Ecology

Characteristics of the NMs
Commercially available spherical (10, 60, and 100 nm) and rod-shaped (10 × 45 nm and 50 × 100 nm) citrate-coated Au-NMs from Nanopartz (USA) were characterized in Milli-Q (MQ) water in terms of particle size and morphology using transmission electron microscopy (TEM) (Supplementary Fig. 1). The physicochemical properties of the Au-NMs in MQ water are summarized in Supplementary Table 1. A negative zeta potential (a measure of colloidal dispersion electrostatic stability) was observed for all Au-NMs and ranged from −21 to −25 mV in MQ water and from −17 to −19 mV in the algal exposure medium (without algae). The stability of the particles against dissolution and agglomeration in the algal exposure medium without algae was monitored throughout the exposure duration (72 h). The dissolved fraction of the Au-NMs was More

1.
TTWG [Turtle Taxonomy Working Group; Rhodin, A. G. J. et al.] Turtles of the World. Annotated Checklist and Atlas of Taxonomy, Synonymy, Distribution, and Conservation Status (8th Ed.) (Chelonian Research Foundation and Turtle Conservancy, Chelonian Research Monographs 7, 2017).
2.
TEWG [Turtle Extinctions Working Group; Rhodin, A. G. J. et al.] Turtles and Tortoises of the World During the Rise and Global Spread of Humanity: First Checklist and Review of Extinct Pleistocene and Holocene Chelonians (IUCN/SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group, Chelonian Research Monographs 5, 2015).

3.
Clausen, C. J., Cohen, A. D., Emiliani, C., Holman, J. A. & Stipp, J. J. Little Salt Spring, Florida: A unique underwater site. Science 203, 609–614 (1979).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

4.
Holman, J. A. & Clausen, C. J. Fossil vertebrates associated with Paleo-Indian artifact at Little Salt Spring, Florida. J. Vertebr. Paleontol. 4, 146–154 (1984).
Article  Google Scholar 

5.
Cantalamessa, G. et al. A new vertebrate fossiliferous site from the Late Quaternary at San José on the north coast of Ecuador: Preliminary note. J. South Am. Earth Sci. 14, 331–334 (2001).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

6.
Aguilera Socorro, O. Tesoros paleontológicos de Venezuela. El Cuaternario del Estado Falcón (Ministerio de la Cultura, Instituto del Patrimonio Cultural, Caracas, 2006).
Google Scholar 

7.
Zacarías, G. G., de la Fuente, M. S., Fernández, M. S. & Zurita, A. E. Nueva especie de tortuga terrestre gigante del género Chelonoidis Fitzinger, 1835 (Cryptodira: Testudinidae), del miembro inferior de la Formación Toropí/Yupoí (Pleistoceno tardío/Lujanense), Bella Vista, Corrientes, Argentina. Ameghiniana 50, 298–318 (2013).
Article  Google Scholar 

8.
Zacarías, G. G., de la Fuente, M. S. & Zurita, A. E. Testudinoidea Fitzinger (Testudines: Cryptodira) de la Formación Toropí/Yupoí (ca. 58–28 ka) en la Provincia de Corrientes, Argentina: Taxonomía y aspectos paleoambientales. Rev. Bras. Paleontol. 17, 389–404 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

9.
Torres Chiriboga, F. J. Histología ósea de una tortuga gigante del Pleistoceno (Testudinidae) de Ecuador continental, con comentarios del origen de las tortugas de Galápagos (Disertación previa, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador, Quito, 2016).
Google Scholar 

10.
Cadena, E. A. & Román-Carrión, J. L. A review of the fossil record of Ecuador, with insights about its challenges and future development. Ameghiniana 55, 571–591 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

11.
Franz, R., Albury, N. A. & Steadman, D. W. Extinct tortoises from the Turks and Caicos Islands. Florida Mus. Nat. Hist. Bull. 58, 1–38 (2020).
Google Scholar 

12.
Williams, E. E. Testudo cubensis and the evolution of Western Hemisphere tortoises. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 95, 1–36 (1950).
Google Scholar 

13.
Williams, E. E. A new fossil tortoise from Mona Island, West Indies, and a tentative arrangement of the tortoises of the world. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 99, 545–560 (1952).
Google Scholar 

