Ecology

Bay, R. A. et al. Genetic coupling of female mate choice with polygenic ecological divergence facilitates stickleback speciation. Curr. Biol. 27, 3344–3349 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Johannesson, K., Butlin, R. K., Panova, M. & Westram, A. M. Population Genomics: Marine Organisms (eds. Oleksiak, M. F. & Rajora, O. P.) 277–301 (Springer, 2017).Riesch, R. et al. Transitions between phases of genomic differentiation during stick-insect speciation. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1–13 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Feder, J. L. & Nosil, P. The efficacy of divergence hitchhiking in generating genomic islands during ecological speciation. Evolution 64, 1729–1747 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Rosenblum, E. B., Hickerson, M. J. & Moritz, C. A multilocus perspective on colonization accompanied by selection and gene flow. Evolution 61, 2971–2985 (2007).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nosil, P., Egan, S. P. & Funk, D. J. Heterogeneous genomic differentiation between walking‐stick ecotypes: “isolation by adaptation” and multiple roles for divergent selection. Evolution 62, 316–336 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Orsini, L., Vanoverbeke, J., Swillen, I., Mergeay, J. & Meester, L. Drivers of population genetic differentiation in the wild: isolation by dispersal limitation, isolation by adaptation and isolation by colonization. Mol. Ecol. 22, 5983–5999 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Sexton, J. P., Hangartner, S. B. & Hoffmann, A. A. Genetic isolation by environment or distance: which pattern of gene flow is most common? Evolution 68, 1–15 (2014).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Roderick, G. K. & Gillespie, R. G. Speciation and phylogeography of Hawaiian terrestrial arthropods. Mol. Ecol. 7, 519–531 (1998).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Juan, C., Emerson, B. C., Oromı́, P. & Hewitt, G. M. Colonization and diversification: towards a phylogeographic synthesis for the Canary Islands. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15, 104–109 (2000).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Brown, R. P., Hoskisson, P. A., Welton, J. H. & Báez, M. Geological history and within‐island diversity: a debris avalanche and the Tenerife lizard Gallotia galloti. Mol. Ecol. 15, 3631–3640 (2006).CAS 

Google Scholar 
O’Connell, K. A., Prates, I., Scheinberg, L. A., Mulder, K. P. & Bell, R. C. Speciation and secondary contact in a fossorial island endemic, the São Tomé caecilian. Mol. Ecol. 30, 2859–2871 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Malhotra, A. & Thorpe, R. S. The dynamics of natural selection and vicariance in the Dominican anole: patterns of within‐island molecular and morphological divergence. Evolution 54, 245–258 (2000).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Brown, R. P., Woods, M. & Thorpe, R. S. Historical volcanism and within-island genetic divergence in the Tenerife skink (Chalcides viridanus). Biol. J. Linnean Soc. 122, 166–175 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Losos, J. Lizards in an Evolutionary Tree: Ecology and Adaptive Radiation of Anoles (University of California Press, 2009).Mahler, D. L., Revell, L. J., Glor, R. E. & Losos, J. B. Ecological opportunity and the rate of morphological evolution in the diversification of Greater Antillean anoles. Evolution 64, 2731–2745 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Wang, I. J., Glor, R. E. & Losos, J. B. Quantifying the roles of ecology and geography in spatial genetic divergence. Ecol. Lett. 16, 175–182 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Beerli, P. & Felsenstein, J. Maximum-likelihood estimation of migration rates and effective population numbers in two populations using a coalescent approach. Genetics 152, 763–773 (1999).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hey, J. & Nielsen, R. Multilocus methods for estimating population sizes, migration rates and divergence time, with applications to the divergence of Drosophila pseudoobscura and D. persimilis. Genetics 167, 747–760 (2004).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hey, J. Recent advances in assessing gene flow between diverging populations and species. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 16, 592–596 (2006).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Excoffier, L., Dupanloup, I., Huerta-Sánchez, E., Sousa, V. C. & Foll, M. Robust demographic inference from genomic and SNP data. PLoS Genet. 9, 1003905 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Butlin, R. K. et al. Parallel evolution of local adaptation and reproductive isolation in the face of gene flow. Evolution 68, 935–949 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Rosenblum, E. B., Hoekstra, H. E. & Nachman, M. W. Adaptive reptile color variation and the evolution of the MCIR gene. Evolution 58, 1794–1808 (2004).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rosenblum, E. B. Convergent evolution and divergent selection: lizards at the White Sands ecotone. Am. Nat. 167, 1–15 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Sumner, F. B. An analysis of geographic variation in mice of the Peromyscus polionotus group from Florida and Alabama. J. Mammal. 7, 149–184 (1926).
Google Scholar 
Davenport, J., & Dellinger, T. Melanism and foraging behaviour in an intertidal population of the Madeiran lizard Podarcis (= Lacerta) dugesii (Milne-Edwards, 1829). Herpetol. J. 5, 200–203 (1995).
Google Scholar 
Galán, P. Demography and population dynamics of the lacertid lizard Podarcis bocagei in north-west Spain. J. Zool. 249, 203–218 (1999).
Google Scholar 
Censky, E. J., Hodge, K. & Dudley, J. Over-water dispersal of lizards due to hurricanes. Nature 395, 556 (1998).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rolán‐Alvarez, E., Erlandsson, J., Johannesson, K. & Cruz, R. Mechanisms of incomplete prezygotic reproductive isolation in an intertidal snail: testing behavioural models in wild populations. J. Evol. Biol. 12, 879–890 (1999).
Google Scholar 
Ludt, W. B. & Rocha, L. A. Shifting seas: the impacts of Pleistocene sea‐level fluctuations on the evolution of tropical marine taxa. J. Biogeogr. 42, 25–38 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Lambeck, K. Late Pleistocene, Holocene and present sea-levels: constraints on future change. Glob. Planet Change 3, 205–217 (1990). & J.
Google Scholar 
Rosenblum, E. B. The role of phenotypic plasticity in color variation of Tularosa Basin lizards. Copeia 2005, 586–596 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Jin, Y. et al. Dorsal pigmentation and its association with functional variation in MC1R in a lizard from different elevations on the Qinghai–Tibetan plateau. Genome Biol. Evol. 12, 2303–2313 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Corl, A. et al. The genetic basis of adaptation following plastic changes in coloration in a novel environment. Curr. Biol. 28, 2970–2977 (2018).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sacchi, R. et al. Genetic and phenotypic component in head shape of common wall lizard Podarcis muralis. Amphib.-Reptilia 37, 301–310 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Dice, L. R. Variation of the deer-mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) on the Sand Hills of Nebraska and adjacent areas. Contrib. Lab Vertebrate Biol. Univ. Mich. 15, 1–19 (1941).
Google Scholar 
Vitt, L. J., Caldwell, J. P., Zani, P. A. & Titus, T. A. The role of habitat shift in the evolution of lizard morphology: evidence from tropical Tropidurus. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 94, 3828–3832 (1997).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pfeifer, S. P. et al. The evolutionary history of Nebraska deer mice: local adaptation in the face of strong gene flow. Mol. Biol. Evol. 35, 792–806 (2018).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Scherrer, R., Donihue, C. M., Reynolds, R. G., Losos, J. B. & Geneva, A. J. Dewlap colour variation in Anolis sagrei is maintained among habitats within islands of the West Indies. J. Evol. Biol. 35, 680–692 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Janson, K. Selection and migration in two distinct phenotypes of Littorina saxatilis in Sweden. Oecologia 59, 58–61 (1983).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Richardson, J. L., Urban, M. C., Bolnick, D. I. & Skelly, D. K. Microgeographic adaptation and the spatial scale of evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 29, 165–176 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Engelstoft, C., Robinson, J., Fraser, D. & Hanke, G. Recent rapid expansion of common wall lizards (Podarcis muralis) in British Columbia, Canada. Northwest. Naturalist 101, 50–55 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Cascio, P. L. & Pasta, S. Preliminary data on the biometry and the diet of a microinsular population of Podarcis wagleriana (Reptilia: Lacertidae). Acta Herpetol. 1, 147–152 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Janssen, J., Towns, D. R., Duxbury, M. & Heitkönig, I. M. Surviving in a semi-marine habitat: dietary salt exposure and salt secretion of a New Zealand intertidal skink. Comp. Biochem Physiol. A Mol. Integr. Physiol. 189, 21–29 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Grismer, L. L. Three new species of intertidal side-blotched lizards (genus Uta) from the Gulf of California, Mexico. Herpetologica 50, 451–474 (1994).
Google Scholar 
Sepúlveda, M., Sabat, P., Porter, W. P. & Fariña, J. M. One solution for two challenges: the lizard Microlophus atacamensis avoids overheating by foraging in intertidal shores. PLoS One 9, 97735 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Hobson, E. S. Observations on diving in the Galapagos marine iguana, Amblyrhynchus cristatus (Bell). Copeia 1965, 249–250 (1965).Balakrishna, S., Amdekar, M. S. & Thaker, M. Morphological divergence, tail loss, and predation risk in urban lizards. Urban Ecosyst. 24, 1391–1398 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Falvey, C. H., Aviles-Rodriguez, K. J., Hagey, T. J. & Winchell, K. M. The finer points of urban adaptation: intraspecific variation in lizard claw morphology. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 131, 304–318 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Marnocha, E., Pollinger, J. & Smith, T. B. Human‐induced morphological shifts in an island lizard. Evol. Appl 4, 388–396 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Rocha, R., Paixão, M. & Gouveia, R. Predation note: Anthus berthelotii madeirensis (Passeriformes: Motacillidae) catches Teira dugesii mauli (Squamata: Lacertidae) in Deserta Grande, Madeira Archipel. Herpetol. Notes 3, 77–78 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Völkl, W. & Brandl, R. Tail break rate in the Madeiran lizard (Podarcis dugesii). Amphibia-Reptilia 9, 213–218 (1988).Malhotra, A. & Thorpe, R. S. Microgeographic variation in Anolis oculatus, on the island of Dominica, West Indies. J. Evol. Biol. 4, 321–335 (1991).
Google Scholar 
Thorpe, R. S. & Brown, R. P. Microgeographic variation in the colour pattern of the lizard Gallotia galloti within the island of Tenerife: distribution, pattern and hypothesis testing. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 38, 303–322 (1989).
Google Scholar 
Brown, R. P., Thorpe, R. S. & Báez, M. Parallel within-island microevolution of lizards on neighbouring islands. Nature 352, 60–62 (1991).
Google Scholar 
Báez, M. & Brown, R. P. Testing multivariate patterns of within‐island differentiation in Podarcis dugesii from Madeira. J. Evol. Biol. 10, 575–587 (1997).
Google Scholar 
Cook, L. M. Density of lizards in Madeira. Bocagiana (Funchal) 66, 1–3 (1983).
Google Scholar 
Sadek, R. A. The diet of the Madeiran lizard Lacerta dugesii. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 73, 313–341 (1981).
Google Scholar 
Brehm, A. et al. Phylogeography of the Madeiran endemic lizard Lacerta dugesii inferred from mtDNA sequences. Mol. Phylogenetics Evol. 26, 222–230 (2003).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Suárez, N. M., Pestano, J. & Brown, R. P. Ecological divergence combined with ancient allopatry in lizard populations from a small volcanic island. Mol. Ecol. 23, 4799–4812 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Towns, D. R. Ecology of the black shore skink, Leiolopisma suteri (Lacertilia: Scincidae), in boulder beach habitats. N. Z. J. Zool. 2, 389–407 (1975).
Google Scholar 
Cook, L. M. Variation in the Madeiran lizard Lacerta dugesii. J. Zool. 187, 327–340 (1979).
Google Scholar 
Troscianko, J. & Stevens, M. Image calibration and analysis toolbox–a free software suite for objectively measuring reflectance, colour, and pattern. Methods Ecol. Evol. 6, 1320–1331 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Schneider, C. A., Rasband, W. S. & Eliceiri, K. W. NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat. Methods 9, 671–675 (2012).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rohlf, F. J. The tps series of software. Hystrix, Ital. J. Mammal. 26, 9–12 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Bookstein, F. L. Morphometric Tools for Landmark Data: Geometry and Biology (Cambridge University Press, 1991).Klingenberg, C. P. MorphoJ: an integrated software package for geometric morphometrics. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 11, 353–357 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Rohlf, F. J. & Slice, D. Extensions of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Syst. Biol. 39, 40–59 (1990).
Google Scholar 
Klingenberg, C. P., Barluenga, M. & Meyer, A. Shape analysis of symmetric structures: quantifying variation among individuals and asymmetry. Evolution 56, 1909–1920 (2002).
Google Scholar 
Andrews, S. FastQC: a Quality Control Tool for High Throughput Sequence Data. Babraham Bioinformatics version 0.11.7. https://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc/ (2010).Melo, A. T., Bartaula, R. & Hale, I. GBS-SNP-CROP: a reference-optional pipeline for SNP discovery and plant germplasm characterization using variable length, paired-end genotyping-by-sequencing data. BMC Bioinform. 17, 1–15 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Sabadin, F., Carvalho, H. F., Galli, G. & Fritsche-Neto, R. Population-tailored mock genome enables genomic studies in species without a reference genome. Mol. Genet. Genom. 297, 33–46 (2022).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Danecek, P. et al. The variant call format and VCFtools. Bioinformatics 27, 2156–2158 (2011).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pfeifer, B., Wittelsbürger, U., Ramos-Onsins, S. E. & Lercher, M. J. PopGenome: an efficient swiss army knife for population genomic analyses in R. Mol. Biol. Evol. 31, 1929–1936 (2014).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Team, R. C. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/ (2022).Jombart, T. adegenet: a R package for the multivariate analysis of genetic markers. Bioinformatics 24, 1403–1405 (2008).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Luu, K., Bazin, E. & Blum, M. G. pcadapt: an R package to perform genome scans for selection based on principal component analysis. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 17, 67–77 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Günther, T. & Coop, G. Robust identification of local adaptation from allele frequencies. Genetics 195, 205–220 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Dray, S. et al. Package ‘adespatial.’ Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/package=adespatial (2018).Montano, V. & Jombart, T. An eigenvalue test for spatial principal component analysis. BMC Bioinform. 18, 1–7 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Pickrell, J. K. & Pritchard, J. K. Inference of population splits and mixtures from genome-wide allele frequency data. PLoS Genet. 8, e1002967 (2012).CAS 

Google Scholar  More

Muller, Z. et al. Giraffa camelopardalis. The IUCN red list of threatened species 2016:e.T9194A109326950 (2018).Oconnor, D. et al. Updated geographic range maps for giraffe, Giraffa spp., throughout sub-Saharan Africa, and implications of changing distributions for conservation. Mamm. Rev. 49, 285–299. https://doi.org/10.1111/mam.12165 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brown, M. B. et al. Conservation status of giraffe: Evaluating contemporary distribution and abundance with evolving taxonomic perspectives. Ref. Module Earth Syst. Environ. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-821139-7.00139-2 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dunn, M. E. et al. Investigating the international and pan-African trade in giraffe parts and derivatives. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 3, e390. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.390 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hassanin, A. et al. Mitochondrial DNA variability in Giraffa camelopardalis: Consequences for taxonomy, phylogeography and conservation of giraffes in West and Central Africa. C.R. Biol. 330, 265–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crvi.2007.02.008 (2007).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Groves, C. & Grubb, P. Ungulate Taxonomy (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2011).Book 

Google Scholar 
Fennessy, J. et al. Multi-locus analyses reveal four giraffe species instead of one. Curr. Biol. 26, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.07.036 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Winter, S., Fennessy, J. & Janke, A. Limited introgression supports division of giraffe into four species. Ecol. Evol. 8, 10156–10165. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4490 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bercovitch, F. B. Giraffe taxonomy, geographic distribution, and conservation. Afr. J. Ecol. 58, 150–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/aje.12741 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Petzold, A. & Hassanin, A. A comparative approach for species delimitation based on multiple methods of multi-locus DNA sequence analysis: A case study of the genus Giraffa (Mammalia, Cetartiodactyla). PLoS ONE 15, e0217956. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217956 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Petzold, A. et al. First insights into past biodiversity of giraffes based on mitochondrial sequences from museum specimens. Eur. J. Taxon. 703, L57-63. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217956 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Coimbra, R. T. F. et al. Whole-genome analysis of giraffe supports four distinct species. Curr. Biol. 31, 2929-2938.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.04.033 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Muneza, A. B. et al. Giraffa camelopardalis ssp. reticulata. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018:e.T88420717A88420720 (2018).Miller, M. F. Dispersal of Acacia seeds by ungulates and ostriches in an African Savanna. J. Trop. Ecol. 12, 345–356. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467400009548 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Palmer, T. M. et al. Breakdown of an ant-plant mutualism follows the loss of large herbivores from an African savanna. Science 319, 192–195. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1151579 (2008).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kalema, G. Investigation of a skin disease in giraffe in Murchison Falls National Park. Report Submitted to Uganda National Park. Uganda National Parks. Kampala, Uganda (1996).Muneza, A. B. et al. Regional variation of the manifestation, prevalence, and severity of giraffe skin disease: A review of an emerging disease in wild and captive giraffe populations. Biol. Conserv. 198, 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.04.014 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Epaphras, A. M., Karimuribo, E. D., Mpanduji, D. G. & Meing’ataki, G. E. Prevalence, disease description and epidemiological factors of a novel skin disease in giraffes (Giraffa camelopardalis) in Ruaha National Park, Tanzania. Res. Opin. Anim. Vet. Sci. 2, 60–65 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Lee, D. E. & Bond, M. L. The occurrence and prevalence of giraffe skin disease in protected areas of northern Tanzania. J. Wildl. Dis. 52, 753–755. https://doi.org/10.7589/2015-09-24 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Muneza, A. B. et al. Examining disease prevalence for species of conservation concern using non-invasive spatial capture–recapture techniques. J. Appl. Ecol. 54, 709–717. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12796 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brown, M. Murchison falls giraffe project: Field report. Giraffid 9, 5–10 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Muneza, A. B. et al. Quantifying the severity of an emerging skin disease affecting giraffe populations using photogrammetry analysis of camera trap data. J. Wildl. Dis. 55, 770–781. https://doi.org/10.7589/2018-06-149 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Han, S. et al. Giraffe skin disease: Clinicopathologic characterization of cutaneous filariasis in the critically endangered Nubian giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis camelopardalis). Vet. Pathol. https://doi.org/10.1177/03009858221082606 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Whittier, C. A. et al. Cutaneous filariasis in free-ranging Rothschild’s giraffes (Giraffa Camelopardalis rothschildi) in Uganda. J. Wildl. Dis. 56, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.7589/2018-09-212 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pellew, R. Food consumption and energy budgets of the giraffe. J. Appl. Ecol. 21, 141–159. https://doi.org/10.2307/2403043 (1984).Article 

