenomics. PeerJ. 2016. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2584.61.Edgar RC, UNOISE2: improved error-correction for Illumina 16S and ITS amplicon sequencing. 2016. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/081257v1.full.62.Callahan BJ, McMurdie PJ, Holmes SP. Exact sequence variants should replace operational taxonomic units in marker-gene data analysis. ISME J. 2017:2639. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2017.119.63.Edgar R, “SINTAX: a simple non-Bayesian taxonomy classifier for 16S and ITS sequences. 2016. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/074161v1.64.Nilsson RH, Larsson KH, Taylor AFS, Bengtsson-Palme J, Jeppesen TS, Schigel D, et al. The UNITE database for molecular identification of fungi: Handling dark taxa and parallel taxonomic classifications. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018, https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gky1022.65.Cole JR, Wang Q, Fish JA, Chai B, McGarrell DM, Sun Y, et al. Ribosomal database project: data and tools for high throughput rRNA analysis Nucleic Acids Res. 2014. 42, https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkt1244.66.Machida RJ, Leray M, Ho S-L, Knowlton N. Metazoan mitochondrial gene sequence reference datasets for taxonomic assignment of environmental samples. Sci Data. 2017;4:17007 https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2017.27.Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Fordyce JA, Gompert Z, Forister ML, Nice CC. A hierarchical Bayesian approach to ecological count data: A flexible tool for ecologists. PLoS ONE. 2011;6;e26785. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0026785.68.Harrison JG, Calder WJ, Shastry V, Buerkle CA. Dirichlet-multinomial modelling outperforms alternatives for analysis of microbiome and other ecological count data. Mol Ecol Resour. 2020;20:481–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13128.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
69.R Core Team, R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Core Team; 2019.70.Harrison J, Shastry V, Calder WJ, Buerkle CA, “CNVRG: Dirichlet-multinomial modelling of relative abundance data.” Sep. 2020. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=CNVRG. Accessed 28 Oct 2020.71.S. D. Team, Stan modeling language users guide and reference manual. 2020. https://mc-stan.org/users/documentation/72.S. D. Team, “RStan: The R interface to Stan. R package.” 2020. http://mc-stan.org/.73.Gelman A, Rubin DB. Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Stat Sci. 1992;7:457–72. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2246093. Accessed 16 Jun 2018.
Google Scholar 
74.Gloor GB, Macklaim JM, Vu M, Fernandes AD. Compositional uncertainty should not be ignored in high-throughput sequencing data analysis. Austrian J Stat. 2016;45:73–87. http://ajs.data-analysis.at/index.php/ajs/article/view/vol45-4-5. Accessed 4 Dec 2017.Article 

Google Scholar 
75.Jost L. Entropy and diversity. Oikos. 2006;113:363–75.Article 

Google Scholar 
76.Marion ZH, Fordyce JA, Fitzpatrick BM. A hierarchical Bayesian model to incorporate uncertainty into methods for diversity partitioning. Ecology. 2018;99:947–56. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2174.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
77.Harrison JG, Gompert Z, Fordyce JA, Buerkle CA, Grinstead R, Jahner JP. et al. The many dimensions of diet breadth: phytochemical, genetic, behavioral, and physiological perspectives on the interaction between a native herbivore and an exotic host. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0147971. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147971.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
78.Plummer M. JAGS: a program for analysis of Bayesian graphical models using Gibbs sampling,”. Proc 3rd Int workshop Distrib Stat Comput. 2003;124:1–8. 10.2003.
Google Scholar 
79.Plummer M. Rjags: Bayesian graphical models using MCMC. R package version 3-15. 2015. Https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rjags.80.Breiman L. Random forests. Mach Learn. 2001;45:5–32. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324.Article 

Google Scholar 
81.Liaw A, Wiener M. Classification and regression by randomForest. R News. 2002;2:18–22.
Google Scholar 
82.Grum DS, Cook D, Gardner DR, Roper JM, Pfister JA, Ralphs MH. Influence of seed endophyte amounts on swainsonine concentrations in astragalus and oxytropis locoweeds. J Agric Food Chem. 2012;60:8083–9. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf3024062.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
83.Marion ZH, Fordyce JA, Fitzpatrick BM. Extending the concept of diversity partitioning to characterize phenotypic complexity. Am Nat. 2015;186:348–61.Article 

Google Scholar 
84.Arnold AE, Lutzoni F. Diversity and host range of foliar fungal endophytes: are tropical leaves biodiversity hotspots?”. Ecology. 2007;88:541–49. https://doi.org/10.1890/05-1459.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
85.Strong DR, Lawton JH, Southwood SR. Insects on plants. Community patterns and mechanisms. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Scientific Publicatons; 1984.
Google Scholar 
86.Carmona D, Lajeunesse MJ, Johnson MTJ. Plant traits that predict resistance to herbivores. Funct Ecol. 2011;25:358–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2010.01794.x.Article 