14.
Auffenberg, W. Notes on West Indian tortoises. Herpetologica 23, 34–44 (1967).
Google Scholar 

15.
Franz, R. & Woods, C. A. A fossil tortoise from Hispaniola. J. Herpetol. 17, 79–81 (1983).
Article  Google Scholar 

16.
Franz, R. & Franz, S. A new fossil land tortoise in the genus Chelonoidis (Testudines: Testudinidae) from the northern Bahamas, with an osteological assessment of other Neotropical tortoises. Florida Mus. Nat. Hist. Bull. 49, 1–44 (2009).
Google Scholar 

17.
Steadman, D. W. et al. Exceptionally well preserved late Quaternary plant and vertebrate fossils from a blue hole on Abaco, The Bahamas. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104, 19897–19902 (2007).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

18.
Hastings, A. K., Krigbaum, J., Steadman, D. W. & Albury, N. A. Domination by reptiles in a terrestrial food web of the Bahamas prior to human occupation. J. Herpetol. 48, 380–388 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

19.
Kehlmaier, C. et al. Tropical ancient DNA reveals relationships of the extinct Bahamian giant tortoise Chelonoidis alburyorum. Proc. R. Soc. B 284, 20162235 (2017).
PubMed  Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

20.
Steadman, D. W. et al. The paleoecology and extinction of endemic tortoises in the Bahamian Archipelago. Holocene 30, 420–427 (2020).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

21.
Albury, N. A., Franz, R., Rimoli, P., Lehman, P. & Rosenberger, A. L. Fossil land tortoises (Testudines: Testudinidae) from the Dominican Republic, West Indies, with a description of a new species. Am. Mus. Novit. 3904, 1–28 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

22.
Fulton, T. L. & Shapiro, B. Setting up an ancient DNA laboratory. In Ancient DNA: Methods and Protocols. Methods in Molecular Biology, Vol. 1963 (eds Shapiro, B. et al.), 1–13 (Humana Press, Totowa, 2019).
Google Scholar 

23.
Dabney, J. et al. Complete mitochondrial genome sequence of a Middle Pleistocene cave bear reconstructed from ultrashort DNA fragments. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, 15758–15763 (2013).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

24.
Gansauge, M.-T. & Meyer, M. Single-stranded DNA library preparation for the sequencing of ancient or damaged DNA. Nat. Protoc. 8, 737–748 (2013).
PubMed  Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

25.
Korlević, P. et al. Reducing microbial and human contamination in DNA extractions from ancient bones and teeth. Biotechniques 58, 87–93 (2015).
Google Scholar 

26.
Maricic, T., Whitten, M. & Pääbo, S. Multiplexed DNA sequence capture of mitochondrial genomes using PCR products. PLoS One 5, e14004 (2010).
ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

27.
Horn, S. Target enrichment via DNA hybridization capture. In Ancient DNA: Methods and Protocols. Methods in Molecular Biology, Vol. 840 (eds Shapiro, B. & Hofreiter, M.), 177–188 (Springer, Berlin, 2012).
Google Scholar 

28.
Jiang, H., Lei, R., Ding, S. W. & Zhu, S. Skewer: A fast and accurate adapter trimmer for next-generation sequencing paired-end reads. BMC Bioinform. 15, 182 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

29.
Bushnell, B., Rood, J. & Singer, E. BBMerge—accurate paired shotgun read merging via overlap. PLoS One 12, e0185056 (2017).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

30.
Wingett, S. W. & Andrews, S. FastQ Screen: A tool for multi-genome mapping and quality control [version 2; referees: 4 approved]. F1000Research 7, 1338 (2018).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

31.
Hahn, C., Bachmann, L. & Chevreux, B. Reconstructing mitochondrial genomes directly from genomic next-generation sequencing reads—a baiting and iterative mapping approach. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, 1–9 (2013).
Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

32.
Milne, I. et al. Using Tablet for visual exploration of second-generation sequencing data. Brief. Bioinform. 14, 193–202 (2013).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

33.
Quinlan, A. R. & Hall, I. M. BEDTools: A flexible suite of utilities for comparing genomic features. Bioinformatics 26, 841–842 (2010).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