Google Scholar 
Strauss, M. K. L. & Packer, C. Using claw marks to study lion predation on giraffes of the Serengeti. J. Zool. 289, 134–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2012.00972.x (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Muneza, A. B. et al. Exploring the connections between giraffe skin disease and lion predation. J. Zool. https://doi.org/10.1111/jzo.12930 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lindsey, P. A. et al. The bushmeat trade in African savannas: Impacts, drivers, and possible solutions. Biol. Conserv. 160, 80–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.12.020 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Becker, M. et al. Evaluating wire-snare poaching trends and the impacts of by-catch on elephants and large carnivores. Biol. Conserv. 158, 26–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.08.017 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mudumba, T., Jingo, S., Heit, D. & Montgomery, R. A. The landscape configuration and lethality of snare poaching of sympatric guilds of large carnivores and ungulates. Afr. J. Ecol. 59, 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/aje.12781 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Strauss, M. K. L., Kilewo, M., Rentsch, D. & Packer, C. Food supply and poaching limit giraffe abundance in the Serengeti. Popul. Ecol. 57, 505–516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10144-015-0499-9 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Munn, J. Effects of injury on the locomotion of free-ranging chimpanzees in the Budongo Forest Reserve, Uganda. In Primates of Western Uganda: Developments in Primatology: Progress and Prospects (eds. Newton-Fisher, N. E., Notman, H., Paterson, J. D., & Reynolds, V.) 259–280 (Springer, 2006).Yersin, H., Asiimwe, C., Voordouw, M. J. & Zuberbühler, K. Impact of snare injuries on parasite prevalence in wild chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Int. J. Primatol. 38, 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-016-9941-x (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dagg, A. I. Gaits of the giraffe and okapi. J. Mammal. 41, 282–282. https://doi.org/10.2307/1376381 (1960).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dagg, A. I. The role of the neck in the movements of the giraffe. J. Mammal. 43, 88–97. https://doi.org/10.2307/1376883 (1962).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dagg, A. I. & Vos, A. D. The walking gaits of some species of Pecora. J. Zool. 155, 103–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1968.tb03031.x (1968).Article 

Google Scholar 
Alexander, R. M. N., Langman, V. A. & Jayes, A. S. Fast locomotion of some African ungulates. J. Zool. 183, 291–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1977.tb04188.x (1977).Article 

Google Scholar 
Basu, C., Deacon, F., Hutchinson, J. R. & Wilson, A. M. The running kinematics of free-roaming giraffes, measured using a low cost unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). PeerJ 7, e6312. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.6312 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Basu, C., Wilson, A. M. & Hutchinson, J. R. The locomotor kinematics and ground reaction forces of walking giraffes. J. Exp. Biol. 222, jeb159277. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.159277 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hildebrand, M. The adaptive significance of tetrapod gait selection. Am. Zool. 20, 255–267. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/20.1.255 (1980).Article 

Google Scholar 
Flower, F. C., Sanderson, D. J. & Weary, D. M. Hoof pathologies influence kinematic measures of dairy cow gait. J. Dairy Sci. 88, 3166–3173. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(05)73000-9 (2005).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Brown, M. B., Bolger, D. T. & Fennessy, J. All the eggs in one basket: A countrywide assessment of current and historical giraffe population distribution in Uganda. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 19, e00612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00612 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Foster, J. B. The giraffe of Nairobi National Park: Home range, sex ratios, the herd, and food. Afr. J. Ecol. 4, 139–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2028.1966.tb00889.x (1966).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bond, M. L., Strauss, M. K. L. & Lee, D. E. Soil correlates and mortality from giraffe skin disease in Tanzania. J. Wildl. Dis. 52, 953–958. https://doi.org/10.7589/2016-02-047 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dunham, N. T., McNamara, A., Shapiro, L., Hieronymus, T. & Young, J. W. A user’s guide for the quantitative analysis of substrate characteristics and locomotor kinematics in free-ranging primates. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 167, 569–584. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.23686 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rueden, C. T. et al. Imagej 2: Imagej for the next generation of scientific image data. BMC Bioinform. 18, 529. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12859-017-1934-z (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cartmill, M., Lemelin, P. & Schmitt, D. Support polygons and symmetrical gaits in mammals. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 136, 401–420. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00038.x (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hildebrand, M. Analysis of the symmetrical gaits of tetrapods. Folia Biotheoretica 6, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/1379571 (1966).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shapiro, L. J. & Young, J. W. Kinematics of quadrupedal locomotion in sugar gliders (Petaurus breviceps): Effects of age and substrate size. J. Exp. Biol. 215, 480–496. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.062588 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shapiro, L. J., Young, J. W. & VandeBerg, J. L. Body size and the small branch niche: Using marsupial ontogeny to model primate locomotor evolution. J. Hum. Evol. 68, 14–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.12.006 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dunham, N. T., McNamara, A., Shapiro, L., Phelps, T. & Young, J. W. Asymmetrical gait kinematics of free-ranging callitrichines in response to changes in substrate diameter, orientation, and displacement. J. Exp. Biol. 223, jeb217562. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.217562 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Robinson, R., Herzog, W. & Nigg, B. Use of force platform variables to quantify the effects of chiropractic manipulation on gait symmetry. J. Manipulative Physiol. Ther. 10, 172–176 (1987).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Vanden Hole, C. et al. How innate is locomotion in precocial animals? A study on the early development of spatiotemporal gait variables and gait symmetry in piglets. J. Exp. Biol. 220, 2706–2716. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.157693 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jacobs, B. Y., Kloefkorn, H. E. & Allen, K. D. Gait analysis methods for rodent models of osteoarthritis. Curr. Pain Headache Rep. 18, 456–475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11916-014-0456-x (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pfau, T., Spence, A., Starke, S., Ferrari, M. & Wilson, A. Modern riding style improves horse racing times. Science 325, 289–289. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1174605 (2009).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2019). http://www.R-project.org/.Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B. & Christensen, R. H. B. LmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. J. Stat. Softw. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Length, R. emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least‐squares means. R package version 0.9. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans (2017).Benjamini, Y. & Hochberg, Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B (Methodol.) 57, 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x (1995).Article 
MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Merkens, H. W. & Schamhardt, H. C. Evaluation of equine locomotion during different degrees of experimentally induced lameness I: Lameness model and quantification of ground reaction force patterns of the limbs. Equine Vet. J. 20, 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2042-3306.1988.tb04655.x (1988).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fanchon, L. & Grandjean, D. Accuracy of asymmetry indices of ground reaction forces for diagnosis of hind limb lameness in dogs. Am. J. Vet. Res. 68, 1089–1094. https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.68.10.1089 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bragança, F. M. S., Rhodin, M. & van Weeren, P. R. On the brink of daily clinical application of objective gait analysis: What evidence do we have so far from studies using an induced lameness model?. Vet. J. 234, 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2018.01.006 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brown, M. B. & Bolger, D. T. Male-biased partial migration in a giraffe population. Front. Ecol. Evol. 7, 524. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2019.00524 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dagg, A. I. Giraffe: Biology, Behaviour and Conservation (Cambridge University Press, 2014).Book 

Google Scholar 
Castles, M. P. et al. Relationships between male giraffes’ colour, age and sociability. Anim. Behav. 157, 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2019.08.003 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Anae, J. et al. Recent advances in biochar engineering for soil contaminated with complex chemical mixtures: Remediation strategies and future perspectives. Sci. Total Environ. 767, 144351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144351 (2021).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kiran, B. R. & Prasad, M. N. V. Biochar and rice husk ash assisted phytoremediation potentials of Ricinus communis L. for lead-spiked soils. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 183, 109574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2019.109574 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bolan, N. et al. Remediation of heavy metal(loid)s contaminated soils – To mobilize or to immobilize?. J. Hazard. Mater. 266, 141–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2013.12.018 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Burachevskaya, M. et al. The effect of granular activated carbon and biochar on the availability of Cu and Zn to Hordeum sativum distichum in contaminated soil. Plants https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10050841 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cao, P. et al. Mercapto propyltrimethoxysilane- and ferrous sulfate-modified nano-silica for immobilization of lead and cadmium as well as arsenic in heavy metal-contaminated soil. Environ. Pollut. 266, 115152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115152 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ok, Y. S. et al. Ameliorants to immobilize Cd in rice paddy soils contaminated by abandoned metal mines in Korea. Environ. Geochem. Health 33(Suppl 1), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-010-9364-0 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Qin, Y. et al. Dual-wastes derived biochar with tailored surface features for highly efficient p-nitrophenol adsorption. J. Clean. Prod. 353, 131571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131571 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rajput, V. D. et al. Nano-biochar: A novel solution for sustainable agriculture and environmental remediation. Environ. Res. 210, 112891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.112891 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ding, Y. et al. Biochar to improve soil fertility. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 36, 36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-016-0372-z (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Oni, B. A., Oziegbe, O. & Olawole, O. O. Significance of biochar application to the environment and economy. Ann. Agric. Sci. 64, 222–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aoas.2019.12.006 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
He, E. et al. Two years of aging influences the distribution and lability of metal(loid)s in a contaminated soil amended with different biochars. Sci. Total Environ. 673, 245–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.037 (2019).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Netherway, P. et al. Phosphorus-rich biochars can transform lead in an urban contaminated soil. J. Environ. Qual. 48, 1091–1099. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2018.09.0324 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
O’Connor, D. et al. Biochar application for the remediation of heavy metal polluted land: A review of in situ field trials. Sci. Total Environ. 619–620, 815–826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.11.132 (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Xu, X. et al. Effect of physicochemical properties of biochar from different feedstock on remediation of heavy metal contaminated soil in mining area. Surf. Interfaces 32, 102058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfin.2022.102058 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Melo, L. C. A. et al. Sorption and desorption of cadmium and zinc in two tropical soils amended with sugarcane-straw-derived biochar. J. Soils Sediments 16, 226–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-015-1199-y (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Uchimiya, M., Chang, S. & Klasson, K. T. Screening biochars for heavy metal retention in soil: Role of oxygen functional groups. J. Hazard. Mater. 190, 432–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2011.03.063 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jatav, H. S. et al. Sustainable approach and safe use of biochar and its possible consequences. Sustainability https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810362 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Varalta, F. & Sorvari, J. In Organic Waste Composting through Nexus Thinking: Practices, Policies, and Trends (eds Hettiarachchi, H. et al.) 213–232 (Springer International Publishing, 2020).Chapter 