Google Scholar 
87.Berry D, Widder S. Deciphering microbial interactions and detecting keystone species with co-occurrence networks. Front Microbiol. 2014;5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2014.00219.88.Trosvik P, de Muinck EJ. Ecology of bacteria in the human gastrointestinal tract—identification of keystone and foundation taxa. Microbiome. 2015;3:44 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-015-0107-4.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
89.Banerjee S, Schlaeppi K, van der Heijden MGA, Keystone taxa as drivers of microbiome structure and functioning. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2018;16:567. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-018-0024-1.90.Braun K, Romero J, Liddell C, Creamer R. Production of swainsonine by fungal endophytes of locoweed. Mycological Res. 2003;107:980–8. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095375620300813X.Article 

Google Scholar 
91.Noor AI, Nava A, Cooke P, Cook D, Creamer R. Evidence for nonpathogenic relationships of alternaria section undifilum endophytes within three host locoweed plant species. Botany. 2018;96:187–200. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjb-2017-0117.Article 

Google Scholar 
92.Kulpa SM, Leger EA. Strong natural selection during plant restoration favors an unexpected suite of plant traits. Evolut Appl. 2013;6:510–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.12038.Article 

Google Scholar 
93.Leger EA, Baughman OW. What seeds to plant in the Great Basin? Comparing traits prioritized in native plant cultivars and releases with those that promote survival in the field. Nat Areas J. 2015;35:54–68. https://doi.org/10.3375/043.035.0108.Article 

Google Scholar 
94.Klypina N, Pinch M, Schutte BJ, Maruthavanan J, Sterling TM, Water-deficit stress tolerance differs between two locoweed genera (astragalus and oxytropis) with fungal endophytes. Weed Sci. 2017:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1017/wsc.2017.21.95.Stamp N. Out of the quagmire of plant defense hypotheses. Q Rev Biol. 2003;78:23–55. https://doi.org/10.1086/367580.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
96.Eades CJ, Hintz WE. Characterization of the α-mannosidase gene family in filamentous fungi: N-glycan remodelling for the development of eukaryotic expression systems. Biotechnol Bioprocess Eng. 2000;5:227. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02942178.Article 

Google Scholar 
97.Schmid J, Day R, Zhang N, Dupont PY, Cox MP, Schardl CL, et al. Host tissue environment directs activities of an epichloë endophyte, while it induces systemic hormone and defense responses in its native perennial ryegrass host. Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 2016;30:138–49. https://doi.org/10.1094/MPMI-10-16-0215-R.98.Zamioudis C, Pieterse CMJ. Modulation of host immunity by beneficial microbes. Mol Plant-Microbe Interact. 2011;25:139–50. https://doi.org/10.1094/MPMI-06-11-0179.Article 

Google Scholar 
99.Kannadan S, Rudgers JA. Endophyte symbiosis benefits a rare grass under low water availability. Funct Ecol. 2008;22:706–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2008.01395.x.Article 

Google Scholar 
100.Barillas JRV, Paschke MW, Ralphs MH, Child RD. White locoweed toxicity is facilitated by a fungal endophyte and nitrogen-fixing bacteria. Ecology. 2007;88:1850–6. https://doi.org/10.1890/06-0728.1.Article 

Google Scholar 
101.Isbell F, Calcagno V, Hector A, Connolly J, Harpole WS, Reich PB, et al. High plant diversity is needed to maintain ecosystem services. Nature. 2011;477:199–202. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10282. More