34.
Kehlmaier, C. et al. Ancient mitogenomics clarifies radiation of extinct Mascarene giant tortoises. Sci. Rep. 9, 17487 (2019).
ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

35.
Poulakakis, N. et al. Colonization history of Galapagos giant tortoises: Insights from mitogenomes support the progression rule. J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res. 58, 1262–1275 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

36.
Thompson, J. D., Higgins, D. G. & Gibson, T. J. Clustal W: Improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic Acids Res. 22, 4673–4680 (1994).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

37.
Hall, T. A. BioEdit: A user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT. Nucleic Acids Symp. Ser. 41, 95–98 (1999).
CAS  Google Scholar 

38.
Bernt, M. et al. MITOS: Improved de novo metazoan mitochondrial genome annotation. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 69, 313–319 (2013).
PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

39.
Kumar, S., Stecher, G., Knyaz, C. & Tamura, K. MEGA X: Molecular Evolutionary Genetic Analysis across computing platforms. Mol. Biol. Evol. 35, 1547–1549 (2018).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

40.
Stamatakis, A. RAxML version 8: A tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics 30, 1312–1313 (2014).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

41.
Ronquist, F. et al. MrBayes 3.2: Efficient Bayesian phylogenetic inference and model choice across a large model space. Syst. Biol. 61, 539–542 (2012).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

42.
Lanfear, R., Frandsen, P. B., Wright, A. M., Senfeld, T. & Calcott, B. PartitionFinder 2: New methods for selecting partitioned models of evolution for molecular and morphological phylogenetic analyses. Mol. Biol. Evol. 34, 772–773 (2016).
Google Scholar 

43.
Rambaut, A., Drummond, A. J., Xie, D., Baele, G. & Suchard, M. A. Posterior summarization in Bayesian phylogenetics using Tracer 1.7. Syst. Biol. 5, 901–904 (2018).
Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

44.
Drummond, A. J., Suchard, M. A., Xie, D. & Rambaut, A. Bayesian phylogenetics with BEAUti and the BEAST 1.7. Mol. Biol. Evol. 29, 1969–1973 (2012).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

45.
Woods, R. et al. Rapid size change associated with intra-island evolutionary radiation in extinct Caribbean “island shrews”. BMC Evol. Biol. 29, 106 (2020).
Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

46.
Geist, D., Snell, H. L., Snell, H. M., Goddard, C. & Kurz, M. Paleogeography of the Galápagos Islands and biogeographical implications. In The Galápagos: A Natural Laboratory for the Earth Sciences, Vol. 204 (eds Harpp, K., Mittelstaedt, E., d’Ozouville, N. & Graham, D.) 145–166 (American Geophysical Union, New York, 2014).
Google Scholar 

47.
Hearty, P. J., Kindler, P., Cheng, H. & Edwards, R. A +20 m middle Pleistocene sea-level highstand (Bermuda and the Bahamas) due to partial collapse of Antarctic ice. Geology 27, 375–378 (1999).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

48.
Bowen, D. Sea level ∼400 000 years ago (MIS 11): Analogue for present and future sea-level? Clim. Past 6, 19–29 (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

49.
Steadman, D. W. & Franklin, J. Origin, paleoecology, and extirpation of bluebirds and crossbills in the Bahamas across the last glacial-interglacial transition. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 114, 9924–9929 (2017).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

50.
Fritz, U., Široký, P., Kami, H. & Wink, M. Environmentally caused dwarfism or a valid species—Is Testudo weissingeri Bour, 1996 a distinct evolutionary lineage? New evidence from mitochondrial and nuclear genomic markers. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 37, 389–401 (2005).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

51.
Fritz, U. et al. Phenotypic plasticity leads to incongruence between morphology-based taxonomy and genetic differentiation in western Palaearctic tortoises (Testudo graeca complex; Testudines, Testudinidae). Amphibia-Reptilia 28, 97–121 (2007).
Article  Google Scholar 

52.
Fritz, U. et al. Mitochondrial phylogeography and subspecies of the wide-ranging sub-Saharan leopard tortoise Stigmochelys pardalis (Testudines: Testudinidae)—a case study for the pitfalls of pseudogenes and GenBank sequences. J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res. 48, 348–359 (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

53.
Fritz, U. et al. Northern genetic richness and southern purity, but just one species in the Chelonoidis chilensis complex. Zool. Scr. 41, 220–232 (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 