Google Scholar 
Pinotti, L. et al. Recycling food leftovers in feed as opportunity to increase the sustainability of livestock production. J. Clean. Prod. 294, 126290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126290 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jafri, N., Wong, W. Y., Doshi, V., Yoon, L. W. & Cheah, K. H. A review on production and characterization of biochars for application in direct carbon fuel cells. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 118, 152–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2018.06.036 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jin, Y. et al. Characterization of biochars derived from various spent mushroom substrates and evaluation of their adsorption performance of Cu(II) ions from aqueous solution. Environ. Res. 196, 110323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.110323 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Tomczyk, A., Sokołowska, Z. & Boguta, P. Biomass type effect on biochar surface characteristic and adsorption capacity relative to silver and copper. Fuel 278, 118168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.118168 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
FAO. Food Outlook – Biannual Report on Global Food Markets: November 2020. Rome. Phytoremediation of copper-contaminated soil by Artemisia absinthium: comparative effect of chelating agents. Environmental Geochemistry and Health. (2020). https://doi.org/10.4060/cb1993enRussian-Statistical-Year-Book. Statistical handbook. P76 M., 2020 – 700 p. ISBN 978-5-89476-497-9 (2020).Cheng, C.-H., Lehmann, J., Thies, J. E. & Burton, S. D. Stability of black carbon in soils across a climatic gradient. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 113, 55. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JG000642 (2008).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Singh, B. P., Cowie, A. L. & Smernik, R. J. Biochar carbon stability in a clayey soil as a function of feedstock and pyrolysis temperature. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 11770–11778. https://doi.org/10.1021/es302545b (2012).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
He, Y. et al. Effects of biochar application on soil greenhouse gas fluxes: A meta-analysis. GCB Bioenergy 9, 743–755. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12376 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Janu, R. et al. Biochar surface functional groups as affected by biomass feedstock, biochar composition and pyrolysis temperature. Carbon Resour. Convers. 4, 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crcon.2021.01.003 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Tan, X. et al. Application of biochar for the removal of pollutants from aqueous solutions. Chemosphere 125, 70–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.12.058 (2015).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ni, B.-J. et al. Competitive adsorption of heavy metals in aqueous solution onto biochar derived from anaerobically digested sludge. Chemosphere 219, 351–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.12.053 (2019).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Park, J.-H. et al. Competitive adsorption of heavy metals onto sesame straw biochar in aqueous solutions. Chemosphere 142, 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.05.093 (2016).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Methodological-Guidelines. Methodological guidelines for the determination of heavy metals in the soils of agricultural land and crop production – M., TSINAO, 61 (1992)Zhang, A., Li, X., Xing, J. & Xu, G. Adsorption of potentially toxic elements in water by modified biochar: A review. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 8, 104196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2020.104196 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Avramiotis, E., Frontistis, Z., Manariotis, I. D., Vakros, J. & Mantzavinos, D. On the performance of a sustainable rice husk biochar for the activation of persulfate and the degradation of antibiotics. Catalysts 11, 1303 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Maiti, S., Dey, S., Purakayastha, S. & Ghosh, B. Physical and thermochemical characterization of rice husk char as a potential biomass energy source. Biores. Technol. 97, 2065–2070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2005.10.005 (2006).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Herrera, K., Morales, L. F., Tarazona, N. A., Aguado, R. & Saldarriaga, J. F. Use of biochar from rice husk pyrolysis: Part A: Recovery as an adsorbent in the removal of emerging compounds. ACS Omega 7, 7625–7637. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.1c06147 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Szewczuk-Karpisz, K., Tomczyk, A., Grygorczuk-Płaneta, K. & Naveed, S. Rhizobium leguminosarum bv. trifolii exopolysaccharide and sunflower husk biochar as factors affecting immobilization of both tetracycline and Cd2+ ions on soil solid phase. J. Soils Sediments 22, 2620–2639. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-022-03255-3 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hubetska, T. S., Kobylinska, N. G. & García, J. R. Sunflower biomass power plant by-products: Properties and its potential for water purification of organic pollutants. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 157, 105237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2021.105237 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Braghiroli, F. L. et al. The influence of pilot-scale pyro-gasification and activation conditions on porosity development in activated biochars. Biomass Bioenerg. 118, 105–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2018.08.016 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Braghiroli, F. L. et al. The conversion of wood residues, using pilot-scale technologies, into porous activated biochars for supercapacitors. J. Porous Mater. 27, 537–548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10934-019-00823-w (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Boraah, N., Chakma, S. & Kaushal, P. Attributes of wood biochar as an efficient adsorbent for remediating heavy metals and emerging contaminants from water: A critical review and bibliometric analysis. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 10, 107825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2022.107825 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Phillips, C. L. et al. Towards predicting biochar impacts on plant-available soil nitrogen content. Biochar 4, 9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42773-022-00137-2 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sun, L. & Gong, K. Silicon-based materials from rice husks and their applications. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 40, 5861–5877. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie010284b (2001).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Islam, T. et al. Synthesis of rice husk-derived magnetic biochar through liquefaction to adsorb anionic and cationic dyes from aqueous solutions. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 46, 233–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-020-04537-z (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mohan, D. et al. Biochar production and applications in soil fertility and carbon sequestration – a sustainable solution to crop-residue burning in India. RSC Adv. 8, 508–520. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7RA10353K (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Li, F. et al. Preparation and characterization of biochars from Eichornia crassipes for cadmium removal in aqueous solutions. PLoS ONE 11, e0148132. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148132 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Song, H. et al. Potential of novel biochars produced from invasive aquatic species outside food chain in removing ammonium nitrogen: Comparison with conventional biochars and clinoptilolite. Sustainability https://doi.org/10.3390/su11247136 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yang, G. et al. Effects of pyrolysis temperature on the physicochemical properties of biochar derived from vermicompost and its potential use as an environmental amendment. RSC Adv. 5, 40117–40125. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RA02836A (2015).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Enders, A., Hanley, K., Whitman, T., Joseph, S. & Lehmann, J. Characterization of biochars to evaluate recalcitrance and agronomic performance. Bioresour. Technol. 114, 644–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.03.022 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, Y., Wang, J. & Feng, Y. The effects of biochar addition on soil physicochemical properties: A review. CATENA 202, 105284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2021.105284 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Özçimen, D. & Ersoy-Meriçboyu, A. Characterization of biochar and bio-oil samples obtained from carbonization of various biomass materials. Renew. Energy 35, 1319–1324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2009.11.042 (2010).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lin, Q. et al. Effects of biochar-based materials on the bioavailability of soil organic pollutants and their biological impacts. Sci. Total Environ. 826, 153956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153956 (2022).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yang, H. et al. Thermogravimetric analysis−fourier transform infrared analysis of palm oil waste pyrolysis. Energy Fuels 18, 1814–1821. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef030193m (2004).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pasangulapati, V. et al. Effects of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin on thermochemical conversion characteristics of the selected biomass. Biores. Technol. 114, 663–669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.03.036 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kim, P. et al. Surface functionality and carbon structures in lignocellulosic-derived biochars produced by fast pyrolysis. Energy Fuels 25, 4693–4703. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef200915s (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Keiluweit, M., Nico, P. S., Johnson, M. G. & Kleber, M. dynamic molecular structure of plant biomass-derived black carbon (biochar). Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 1247–1253. https://doi.org/10.1021/es9031419 (2010).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wijeyawardana, P. et al. Removal of Cu, Pb and Zn from stormwater using an industrially manufactured sawdust and paddy husk derived biochar. Environ. Technol. Innov. 28, 102640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2022.102640 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kołodyńska, D., Krukowska, J. & Thomas, P. Comparison of sorption and desorption studies of heavy metal ions from biochar and commercial active carbon. Chem. Eng. J. 307, 353–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2016.08.088 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Uchimiya, M. et al. Immobilization of heavy metal ions (CuII, CdII, NiII, and PbII) by broiler litter-derived biochars in water and soil. J. Agric. Food Chem. 58, 5538–5544. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf9044217 (2010).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Misono, M., Ochiai, E. I., Saito, Y. & Yoneda, Y. A new dual parameter scale for the strength of lewis acids and bases with the evaluation of their softness. J. Inorg. Nucl. Chem. 29, 2685–2691. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1902(67)80006-X (1967).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
McBride, M. B. Environmental Chemistry of Soils (Oxford University Press, 1994).
Google Scholar 
Basta, N. T. & Tabatabai, M. A. Effect of cropping systems on adsorption of metals by soils: III. Competitive adsorption1. Soil Sci. 153, 331–337 (1992).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sposito, G. The Chemistry of Soils (Oxford University Press, 2016).Bauer, T. V. et al. Application of XAFS and XRD methods for describing the copper and zinc adsorption characteristics in hydromorphic soils. Environ. Geochem. Health 44, 335–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-020-00773-2 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Abd-Elfattah, A. L. Y. & Wada, K. Adsorption of lead, copper, zinc, cobalt, and cadmium by soils that differ in cation-exchange materials. J. Soil Sci. 32, 271–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.1981.tb01706.x (1981).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Etesami, H., Fatemi, H. & Rizwan, M. Interactions of nanoparticles and salinity stress at physiological, biochemical and molecular levels in plants: A review. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 225, 112769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2021.112769 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Soria, R. I., Rolfe, S. A., Betancourth, M. P. & Thornton, S. F. The relationship between properties of plant-based biochars and sorption of Cd(II), Pb(II) and Zn(II) in soil model systems. Heliyon 6, e05388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05388 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Alfarra, A., Frackowiak, E. & Béguin, F. The HSAB concept as a means to interpret the adsorption of metal ions onto activated carbons. Appl. Surf. Sci. 228, 84–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2003.12.033 (2004).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hu, J., Zhou, X., Shi, Y., Wang, X. & Li, H. Enhancing biochar sorption properties through self-templating strategy and ultrasonic fore-modified pre-treatment: Characteristic, kinetic and mechanism studies. Sci. Total Environ. 769, 144574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144574 (2021).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ward, J., Rasul, M. G. & Bhuiya, M. M. K. Energy recovery from biomass by fast pyrolysis. Proced. Eng. 90, 669–674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2014.11.791 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Al-Wabel, M. I., Al-Omran, A., El-Naggar, A. H., Nadeem, M. & Usman, A. R. A. Pyrolysis temperature induced changes in characteristics and chemical composition of biochar produced from conocarpus wastes. Biores. Technol. 131, 374–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.12.165 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Calvelo Pereira, R. et al. Contribution to characterisation of biochar to estimate the labile fraction of carbon. Org. Geochem. 42, 1331–1342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orggeochem.2011.09.002 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Vorob’eva, L. A. Theory and Practice Chemical Analysis of Soils (GEOS Press, Moscow, 2006).
Google Scholar 
Pinskii, D. L. et al. Copper adsorption by chernozem soils and parent rocks in Southern Russia. Geochem. Int. 56, 266–275. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0016702918030072 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wang, Q., Wang, B., Lee, X., Lehmann, J. & Gao, B. Sorption and desorption of Pb(II) to biochar as affected by oxidation and pH. Sci. Total Environ. 634, 188–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.03.189 (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pourret, O. & Houben, D. Characterization of metal binding sites onto biochar using rare earth elements as a fingerprint. Heliyon 4, e00543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.e00543 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Huang, L. et al. High-resolution insight into the competitive adsorption of heavy metals on natural sediment by site energy distribution. Chemosphere 197, 411–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.01.056 (2018).Article 
ADS 
MathSciNet 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ming, H. et al. Competitive sorption of cadmium and zinc in contrasting soils. Geoderma 268, 60–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.01.021 (2016).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Musso, T. B., Parolo, M. E., Pettinari, G. & Francisca, F. M. Cu(II) and Zn(II) adsorption capacity of three different clay liner materials. J. Environ. Manag. 146, 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.07.026 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cui, H. et al. Immobilization of Cu and Cd in a contaminated soil: One- and four-year field effects. J. Soils Sediments 14, 1397–1406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-014-0882-8 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Elbana, T. A. et al. Freundlich sorption parameters for cadmium, copper, nickel, lead, and zinc for different soils: Influence of kinetics. Geoderma 324, 80–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.03.019 (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar  More

Orcutt B, D’Angelo T, Jungbluth SP, Huber JA, Sylvan JB. Microbial life in oceanic crust. OSF Preprints, 2020; https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/2wxe6.Koonin EV. On the origin of cells and viruses: primordial virus world scenario. Ann NY Acad Sci. 2009;1178:47–64.Nigro OD, Jungbluth SP, Lin HT, Hsieh CC, Miranda JA, Schvarcz CR, et al. Viruses in the oceanic basement. MBio. 2017;8:1–15.
Google Scholar 
Wheat CG, Jannasch HW, Kastner M, Hulme S, Cowen J, Edwards KJ, et al. Fluid sampling from oceanic borehole observatories: design and methods for CORK activities (1990–2010). 2011. In Fisher AT, Tsuji T, Petronotis K, and the Expedition 327 Scientists, Proc. IODP, 327: Tokyo (Integrated Ocean Drilling Program Management International, Inc.). https://doi.org/10.2204/iodp.proc.327.109.2011.Koonin EV, Yutin N Evolution of the large nucleocytoplasmic DNA viruses of eukaryotes and convergent origins of viral gigantism. Advances in Virus Research. 2019. Elsevier, pp 167–202.Koonin EV, Senkevich TG, Dolja VV. The ancient Virus World and evolution of cells. Biol Direct. 2006;1:29.
Google Scholar 
Shinn GL, Bullard BL. Ultrastructure of Meelsvirus: A nuclear virus of arrow worms (phylum Chaetognatha) producing giant “tailed” virions. PLoS One. 2018;13:e0203282.
Google Scholar 
Wilhelm SW, Bird JT, Bonifer KS, Calfee BC, Chen T, Coy SR, et al. A student’s guide to giant viruses infecting small eukaryotes: From Acanthamoeba to Zooxanthellae. Viruses. 2017;9:46–63.Schulz F, Roux S, Paez-Espino D, Jungbluth S, Walsh DA, Denef VJ, et al. Giant virus diversity and host interactions through global metagenomics. Nature. 2020;578:432–6.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Moniruzzaman M, Martinez-Gutierrez CA, Weinheimer AR, Aylward FO. Dynamic genome evolution and complex virocell metabolism of globally-distributed giant viruses. Nat Commun. 2020;11:1–11.
Google Scholar 
Martínez Martínez J, Swan BK, Wilson WH. Marine viruses, a genetic reservoir revealed by targeted viromics. ISME J. 2014;8:1079–88.
Google Scholar 
Khalil JYB, Robert S, Reteno DG, Andreani J, Raoult D, La Scola B. High-throughput isolation of giant viruses in liquid medium using automated flow cytometry and fluorescence staining. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:1–9.
Google Scholar 
Wilson WH, Gilg IC, Moniruzzaman M, Field EK, Koren S, Lecleir GR, et al. Genomic exploration of individual giant ocean viruses. ISME J. 2017;11:1736–45.
Google Scholar 
Roux S, Chan LK, Egan R, Malmstrom RR, McMahon KD, Sullivan MB. Ecogenomics of virophages and their giant virus hosts assessed through time series metagenomics. Nat Commun. 2017;8:1–12.Schulz F, Alteio L, Goudeau D, Blanchard J, Woyke T, Ryan EM, et al. Hidden diversity of soil giant viruses. Nat Commun. 2018;9:1–9.Bäckström D, Yutin N, Jørgensen SL, Dharamshi J, Homa F, Zaremba-Niedwiedzka K, et al. Virus genomes from deep sea sediments expand the ocean megavirome and support independent origins of viral gigantism. mBio. 2019;10:e02497-18.Martínez JM, Martinez-Hernandez F, Martinez-Garcia M. Single-virus genomics and beyond. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2020;18:705–16.Schulz F, Yutin N, Ivanova NN, Ortega DR, Lee TK, Vierheilig J, et al. Giant viruses with an expanded complement of translation system components. Science (80-). 2017;356:82 LP–85.
Google Scholar 
Fisher A, Wheat CG, Becker K, Cowen J, Orcutt BN, Hulme SM, et al. Design, deployment, and status of borehole observatory systems used for single-hole and cross-hole experiments, IODP Expedition 327, eastern flank of Juan de Fuca Ridge. Proc Integr Ocean Drill Program; Juan Fuca Ridge flank Hydrogeol Exped 327 riserless Drill Platf from to Victoria, Br Columbia (Canada); Sites U1362, U1301, 1027, U1363; 5 July-5 Sept 2010. 2011;327:38.Jungbluth SP, Grote J, Lin HT, Cowen JP, Rappé MS. Microbial diversity within basement fluids of the sediment-buried Juan de Fuca Ridge flank. ISME J. 2013;7:161–72.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jungbluth SP, Bowers RM, Lin HT, Cowen JP, Rappé MS. Novel microbial assemblages inhabiting crustal fluids within mid-ocean ridge flank subsurface basalt. ISME J. 2016;10:2033–47.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jungbluth SP, Amend JP, Rappé MS. Metagenome sequencing and 98 microbial genomes from Juan de Fuca Ridge flank subsurface fluids. Sci data. 2017;4:1–11.
Google Scholar 
Brussaard CPD. Optimization of procedures for counting viruses by flow cytometry. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2004;70:1506–13.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dean FB, Hosono S, Fang L, Wu X, Faruqi AF, Bray-Ward P, et al. Comprehensive human genome amplification using multiple displacement amplification. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2002;99:5261–6.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Labonté JM, Swan BK, Poulos B, Luo H, Koren S, Hallam SJ, et al. Single-cell genomics-based analysis of virus-host interactions in marine surface bacterioplankton. ISME J. 2015;9:2386–99.
Google Scholar 
Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B. Trimmomatic: A flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics. 2014;30:2114–20.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bushnell B, Rood J. BBTools. Dep Energy Jt Genome Institute, Walnut Creek, CA 2014.Bankevich A, Nurk S, Antipov D, Gurevich AA, Dvorkin M, Kulikov AS, et al. SPAdes: a new genome assembly algorithm and its applications to single-cell sequencing. J Comput Biol. 2012;19:455–77.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nurk S, Bankevich A, Antipov D, Gurevich AA, Korobeynikov A, Lapidus A, et al. Assembling single-cell genomes and mini-metagenomes from chimeric MDA products. J Comput Biol. 2013;20:714–37.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Besemer J, Lomsadze A, Borodovsky M. GeneMarkS: a self-training method for prediction of gene starts in microbial genomes. Implications for finding sequence motifs in regulatory regions. Nucleic Acids Res. 2001;29:2607–18.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ. Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol. 1990;215:403–10.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Goodacre N, Aljanahi A, Nandakumar S, Mikailov M, Khan AS, Delwart E, et al. A reference viral database (RVDB) to enhance bioinformatics analysis of high-throughput sequencing for novel virus detection. mSphere. 2018;3:e00069–18.
Google Scholar 
McGinnis S, Madden TL. BLAST: at the core of a powerful and diverse set of sequence analysis tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32:W20–W25.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sullivan MJ, Petty NK, Beatson SA. Easyfig: a genome comparison visualizer. Bioinformatics. 2011;27:1009–10.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Johnson LS, Eddy SR, Portugaly E. Hidden Markov model speed heuristic and iterative HMM search procedure. BMC Bioinformatics. 2010;11:431.
Google Scholar 
Colson P, De Lamballerie X, Yutin N, Asgari S, Bigot Y, Bideshi DK, et al. “Megavirales”, a proposed new order for eukaryotic nucleocytoplasmic large DNA viruses. Arch Virol. 2013;158:2517–21.
Google Scholar 
Yutin N, Wolf YI, Raoult D, Koonin EV. Eukaryotic large nucleo-cytoplasmic DNA viruses: Clusters of orthologous genes and reconstruction of viral genome evolution. Virol J. 2009;6:1–13.
Google Scholar 
Katoh K, Standley DM. MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: improvements in performance and usability. Mol Biol Evol. 2013;30:772–80.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Capella-Gutiérrez S, Silla-Martínez JM, Gabaldón T. trimAl: a tool for automated alignment trimming in large-scale phylogenetic analyses. Bioinformatics. 2009;25:1972–3.
Google Scholar 
Nguyen L-T, Schmidt HA, von Haeseler A, Minh BQ. IQ-TREE: a fast and effective stochastic algorithm for estimating maximum-likelihood phylogenies. Mol Biol Evol. 2014;32:268–74.
Google Scholar 
Price MN, Dehal PS, Arkin AP. FastTree: computing large minimum evolution trees with profiles instead of a distance matrix. Mol Biol Evol. 2009;26:1641–50.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kalyaanamoorthy S, Minh BQ, Wong TKF, Von Haeseler A, Jermiin LS. ModelFinder: fast model selection for accurate phylogenetic estimates. Nat Methods. 2017;14:587–9.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jain C, Rodriguez-R LM, Phillippy AM, Konstantinidis KT, Aluru S. High throughput ANI analysis of 90K prokaryotic genomes reveals clear species boundaries. Nat Commun. 2018;9:1–8.
Google Scholar 
Guindon S, Dufayard JF, Lefort V, Anisimova M, Hordijk W, Gascuel O. New algorithms and methods to estimate maximum-likelihood phylogenies: Assessing the performance of PhyML 3.0. Syst Biol. 2010;59:307–21.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Emms DM, Kelly S. OrthoFinder: solving fundamental biases in whole genome comparisons dramatically improves orthogroup inference accuracy. Genome Biol. 2015;16:157.
Google Scholar 
Barrett P, Hunter J, Miller JT, Hsu J-C, Greenfield P matplotlib–A Portable Python Plotting Package. Astron. data Anal. Softw. Syst. XIV. 2005. p 91.Lex A, Gehlenborg N, Strobelt H, Vuillemot R, Pfister H. UpSet: visualization of intersecting sets. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph. 2014;20:1983–92.
Google Scholar 
Lowe TM, Eddy SR. tRNAscan-SE: a program for improved detection of transfer RNA genes in genomic sequence. Nucleic Acids Res. 1997;25:955.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Laslett D, Canback B. ARAGORN, a program to detect tRNA genes and tmRNA genes in nucleotide sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32:11–16.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kumar S, Stecher G, Li M, Knyaz C, Tamura K. MEGA X: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis across computing platforms. Mol Biol Evol. 2018;35:1547.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Edgar RC. MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32:1792–7.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chen IMA, Markowitz VM, Chu K, Palaniappan K, Szeto E, Pillay M, et al. IMG/M: Integrated genome and metagenome comparative data analysis system. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017;45:D507–D516.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Markowitz VM, Chen I-MA, Palaniappan K, Chu K, Szeto E, Grechkin Y, et al. IMG: the integrated microbial genomes database and comparative analysis system. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40:D115–D122.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Quast C, Pruesse E, Yilmaz P, Gerken J, Schweer T, Yarza P, et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;41:D590–D596.
Google Scholar 
Yutin N, Wolf YI, Koonin EV. Origin of giant viruses from smaller DNA viruses not from a fourth domain of cellular life. Virology. 2014;466–467:38–52.
Google Scholar 
Mihara T, Koyano H, Hingamp P, Grimsley N, Goto S, Ogata H Taxon richness of “Megaviridae” exceeds those of bacteria and archaea in the ocean. Microbes Environ. 2018; ME17203.Gallot-Lavallée L, Blanc G. A glimpse of nucleo-cytoplasmic large DNA virus biodiversity through the eukaryotic genomics window. Viruses. 2017;9:17.
Google Scholar 
Aylward FO, Moniruzzaman M, Ha AD, Koonin EV. A phylogenomic framework for charting the diversity and evolution of giant viruses. PLOS Biol. 2021;19:e3001430.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Andreani J, Verneau J, Raoult D, Levasseur A, La, Scola B. Deciphering viral presences: two novel partial giant viruses detected in marine metagenome and in a mine drainage metagenome. Virol J. 2018;15:66.
Google Scholar 
Koonin EV, Yutin N. Multiple evolutionary origins of giant viruses. F1000Research. 2018;7:1840.Abrahao JS, Araujo R, Colson P, La, Scola B. The analysis of translation-related gene set boosts debates around origin and evolution of mimiviruses. PLoS Genet. 2017;13:e1006532.
Google Scholar 
Filée J, Chandler M. Gene exchange and the origin of giant viruses. Intervirology. 2010;53:354–61.
Google Scholar 
Koonin EV, Yutin N. Nucleo‐cytoplasmic large DNA viruses (NCLDV) of eukaryotes. eLS. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470015902.a0023268.Abergel C, Rudinger-Thirion J, Giegé R, Claverie J-M. Virus-encoded aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases: structural and functional characterization of mimivirus TyrRS and MetRS. J Virol. 2007;81:12406–17.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yoshihisa T. Handling tRNA introns, archaeal way and eukaryotic way. Front Genet. 2014;5:213.
Google Scholar 
Ivarsson M, Schnürer A, Bengtson S, Neubeck A. Anaerobic fungi: a potential source of biological H2 in the oceanic crust. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:1–8.Ivarsson M, Bengtson S, Neubeck A. The igneous oceanic crust e Earth’ s largest fungal habitat? Fungal Ecol. 2016;20:249–55.
Google Scholar 
Quemener M, Mara P, Schubotz F, Beaudoin D, Li W, Pachiadaki M, et al. Meta‐omics highlights the diversity, activity and adaptations of fungi in deep oceanic crust. Environ Microbiol. 2020;22:3950–67.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Drake H, Ivarsson M. The role of anaerobic fungi in fundamental biogeochemical cycles in the deep biosphere. Fungal Biol Rev. 2017;32:20–25.
Google Scholar 
Bengtson S, Rasmussen B, Ivarsson M, Muhling J, Broman C, Marone F, et al. Fungus-like mycelial fossils in 2.4-billion-year-old vesicular basalt. Nat Publ Gr. 2017;1:1–6.
Google Scholar 
Suzuki N. An introduction to fungal viruses. In Encyclopedia of Virology. Bamford DH, Zuckerman M. editors. 431–42. Oxford: Academic Press; 2021.Ivarsson M, Broman C, Holmström SJM, Ahlbom M, Lindblom S, Holm NG. Putative fossilized fungi from the lithified volcaniclastic apron of Gran Canaria, Spain. Astrobiology. 2011;11:633–50.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bengtson S, Ivarsson M, Astolfo A, Belivanova V, Broman C, Marone F, et al. Deep‐biosphere consortium of fungi and prokaryotes in Eocene subseafloor basalts. Geobiology. 2014;12:489–96.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hirayama H, Abe M, Miyazaki J, Sakai S, Nagano Y, Takai K Data report: cultivation of microorganisms from basaltic rock and sediment cores from the North Pond on the western flank of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, IODP Expedition 336 1. 2015; 336.Ivarsson M, Bengtson S, Skogby H, Lazor P, Broman C A Fungal-Prokaryotic Consortium at the Basalt-Zeolite Interface in Subseafloor A Fungal-Prokaryotic Consortium at the Basalt-Zeolite Interface in Subseafloor Igneous Crust. 2015.Khan HA, Telengech P, Kondo H, Bhatti MF, Suzuki N. Mycovirus Hunting Revealed the Presence of Diverse Viruses in a Single Isolate of the Phytopathogenic Fungus Diplodia seriata From Pakistan. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2022;12:913619.García-Pedrajas MD, Cañizares MC, Sarmiento-Villamil JL, Jacquat AG, Dambolena JS. Mycoviruses in biological control: From basic research to field implementation. Phytopathology. 2019;109:1828–39.
Google Scholar 
Ghabrial SA, Castón JR, Jiang D, Nibert ML, Suzuki N. 50-plus years of fungal viruses. Virology. 2015;479:356–68.
Google Scholar 
Okada R, Ichinose S, Takeshita K, Urayama S, Fukuhara T, Komatsu K, et al. Molecular characterization of a novel mycovirus in Alternaria alternata manifesting two-sided effects: Down-regulation of host growth and up-regulation of host plant pathogenicity. Virology. 2018;519:23–32.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Shah UA, Kotta-Loizou I, Fitt BDL, Coutts RHA. Mycovirus-induced hypervirulence of Leptosphaeria biglobosa enhances systemic acquired resistance to Leptosphaeria maculans in Brassica napus. Mol Plant-Microbe Interact. 2020;33:98–107.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hillman BI, Annisa A, Suzuki N. Viruses of plant-interacting fungi. Adv Virus Res. 2018;100:99–116.CAS 