This is the first comparative study of commercial scallop species in the Pacific coast of the MP combining morphological and molecular characters. Our phylogenetic analyses highlight the association between A. natans and Ad. colbecki; two members of monospecific tribes and last extant representatives of their Southern Ocean-restricted genera.These results confirm the presence of both Magallanes scallops in the MP, as well as the so-far unsuspected presence of mixed “banks” where both species occur in sympatry. The BND/VH ratio helps discriminate between two distinct entities that belong to the genetic lineage of Z. patagonica and to a different lineage, highly divergent from the former, which corresponds to A. natans. A. natans is the only species of a whole lineage with a particular phylogenetic value, therefore having developed and tested an accurate identification criterion for both scallops will allow efficient fishery management in the future.Here we discuss the phylogenetic position and the taxonomic status of both Magallanes scallops, as well as the implications of these results for the future management and conservation of Z. patagonica and A. natans in the Magallanes Region. Despite the numerous classifications built on morphological, ecological or molecular data, the relationships among pectinids are still under constant modification depending on the number of taxa, loci, length of the sequence and the selected outgroups1,4. The work of Alejandrino et al.7 is the most inclusive so far in terms of taxon sampling, with 81 species. Although Scherrat et al.25 included 143 species, the node supports of the phylogenetic trees are not provided, making it difficult to assess the robustness of this large phylogeny. In order to define the phylogenetic position of Zygochlamys patagonica and Austrochlamys natans, we included 93 pectinid taxa (43 genera) representative of tribes Chlamydini, Crassadomini, Fortipectini, Palliolini, Aequipectinini, Pectinini and Amussini. Comparing to Waller’s5 and Dijkstra’s15 classifications, only the subfamily Camptonectinae and the tribe Mesoplepini are missing. We used three ribosomal regions (one nuclear and two mitochondrial). Compared to Alejandrino et al.7, histone H3 is missing here, however this locus is among the least informative4. The family Pectinidae appears to be monophyletic with high support values (Fig. 5, S2), as previously demonstrated4,7,26,27,28. According to Dijkstra15 there are currently five subfamilies of Pectinidae, two of which are absent from our analysis: Camptonectinae and Pedinae. This topology supports the classifications of Waller5 and Dijkstra15, except for the position of the tribe Austrochlamydini.Our Magallanes scallops separated into two very divergent clades: Z. patagonica is associated with its conspecifics and congenerics in a single lineage (Fig. 5), which also contains species of Veprichlamys and Talochlamys. This lineage already appeared well supported as the sister clade to Palliolinae and Pectininae in Alejandrino7. For the first time, Talochlamys dichroa and T. gemmulata are nested with high support values into the Zygochlamys clade, making this latter genus paraphyletic (Fig. 5). These taxa are all restricted to high latitudes of the Southern Ocean. Due to phylogenetic and geographic affinities, we suggest that these three genera may constitute a tribe separate from Chlamydini. Since Dijkstra15 moved the two Atlantic ‘Crassadoma’ into the genus Talochlamys, the affinities among Talochlamys spp. had not been explored until now. Talochlamys species rather associate according to geographic affinities, splitting the genus into two highly divergent entities corresponding to European and New Zealand Talochlamys. A systematic revision of these four species would be useful.Austrochlamys natans associated with the Palliolinae, which was elevated to a subfamily rank by Waller5. Of the three extant tribes that compose this group, Mesopleplini are missing from our phylogenetic analyses. We included 4 genera (8 species) of the remaining two tribes: Adamussium (Adamussini) and Palliolum, Pseudamussium, Placopecten (Palliolini). The present sampling of Palliolini is the most inclusive to date and led to the monophyly and full support of the tribe Palliolini. Our phylogenetic results do not support any of the previous classifications of the tribe Austrochlamydini1,5,9,13,15, and introduce this monospecific tribe as a new member of the subfamily Palliolinae. Indeed, Austrochlamys natans clusters together with Adamussium colbecki, both in a sister clade to Palliolini. The first molecular characterization of Ad. colbecki did not lead to a clear classification due to the low polymorphism of the 18S26. Later, Ad. colbecki appears either as sister species to Chlamydinae or to Palliolini, depending on tribe sampling and the choice of outgroup and loci4,10,11. However, in the most recent and inclusive studies of taxon sampling7 (present study) or genomic cover29, Ad. colbecki is the sister group of the tribe Palliolini, as in the present phylogeny.The subfamily Palliolinae originated from a Chlamydinine ancestor in the Cretaceous and subsequently underwent diversification in the Northern Hemisphere1 and in the Southern Hemisphere, where the extinct genus Lentipecten spread in the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum30. The genus Adamussium derived from