54.
Carlson, L. A. & Keegan, W. F. Resource depletion in the prehistoric northern West Indies. In Voyages of Discovery (ed. Fitzpatrick, S. M.) 85–107 (Praeger, Westport, 2004).
Google Scholar 

55.
Keegan, W. F. Taino Indian Myth and Practice: The Arrival of the Stranger King (University Press of Florida, Gainesville, 2007).
Google Scholar 

56.
Oswald, J. A. et al. Ancient DNA and high-resolution chronometry reveal a long-term human role in the historical diversity and biogeography of the Bahamian hutia. Sci. Rep. 10, 1373 (2020).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

57.
Loire, E. & Galtier, N. Lacking conservation genomics in the giant Galápagos tortoise. bioRxiv 101980, 1–14 (2017).
Google Scholar 

58.
Fontaine, M. C. A genomic perspective is needed for the re-evaluation of species boundaries, evolutionary trajectories, and conservation strategies of the Galápagos giant tortoises. PCI Evol. Biol. 100031, 1–3 (2017).
Google Scholar 

59.
Vargas-Ramírez, M., Maran, J. & Fritz, U. Red- and yellow-footed tortoises (Chelonoidis carbonaria, C. denticulata) in South American savannahs and forests: Do their phylogeographies reflect distinct habitats? Org. Divers. Evol. 10, 161–172 (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

60.
Blake, S. et al. Seed dispersal by Galápagos tortoises. J. Biogeogr. 39, 1961–1972 (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 

61.
Walton, R. et al. In the land of giants: Habitat use and selection of the Aldabra giant tortoise on Aldabra Atoll. Biodiv. Conserv. 28, 3183–3198 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar  More

1.
Alin SR, Johnson TC. Carbon cycling in large lakes of the world: a synthesis of production, burial, and lake-atmosphere exchange estimates. Glob Biogeochemical Cycles. 2007;21:GB3002.
Google Scholar 
2.
Durisch-Kaiser E, Schmid M, Peeters F, Kipfer R, Dinkel C, Diem T, et al. What prevents outgassing of methane to the atmosphere in Lake Tanganyika? J Geophys Res. 2011;116:G02022.
Google Scholar 

3.
Takahashi T, Koblmüller S. The adaptive radiation of Cichlid fish in Lake Tanganyika: a morphological perspective. Int J Evolut Biol. 2011;2011:1–14.
Article  Google Scholar 

4.
Salzburger W. Understanding explosive diversification through Cichlid fish genomics. Nat Rev Genet. 2018;19:705–17.
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

5.
Corman JR, McIntyre PB, Kuboja B, Mbemba W, Fink D, Wheeler CW, et al. Upwelling couples chemical and biological dynamics across the littoral and pelagic zones of Lake Tanganyika, East Africa. Limnol Oceanogr. 2010;55:214–24.
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

6.
Cabello-Yeves PJ, Zemskaya TI, Rosselli R, Coutinho FH, Zakharenko AS, Blinov VV, et al. Genomes of novel microbial lineages assembled from the sub-ice waters of Lake Baikal. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2017;84:e02132–17.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

7.
Cabello‐Yeves PJ, Zemskaya TI, Zakharenko AS, Sakirko MV, Ivanov VG, Ghai R, et al. Microbiome of the deep Lake Baikal, a unique oxic bathypelagic habitat. Limnol Oceanogr. 2019;65:1471–88.
Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

8.
De Wever A. Spatio-temporal dynamics in the microbial food web in Lake Tanganyika. University of Gent; 2006. p. 1–169.