Google Scholar  More

Now consider a generalized model in which the species interactions are heterogeneous. A natural way of introducing heterogeneity in the system is by having a species diversify into subpopulations with different interaction strengths12,13,14,15. This way of modeling heterogeneity is useful as it can describe different kinds of heterogeneity. For example, the subpopulations could represent polymorphic traits that are genetically determined or result from plastic response to heterogeneous environments. A population could also be divided into local subpopulations in different spatial patches, which can migrate between patches and may face different local predators. We can also model different behavioral modes as subpopulations that, for instance, spend more time foraging for food or hiding from predators. We study several kinds of heterogeneity after we introduce a common mathematical framework. By studying these different scenarios using variants of the model, we show that our main results are not sensitive to the details of the model.We focus on the simple case where only the prey species splits into two types, (C_1) and (C_2), as illustrated in Fig. 1b. The situation is interesting when predator A consumes (C_1) more readily than predator B and B consumes (C_2) more readily than A (i.e., (a_1 / a_0 > b_1 / b_0) and (b_2 / b_0 > a_2 / a_0), which is equivalent to the condition that the nullclines of A and B cross, see section “Resources competition and nullcline analysis”). The arrows between (C_1) and (C_2) in Fig. 1b represent the exchange of individuals between the two subpopulations, which can happen by various mechanisms considered below. Such exchange as well as intraspecific competition between (C_1) and (C_2) result from the fact that the two prey types remain a single species.The system is now described by an enlarged Lotka-Volterra system with four variables, A, B, (C_1), and (C_2): $$begin{aligned} dot{A}&= varepsilon _A ,alpha _{A1} , A , C_1 + alpha _{A2} , A , C_2 – beta _A , A end{aligned}$$
(3a)
$$begin{aligned} dot{B}&= varepsilon _B , alpha _{B1} , B , C_1 + alpha _{B2} , B , C_2 – beta _B , B end{aligned}$$
(3b)
$$begin{aligned} dot{C_1}&= C_1 , (beta _C – alpha _{CC} , C)-alpha _{A1} , C_1 A-alpha _{B1} , C_1 B – sigma _1 , C_1 + sigma _2 , C_2 end{aligned}$$
(3c)
$$begin{aligned} dot{C_2}&= C_2 , (beta _C – alpha _{CC} , C) -alpha _{A2} , C_2 A -alpha _{B2} , C_2 B + sigma _1 , C_1 – sigma _2 , C_2 end{aligned}$$
(3d)
The parameters in these equations and their meanings are listed in Table 1. Here we assume that the prey types (C_1) and (C_2) have the same birth rate and intraspecific competition strength, but different interaction strengths with A and B. Note that (C_1) and (C_2) are connected by the (sigma _i) terms, which represent the exchange of individuals between these subpopulations through mechanisms studied below; these terms indicate a major difference between our model of a prey with intraspecific heterogeneity and other models of two prey species. For the convenience of analysis, we transform the variables (C_1) and (C_2) to another pair of variables C and (lambda), where (C equiv C_1 + C_2) is the total population of C as before, and (lambda equiv C_2 / (C_1 + C_2)) represents the composition of the population (Fig. 1c). After this transformation and rescaling of variables (described in “Methods”), the new dynamical system can be written as: $$begin{aligned} dot{A}&= A , big ( C , (a_1 (1-lambda ) + a_2 lambda ) – a_0 big ) end{aligned}$$
(4a)
$$begin{aligned} dot{B}&= B , big ( C , (b_1 (1-lambda ) + b_2 lambda ) – b_0 big ) end{aligned}$$
(4b)
$$begin{aligned} dot{C}&= C , big ( 1 – C – A (a_1 (1-lambda ) + a_2 lambda ) – B (b_1 (1-lambda ) + b_2 lambda ) big ) end{aligned}$$
(4c)
$$begin{aligned} dot{lambda }&= lambda (1-lambda ) , big ( A (a_1 – a_2) + B (b_1 – b_2) big ) + eta _1 (1-lambda ) – eta _2 lambda end{aligned}$$
(4d)
Here, (a_i) and (b_i) are the (rescaled) feeding rates of the predators on the prey type (C_i); (a_0) and (b_0) are the death rates of the predators as before; (eta _1) and (eta _2) are the exchange rates of the prey types (Table 1). The latter can be functions of other variables, representing different kinds of heterogeneous interactions that we study below. Notice that Eqs. (4a–4c) are equivalent to the homogeneous Eqs. (2a–2c) but with effective interaction strengths (a_text {eff} = (1-lambda ) , a_1 + lambda , a_2) and (b_text {eff} = (1-lambda ) , b_1 + lambda , b_2) that both depend on the prey composition (lambda) (Fig. 1c).Table 1 Model parameters (before/after rescaling) and their meanings.Full size tableThe variable (lambda) can be considered an internal degree of freedom within the C population. In all of the models we study below, (lambda) dynamically stabilizes to a special value (lambda ^*) (a bifurcation point), as shown in Fig. 3a. Accordingly, a new equilibrium point (P_N) appears (on the line (mathscr {L}) in Fig. 2), at which all three species coexist. For comparison, Fig. 3b shows the equilibrium points if (lambda) is held fixed at any other values, which all result in the exclusion of one of the predators. Thus, heterogeneous interactions give rise to a new coexistence phase (see Fig. 4 below) by bringing the prey composition (lambda) to the value (lambda ^*), instead of having to fine-tune the interaction strengths. The exact conditions for this new equilibrium to be stable are detailed in “Methods”.Figure 3(a) Time series of (lambda) for systems with each kind of heterogeneity. All three systems stabilize at the same (lambda ^*) value, which is the bifurcation point in panel (b). (b) Equilibrium population of each species (X = A), B, or C, with (lambda) held fixed at different values. Solid curves represent stable equilibria and dashed curves represent unstable equilibria (see Eq. (9) in “Methods”). The vertical dashed line is where (lambda = lambda ^*), which is also the bifurcation point. Notice that the equilibrium population of C is maximized at this point (for (a_1 > a_2) and (b_2 > b_1)). Parameters used here are ((a_0, a_1, a_2, b_0, b_1, b_2, rho , eta _1, eta _2, kappa ) = (0.25, 0.5, 0.2, 0.4, 0.2, 0.6, 0.5, 0.05, 0.05, 50)).Full size imageInherent heterogeneityWe first consider a scenario where individuals of the prey species are born as one of two types with a fixed ratio, such that a fraction (rho) of the newborns are (C_2) and ((1-rho )) are (C_1). This could describe dimorphic traits, such as the winged and wingless morphs in aphids12 or the horned and hornless morphs in beetles13. We call this “inherent” heterogeneity, because individuals are born with a certain type and cannot change in later stages of life. The prey type given at birth determines the individual’s interaction strength with the predators. This kind of heterogeneity can be described by Eq. (4d) with (eta _1 = rho (1-C)) and (eta _2 = (1-rho ) (1-C)) (see “Methods”).Figure 4Phase diagrams showing regions of parameter space identified by the stable equilibrium points. Yellow region represents (P_C) (predators A, B both extinct), red represents (P_A) (A excludes B), blue represents (P_B) (B excludes A), and green represents (P_N) (A, B coexist). The middle point (black dot) is where the preferences of the two predators are identical, (a_2/a_0=b_2/b_0) and (b_1/b_0=a_1/a_0). The coexistence phase appears in all three kinds of heterogeneity modeled here. (a–d) Inherent heterogeneity: Individuals of the prey population are born in two types with a fixed composition (rho). In the extreme cases of (rho = 0) and 1, the prey is homogeneous and there is no coexistence of the predators. (e–h) Reversible heterogeneity: Individual prey can switch types with fixed switching rates (eta _1) and (eta _2). As the switching rates increase, the coexistence region shrinks because the prey population becomes effectively homogeneous (the occasional green spots are numerical artifacts because the time to reach the equilibrium becomes long in this limit). (i–l) Adaptive heterogeneity: The switching rates (eta _i) dynamically adapt to the predator densities, so as to maximize the growth rate of the prey. As the sharpness (kappa) of the sigmoidal decision function is increased, the prey adapts more optimally and the region of coexistence expands. Parameters used here are ((a_0, a_1, b_0, b_2) = (0.3, 0.5, 0.4, 0.6)).Full size imageThe stable equilibrium of the system can be represented by phase diagrams that show the identities of the species at equilibrium. We plot these phase diagrams by varying the parameters (a_2) and (b_1) while keeping (a_1) and (b_2) constant. As shown in Fig. 4a–d, the equilibrium state depends on the parameter (rho). In the limit (rho = 0) or 1, we recover the homogeneous case because only one type of C is produced. The corresponding phase diagrams (Fig. 4a, d) contain only two phases where either of the predators is excluded, illustrating the competitive exclusion principle. For intermediate values of (rho), however, there is a new phase of coexistence that separates the two exclusion phases (Fig. 4b, c). There are two such regions of coexistence, which touch at a middle point and open toward the bottom left and upper right, respectively. The middle point is at ((a_2/a_0 = b_2/b_0, b_1/b_0 = a_1/a_0)), where the feeding preferences of the two predators are identical (hence their niches fully overlap). Towards the origin and the far upper right, the predators consume one type of C each (hence their niches separate). The coexistence region in the bottom left is where the feeding rates of the predators are the lowest overall. There can be a region (yellow) where both predators go extinct, if their primary prey type alone is not enough to sustain each predator. Increasing the productivity of the system by increasing the birth rate ((beta _C)) of the prey eliminates this extinction region, whereas lowering productivity causes the extinction region to take over the lower coexistence region. Because the existence and identity of the phases is determined by the configuration of the equilibrium points (Fig. 2, see also section “Mathematical methods”), the qualitative shape of the phase diagram is not sensitive to changes of parameter values.The new equilibrium is not only where the predators A and B can coexist, but also where the prey species C grows to a larger density than what is possible for a homogeneous population. This is illustrated in Fig. 3b, which shows the equilibrium population of C if we hold (lambda) fixed at different values. The point (lambda = lambda ^*) is where the system with a dynamic (lambda) is stable, and also where the population of C is maximized (when A and B prefer different prey types). That means the population automatically stabilizes at the optimal composition of prey types. Moreover, the value of (C^*) at this coexistence point can even be larger than the equilibrium population of C when there is only one predator A or B. This is discussed further in section “Multiple-predator effects and emergent promotion of prey”. These results suggest that heterogeneity in interaction strengths can potentially be a strategy for the prey population to leverage the effects of multiple predators against each other to improve survival.Reversible heterogeneityWe next consider a scenario where individual prey can switch their types. This kind of heterogeneity can model reversible changes of phenotypes, i.e., trait changes that affect the prey’s interaction with predators but are not permanent. For example, changes in coat color or camouflage14,16,17, physiological changes such as defense15, and biomass allocation among tissues18,19. One could also think of the prey types as subpopulations within different spatial patches, if each predator hunts at a preferred patch and the prey migrate between the patches20,21. With some generalization, one could even consider heterogeneity in resources, such as nutrients located in different places, that can be reached by primary consumers, such as swimming phytoplankton22. We can model this “reversible” kind of heterogeneity by introducing switching rates from one prey type to the other. In Eq. (4d), (eta _1) and (eta _2) now represent the switching rates per capita from (C_1) to (C_2) and from (C_2) to (C_1), respectively. Here we study the simplest case where both rates are fixed.In the absence of the predators, the natural composition of the prey species given by the switching rates would be (rho equiv eta _1 / (eta _1 + eta _2)), and the rate at which (lambda) relaxes to this natural composition is (gamma equiv eta _1 + eta _2). Compared to the previous scenario where we had only one parameter (rho), here we have an additional parameter (gamma) that modifies the behavior of the system. Fig. 4e–h shows phase diagrams for the system as (rho) is fixed and (gamma) varies. We again find the new equilibrium (P_N) where all three species coexist. When (gamma) is small, the system has a large region of coexistence. As (gamma) is increased, this region is squeezed into a border between the two regions of exclusion, where the slope of the border is given by (eta _1/eta _2) as determined by the parameter (rho). However, this is different from the exclusion we see in the case of inherent heterogeneity, which happens only for (rho rightarrow 0) or 1, where the borders are horizontal or vertical (Fig. 4a,d). Here the predators exclude each other despite having a mixture of prey types in the population.This special limit can be understood as follows. For a large (gamma), (lambda) is effectively set to a constant value equal to (rho), because it has a very fast relaxation rate. In other words, the prey types exchange so often that the population always maintains a constant composition. In this limit, the system behaves as if it were a homogeneous system with effective interaction strengths (a_text {eff} = (1-rho ) , a_1 + rho , a_2) and (b_text {eff} = (1-rho ) , b_1 + rho , b_2). As in a homogeneous system, there is competitive exclusion between the predators instead of coexistence. This demonstrates that having a constant level of heterogeneity is not sufficient to cause coexistence. The overall composition of the population must be able to change dynamically as a result of population growth and consumption by predators.An interesting behavior is seen when we examine a point inside the shrinking coexistence region as (gamma) is increased. Typical trajectories of the system for such parameter values are shown in Fig. 5. As (gamma) increases, the system relaxes to the line (mathscr {L}) quickly, then slowly crawls along it towards the final equilibrium point (P_N). This is because increasing (gamma) increases the speed that (lambda) relaxes to (lambda ^*), and when (lambda rightarrow lambda ^*), (mathscr {L}) becomes marginally stable. Therefore, the attraction to (mathscr {L}) in the perpendicular direction is strong, but the attraction towards the equilibrium point along (mathscr {L}) is weak. This leads to a long transient behavior that makes the system appear to reach no equilibrium in a limited time23,24. It is especially true when there is noise in the dynamics, which causes the system to diffuse along (mathscr {L}) with only a weak drift towards the final equilibrium (Fig. 5). Thus, the introduction of a fast timescale (quick relaxation of (lambda) due to a large (gamma)) actually results in a long transient.Figure 5Trajectories of the system projected in the A-B plane, with parameters inside the coexistence region (by holding the position of (P_N) fixed). As (gamma) increases, the system tends to approach the line (mathscr {L}) quickly and then crawl along it. The grey trajectory is with independent Gaussian white noise ((sim mathscr {N}(0,0.5))) added to each variable’s dynamics. Noise causes the system to diffuse along (mathscr {L}) for a long transient period before coming to the equilibrium point (P_N). Parameters used here are ((a_0, a_1, a_2, b_0, b_1, b_2) = (0.2, 0.8, 0.5, 0.2, 0.6, 0.9)), chosen to place (P_N) away from the middle of (mathscr {L}) to show the trajectory drifting toward the equilibrium.Full size imageAdaptive heterogeneityA third kind of heterogeneity we consider is the change of interactions in time. By this we mean an individual can actively change its interaction strength with others in response to certain conditions. This kind of response is often invoked in models of adaptive foraging behavior, where individuals choose appropriate actions to maximize some form of fitness25,26. For example, we may consider two behaviors, resting and foraging, as our prey types. Different predators may prefer to strike when the prey is doing different things. In response, the prey may choose to do one thing or the other depending on the current abundances of different predators. Such behavioral modulation is seen, for example, in systems of predatory spiders and grasshoppers27. Phenotypic plasticity is also seen in plant tissues in response to consumers28,29,30.This kind of “adaptive” heterogeneity can be modeled by having switching rates (eta _1) and (eta _2) that are time-dependent. Let us assume that the prey species tries to maximize its population growth rate by switching to the more favorable type. From Eq. (4c), we see that the growth rate of C depends linearly on the composition (lambda) with a coefficient (u(A,B) equiv (a_1 – a_2) A + (b_1 – b_2) B). Therefore, when this coefficient is positive, it is favorable for C to increase (lambda) by switching to type (C_2). This can be achieved by having a positive switching rate (eta _2) whenever (u(A,B) > 0). Similarly, whenever (u(A,B) < 0), it is favorable for C to switch to type (C_1) by having a positive (eta _1). In this way, the heterogeneity of the prey population constantly adapts to the predator densities. We model such adaptive switching by making (eta _1) and (eta _2) functions of the coefficient u(A, B), e.g., (eta _1(u) = 1/(1+mathrm {e}^{kappa u})) and (eta _2(u) = 1/(1+mathrm {e}^{-kappa u})). The sigmoidal form of the functions means that the switching rate in the favorable direction for C is turned on quickly, while the other direction is turned off. The parameter (kappa) controls the sharpness of this transition.Phase diagrams for the system with different values of (kappa) are shown in Fig. 4i–l. A larger (kappa) means the prey adapts its composition faster and more optimally, which causes the coexistence region to expand. In the extreme limit, the system changes its dynamics instantaneously whenever it crosses the boundary where (u(A,B) = 0), like in a hybrid system31. Such a system can still reach a stable equilibrium that lies on the boundary, if the flow on each side of the boundary points towards the other side32. This is what happens in our system and, interestingly, the equilibrium is the same three-species coexistence point (P_N) as in the previous scenarios. The region of coexistence turns out to be largest in this limit (Fig. 4l).Our results suggest that the coexistence of the predators can be viewed as a by-product of the prey’s strategy to maximize its own benefit. The time-dependent case studied here represents a strategy that involves the prey evaluating the risk posed by different predators. This is in contrast to the scenarios studied above, where the prey population passively creates phenotypic heterogeneity regardless of the presence of the predators. These two types of behavior are analogous to the two strategies studied for adaptation in varying environments, i.e., sensing and bet-hedging33,34. The former requires accessing information about the current environment to make optimal decisions, whereas the latter relies on maintaining a diverse population to reduce detrimental effects caused by environmental changes. Here the varying abundances of the predators play a similar role as the varying environment. From this point of view, the heterogeneous interactions studied here can be a strategy of the prey species that is evolutionarily favorable. More