Lentipecten and appeared in the early Oligocene; it comprises 5 endemic Antarctic species; Ad. colbecki is the only one extant13,31,32. The genus Austrochlamys also appeared in the Oligocene and was first restricted to King George Island (South Shetlands), then spread around the north of the Antarctic Peninsula and achieved a circum-Antarctic distribution until the Pliocene13,33,34. Austrochlamys persisted during the progressive cooling of the Antarctic Continent from the Paleocene to the Pliocene, dominating the coastal areas, while Adamussium occupied the deep seas and continental platform33. The opening and deepening of the Drake Passage and the intensification of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current during the Pliocene provoked a drastic cooling and the extension of sea ice over the coastal habitat, which caused the northward movement of Austrochlamys and its subsequent disappearance from Antarctica, along with the circumpolar expansion of Ad. colbecki in Antarctic shallow waters33. The colonization of the coastal habitat has been related to the sea ice extent that provided a more stable environment and low-energy fine-grained sediment with which Adamussium was associated in the deep waters. Austrochlamys fossils appear in the Subantarctic Heard Island in late Pliocene layers (3.62–2.5 Ma35). Today Ad. colbecki is a circum-Antarctic and eurybathic species that reaches high local density in protected locations13,36, while all Austrochlamys became extinct except for A. natans, which is restricted to southern South America33. The phylogenetic affinity highlighted here between A. natans and Ad. colbecki has its origins in the Southern Ocean; the deep divergence between the lineages of these monospecific tribes attests to the long time since their common origin in the Paleogene. These results point out both species as relevant biogeographic models to address longstanding questions regarding the origin of marine biota from Southern Ocean.The nomenclature, taxonomy and ecology of both A. natans and Z. patagonica have been problematic for almost 200 years. Since its original description37, Z. patagonica, a.k.a. the “Ostión Patagónico” has been named with more than 10 synonyms, probably due to the great intra-specific morphological variability throughout its distribution19,38 (see the nomenclatural history in Supplementary Table S1). In contrast, there are very few records in the scientific literature and no genetic data on A. natans, a.k.a. the “Ostión del Sur”13,14,17,19, and some problems of nomenclature and establishing diagnostic characters persist since its description13,39. Many of the current junior synonyms of both species were described from small and juvenile specimens (under 52 mm VH39,40,41). Indeed, all deposited type material of A. natans ranges from 23.5 to 52 mm VH; the latter is half of the maximum size39. The criteria most commonly used for the identification of both scallops were number of radial primary ribs, maximum size, shell colour and presence of laminated concentric lines (Supplementary Table S1). Specimens with marked primary and secondary radial ribs alternated regularly and more whitish colouring of the right shell were attributed to Z. patagonica, while those with weaker and less markedly coloured radial ribs and the maximum size were considered as A. natans42. However, the number of radial ribs overlaps between Z. patagonica (26–4212,43) and A. natans (22–5017,19). These characters also have high variability across different environments and during ontogeny13,17. Thus the use of a taxonomy based on environment-sensitive and allometric characters has led to confusion in the morphological identification of these species13,38. The criterion used in the present study, the BND/VH ratio established by Jonkers13, discriminates the species efficiently. As attested by the narrow dispersal cluster in Fig. 3, this character has low intra-population variability13. In some cases a level of intraspecific variation can be detected, and this is mainly due to the environments where the scallop populations inhabit19 (e.g. exposed, protected, substrate type, fjord, oceanic). However, although there may be some intraspecific variability between populations, this variability does not generate problems for the identification of the two species. Individuals of A. natans generally presented a significantly greater BND/VH ratio than those of Z. patagonica. However, it is important to consider that, given that this character varies during ontogeny, it is more accurate in individuals over 25 mm VH13. Only the molecular identification was able to discriminate juvenile scallops of both species accurately.According to the literature, A. natans is restricted to interior waters of channels and is associated with kelp forests of M. pyrifera (Supplementary Table S1). Z. patagonica inhabits a wider range of environments such as bottoms of shells, sand, mud and gravel in protected and exposed areas, between 2 and 300 m depth (Supplementary Table S1), but is also associated with kelp forests in fjords with different degrees of glacial retreat12,16,44. The juveniles of both scallops recruit in kelp forests44,45. According to the local artisanal fishermen, adults of “Ostión del Sur” (A. natans) occur in fjords with glaciers (orange circles in Fig. 123). We included two sampling locations near glaciers (in Pia and Montañas