9.
Pirlot S, Unrein F, Descy J-P, Servais P. Fate of heterotrophic bacteria in Lake Tanganyika (East Africa): fate of bacteria in Lake Tanganyika. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2007;62:354–64.
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

10.
Schubert CJ, Durisch-Kaiser E, Wehrli B, Thamdrup B, Lam P, Kuypers MMM. Anaerobic ammonium oxidation in a tropical freshwater system (Lake Tanganyika). Environ Microbiol. 2006;8:1857–63.
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

11.
Shade A, Kent AD, Jones SE, Newton RJ, Triplett EW, McMahon KD. Interannual dynamics and phenology of bacterial communities in a eutrophic lake. Limnol Oceanogr. 2007;52:487–94.
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

12.
Nurk S, Meleshko D, Korobeynikov A, Pevzner PA. metaSPAdes: a new versatile metagenomic assembler. Genome Res. 2017;27:824–34.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

13.
Kang DD, Froula J, Egan R, Wang Z. MetaBAT, an efficient tool for accurately reconstructing single genomes from complex microbial communities. PeerJ. 2015;3:e1165
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

14.
Kang DD, Li F, Kirton E, Thomas A, Egan R, An H, et al. MetaBAT 2: an adaptive binning algorithm for robust and efficient genome reconstruction from metagenome assemblies. PeerJ. 2019;7:e7359.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

15.
Wu Y-W, Simmons BA, Singer SW. MaxBin 2.0: an automated binning algorithm to recover genomes from multiple metagenomic datasets. Bioinformatics. 2016;32:605–7.
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

16.
Sieber CMK, Probst AJ, Sharrar A, Thomas BC, Hess M, Tringe SG, et al. Recovery of genomes from metagenomes via a dereplication, aggregation and scoring strategy. Nat Microbiol. 2018;3:836–43.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

17.
Olm MR, Brown CT, Brooks B, Banfield JF. dRep: a tool for fast and accurate genomic comparisons that enables improved genome recovery from metagenomes through de-replication. ISME J. 2017;11:2864–68.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

18.
Parks DH, Imelfort M, Skennerton CT, Hugenholtz P, Tyson GW. CheckM: assessing the quality of microbial genomes recovered from isolates, single cells, and metagenomes. Genome Res. 2015;25:1043–55.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

19.
The Genome Standards Consortium, Bowers RM, Kyrpides NC, Stepanauskas R, Harmon-Smith M, Doud D, et al. Minimum information about a single amplified genome (MISAG) and a metagenome-assembled genome (MIMAG) of bacteria and archaea. Nat Biotechnol. 2017;35:725–31.
Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

20.
Bushnell B. BBMAP. https://jgi.doe.gov/data-and-tools/bbtools/bb-tools-user-guide/bbmap-guide/. 2014.

21.
Hyatt D, Chen G-L, LoCascio PF, Land ML, Larimer FW, Hauser LJ. Prodigal: prokaryotic gene recognition and translation initiation site identification. BMC Bioinform. 2010;11:119.
Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

22.
Anantharaman K, Brown CT, Hug LA, Sharon I, Castelle CJ, Probst AJ, et al. Thousands of microbial genomes shed light on interconnected biogeochemical processes in an aquifer system. Nat Commun. 2016;7:13219.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

23.
Eddy SR. Accelerated profile HMM searches. PLoS Comput Biol. 2011;7:e1002195.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

24.
Hug LA, Baker BJ, Anantharaman K, Brown CT, Probst AJ, Castelle CJ, et al. A new view of the tree of life. Nat Microbiol. 2016;1:1–6.
Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

25.
Brown AMV, Howe DK, Wasala SK, Peetz AB, Zasada IA, Denver DR. Comparative genomics of a plant-parasitic nematode endosymbiont suggest a role in nutritional symbiosis. Genome Biol Evol. 2015;7:2727–46.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

26.
Katoh K, Standley DM. MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: improvements in performance and usability. Mol Biol Evol. 2013;30:772–80.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

27.
Miller MA, Pfeiffer W, Schwartz Terri. Creating the CIPRES Science Gateway for inference of large phylogenetic trees. Proceedings of the Gateway Computing Environments Workshop. New Orleans, LA; 2010. p. 1–8.