Ren, W. et al. Changes of periphyton abundance and biomass driven by factors specific to flooding inflow in a river inlet area in Erhai Lake, China. Front. Environ. Sci. 9, 680718. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.680718 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Woodruff, S. L. et al. The effects of a developing biofilm on chemical changes across the sediment-water interface in a freshwater environment. Int. Rev. Hydrobiol. 84(5), 509–532 (1999).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Muñoz, I., Real, M., Guasch, H., Navarro, E. & Sabater, S. Effects of atrazine on periphyton under grazing pressure. Aquat. Toxicol. 55(3–4), 239–249 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Hoagland, K. D., Roemer, S. C. & Rosowski, J. R. Colonization and community structure of two periphyton assemblages, with emphasis on the diatoms (Bacillariophyceae). Am. J. Bot. 69, 188–213. https://doi.org/10.2307/2443006 (1982).Article 

Google Scholar 
Steinman, A. D. & McIntire, C. D. Effects of current velocity and light energy on the structure of periphyton assemblages in laboratory streams. J. Phycol. 22, 352–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1529-8817.1986.TB00035.X (1986).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tonkin, J. D., Death, R. G. & Barquín, J. Periphyton control on stream invertebrate diversity: Is periphyton architecture more important than biomass?. Mar. Freshw. Res. 65(9), 818–829 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Beck, W. S., Markman, D. W., Oleksy, I. A., Lafferty, M. H. & Poff, N. L. Seasonal shifts in the importance of bottom-up and top-down factors on stream periphyton community structure. Oikos 128, 680–691. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.05844 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hogsden, K. L. & Harding, J. S. Consequences of acid mine drainage for the structure and function of benthic stream communities: A review. Freshw. Sci. 31, 108–120. https://doi.org/10.1899/11-091.1 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sofi, M. S., Bhat, S. U., Rashid, I. & Kuniyal, J. C. The natural flow regime: A master variable for maintaining river ecosystem health. Ecohydrology 13(8), e2247. https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.2247 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Biggs, B. J. F. Eutrophication of streams and rivers: Dissolved nutrient-chlorophyllrelationship for benthic algae. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 19, 17–31 (2000).
Google Scholar 
Ormerod, S. J., Dobson, M., Hildrew, A. G. & Townsend, C. Multiple stressors in freshwater ecosystems. Freshw. Biol. 55, 1–4 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Poff, et al. The natural flow regime: A paradigm for river conservation and restoration. Bioscience 47, 769–784 (1997).
Google Scholar 
Naiman, R. J., Décamps, H., & McClain, M. E. Riparia: Ecology, Conservation and Management of Streamside Communities, (Elsevier/Academic Press, 2005).Gleick, P. H. Water use. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 28, 275–314 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Jenkins, K. M. & Boulton, A. J. Connectivity in a dryland river: Short-term aquatic macroinvertebrate recruitment following floodplain inundation. Ecology 84(10), 2708–2723 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Biggs, B. J. F. Patterns in benthic algae of streams. In Algal Ecology in Freshwater Benthic Ecosystems (eds. Stevenson, R. J., Bothwell, M. L., & Lowe, R. L.) 31–56 (Academic Press, 1996).Smolar-Žvanut, N. & Mikoš, M. The impact of flow regulation by hydropower dams on the periphyton community in the Soča River, Slovenia. Hydrol. Sci. J. 59(5), 1032–1045. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2013.834339 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Curry, C. J. & Baird, D. J. Habitat type and dispersal ability influence spatial structuring of larval Odonata and Trichoptera assemblages. Freshw. Biol. 60, 2142–2152 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Wu, N., Cai, Q. & Fohrer, N. Contribution of microspatial factors to benthic diatom communities. Hydrobiologia 732, 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-014-1843-3 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mueller, M., Pander, J. & Geist, J. The effects of weirs on structural stream habitat and biological communities. J. Appl. Ecol 48(6), 1450–1461. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.02035.x (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Davies, P. M. et al. Flow–ecology relationships: closing the loop on effective environmental flows. Mar. Freshw. Res. 65(2), 133–141 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Jun, Y. C. et al. Spatial distribution of benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages in relation to environmental variables in Korean nationwide streams. Water 8(1), 27. https://doi.org/10.3390/w8010027 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Biggs, B. J. F. & Close, M. E. Periphyton biomass dynamics in gravel bed rivers: The relative effects of flows and nutrients. Freshw. Biol. 22, 209–231 (1989).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jowett, I. & Biggs, B. J. F. Flood and velocity effects on periphyton and silt accumulation in two New Zealand rivers. N. Zeal. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 31, 287–300 (1997).
Google Scholar 
Biggs, B. J. F., Goring, D. G. & Nikora, V. I. Subsidy and stress responses of stream periphyton to gradients in water velocity as a function of community growth form. J. Phycol. 34, 598–607 (1998).
Google Scholar 
Malmqvist, B. & Englund, G. Effects of hydropower-induced flow perturbations on mayfly (Ephemeroptera) richness and abundance in north Swedish river rapids. Hydrobiologia 341(2), 145–158 (1996).
Google Scholar 
Poff, N. L. & Ward, J. V. Herbivory under different flow regimes: A field experiment and test of a model with a benthic stream insect. Oikos 72, 179–188 (1995).
Google Scholar 
Poff, L. N., Wellnitz, T. & Monroe, J. B. Redundancy among three herbivorous insects across an experimental current velocity gradient. Oecologia 134, 262–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-002-1086-2 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vaughn, C. C. The role of periphyton abundance and quality in the microdistribution of a stream grazer, Helicopsyche borealis (Trichoptera: Helicopsychidae). Freshw. Biol. 16, 485–493 (1986).
Google Scholar 
Francoeur, S. N. Meta-analysis of lotic nutrient amendment experiments: Detecting and quantifying subtle responses. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 20, 358–368 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Elser, J. J. et al. Global analysis of nitrogen and phosphorus limitation of primary producers in freshwater, marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Ecol. Lett. 10, 1135–1142 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Hillebrand, H. Meta-analysis of grazer control of periphyton biomass across aquatic ecosystems. J. Phycol. 45, 798–806 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Lamberti, G. A. The role of periphyton in benthic food webs. In Algal Ecology—Freshwater Benthic Ecosystems, 533–572 (eds. Stevenson, R. J., Bothwell, M. L. & Lowe, R. L.) (Academic Press, 1996).Lamberti, G. A. et al. Influence of grazer type and abundance on plant–herbivore interactions in streams. Hydrobiologia 306, 179–188 (1995).
Google Scholar 
Gregory, S. V. Plant–herbivore interactions in stream systems. In Stream Ecology (eds. Barnes, J. R. & Minshall, G. W.) 157–189 (Plenum, 1983).Lamberti, G. A. & Moore, J. W. Aquatic insects as primary consumers. In The Ecology of Aquatic Insects (eds Resh, V. H. & Rosenberg, D. M.) 164–195 (Praeger, 1984).
Google Scholar 
Sterner, R. W., Elser, J. J. & Hessen, D. O. Stoichiometric relationships among producers, consumers and nutrient cycling in pelagic ecosystems. Biogeochemistry 17, 49–67 (1992).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kahlert, M. & Baunsgaard, M. T. Nutrient recycling—A strategy of a grazer community to overcome nutrient limitation. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 18, 363–369 (1999).
Google Scholar 
Burkholder, J. M., Wetzel, R. G. & Klomparens, K. L. Direct comparison of phosphate uptake by adnate and loosely attached microalgae within and intact biofilm matrix. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 56, 2882–2890 (1990).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Steinman, A. D. Effects of grazers on freshwater benthic algae. In Algal Ecology: Freshwater Benthic Ecosystems (eds. Stevenson, R. J., Bothwell & Lowe, R. L.) 341–366 (Academic Press, 1996).Smucker, N. J. & Vis, M. L. Spatial factors contribute to benthic diatom structure in streams across spatial scales: Considerations for biomonitoring. Ecol. Indic. 11, 1191–1203 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Myers, et al. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403, 853–858 (2000).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wang, J., Pan, F., Soininen, J., Heino, J. & Shen, J. Nutrient enrichment modifies temperature-biodiversity relationship in large scale field experiments. Nat. Commun. 7, 13 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Wu, et al. Flow regimes filter species traits of benthic diatom communities and modify the functional features of lowland streams-a nationwide scale study. Sci. Total Environ. 651, 357–366 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nisar, M. A. Geospatial approach to study environmental characterization of a Kashmir wetland (Anchar) catchment with special reference to land use/land cover and changing climate. Ph.D Thesis, Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology, Kashmir. Weblink. http://krishikosh.egranth.ac.in/handle/1/91309 (2012).Bhat, S. U., Sofi, A. H., Yaseen, T., Pandit, A. K. & Yousuf, A. R. Macro invertebrate community from Sonamarg streams of Kashmir Himalaya. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 14(3), 182–194. https://doi.org/10.3923/pjbs.2011.182.194 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Baba, A. I., Sofi, A. H., Bhat, S. U., & Pandit, A. K. Periphytic algae of river Sindh in the Sonamarg area of Kashmir valley. J. Phytol. 3(6) (2011).Sofi, M. S., Rautela, K. S., Bhat, S. U., Rashid, I. & Kuniyal, J. C. Application of geomorphometric approach for the estimation of hydro-sedimentological flows and cation weathering rate: Towards understanding the sustainable land use policy for the Sindh Basin, Kashmir Himalaya. Water Air Soil Pollut. 232(7), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-021-05217-w (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Romshoo, S. A., & Fayaz, M. Use of high resolution remote sensing for improving environmental Friendly tourism master planning in the Alpine Himalaya: A case study of Sonamarg tourist resort, Kashmir. J. Himalayan Ecol. Sustain. Dev. 14 (2019).Biggs, B. J. F. & Kilroy, C. Stream periphyton monitoring manual. Published by NIWA for Ministry for the Environment, 226 Christchurch, New Zealand: NIWA (2000).APHA. Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater, 22nd edn. (American Public Health Association, 2012).Cox, E. J. Identification of Freshwater Diatoms from Live Material. (Chapman and Hall, 1996). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315400041023.Krammer, K., & Lange-Bertalot, H. Bacillariophyceae, Part 5. English and French Translation of the Keys. (VEB Gustav Fisher Verlag, 2000).Reichardt, E. A remarkable association of diatoms in a spring habitat in the Grazer Bergland, Austria. In Iconographia Diatomologica (ed. Lange-Bertalot, H.) 419–479 (2004).Żelazna-Wieczorek, J. Diatom flora in springs of Lódz Hills (Central Poland). Biodiversity, taxonomy and temporal changes of epipsammic diatom assemblages in springs affected by human impact, 419. Volume 13 of Diatom monographs. Gantner. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=bdxeewAACAAJ (2011).Stark, J. D., Boothroyd, I. K. G., Harding, J. S., Maxted, J. R. & Scarsbrook, M. R. Protocols for sampling macroinvertebrates in wadeable streams. In New Zealand Macroinvertebrate Working Group Report no. 1. Prepared for the Ministry for the Environment. Sustainable Management Fund Project, 5103 (2001).Winterbourn, M. J. Sampling stream invertebrates. In Biological Monitoring of Freshwaters. Proceedings of the Seminar. Water and Soil Miscellaneous Publication No. 83 (eds. Pridmore, R. D., Cooper, A. B.) 241–258. (National Water and Soil Conservation Authority, 1985).Barbour, M. T., Gerritsen, J., Snyder, B. D., Stribling, J. B. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish, 339. (United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 1999).Malmqvist, B. & Hoffsten, P. O. Macroinvertebrate taxonomic richness, community structure and nestedness in Swedish streams. Fundam. Appl. Limnol. 150(1), 29–54. https://doi.org/10.1127/archiv-hydrobiol/150/2000/29 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ilmonen, J. & Paasivirta, L. Benthic macrocrustacean and insect assemblages in relation to spring habitat characteristics: Patterns in abundance and diversity. Hydrobiologia 533(1–3), 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-004-2399-4 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Munasinghe, D. S. N., Najim, M. M. M., Quadroni, S. & Musthafa, M. M. Impacts of streamflow alteration on benthic macroinvertebrates by mini-hydro diversion in Sri Lanka. Sci. Rep. 11(1), 546. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-79576-5 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Edmondson, W. T. Fresh-Water Biology, 2nd ed. 1050–1056 (Wiley, 1959).Pennak, R. W. Freshwater Invertebrates of United States. (Wiley, 1978).McCafferty, W. P., Provonsha, A. V. Aquatic entomology: The fishermen’s and ecologists’ Illustrated Guide to Insects and their Relatives. (Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 1983).Borror, D., Triplehorn, C., Johnson, N. An Introduction to the Study of Insects, 6th ed. (Saunders College Publishing, 1989).Ward, J. V. Aquatic Insect Ecology, Biology and Habitat. (Wiley, 1992).Engblom, E. & Lingdell, P.E. Analyses of Benthic Invertebrates (ed. Nyman, L.) (1999).Bouchard, R. W. Guide to Aquatic Invertebrates of the Upper Midwest: Identification Manual for Students (University of Minnesota, 2004).
Google Scholar 
Subramanian, K. A. & Sivaramakrishnan, K. G. Aquatic Insects for Biomonitoring Freshwater Ecosystems—A Methodology Manual. (Ashoka Trust for Ecology and Environment (ATREE), 2007).Thorp, J. H., & Covich, A. P. (eds.) Ecology and Classification of North American Freshwater Invertebrates. (Academic Press, 2009).Allan, J. D. & Castillo, M.M. An introduction to fluvial ecosystems. In Stream Ecology: Structure and Function of Running Waters, 1–12 (2007).Oksanen, et al. Vegan: Community ecology package. In: R package version 2.4-3.McCune, B. & Grace, B. Analysis of Ecological Communities (MjM Software Design, 2016).Clarke, K. R. & Gorley, R. N. Primer v6 Permanova+ (Primer-E Ltd., 2006).
Google Scholar 
Salazar, G. EcolUtils: Utilities for Community Ecology Analysis. R package version 0.1 software (2018).Anderson, M. J., Ellingsen, K. E. & McArdle, B. H. Multivariate dispersion as a measure of beta diversity. Ecol. Lett. 9(6), 683–693 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Gardener, M. Community Ecology: Analytical Methods in Using R and Excel. (Pelagic Publishing, 2014).Chao, A. & Bunge, J. Estimating the number of species in a stochastic abundance model. Biometrics 58, 531–539. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341X.2002.00531.x (2002).Article 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Peres-Neto, P. R., Legendre, P., Dray, S. & Borcard, D. Variation partitioning of species data matrices: estimation and comparison of fractions. Ecology 87, 2614–2625 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Meng, X. L. et al. Responses of macroinvertebrates and local environment to short-term commercial sand dredging practices in a flood-plain lake. Sci. Total Environ. 631, 1350–1359 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Core Team, R. R: A Language and Environmental for Statistical Computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2017).Wood, P. J. & Armitage, P. D. Biological effects of fine sediment in the lotic environment. Environ. Manag. 21, 203–217 (1997).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Marchant, R. Changes in the benthic invertebrate communities of the Thomson River, southeastern Australia, after dam construction. Regul. Rivers Res. Manag. 4, 71–89 (1989).
Google Scholar 
Gray, L. J. & Ward, J. V. Effects of sediment releases from a reservoir on stream macroinvertebrates. Hydrobiologia 96, 177–184 (1982).
Google Scholar 
Sand-Jensen, K., Moller, J. & Olesen, B. H. Biomass regulation of microbenthic algae in Danish lowland streams. Oikos 53, 332–340 (1988).
Google Scholar 
Lewis, M. A., Weber, D. E., Stanley, R. S. & Moore, J. C. Dredging impact on an urbanized Florida bayou: Effects on benthos and algal-periphyton. Environ. Pollut. 115(2), 161–171 (2001).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Biggs, B. J. Algal ecology in freshwater benthic ecosystems geology and landuse to the habitat template of periphyton in stream ecosystems. Freshw. Biol. 33, 419–438 (1995).
Google Scholar 
Taylor, et al. Can diatom-based pollution indices be used for biomonitoring in South Africa? A case study of the Crocodile West and Marico water management area. Hydrobiologia 592, 455–464 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Porter, et al. Efficacy of algal metrics for assessing nutrient and organic enrichment in flowing waters. Freshw. Biol. 53, 1036–1054 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Wetzel, R. G. & Likens, G. E. Limnological analyses, 3rd ed. In Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Other Nutrients, 85–113. (Springer, 2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-3250-4.Wetzel, R. G. Attached algal-substrata interactions: Fact or myth, and when and how? vol. 17. In Periphyton of Freshwater Ecosystems (ed. Wetzel, R.) 207–215 (Springer, 1983). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-7293-3_28.Krajenbrink, H. J. et al. Diatoms as indicators of the effects of river impoundment at multiple spatial scales. PeerJ 7, e8092. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8092 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Poff, N. L., Voelz, N. J., Ward, J. V. & Lee, R. E. Algal colonization under four experimentally-controlled current regimes in a high mountain stream. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 9, 303–318 (1990).
Google Scholar 
Dodds, W. K. & Marra, J. L. Behaviors of the midge, Cricotopus (Diptera; Chironomidae) related to mutualism with Nostoc parmeloides (Cyanobacteria). Aquat. Insects 11, 201–208 (1989).
Google Scholar 
Tang, T., Niu, S. Q. & Dudgeon, D. Responses of epibenthic algal assemblages to water abstraction in Hong Kong streams. Hydrobiologia 703(1), 225–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-012-1362-z (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Maheshwari, K., Vashistha, J., Paulose, P. V. & Agarwal, T. Seasonal changes in phytoplankton community of lake Ramgarh, India. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 4(11), 318–330 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Luttenton, M. R., & Baisden, C. The relationships among disturbance, substratum size and periphyton community structure. In Advances in Algal Biology: A Commemoration of the Work of Rex Lowe 111–117. (Springer, 2006).Uehlinger, U. Spatial and temporal variability of periphyton biomass in a prealpine river (Necker, Switzerland). Arch. Fur. Hydrobiol. 123, 219–237 (1991).
Google Scholar 
Hill, W. R. Effects of light. In Algal Ecology in Freshwater Benthic Ecosystems. 121–148 (eds. Stevenson, R. J., Bothwell, M. L., Lowe, R. L.) (Academic Press, 1996).DeNichola, D. M. Periphyton responses to temperature at different ecological levels. In Algal Ecology in Freshwater Benthic Ecosystems. (eds. Stevenson, R. J., Bothwell, M. L., Lowe, R. L.) 149–181 (Academic Press, 1996).O’Reilly, C. M. Seasonal dynamics of periphyton in a large tropical lake. Hydrobiologia 553, 293–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-005-0878-x (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Borduqui, M. & Ferragut, C. Factors determining periphytic algae succession in a tropical hypereutrophic reservoir. Hydrobiologia 683, 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-011-0943-6 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
De Souza, M. L., Pellegrini, B. G. & Ferragut, C. Periphytic algal community structure in relation to seasonal variation and macrophyte richness in a shallow tropical reservoir. Hydrobiologia 755, 183–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-015-2232-2 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Prowse, T. D. River-ice hydrology. In Encyclopedia of Hydrological Sciences, vol. 4 (ed. Anderson, M. G.). (Wiley, 2005).Rusanov, A. G., Stanislavskaya, E. V. & Ács, É. Periphytic algal assemblages along environmental gradients in the rivers of the Lake Ladoga basin, Northwestern Russia: Implication for the water quality assessment. Hydrobiologia 695(1), 305–327 (2012).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sofi, M. S., Hamid, A., Bhat, S. U., Rashid, I. & Kuniyal, J. C. Impact evaluation of the run-of-river hydropower projects on the water quality dynamics of the Sindh River in the Northwestern Himalayas. Environ. Monit. Assess. 194(9), 1–6 (2022).
Google Scholar 
MCCormick, P. V. Resource competition and species coexistence in freshwater algal assemblages. In Algal ecology—Freshwater Benthic Ecosystems (eds. Stevenson, R. J., Bothwell, M. L., Lowe, R. L.) 229–252 (Academic, 1996).Hillebrand, H., Worm, B. & Lotze, H. K. Marine microbenthic community structure regulated by nitrogen loading and grazing pressure. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 204, 27–38 (2000).CAS 