fjords), where large individuals (between 46 and 86 mm) of A. natans and Z. patagonica occur in sympatry. This sympatry was previously reported in Silva Palma Fjord between 5 and 25 m depth16. In conclusion, scallop banks are not monospecific but rather mixed and Z. patagonica occurs in the interior waters of the channels and fjords. Consequently, these two species have overlapping ecology (recruiting zone and glacial affinity) in the channels and fjords, overturning a long-held view that these scallops have marked habitat segregation.The fishery for both species was established in the 1990s in the political-administrative Region of Magallanes16, despite the complexity of the morphological recognition of scallops. The distinction between species was based on shell colour and radial ribs42, two characters that, given the results of this study, do not have this diagnostic capacity. Consequently, the scallop fisheries in the Magallanes Region are currently based on inaccurately discriminative characters. Scallop banks in MP have always been considered as monospecific16,47. A great part of scallop landing has always been attributed to A. natans47, about which the scientific literature is scarce (Supplementary Table S1). Conversely, Z. patagonica, which was erroneously considered as the commercial species of southern Chile, has more scientific research (Supplementary Table S1).The difficulty to discriminate A. natans and Z. patagonica morphologically may lead to incorrect fishery statistics and uncertain conservation status of A. natans. Incorrect fishery statistics could overestimate the abundance of banks of A. natans compared to Z. patagonica. If the minimum catch size is reduced23 in the context of the fishing overuse of the last decade, A. natans may suffer a reduction of its maximum size48. Therefore, an identification criterion between species is a need to improve fishery management. We showcased a quantified criterion that is useful to identify both species. In the short-term, this method can be used, but it is difficult to enforce in practical ways. We suggest to train fishing inspectors, following three guidelines. First, the identification should consider only the right valve (RV) for species identification, since the left valve is not taxonomically informative. Second, for visual classification, check the outline of the BN, mainly because the individuals of Z. patagonica have a more arcute BN. Third, a reliable identification has to measure the depth of the byssal notch (BND) and shell height (VH) ratio. Lastly, future research and fishery monitoring should follow these criteria to carry out a correct identification and subsequently better landings statistics.Molecular tools allowed evaluating the phylogenetic relationships of scallops globally or regionally and incorporating parameters that can be used for the management and conservation of species of commercial interest49. For example, in the last few decades metrics have been developed to address conservation problems that give us a measure of the current state of particular taxa. These conservation priorities are often seen as measures for threatened species categorized by the IUCN Red List (World Conservation Union, 1980), one of the most widely and recognized systems. Although this prioritization metric incorporates phylogenetic distinctiveness (PD), this factor has been updated due to the importance of quantifying the loss of evolutionary diversity that would be implied by the extinction of a species50. The magnitude of the PD loss from any species will depend (but not exclusively) on the fate of its close relatives51. The “Ostión del Sur”, Austrochlamys natans is the last representative of its tribe (Austrochlamydini) in the Southern Ocean. Its phylogenetic position and the long branch length (i.e. the length of the branch from the tip to where it joins the tree), which represents an important amount of evolutionary change, highlights the degree of isolation of A. natans and calls attention to the possible loss of a unique genetic lineage. There is currently no conservation value for this relict species; we sought to alert the current fishery management that the “Ostión del Sur” is a distinct taxon and provide integrative evidence for further conservation studies.Finally, regarding the overlapping niche of these scallops and the conservation importance of the clade of A. natans, we propose three key recommendations for the future scallop fishery policies in the sub-Antarctic channels. First, it is necessary to assess the proportion of both species per bank and landing to generate a distribution map through the sub-Antarctic channels. For this assessment, the byssal notch depth is the most appropriate morphological character. Second, we recommend reassessments of biological and ecological parameters (e.g. size at first maturity) for A. natans across the glacial fjords, which are the most relevant fishing sites. As a final point, today there is a complete lack of knowledge of the genetic connectivity along the Subantarctic Channels. Thus we should generate more research about spatial population genetics at different temporal scales. The integration of genomic approaches (e.g. SNPs) with macro- and micro-environmental modelling approaches provide enormous opportunity to establish a new regional zoning for fishery management and conservation scallop strategy. More