28.
Parks DH, Chuvochina M, Waite DW, Rinke C, Skarshewski A, Chaumeil P-A, et al. A standardized bacterial taxonomy based on genome phylogeny substantially revises the tree of life. Nat Biotechnol. 2018;36:996–1004.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

29.
Newton RJ, Jones SE, Eiler A, McMahon KD, Bertilsson S. A guide to the natural history of freshwater lake bacteria. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2011;1:14.
Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

30.
Rohwer RR, Hamilton JJ, Newton RJ, McMahon KD. TaxAss: leveraging a custom freshwater database achieves fine-scale taxonomic resolution. mSphere. 2018;3:e00327–18.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

31.
Soo RM, Hemp J, Parks DH, Fischer WW, Hugenholtz P. On the origins of oxygenic photosynthesis and aerobic respiration in Cyanobacteria. Science. 2017;355:1436–40.
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

32.
Linz AM, He S, Stevens SLR, Anantharaman K, Rohwer RR, Malmstrom RR, et al. Freshwater carbon and nutrient cycles revealed through reconstructed population genomes. PeerJ. 2018;6:e6075.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

33.
Bendall ML, Stevens SL, Chan L-K, Malfatti S, Schwientek P, Tremblay J, et al. Genome-wide selective sweeps and gene-specific sweeps in natural bacterial populations. ISME J. 2016;10:1589–601.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

34.
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;9:5114.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

35.
Soo RM, Skennerton CT, Sekiguchi Y, Imelfort M, Paech SJ, Dennis PG, et al. An expanded genomic representation of the phylum cyanobacteria. Genome Biol Evolution. 2014;6:1031–45.
Article  Google Scholar 

36.
Zhou Z, Tran P, Liu Y, Kieft K, Anantharaman K. METABOLIC: a scalable high-throughput metabolic and biogeochemical functional trait profiler based on microbial genomes. bioRxiv. 2019;761643.

37.
Zhang H, Yohe T, Huang L, Entwistle S, Wu P, Yang Z, et al. dbCAN2: a meta server for automated carbohydrate-active enzyme annotation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018;46:W95–W101.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

38.
Mukherjee S, Stamatis D, Bertsch J, Ovchinnikova G, Katta HY, Mojica A, et al. Genomes OnLine database (GOLD) v.7: updates and new features. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47:D649–59.
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

39.
Edmond JM, Stallard RF, Craig H, Craig V, Weiss RF, Coulter GW. Nutrient chemistry of the water column of Lake Tanganyika. Limnol Oceanogr. 1993;38:725–38.
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

40.
Verburga P, Hecky RE. The physics of the warming of Lake Tanganyika by climate change. Limnol Oceanogr. 2009;54:2418–30.
Article  Google Scholar 

41.
Järvinen M, Salonen K, Sarvala J, Vuorio K, Virtanen A. The stoichiometry of particulate nutrients in Lake Tanganyika—implications for nutrient limitation of phytoplankton. Hydrobiologia. 1999;407:81–8.
Article  Google Scholar 

42.
Ehrenfels B, Bartosiewicz M, Mbonde AS, Baumann KBL, Dinkel C, Junker J, et al. Thermocline depth and euphotic zone thickness regulate the abundance of diazotrophic cyanobacteria in Lake Tanganyika. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2020-214 (2020).

43.
Tran P, Ramachandran A, Khawasik O, Beisner BE, Rautio M, Huot Y, et al. Microbial life under ice: Metagenome diversity and in situ activity of Verrucomicrobia in seasonally ice‐covered Lakes. Environ Microbiol. 2018;20:2568–84.
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

44.
Martinez-Garcia M, Brazel DM, Swan BK, Arnosti C, Chain PSG, Reitenga KG, et al. Capturing single cell genomes of active polysaccharide degraders: an unexpected contribution of verrucomicrobia. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:1–11.
Google Scholar 

45.
Damrow R, Maldener I, Zilliges Y. The multiple functions of common microbial carbon polymers, glycogen and PHB, during stress responses in the non-diazotrophic Cyanobacterium Synechocystis sp. PCC 6803. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:966.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

46.
Paerl HW, Otten TG. Duelling ‘CyanoHABs’: unravelling the environmental drivers controlling dominance and succession among diazotrophic and non-N2-fixing harmful cyanobacteria. Environ Microbiol. 2016;18:316–24.
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

47.
Raymond J, Siefert JL, Staples CR, Blankenship RE. The natural history of nitrogen fixation. Mol Biol Evol. 2004;21:541–54.
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

48.
Berman-Frank I, Lundgren P, Falkowski P. Nitrogen fixation and photosynthetic oxygen evolution in cyanobacteria. Res Microbiol. 2003;154:157–64.
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

49.
Cabello-Yeves PJ, Ghai R, Mehrshad M, Picazo A, Camacho A, Rodriguez-valera F. Reconstruction of diverse verrucomicrobial genomes from metagenome datasets of freshwater reservoirs. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:2131.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