Google Scholar  More

Data were analyzed from samples collected, processed, and published previously [21, 25, 29] and have been summarized here. The present analysis, which consisted of sequence data processing, the calculation of taxon-specific isotopic signatures, and subsequent analyses, reflects original work.Sample collection and isotope incubationTo generate experimental data, three replicate soil samples were collected from the top 10 cm of plant-free patches in four ecosystems along the C. Hart Merriam elevation gradient in Northern Arizona. From low to high elevation, these sites are located in the following environments: desert grassland (GL; 1760 m), piñon-pine juniper woodland (PJ; 2020 m), ponderosa pine forest (PP; 2344 m), and mixed conifer forest (MC; 2620 m). Soil samples were air-dried for 24 h at room temperature, homogenized, and passed through a 2 mm sieve before being stored at 4 °C for another 24 h. This produced three distinct but homogenous soil samples from each of the four ecosystems that were subject to experimental treatments. Three treatments were applied to bring soils to 70% water-holding capacity: water alone (control), water with glucose (C treatment; 1000 µg C g−1 dry soil), or water with glucose and a nitrogen source (CN treatment; [NH4]2SO4 at 100 µg N g−1 dry soil). To track growth through isotope assimilation, both 18O-enriched water (97 atom %) and 13C-enriched glucose (99 atom %) were used. In all treatments isotopically heavy samples were paired with matching “light” samples that received water with a natural abundance isotope signatures. For 18O incubations, this design resulted in three soil samples per ecosystem per treatment (across four ecosystems and three treatments, n = 36) while 13C incubations were limited to only C and CN treatments (n = 24). Previous analyses suggest that three replicates is sufficient to detect growth of 10 atom % 18O in microbial DNA with a power of 0.6 and a growth of 5 atom % 18O with a power of 0.3 (12 and 6 atom % respectively for 13C) [30]. All soils were incubated in the dark for one week. Following incubation, soils were frozen at −80 °C for one week prior to DNA extraction.Quantitative stable isotope probingThe procedure of qSIP (quantitative stable isotope probing) is described here but has been applied to these samples as previously published [17, 21, 25]. DNA extraction was performed on soils using a DNeasy PowerSoil HTP 96 Kit (MoBio Laboratories, Carlsbad, CA, USA) and following manufacturer’s protocol. Briefly, 0.25 g of soils from each sample were carefully added to deep, 96-well plates containing zirconium dioxide beads and a cell lysis solution with sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) and shaken for 20 min. Following cell lysis, supernatant was collected and centrifuged three times in fresh 96-well plates with reagents separating DNA from non-DNA organic and inorganic materials. Lastly, DNA samples were collected on silica filter plates, rinsed with ethanol and eluted into 100 µL of a 10 mM Tris buffer in clean 96-well plates. To quantify the degree of 18O or 13C isotope incorporation into bacterial DNA (excess atom fraction or EAF), the qSIP protocol [31] was used, though modified slightly as reported previously [21, 24, 32]. Briefly, microbial growth was quantified as the change in DNA buoyant density due to incorporation of the 18O or 13C isotopes through the method of density fractionation by adding 1 µg of DNA to 2.6 mL of saturated CsCl solution in combination with a gradient buffer (200 mM Tris, 200 mM KCL, 2 mM EDTA) in a 3.3 mL OptiSeal ultracentrifuge tube (Beckman Coulter, Fullerton, CA, USA). The solution was centrifuged to produce a gradient of increasingly labeled (heavier) DNA in an Optima Max bench top ultracentrifuge (Beckman Coulter, Brea, CA, USA) with a Beckman TLN-100 rotor (127,000 × g for 72 h) at 18 °C. Each post-incubation sample was thus converted from a continuous gradient into approximately 20 fractions (150 µL) using a modified fraction recovery system (Beckman Coulter). The density of each fraction was measured with a Reichart AR200 digital refractometer (Reichert Analytical Instruments, Depew, NY, USA). Fractions with densities between 1.640 and 1.735 g cm−3 were retained as densities outside this range generally did not contain DNA. In all retained fractions, DNA was cleaned and purified using isopropanol precipitation and the abundance of bacterial 16S rRNA gene copies was quantified with qPCR using primers specific to bacterial 16S rRNA genes (Eub 515F: AAT GAT ACG GCG ACC ACC GAG TGC CAG CMG CCG CGG TAA, 806R: CAA GCA GAA GAC GGC ATA CGA GGA CTA CVS GGG TAT CTA AT). Triplicate reactions were 8 µL consisting of 0.2 mM of each primer, 0.01 U µL−1 Phusion HotStart II Polymerase (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA), 1× Phusion HF buffer (Thermo Fisher Scientific), 3.0 mM MgCl2, 6% glycerol, and 200 µL of dNTPs. Reactions were performed on a CFX384 Touch Real-Time PCR Detection System (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, USA) under the following cycling conditions: 95 °C at 1 min and 44 cycles at 95 °C (30 s), 64.5 °C (30 s), and 72 °C (1 min). Separate from qPCR, retained sample-fractions were subject to a similar amplification step of the 16S rRNA gene V4 region (515F: GTG YCA GCM GCC GCG GTA A, 806R: GGA CTA CNV GGG TWT CTA AT) in preparation for sequencing with the same reaction mix but differing cycle conditions – 95 °C for 2 min followed by 15 cycles at 95 °C (30 s), 55 °C (30 s), and 60 °C (4 min). The resulting 16S rRNA gene V4 amplicons were sequenced on a MiSeq sequencing platform (Illumina, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA). DNA sequence data and sample metadata have been deposited in the NCBI Sequence Read Archive under the project ID PRJNA521534.Sequence processing and qSIP analysisIndependently from previous publications, we processed raw sequence data of forward and reverse reads (FASTQ) within the QIIME2 environment [33] (release 2018.6) and denoised sequences within QIIME2 using the DADA2 pipeline [34]. We clustered the remaining sequences into amplicon sequence variants (ASVs, at 100% sequence identity) against the SILVA 138 database [35] using a pre-trained open-reference Naïve Bayes feature classifier [36]. We removed samples with less than 3000 sequence reads, non-bacterial lineages, and global singletons and doubletons. We converted ASV sequencing abundances in each fraction to the number of 16S rRNA gene copies per gram dry soil based on qPCR abundances and the known amount of dry soil equivalent added to the initial extraction. This allowed us to express absolute population densities, rather than relative abundances. Across all replicates, we identified 114 543 unique bacterial ASVs.We calculated the 18O and 13C excess atom fraction (EAF) for each bacterial ASV using R version 4.0.3 [37] and data.table [38] with custom scripts available at https://www.github.com/bramstone/. Negative enrichment values were corrected using previously published methods [17]. ASVs that appeared in less than two of the three replicates of an ecosystem-treatment combination (n = 3) and less than three density fractions within those two replicates were removed to avoid assigning spurious estimates of isotope enrichment to infrequent taxa. Any ASVs filtered out of one ecosystem-treatment group were allowed to be present in another if they met the frequency threshold. Applying these filtering criteria, we limited our analysis towards 3759 unique bacterial ASVs which accounted for a small proportion of the total diversity but represented 68.0% of all sequence reads, and encompassed most major bacterial groups (Supplementary Fig. 1).Analysis of life history strategies and nutrient responseAll statistical tests were conducted in R version 4.0.3 [37]. We assessed the ability of phylum-level assignment of life history strategy to predict growth in response to C and N addition, as proxied by the incorporation of heavy isotope during DNA replication [39, 40]. Phylum-level assignments (Table 1) were based on the most frequently observed behavior of lineages with a representative phylum (or subphylum) as compiled previously [23]. We averaged 18O EAF values of bacterial taxa for each treatment and ecosystem and then subtracted the values in control soils from values in C-amended soils to determine C response (∆18O EAFC) and from the 18O EAF of bacteria in CN-amended soils to determine C and N response (Δ18O EAFCN). Because an ASV must have a measurable EAF in both the control and treatment for a valid Δ18O EAF to be calculated, we were only able to resolve the nutrient response for 2044 bacterial ASVs – 1906 in response to C addition and 1427 in response to CN addition.We used Gaussian finite mixture modeling, as implemented by the mclust R package [41], to demarcate plausible multi-isotopic signatures for oligotrophs and copiotrophs. For each treatment, we calculated average per-taxon 13C and 18O EAF values. To compare both isotopes directly, we divided 18O EAF values by 0.6 based on the estimate that this value (designated as µ) represents the fraction of oxygen atoms in DNA derived from the 18O-water, rather than from 16O within available C sources [42]. Two mixture components, corresponding to oligotrophic and copiotrophic growth modes, were defined using the Mclust function using ellipsoids of equal volume and shape. We observed several microorganisms with high 18O enrichment but comparatively low 13C enrichment, potentially indicating growth following the depletion of the added glucose, and that were reasonably clustered as oligotrophs in our mixture model.We tested how frequently mixture model clustering of each microorganism’s growth (based on average 18O–13C EAF in a treatment) could predict its growth across replicates (n = 12 in each treatment—although individual). We applied the treatment-level mixture models defined above to the per-taxon isotope values in each replicate, recording when a microorganism’s life history strategy in a replicate agreed with the treatment-level cluster, and when it didn’t. We used exact binomial tests to test whether the number of “successes” (defined as a microorganism being grouped in the same life history category as its treatment-level cluster) was statistically significant. To account for type I error across all individual tests (one per ASV per treatment), we adjusted P values in each treatment using the false-discovery rate (FDR) method [43].To determine the extent that life history categorizations may be appropriately applied at finer levels of taxonomic resolution, we constructed several hierarchical linear models using the lmer function in the nlme package version 3.1-149 [44]. To condense growth information from both isotopes into a single analysis, 18O and 13C EAF values were combined into a single variable using principal components analysis separately for each treatment. Across the C and CN treatments, the first principal component (PC1) was able to explain – respectively – 86% and 91% of joint variation of 18O and 13C EAF values. In all cases, we applied PC1 as the response variable and treated taxonomy and ecosystem as random model terms to limit the potential of pseudo-replication to bias significance values. We used likelihood ratio analysis and Akaike information criterion (AIC) values to compare models where life history strategy was determined based on observed nutrient responses at different taxonomic levels (Eq. 1) against a model with the same random terms but without any life history strategy data (Eq. 2). Separate models were applied to each treatment. To reduce model overfitting, we removed families represented by fewer than three bacterial ASVs as well as phyla represented by only one order. In addition, we removed bacterial ASVs with unknown taxonomic assignments (following Morrissey et al. [21]). This limited our analysis to 1 049 ASVs in the C amendment and 984 in the CN amendment.$${{{{{rm{PC}}}}}}{1}_{{18{{{{{rm{O}}}}}} – 13{{{{{rm{C}}}}}}}}sim {{{{{rm{strategy}}}}}} + 1|{{{{{rm{phylum}}}}}}/{{{{{rm{class}}}}}}/{{{{{rm{order}}}}}}/{{{{{rm{family}}}}}}/{{{{{rm{genus}}}}}}/{{{{{rm{eco}}}}}}$$
(1)
$${{{{{rm{PC}}}}}}{1}_{{18{{{{{rm{O}}}}}} – 13{{{{{rm{C}}}}}}}}sim 1 + 1|{{{{{rm{phylum}}}}}}/{{{{{rm{class}}}}}}/{{{{{rm{order}}}}}}/{{{{{rm{family}}}}}}/{{{{{rm{genus}}}}}}/{{{{{rm{eco}}}}}}$$
(2)
Here, life history strategy was defined at each taxonomic level using the mixture models above and based on the mean 18O and 13C EAF values of each bacterial lineage (Supplemental Fig. 2). We compared these models with the no-strategy model (Eq. 2) directly using likelihood ratio testing. More