Most problematic fishing methods based on ALDFG relative risksThis study presents the first quantitative assessment of gear-specific relative risks from ALDFG. Findings accounted for the: (a) derelict gear leakage rate; (b) fishing gear quantity indicators of catch and area of fishing grounds; and (c) adverse consequences from ALDFG. Maximum global conservation gains can be achieved through focusing ALDFG mitigation efforts on the fishing gears with the highest overall relative risk. Set and fixed gillnets and trammel nets, drift gillnets, gears using drifting and anchored FADs (tuna purse seines and pole-and-lines), and bottom trawls were the five most problematic gears on a global scale. This was followed by traps (fyke nets, pots, barriers, fences, weirs, corrals and pound nets).The overall RR score indicates a fishing gear’s relative degree of total adverse effects from ALDFG, accounting for the quantity of ALDFG produced by that gear (estimated from the ALDFG leakage rate and indices of fishing gear quantity of catch and area of fishing grounds), and the adverse consequences that result from ALDFG from that gear type relative to other gears. Globally, gillnets have the highest risks from ALDFG, while hand dredges and harpoons were least problematic.The focus of local management interventions to address problematic derelict fishing gear will be dictated by the specific context. Locally, adopting ALDFG controls following a sequential mitigation hierarchy and implementing effective monitoring, surveillance and enforcement systems are needed to curb derelict gear from these most problematic fisheries. This includes accounting for which fishing gears are predominant and the existing fisheries management framework. For example, a site may have pot and tuna purse seine anchored FAD fisheries. The purse seine fishery has a higher relative risk globally. However, a fisheries management system may have effective ALDFG preventive methods in place for this fishery, such as a high rate of detection and recovery of anchored FADs when they break from moorings, and minimization methods, such as prescribing the use of only non-entangling and biodegradable FAD designs to minimize adverse effects from derelict FADs35, 36. But there may be minimal measures in place to monitor and manage ALDFG from pots. In this hypothetical example, it would be a higher priority locally to improve ALDFG management for the pot fishery.Priority data quality improvementsThere are several priorities for data quality improvement to increase the certainty of future assessments. Given substantial deficits both in estimates of gear-specific quantity/effort and ALDFG rates, it is not yet possible to produce a robust contemporary estimate to replace the ca. five decades-old crude estimate of the magnitude of the annual quantity of leaked ALDFG4, 30. More robust estimates of ALDFG rates are needed for all gear types. Gear-specific estimates have low certainty due to small numbers of studies and sample sizes. Many compiled records estimate only one ALDFG component, typically only loss rates, and therefore may substantially underestimate total ALDFG rates. Most records are dated and may not accurately characterize contemporary rates. There is geographical sampling bias with estimates being primarily derived from the northern hemisphere. Furthermore, many estimates were derived from expert surveys (Supplementary Material Table S1), which have a higher risk of error and bias than approaches higher on the evidence hierarchy37. Substantially more primary studies with robust designs are needed.An expanded meta-analysis on gear-specific ALDFG rates is an additional priority, once sufficient sample sizes of robust studies accumulate. The statistical modeling approach used by Richardson et al.34 could be readily improved by using (1) a random-effects instead of a fixed effects structure to account for study-specific heterogeneity, and (2) a more appropriate model likelihood, such as zero-inflated Beta likelihood, to account for the zero values in the dataset38. Due to larger sample sizes and the number of independent studies, meta-analyses can produce estimates with increased accuracy, with increased statistical power to detect real effects. By synthesizing estimates from an assortment of independent, small and context-specific studies, pooled estimates from random-effects meta-analyses are generalizable and therefore relevant over diverse settings39. The strength of conclusions of hypotheses based on a single study can vary. This is because a single study can be context-specific, where true results may be affected by conditions specific to that single study, such as the species involved and environmental conditions, that cause the results from the single study to not be applicable under different conditions. A single study may also fail to find a meaningful result due to small sample sizes and low power. However, robust synthesis research, including meta-analysis, is more precise and powerful once a sufficient number of similar studies have accumulated, and therefore investing in more primary ALDFG studies is a high priority.For some gear types and fisheries, estimated ALDFG rates may overestimate adverse effects when gear that is abandoned, lost or even discarded does not become derelict because another fishing vessel continues to use the gear. For example, gear that is lost by theft remains in use. Macfadyen et al.4 explained that theft was likely a minor contribution to ALDFG, occurring, for instance, in inshore fishing grounds where static commercial fishing gear and recreational marine activities conflict. However, fishing gear theft may be prevalent in some developing country fisheries (e.g., Cambodian crab traps40). And, there is one gear type where theft has become a globally prevalent, routine and largely accepted practice: Tuna purse seine vessels routinely exchange satellite buoys attached to drifting FADs that they encounter at sea. The stolen FAD, lost by the previous vessel that had been tracking its position, remains in-use and not derelict, although it may eventually become derelict41, 42. Furthermore, because ALDFG leakage rates may be highest in illegal and unregulated fisheries4, if only legal fisheries are sampled, then this may produce underestimates. Thus, accounting for theft and illegal and unregulated fishing would increase the certainty of estimates of ALDFG leakage rates for some fishing gear types.The 20% ALDFG global production rate value used for anchored FADs by pole-and-line fisheries was likely an underestimate. We relied on a single value from the contemporary Maldives pole-and-line fishery’s government-owned and -managed network of anchored FADs. This fishery underwent a substantial reduction in anchored FAD loss rate, from 82 to 20%, by improving designs and a government incentive program that pays fishers to retrieve FADs when they break from their moorings35, 43. For comparison, describing Indonesia’s pole-and-line fishery’s anchored FADs, Widodo et al.44 stated: “Inaccuracy of number and position of FADs in the fishing ground are the outstanding issue facing by fisheries manager…This was largely the result of the current lack of effective systems of FAD registration and monitoring, and also because of the desire of fishing companies and vessel skippers to keep FADs position information confidential. [sic]”.Proctor et al.45, who estimated that between 5000 and 10,000 anchored FADs are used in Indonesian tuna fisheries, also reported a lack of accurate estimates of the numbers and locations of anchored FADs due to ineffective implementation of the government registration system and to high loss rates, including from storms, strong currents, vandalism, vessel collisions and wear and degradation of the FADs. Using