Pitois, S. G., Lynam, C. P., Jansen, T., Halliday, N. & Edwards, M. Bottom-up effects of climate on fish populations: data from the Continuous Plankton Recorder. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 456, 169–186 (2012).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Ruzicka, J. J. et al. Interannual variability in the Northern California Current food web structure: changes in energy flow pathways and the role of forage fish, euphausiids, and jellyfish. Prog. Oceanogr. 102, 19–41 (2012).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Lauria, V., Attrill, M. J., Brown, A., Edwards, M. & Votier, S. C. Regional variation in the impact of climate change: evidence that bottom-up regulation from plankton to seabirds is weak in parts of the Northeast Atlantic. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 488, 11–22 (2013).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Heneghan, R. F., Everett, J. D., Blanchard, J. L. & Richardson, A. J. Zooplankton are not fish: improving zooplankton realism in size-spectrum models mediates energy transfer in food webs. Front. Mar. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2016.00201 (2016).Lehette, P., Tovar-Sánchez, A., Duarte, C. M. & Hernández-León, S. Krill excretion and its effect on primary production. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 459, 29–38 (2012).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Arístegui, J., Duarte, C. M., Reche, I. & Gómez-Pinchetti, J. L. Krill excretion boosts microbial activity in the Southern Ocean. PLoS ONE 9, e89391 (2014).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Tovar-Sánchez, A., Duarte, C. M., Hernández-León, S. & Sañudo-Wilhelmy, S. A. Krill as a central node for iron cycling in the Southern Ocean. Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, 1–4 (2007).Schmidt, K. et al. Seabed foraging by Antarctic krill: Implications for stock assessment, bentho-pelagic coupling, and the vertical transfer of iron. Limnol. Oceanogr. 56, 1411–1428 (2011).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cavan, E. L. et al. The importance of Antarctic krill in biogeochemical cycles. Nat. Commun. 10, 4742 (2019). This Review demonstrates how the dominant grazer in Antarctica plays a critical role in biogeochemical cycles.ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ratnarajah, L., Nicol, S. & Bowie, A. R. Pelagic iron recycling in the southern ocean: exploring the contribution of marine animals. Front. Mar. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00109 (2018).Halfter, S., Cavan, E. L., Swadling, K. M., Eriksen, R. S. & Boyd, P. W. The role of zooplankton in establishing carbon export regimes in the southern ocean – a comparison of two representative case studies in the subantarctic region. Front. Mar. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.567917 (2020).Schmidt, K. et al. Zooplankton gut passage mobilizes lithogenic iron for ocean productivity. Curr. Biol. 26, 2667–2673 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Brun, P. et al. Climate change has altered zooplankton-fuelled carbon export in the North Atlantic. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 416–423 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Chust, G. et al. Are Calanus spp. shifting poleward in the North Atlantic? A habitat modelling approach. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 71, 241–253 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Batten, S. D. & Walne, A. W. Variability in northwards extension of warm water copepods in the NE Pacific. J. Plankton Res. 33, 1643–1653 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Fu, W., Randerson, J. T. & Moore, J. K. Climate change impacts on net primary production (NPP) and export production (EP) regulated by increasing stratification and phytoplankton community structure in the CMIP5 models. Biogeosciences 13, 5151–5170 (2016).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Tagliabue, A. et al. Persistent uncertainties in ocean net primary production climate change projections at regional scales raise challenges for assessing impacts on ecosystem services. Front. Clim. https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2021.738224 (2021).Edwards, M. & Richardson, A. J. Impact of climate change on marine pelagic phenology and trophic mismatch. Nature 430, 881–884 (2004).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mackas, D. L. et al. Changing zooplankton seasonality in a changing ocean: comparing time series of zooplankton phenology. Prog. Oceanogr. 97-100, 31–62 (2012).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Freer, J. J., Daase, M. & Tarling, G. A. Modelling the biogeographic boundary shift of Calanus finmarchicus reveals drivers of Arctic Atlantification by subarctic zooplankton. Glob. Change Biol. 28, 429–440 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Daufresne, M., Lengfellner, K. & Sommer, U. Global warming benefits the small in aquatic ecosystems. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 12788–12793 (2009).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Brandão, M. C. et al. Macroscale patterns of oceanic zooplankton composition and size structure. Sci. Rep. 11, 15714 (2021). This study showed that zooplankton abundance and median size decreased towards warmer and less productive environments due to changes in copepod composition, but some groups displayed the opposite relationships potentially due to alternative feeding strategies.ADS 

Google Scholar 
Campbell, M. D. et al. Testing Bermann’s rule in marine copepods. Ecography 44, 1283–1295 (2021). This global study found that temperature better predicted copepod size than did latitude or oxygen, with body size decreasing by 43.9% across the temperature range (−1.7 to 30 °C).
Google Scholar 
Barange, M. et al. Impacts of Climate Change on Fisheries and Aquaculture. Synthesis of Current Knowledge, Adaptation, and Mitigation Options. (FAO, 2018).Atkinson, A. et al. Questioning the role of phenology shifts and trophic mismatching in a planktonic food web. Prog. Oceanogr. 137, 498–512 (2015).ADS 

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

Google Scholar 
Sasaki, M. & Dam, H. G. Global patterns in copepod thermal tolerance. J. Plankton Res. 43, 598–609 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Dam, H. G. et al. Rapid, but limited, zooplankton adaptation to simultaneous warming and acidification. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 780–786 (2021).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Cooley, S. et al. Ocean and Coastal Ecosystems and their Services. In: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (Cambridge University Press, 2022). This IPCC report synthesizes changes in zooplankton phenology compared to other marine life.Mackas, D. L., Goldblatt, R. & Lewis, A. G. Interdecadal variation in developmental timing of Neocalanus plumchrus populations at Ocean Station P in the subarctic North Pacific. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 55, 1878–1893 (1998).
Google Scholar 
Edwards, M. et al. Ecological Status Report: results from the CPR survey 2007/2008. 1-12 (2009).Richardson, A. J. In hot water: zooplankton and climate change. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 65, 279–295 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Costello, J. H., Sullivan, B. K. & Gifford, D. J. A physical–biological interaction underlying variable phenological responses to climate change by coastal zooplankton. J. Plankton Res. 28, 1099–1105 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Chevillot, X. et al. Toward a phenological mismatch in estuarine pelagic food web? PLoS ONE 12, e0173752 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Ji, R., Edwards, M., Mackas, D. L., Runge, J. A. & Thomas, A. C. Marine plankton phenology and life history in a changing climate: current research and future directions. J. Plankton Res. 32, 1355–1368 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Thibodeau, P. S. et al. Long-term observations of pteropod phenology along the Western Antarctic Peninsula. Deep Sea Res. Part I: Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 166, 103363 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Beaugrand, G., Reid Philip, C., Ibañez, F., Lindley, J. A. & Edwards, M. Reorganization of North Atlantic marine copepod biodiversity and climate. Science 296, 1692–1694 (2002).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Edwards, M. et al. North Atlantic warming over six decades drives decreases in krill abundance with no associated range shift. Commun. Biol. 4, 644 (2021). This regional study showed that ocean warming is causing a decrease in krill abundance but no poleward movement in range.
Google Scholar 
Chivers, W. J., Walne, A. W. & Hays, G. C. Mismatch between marine plankton range movements and the velocity of climate change. Nat. Commun. 8, 14434 (2017).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lindley, J. A. & Daykin, S. Variations in the distributions of Centropages chierchiae and Temora stylifera (Copepoda: Calanoida) in the north-eastern Atlantic Ocean and western European shelf waters. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 62, 869–877 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Atkinson, A. et al. Krill (Euphausia superba) distribution contracts southward during rapid regional warming. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 142–147 (2019). This regional study shows that the dominant grazer in Antarctic waters, Antarctic krill is moving southward due to regional warming.ADS 

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

Google Scholar 
Pakhomov, E. A., Froneman, P. W., Wassmann, P., Ratkova, T. & Arashkevich, E. Contribution of algal sinking and zooplankton grazing to downward flux in the Lazarev Sea (Southern Ocean) during the onset of phytoplankton bloom: a lagrangian study. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 233, 73–88 (2002).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Tarling, G. A., Ward, P. & Thorpe, S. E. Spatial distributions of Southern Ocean mesozooplankton communities have been resilient to long-term surface warming. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 132–142 (2017). This study shows that 16 mesozooplankton taxa in the in the southwest Atlantic sector of the Southern Ocean are resilient to ocean warming.ADS 

Google Scholar 
Atkinson, A. et al. Stepping stones towards Antarctica: switch to southern spawning grounds explains an abrupt range shift in krill. Glob. Change Biol. 28, 1359–1375 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Jonkers, L., Hillebrand, H. & Kucera, M. Global change drives modern plankton communities away from the pre-industrial state. Nature 570, 372–377 (2019).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yebra, L. et al. Spatio-temporal variability of the zooplankton community in the SW Mediterranean 1992–2020: Linkages with environmental drivers. Prog. Oceanogr. 209, 1–10 (2022).Cowen, T. et al. Report on the status and trends of the Southern Ocean zooplankton based on the SCAR Southern Ocean Continuous Plankton Recorder (SO-CPR) survey. (2020).Corona, S., Hirst, A., Atkinson, D. & Atkinson, A. Density-dependent modulation of copepod body size and temperature–size responses in a shelf sea. Limnol. Oceanogr. 66, 3916–3927 (2021).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Horne, C. R., Hirst, A. G., Atkinson, D., Neves, A. & Kiørboe, T. A global synthesis of seasonal temperature–size responses in copepods. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 25, 988–999 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Hobday, A. J. et al. A hierarchical approach to defining marine heatwaves. Prog. Oceanogr. 141, 227–238 (2016).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Brodeur, R. D., Auth, T. D. & Phillips, A. J. Major shifts in pelagic micronekton and macrozooplankton community structure in an upwelling ecosystem related to an unprecedented marine heatwave. Front. Mar. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00212 (2019).Lavaniegos, B. E., Jiménez-Herrera, M. & Ambriz-Arreola, I. Unusually low euphausiid biomass during the warm years of 2014–2016 in the transition zone of the California Current. Deep Sea Res. Part II: Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 169-170, 104638 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Peterson, W. T. et al. The pelagic ecosystem in the Northern California Current off Oregon during the 2014–2016 warm anomalies within the context of the past 20 years. J. Geophys. Res.: Oceans 122, 7267–7290 (2017).ADS 

Google Scholar 
O’ Loughlin, J. H. O. et al. Implications of Pyrosoma atlanticum range expansion on phytoplankton standing stocks in the Northern California Current. Prog. Oceanogr. 188, 1–9 (2020).Robertson, R. R. & Bjorkstedt, E. P. Climate-driven variability in Euphausia pacifica size distributions off northern California. Prog. Oceanogr. 188, 102412 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Stephens, J. A., Jordan, M. B., Taylor, A. H. & Proctor, R. The effects of fluctuations in North Sea flows on zooplankton abundance. J. Plankton Res. 20, 943–956 (1998).
Google Scholar 
Greene, C. H. & Pershing, A. J. The response of Calanus finmarchicus populations to climate variability in the Northwest Atlantic: basin-scale forcing associated with the North Atlantic Oscillation. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 57, 1536–1544 (2000).
Google Scholar 
Saba, G. K. et al. Winter and spring controls on the summer food web of the coastal West Antarctic Peninsula. Nat. Commun. 5, 4318 (2014).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Steinberg, D. K. et al. Long-term (1993–2013) changes in macrozooplankton off the Western Antarctic Peninsula. Deep Sea Res. Part I: Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 101, 54–70 (2015).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Steinke, K. B., Bernard, K. S., Ross, R. M. & B, Q. L. Environmental drivers of the physiological condition of mature female Antarctic krill during the spawning season: implications for krill recruitment. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 669, 65–82 (2021).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Brodeur, R. D. et al. Rise and fall of jellyfish in the eastern Bering Sea in relation to climate regime shifts. Prog. Oceanogr. 77, 103–111 (2008).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Quiñones, J. et al. Climate-driven population size fluctuations of jellyfish (Chrysaora plocamia) off Peru. Mar. Biol. 162, 2339–2350 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Lynam, C. P., Attrill, M. J. & Skogen, M. D. Climatic and oceanic influences on the abundance of gelatinous zooplankton in the North Sea. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK 90, 1153–1159 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Schmidt, K. et al. Increasing picocyanobacteria success in shelf waters contributes to long-term food web degradation. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 5574–5587 (2020).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Laglera, L. M. et al. Iron partitioning during LOHAFEX: Copepod grazing as a major driver for iron recycling in the Southern Ocean. Mar. Chem. 196, 148–161 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cavan, E. L., Henson, S. A., Belcher, A. & Sanders, R. Role of zooplankton in determining the efficiency of the biological carbon pump. Biogeosciences 14, 177–186 (2017).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Valdés, V. et al. Nitrogen and phosphorus recycling mediated by copepods and response of bacterioplankton community from three contrasting areas in the western tropical South Pacific (20° S). Biogeosciences 15, 6019–6032 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Steinberg, D. K. & Landry, M. R. Zooplankton and the Ocean Carbon Cycle. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 9, 413–444 (2017). This Review synthesizes the role of zooplankton within the ocean carbon cycle.ADS 