the estimated rates of (1) Shainee and Leira43 that 82% of anchored FADs were lost per year prior to the Maldivian government’s incentives program, which might accurately characterize the Indonesian and other anchored FAD networks used by pole-and-line fisheries, and (2) the 20% loss rate value from Adam et al.35, the posterior mean = 0.506 (95% HDI: 0.15–0.84). Thus, 51% might have been a more appropriate estimate for a global ALDFG production rate for pole-and-line anchored FADs. The Maldivian and Indonesian pole-and-line fisheries, which combined supply over half of global pole-and-line catch, rely heavily on anchored FADs, as do several other smaller pole-and-line fisheries (e.g., Solomon Islands, segments of the Japanese pole-and-line fleet)35, 45,46,47,48.Units for ALDFG rates are highly variable. Records using different rates cannot be pooled for synthesis research29, 34. For example, some records reported rates of the percent of number of panels (sheets) or fleets (strings) of gillnets that were lost, while others reported the percent of the length or area of gillnets that were lost29. Similarly, for longline gear, some studies reported the percent of the length of the mainline, while others reported the percent of the number of branchlines/snoods that were lost34. Employment of agreed harmonized units for ALDFG rates are needed.Future assessments could use a ratio of ALDFG risk-to-seafood production to assess gear-specific relative risks locally and globally, similar to assessments of vulnerable fisheries bycatch by using bycatch-to-target catch ratios49. This would enable the assessment of risk from ALDFG to be balanced against meeting objectives of food security and nutritional health.Relationship between alternative indices with the quantity of fishing gearWe used gear-specific annual catch and area of fishing grounds as indicators of the relative global amount of each gear that is used annually as two terms in the model to assess gear-specific relative risks from ALDFG. However, the assumption of a linear relationship between these indices and gear quantity is questionable for similar reasons that have been raised with the relationship between various indices of effort (number of fishing hours, number of vessels, engine power, vessel length, gross tonnage, gear size, hold capacity, as well as kWh) and catch. For example, the ratio of catch from one set by an anchoveta purse seiner to the volume or weight of the gear is likely substantially different than for pots or driftnets. Not only is the relationship between catch and amount of gear variable by gear type and target species, there is also high variability within gear types—by fishery and within fisheries—due to the broad range of factors that significantly explain fishing efficiency per unit of nominal effort50, 51. Similarly, the relationship between catch weight and number of fishing operations varies substantially across gear types. For example, an industrial tropical tuna purse seine vessel might have a total catch of about 37 t per set on a drifting FAD27 while a tuna pole-and-line vessel catches about 1 t per fishing day52.Similarly, the relationship between the area of fishing grounds and amount of gear may vary substantially between gear types. A small number of vessels using a relatively small magnitude of active, mobile gear may have a much larger area of fishing grounds than a large number of vessels and shore-based fishers using a large amount of passive and static gears. For example, about 686 large-scale tuna purse seine vessels fish across the tropics53, while gillnets, which may be the most globally prevalent gear type, are used predominantly within 20 nm (37 km) of shore, most intensively in southeast Asia and the northwest Pacific54.Fishing effort has also been estimated using engine power as well as by using energy expended, such as in kilowatt-hours (kWh), the product of the fishing time and engine power of a fishing vessel, including non-motorized vessels55,56,57. We did not use these metrics for effort because the correlation between rate of production of ALDFG and vessel engine power or kWh, including of non-motorized vessels (1.70 million of the estimated global 4.56 million fishing vessels21), has not been explored. In general, vessel power and power per unit of fishing period largely distinguishes between mobile and passive gears, where the former (e.g., trawls, dredges), use substantially more vessel power per weight of catch than passive gears (traps, gillnets). Also, estimates using these fishing effort metrics used a small number of aggregated gear categories and extrapolated estimates primarily from sampled developed world fisheries (however, see56). These effort indices would also prevent inclusion of shore-based fishing methods.There have been recent gear specific estimates of effort, in units of time spent fishing and the estimated energy expended (fishing power * fishing time), using Automated Identification Systems (AIS) data, which are available for industrial fishing vessels, primarily using longlines, trawls and pelagic purse seines6, 58. AIS data provide coverage of the majority of large fishing vessels ≥ 24 m in overall length58. However, this accounts for only about 2% of the number of global fishing vessels (of an estimated 4.56 million global fishing vessels, about 67,800 are ≥ 24 m in length21).ALDFG monitoring, management and performance assessmentsA sequential mitigation hierarchy of avoidance, minimization, remediation and offsets can be applied to manage ALDFG29, 59. Referring to the three components of relative risk assessed by this study, avoidance and minimization of risks from ALDFG is achieved by reducing the ALDFG leakage rate, fishing effort, and/or adverse consequences from derelict gear. Remedial methods reduce adverse effects, such as reducing ghost fishing by reducing the duration that ALDFG remains in the marine environment1, 29, 60. In general, preventative methods are more cost effective than remedial methods—it is less expensive to prevent gear abandonment, loss and discarding than it is, for example, to detect and then disable or remove derelict gear61. Methods to prevent ALDFG include, for instance, spatially and temporally separating passive and mobile fishing gears, having bottom trawlers avoid features that could snag the net such as by using high-resolution seabed maps, tracking the real-time position of unattended fishing gears using various electronic technologies, and using gear marking to identify the owner and increase the visibility of passive gears. Furthermore, because some remedial methods, such as using less durable materials for fishing gear components, can reduce economic viability and practicality, preventative methods and remediation through quick recovery of ALDFG may be more effective as well as elicit broader stakeholder support29, 62.To assess the performance of global ALDFG management interventions against this study’s quantitative benchmark, substantial deficits in monitoring and surveillance of fisheries’ waste management practices must first be addressed1. Of 68 fisheries that catch marine resources managed by regional fisheries management organizations, 47 lack any observer coverage, half do not collect monitoring data on ALDFG, and surveillance and enforcement systems are rudimentary or nonexistent in many fisheries1, 63.Findings from this quantitative, global assessment of ALDFG risks guide the allocation of resources to achieve the largest improvements from preventing and remediating derelict gear from the world’s 4.6 million fishing vessels. With improved data quality and governance frameworks for fishing vessel waste management, including ALDFG, we can expect reductions in ecological and socioeconomic risks from derelict gear. More

pH distributions within sediment microcosms showed distinct spatial and temporal patterns. For the January 2019 experiment series, the strong pH maximum bands developed in the oxic surface sediment after 20 ~ 22 days of incubation. Development was not spatially uniform. Sediment surface pH maxima started to develop from isolated points covering horizontal lengths of 0.6–1 cm at the times of imaging (Fig. 1). Within a week, the pH maximum bands expanded laterally, covering the entire 6 cm long monitoring panel, and were sustained until the end of the experiment (106 days, data not shown). The pH maximum bands were about 2 mm in vertical extent with average pH ~ 8.5. Even after the electrogenic colonization was laterally complete (day 27), the activity intensities of cable bacteria, or the impacts of their activity as reflected by the magnitudes of pH elevations and associated reactions, were still spatially heterogeneous (Fig. 1C). pH values in the underlying anoxic sediment decreased from 7.0 to 6.5 gradually as surface pH maxima formed. However, in the experiment with the sediment collected in August 2019, sediment surface pH maxima started appearing on day 39 and expanded much more slowly, with only a 2.4 cm-long lateral coverage after a week of growth in one of the duplicate microcosms and no development at all in the other (Fig. 2A,B). At the same time, where pH maxima were present, a pH minimum band developed in the anodic zone ( > 2 mm depth) just below sediment surface pH maxima and expanded over time (Fig. 2A).Figure 12D pH distribution dynamics of duplicate microcosms starting from day 20 (January 2019 sediment). (A,B) For duplicate microcosms, sediment surface pH maximum bands started from isolated hotspots and quickly spread across the whole surface area with spreading speed ~ 1.2 cm/day. Anoxic sediment pH decreased from day 20–26. (C) The horizontal pH variations within the surficial pH maximum band on day 27 (microcosm B; vertical width ~ 1 mm). The pH ± standard deviations within the band are indicated by the blue dots.Full size imageFigure 22D pH and H2S distribution dynamics within microcosms during colonization. (A) 2D pH distribution dynamics starting from day 39 (August 2019 sediment) and corresponding 1D pH profiles. The sediment surface pH maximum band started from isolated hotspots and spread across sediment surface with an average rate of 0.3 cm/day, which is much slower compared with January 2019 sediment (1.2 cm/day). The pH in the cable bacteria anodic zone is lower (blue line, A2) compared with un-colonized sediment side (black line, A1) in the pH profile panel insert. (B) The duplicate microcosm (August 2019 sediment) did not show sediment surface pH maxima during the same time window. (C) 2D pH distribution dynamics starting from day 46 (October 2020 sediment). Both surface pH maxima and deep minima expand during electrogenic colonization. The pH minima (white arrows) are evident first on day 46 and 64. (D) Sediment 2D H2S distribution on day 71 (October 2020 sediment) with upper boundary showing the sediment water interface. The H2S distributions are consistent with pH patterns, but the sediment H2S concentrations are generally lower compared with other experiment series (Fig. 4).Full size imageThe October 2020 results (Fig. 2C) further resolved the cathodic and anodic zone development patterns. During colonization, the anoxic zone pH minima were evident earlier (day 46 and 64) and were distinctly wider than the sediment surface pH maxima (day 46–71). These differences in cathode and anode detection sensitivity might be caused by more rapid diffusion at the sediment–water boundary (free solution) and rapid neutralization by seawater CO2. They may also be related to the mode of colonization as discussed below. In addition to pH heterogeneity, the electrogenic activity also resulted in complex topographies of H2S distributions (Fig. 2D). In the locations where pH hotspots were found, the depths of detectable H2S are deeper compared with anywhere else, consistent with ongoing electrogenic sulfide oxidation metabolic activity. These data suggest that cable bacteria dynamics can be distinctly different in otherwise similar sediment (e.g. similar concentrations of dissolved H2S at depth), with variable development controlled by unknown factors.High resolution cable bacteria abundance data are not available in this study because of the design of the experiment. However, the vertical cable bacteria abundance dynamics, which were retrieved from random locations in the January 2019 microcosms during incubation from day 20 to 43, show that cable bacteria cell abundance in the oxic zone of the sediment did not vary significantly during the primary colonization period. In contrast, one of the microcosm series (Fig. 3B) showed a distinct trend of subsurface, anodic region (0.5–1.5 cm depth) enrichment of filament cells, and importantly, both microcosm series had similar terminal distributions when electrogenic activity had expanded across the entire surface (day 43) (Fig. 3). The first time sample in series A (day 20) (Fig. 3A) is similar in abundance distribution as at day 43. It is possible that the first sample taken in series A was located in an electrogenic colonization patch, that is, locally comparable to what would become the pattern across the entire surface at day 43. These abundance data together with the high resolution pH patterns allow inference of the colonization strategy of cable bacteria, as outlined subsequently.Figure 3Cable bacteria cell abundance dynamics in the duplicate January 2019 sediment microcosms. (A) and (B) represent duplication microcosms. From day 20 to 43, cable bacteria can be detected throughout the top 5 cm sediment with heterogeneous abundance patterns. There were depth intervals (e.g. B 2.5–3 cm) with cable bacteria cell abundance below the detection limit of the enumeration method. The sediment surface ( More