Google Scholar 
Ratnarajah, L. et al. Understanding the variability in the iron concentration of Antarctic krill. Limnol. Oceanogr. 61, 1651–1660 (2016).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Bernard, K. S., Steinberg, D. K. & Schofield, O. M. Summertime grazing impact of the dominant macrozooplankton off the Western Antarctic Peninsula. Deep Sea Res. Part I: Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 62, 111–122 (2012).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Böckmann, S. et al. Salp fecal pellets release more bioavailable iron to Southern Ocean phytoplankton than krill fecal pellets. Curr. Biol. 31, 2737–2746.e2733 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Cabanes, D. J. E. et al. First Evaluation of the Role of Salp Fecal Pellets on Iron Biogeochemistry. Front. Mar. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2016.00289 (2017).Ratnarajah, L. Regenerated iron: how important are different zooplankton groups to oceanic productivity. Curr. Biol. 31, R848–R850 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Giering, S. L., Steigenberger, S., Achterberg, E. P., Sanders, R. & Mayor, D. J. Elevated iron to nitrogen recycling by mesozooplankton in the Northeast Atlantic Ocean. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, 1–5 (2012).Svensen, C. et al. Zooplankton communities associated with new and regenerated primary production in the Atlantic inflow North of Svalbard. Front. Mar. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00293 (2019).Darnis, G. & Fortier, L. Zooplankton respiration and the export of carbon at depth in the Amundsen Gulf (Arctic Ocean). J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 117, 1–12 (2012).Miquel, J.-C. et al. Downward particle flux and carbon export in the Beaufort Sea, Arctic Ocean; the role of zooplankton. Biogeosciences 12, 5103–5117 (2015).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Hernández-León, S. et al. Carbon export through zooplankton active flux in the Canary Current. J. Mar. Syst. 189, 12–21 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Gorgues, T., Aumont, O. & Memery, L. Simulated changes in the particulate carbon export efficiency due to diel vertical migration of zooplankton in the North Atlantic. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 5387–5395 (2019).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Steinberg, D. K. et al. Zooplankton vertical migration and the active transport of dissolved organic and inorganic carbon in the Sargasso Sea. Deep Sea Res. Part I: Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 47, 137–158 (2000).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lebrato, M., Molinero, J.-C., Mychek-Londer, J. G., Gonzalez, E. M. & Jones, D. O. B. Gelatinous carbon impacts benthic megafaunal communities in a continental margin. Front. Mar. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.902674 (2022).Lebrato, M. & Jones, D. O. B. Mass deposition event of Pyrosoma atlanticum carcasses off Ivory Coast (West Africa). Limnol. Oceanogr. 54, 1197–1209 (2009).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kobari, T. et al. Impacts of ontogenetically migrating copepods on downward carbon flux in the western subarctic Pacific Ocean. Deep Sea Res. Part II: Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 55, 1648–1660 (2008).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Wilson, S. E., Steinberg, D. K. & Buesseler, K. O. Changes in fecal pellet characteristics with depth as indicators of zooplankton repackaging of particles in the mesopelagic zone of the subtropical and subarctic North Pacific Ocean. Deep Sea Res. Part II: Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 55, 1636–1647 (2008).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Laurenceau-Cornec, E. et al. The relative importance of phytoplankton aggregates and zooplankton fecal pellets to carbon export: insights from free-drifting sediment trap deployments in naturally iron-fertilised waters near the Kerguelen Plateau. Biogeosciences 12, 1007–1027 (2015).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Manno, C., Stowasser, G., Enderlein, P., Fielding, S. & Tarling, G. The contribution of zooplankton faecal pellets to deep-carbon transport in the Scotia Sea (Southern Ocean). Biogeosciences 12, 1955–1965 (2015).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Cavan, E. et al. Attenuation of particulate organic carbon flux in the Scotia Sea, Southern Ocean, is controlled by zooplankton fecal pellets. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 821–830 (2015).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lebrato, M. et al. Jelly biomass sinking speed reveals a fast carbon export mechanism. Limnol. Oceanogr. 58, 1113–1122 (2013).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Ducklow, H. W., Steinberg, D. K. & Buesseler, K. O. Upper ocean carbon export and the biological pump. Oceanography 14, 50–58 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Yebra, L. et al. Zooplankton production and carbon export flux in the western Alboran Sea gyre (SW Mediterranean). Prog. Oceanogr. 167, 64–77 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Yebra, L. et al. Mesoscale physical variability affects zooplankton production in the Labrador Sea. Deep Sea Res. Part I: Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 56, 703–715 (2009).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Beaugrand, G., Edwards, M. & Legendre, L. Marine biodiversity, ecosystem functioning, and carbon cycles. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 10120–10124 (2010).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Benson, A. J. & Trites, A. W. Ecological effects of regime shifts in the Bering Sea and eastern North Pacific Ocean. Fish. Fish. 3, 95–113 (2002).
Google Scholar 
Coyle, K. O. & Pinchuk, A. I. Climate-related differences in zooplankton density and growth on the inner shelf of the southeastern Bering Sea. Prog. Oceanogr. 55, 177–194 (2002).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Duffy-Anderson, J. T. et al. Return of warm conditions in the southeastern Bering Sea: Phytoplankton – Fish. PLoS ONE 12, e0178955 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Odebrecht, C., Secchi, E. R., Abreu, P. C., Muelbert, J. H. & Uiblein, F. Biota of the Patos Lagoon estuary and adjacent marine coast: long-term changes induced by natural and human-related factors. Mar. Biol. Res. 13, 3–8 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Eisner, L. B. et al. Seasonal, interannual, and spatial patterns of community composition over the eastern Bering Sea shelf in cold years. Part I: zooplankton. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 75, 72–86 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Trueblood, L. A. Salp metabolism: temperature and oxygen partial pressure effect on the physiology of Salpa fusiformis from the California Current. J. Plankton Res. 41, 281–291 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hernández-León, S. & Ikeda, T. in Respiration in aquatic ecosystems. p. 57-82 (Oxford University Press, 2005).Lewandowska, A. M. et al. Effects of sea surface warming on marine plankton. Ecol. Lett. 17, 614–623 (2014).
Google Scholar 
O’Connor, M. I., Piehler, M. F., Leech, D. M., Anton, A. & Bruno, J. F. Warming and resource availability shift food web structure and metabolism. PLoS Biol. 7, e1000178 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Chen, B., Landry, M. R., Huang, B. & Liu, H. Does warming enhance the effect of microzooplankton grazing on marine phytoplankton in the ocean? Limnol. Oceanogr. 57, 519–526 (2012).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Paul, C., Matthiessen, B. & Sommer, U. Warming, but not enhanced CO2 concentration, quantitatively and qualitatively affects phytoplankton biomass. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 528, 39–51 (2015).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sommer, U. & Lewandowska, A. Climate change and the phytoplankton spring bloom: warming and overwintering zooplankton have similar effects on phytoplankton. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 154–162 (2010).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Beaugrand, G. et al. Prediction of unprecedented biological shifts in the global ocean. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 237–243 (2019).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Sterner, R. W. & Elser, J. J. Ecological Stoichiometry: The Biology of Elements from Molecules to the Biosphere (Princeton University Press, 2002).Matsumoto, K., Tanioka, T. & Rickaby, R. Linkages between dynamic phytoplankton C:N:P and the ocean carbon cycle under climate change. Oceanography 33, 44–52 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Finkel, Z. V. et al. Phytoplankton in a changing world: cell size and elemental stoichiometry. J. Plankton Res. 32, 119–137 (2010).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bank, T. W. Blue Economy. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/oceans-fisheries-and-coastal-economies#1 (2021).Burthe, S. et al. Phenological trends and trophic mismatch across multiple levels of a North Sea pelagic food web. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 454, 119–133 (2012).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Durant, J. M. et al. Contrasting effects of rising temperatures on trophic interactions in marine ecosystems. Sci. Rep. 9, 15213 (2019).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Otero, J. et al. Basin-scale phenology and effects of climate variability on global timing of initial seaward migration of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Glob. Change Biol. 20, 61–75 (2014).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Kovach, R. P., Ellison, S. C., Pyare, S. & Tallmon, D. A. Temporal patterns in adult salmon migration timing across southeast Alaska. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 1821–1833 (2014).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Chust, G. et al. Earlier migration and distribution changes of albacore in the Northeast Atlantic. Fish. Oceanogr. 28, 505–516 (2019).
Google Scholar 
McQueen, K. & Marshall, C. T. Shifts in spawning phenology of cod linked to rising sea temperatures. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 74, 1561–1573 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Kanamori, Y., Takasuka, A., Nishijima, S. & Okamura, H. Climate change shifts the spawning ground northward and extends the spawning period of chub mackerel in the western North Pacific. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 624, 155–166 (2019).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Henderson, M. E., Mills, K. E., Thomas, A. C., Pershing, A. J. & Nye, J. A. Effects of spring onset and summer duration on fish species distribution and biomass along the Northeast United States continental shelf. Rev. Fish. Biol. Fish. 27, 411–424 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Beaugrand, G., Brander, K. M., Alistair Lindley, J., Souissi, S. & Reid, P. C. Plankton effect on cod recruitment in the North Sea. Nature 426, 661–664 (2003).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kang, Y. S., Kim, J. Y., Kim, H. G. & Park, J. H. Long-term changes in zooplankton and its relationship with squid, Todarodes pacificus, catch in Japan/East Sea. Fish. Oceanogr. 11, 337–346 (2002).
Google Scholar 
Mackas, D. et al. Zooplankton time series from the Strait of Georgia: results from year-round sampling at deep water locations, 1990–2010. Prog. Oceanogr. 115, 129–159 (2013).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Daly, E. A., Brodeur, R. D. & Auth, T. D. Anomalous ocean conditions in 2015: impacts on spring Chinook salmon and their prey field. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 566, 169–182 (2017).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Feuilloley, G. et al. Concomitant changes in the environment and small pelagic fish community of the Gulf of Lions. Prog. Oceanogr. 186, 102375 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Yebra, L. et al. Molecular identification of the diet of Sardina pilchardus larvae in the SW Mediterranean Sea. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 617-618, 41–52 (2019).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Record, N. et al. Copepod diapause and the biogeography of the marine lipidscape. J. Biogeogr. 45, 2238–2251 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Yebra, L. et al. Zooplankton biomass depletion event reveals the importance of small pelagic fish top-down control in the Western Mediterranean Coastal Waters. Front. Mar. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.608690 (2020).Friedland, K. D. et al. Pathways between primary production and fisheries yields of large marine ecosystems. PLoS ONE 7, e28945 (2012).Santora, J. A. et al. Habitat compression and ecosystem shifts as potential links between marine heatwave and record whale entanglements. Nat. Commun. 11, 536 (2020).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Piatt, J. et al. Extreme mortality and reproductive failure of common murres resulting from the northeast Pacific marine heatwave of 2014-2016. PLOS ONE 15, e0226087 (2020).Meyer-Gutbrod, E., Greene, C., Davies, K. & Johns, D. G. Ocean regime shift is driving collapse of the North Atlantic Right Whale Population. Oceanography 34, 22–31 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Beltran, R. S. et al. Seasonal resource pulses and the foraging depth of a Southern Ocean top predator. Proc. R. Soc. B 288, 1–9 (2021).Everett, J. D. et al. Modeling what we sample and sampling what we model: challenges for zooplankton model assessment. Front. Mar. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2017.00077 (2017). This article synthesizes key information required for better parameterize zooplankton in various models.Gibbs Samantha, J. et al. Algal plankton turn to hunting to survive and recover from end-Cretaceous impact darkness. Sci. Adv. 6, eabc9123 (2020).Kwiatkowski, L. et al. Twenty-first century ocean warming, acidification, deoxygenation, and upper-ocean nutrient and primary production decline from CMIP6 model projections. Biogeosciences 17, 3439–3470 (2020).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mitra, A. et al. Bridging the gap between marine biogeochemical and fisheries sciences; configuring the zooplankton link. Prog. Oceanogr. 129, 176–199 (2014).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Gentleman, W., Leising, A., Frost, B., Strom, S. & Murray, J. Functional responses for zooplankton feeding on multiple resources: a review of assumptions and biological dynamics. Deep Sea Res. Part II: Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 50, 2847–2875 (2003).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chenillat, F., Rivière, P. & Ohman, M. D. On the sensitivity of plankton ecosystem models to the formulation of zooplankton grazing. PLOS ONE 16, e0252033 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Stemmann, L. & Boss, E. Plankton and particle size and packaging: from determining optical properties to driving the biological pump. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 4, 263–290 (2012).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kiørboe, T., Saiz, E., Tiselius, P. & Andersen, K. H. Adaptive feeding behavior and functional responses in zooplankton. Limnol. Oceanogr. 63, 308–321 (2017).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Grigor, J. J. et al. Non-carnivorous feeding in Arctic chaetognaths. Prog. Oceanogr. 186, 102388 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Yeh, H. D., Questel, J. M., Maas, K. R. & Bucklin, A. Metabarcoding analysis of regional variation in gut contents of the copepod Calanus finmarchicus in the North Atlantic Ocean. Deep Sea Res. Part II: Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 180, 104738 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Novotny, A., Zamora-Terol, S. & Winder, M. DNA metabarcoding reveals trophic niche diversity of micro and mesozooplankton species. Proc. R. Soc. B 288, 1–10 (2021).Käse, L. et al. Metabarcoding analysis suggests that flexible food web interactions in the eukaryotic plankton community are more common than specific predator–prey relationships at Helgoland Roads, North Sea. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 78, 3372–3386 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Greco, M., Morard, R. & Kucera, M. Single-cell metabarcoding reveals biotic interactions of the Arctic calcifier Neogloboquadrina pachyderma with the eukaryotic pelagic community. J. Plankton Res. 43, 113–125 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Serra-Pompei, C., Soudijn, F., Visser, A. W., Kiørboe, T. & Andersen, K. H. A general size- and trait-based model of plankton communities. Prog. Oceanogr. 189, 102473 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Heneghan, R. F. et al. A functional size-spectrum model of the global marine ecosystem that resolves zooplankton composition. Ecol. Model. 435, 109265 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ward, B. A. et al. EcoGEnIE 1.0: plankton ecology in the cGEnIE Earth system model. Geosci. Model Dev. 11, 4241–4267 (2018).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sosik, H. M. & Olson, R. J. Automated taxonomic classification of phytoplankton sampled with imaging-in-flow cytometry. Limnol. Oceanogr. Methods 5, 204–216 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Lombard, F. et al. Globally consistent quantitative observations of planktonic ecosystems. Front. Mar. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00196 (2019).Pitois, S. G. et al. A first approach to build and test the Copepod Mean Size and Total Abundance (CMSTA) ecological indicator using in-situ size measurements from the Plankton Imager (PI). Ecol. Indic. 123, 107307 (2021).Irisson, J.-O., Ayata, S.-D., Lindsay, D. J., Karp-Boss, L. & Stemmann, L. Machine learning for the study of plankton and marine snow from images. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 14, 277–301 (2022).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Cornils, A. et al. Testing the usefulness of optical data for zooplankton long-term monitoring: Taxonomic composition, abundance, biomass and size spectra from ZooScan image analysis. Limnol. Oceanogr. Methods 20, 428–450 (2022).Henson, S. A., C, B. & R, L. Observing climate change trends in ocean biogeochemistry: when and where. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 1561–1571 (2016).ADS 

Google Scholar 
García-Comas, C. et al. Zooplankton long-term changes in the NW Mediterranean Sea: Decadal periodicity forced by winter hydrographic conditions related to large-scale atmospheric changes? J. Mar. Syst. 87, 216–226 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Vucetich, J. A., Nelson, M. P. & Bruskotter, J. T. What drives declining support for long-term ecological research? BioScience 70, 168–173 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Lindenmayer, D. B. et al. Value of long-term ecological studies. Austral Ecol. 37, 745–757 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Giron-Nava, A. et al. Quantitative argument for long-term ecological monitoring. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 572, 269–274 (2017).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Hughes, B. B. et al. Long-term studies contribute disproportionately to ecology and policy. BioScience 67, 271–281 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Berline, L., Siokou-Frangou, I. & Marasovic, I. Intercomparison of six Mediterranean zooplankton time series. Prog. Oceanogr. 97-100, 76–91 (2012).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Beaugrand, G. et al. Synchronous marine pelagic regime shifts in the Northern Hemisphere. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 370, 20130272 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Mackas, D. L. & Beaugrand, G. Comparisons of zooplankton time series. J. Mar. Syst. 79, 286–304 (2010).
Google Scholar 
O’Brien, T. D., Lorenzoni, L., Isensee, K. & Valdés, L. What are Marine Ecological Time Series Telling Us About The Ocean? A Status Report. (2017).Ratnarajah, L. Map of BioEco Observing networks/capability (https://eurosea.eu/download/eurosea-d1-2-bioeco-observing-networks/?wpdmdl=3580&refresh=637b1a59bb2011669012057, 2021).Wright, R. M., Le Quéré, C., Buitenhuis, E. T., Pitois, S. & Gibbons, M. J. Role of jellyfish in the plankton ecosystem revealed using a global ocean biogeochemical model. Biogeosciences 18, 1291–1320 (2021).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Buitenhuis, E. T. et al. MAREDAT: towards a world atlas of MARine Ecosystem DATa. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 5, 227–239 (2013).ADS 

Google Scholar 
O’Brien, T. D. COPEPOD: The Global Plankton Database. An overview of the 2014 database contents, processing methods, and access interface. U.S. Dep. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/ST-37, 29p. (2014).Pitois, S. G., Bouch, P., Creach, V. & van der Kooij, J. Comparison of zooplankton data collected by a continuous semi-automatic sampler (CALPS) and a traditional vertical ring net. J. Plankton Res. 38, 931–943 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Wiebe, P. H. & Benfield, M. C. From the Hensen net toward four-dimensional biological oceanography. Prog. Oceanogr. 56, 7–136 (2003).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Boss, E. et al. Recommendations for plankton measurements on oceansites moorings with relevance to other observing sites. Front. Mar. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.929436 (2022).Pollina, T. et al. PlanktoScope: affordable modular quantitative imaging platform for citizen oceanography. Front. Mar. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.949428 (2022).Pitois, S. G. et al. Comparison of a cost-effective integrated plankton sampling and imaging instrument with traditional systems for mesozooplankton sampling in the Celtic Sea. Front. Mar. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00005 (2018).Ohman, M. D. et al. Zooglider: an autonomous vehicle for optical and acoustic sensing of zooplankton. Limnol. Oceanogr.: Methods 17, 69–86 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Picheral, M. et al. The Underwater Vision Profiler 6: an imaging sensor of particle size spectra and plankton, for autonomous and cabled platforms. Limnol. Oceanogr. Methods 20, 115–129 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Picheral, M. et al. The Underwater Vision Profiler 5: an advanced instrument for high spatial resolution studies of particle size spectra and zooplankton. Limnol. Oceanogr. Methods 8, 462–473 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Richardson, A. et al. in Guidelines for the study of climate change effects on HABs Vol. 88 23 (UNESCO-IOC/SCOR, 2022).Drago, L. et al. Global distribution of zooplankton biomass estimated by in situ imaging and machine learning. Front. Mar. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.894372 (2022).Forest, A. et al. Ecosystem function and particle flux dynamics across the Mackenzie Shelf (Beaufort Sea, Arctic Ocean): an integrative analysis of spatial variability and biophysical forcings. Biogeosciences 10, 2833–2866 (2013).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Haëntjens, N. et al. Detecting mesopelagic organisms using biogeochemical-argo floats. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47, 1–10 (2020).Clayton, S. et al. Bio-GO-SHIP: the time is right to establish global repeat sections of ocean biology. Front. Mar. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.767443 (2022).Miloslavich, P. et al. Essential ocean variables for global sustained observations of biodiversity and ecosystem changes. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 2416–2433 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
McPhaden, M. J., Santoso, A. & Cai, W. El Niño Southern Oscillation in a Changing Climate: Glossary (John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2021). More