50.
Hansel CM, Fendorf S, Jardine PM, Francis CA. Changes in bacterial and archaeal community structure and functional diversity along a geochemically variable soil profile. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2008;74:1620–33.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

51.
Edlund A, Hårdeman F, Jansson JK, Sjöling S. Active bacterial community structure along vertical redox gradients in Baltic Sea sediment. Environ Microbiol. 2008;10:2051–63.
PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

52.
Beman JM, Carolan MT. Deoxygenation alters bacterial diversity and community composition in the ocean’s largest oxygen minimum zone. Nat Commun. 2013;4:2705.
PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

53.
Schoell M, Tietze K, Schoberth SM. Origin of methane in Lake Kivu (East-Central Africa). Chem Geol. 1988;71:257–65.
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

54.
Bogard MJ, del Giorgio PA, Boutet L, Chaves MCG, Prairie YT, Merante A, et al. Oxic water column methanogenesis as a major component of aquatic CH4 fluxes. Nat Commun. 2014;5:5350.
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

55.
Vanwonterghem I, Evans PN, Parks DH, Jensen PD, Woodcroft BJ, Hugenholtz P, et al. Methylotrophic methanogenesis discovered in the archaeal phylum Verstraetearchaeota. Nat Microbiol. 2016;1:16170.
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

56.
Gao Q, Chen S, Kimirei IA, Zhang L, Mgana H, Mziray P, et al. Wet deposition of atmospheric nitrogen contributes to nitrogen loading in the surface waters of Lake Tanganyika, East Africa: a case study of the Kigoma region. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2018;25:11646–60.
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

57.
Chale FMM. Inorganic nutrient concentrations and chlorophyll in the euphotic zone of Lake Tanganyika. Hydrobiologia. 2004;523:189–97.
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

58.
Higgins SN, Hecky RE, Taylor WD. Epilithic nitrogen fixation in the rocky littoral zones of Lake Malawi, Africa. Limnol Oceanogr. 2001;46:976–82.
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

59.
Brion N, Nzeyimana E, Goeyens L, Nahimana D, Tungaraza C, Baeyens W. Inorganic nitrogen uptake and river inputs in northern Lake Tanganyika. J Gt Lakes Res. 2006;32:553–64.
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

60.
Norici A, Hell R, Giordano M. Sulfur and primary production in aquatic environments: an ecological perspective. Photosynth Res. 2005;86:409–17.
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

61.
Botz RW, Stoffers P. Light hydrocarbon gases in Lake Tanganyika hydrothermal fluids (East-Central Africa). Chem Geol. 1993;104:217–24.
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

62.
Tiercelin J-J, Pflumio C, Castrec M, Boulégue J, Gente P, Rolet J, et al. Hydrothermal vents in Lake Tanganyika, East African, Rift system. Geology. 1993;21:499–502.
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

63.
Elsgaard L, Prieur D. Hydrothermal vents in Lake Tanganyika harbor spore-forming thermophiles with extremely rapid growth. J Gt Lakes Res. 2011;37:203–6.
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

64.
Preisler A, de Beer D, Lichtschlag A, Lavik G, Boetius A, Jørgensen BB. Biological and chemical sulfide oxidation in a Beggiatoa inhabited marine sediment. ISME J. 2007;1:341–53.
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

65.
McAllister SM, Moore RM, Gartman A, Luther GW, Emerson D, Chan CS. The Fe(II)-oxidizing Zetaproteobacteria: historical, ecological and genomic perspectives. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2019;95:fiz015.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

66.
Carpenter SR. Phosphorus control is critical to mitigating eutrophication. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2008;105:11039–40.
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

67.
Lewis WM, Jr. Causes for the high frequency of nitrogen limitation in tropical lakes. SIL Proceedings. vol. 28. 2002; p. 210–3.

68.
De Keyzer ELR, Masilya Mulungula P, Alunga Lufungula G, Amisi Manala C, Andema Muniali A, Bashengezi Cibuhira P, et al. Local perceptions on the state of the pelagic fisheries and fisheries management in Uvira, Lake Tanganyika, DR Congo. J Great Lakes Res. 2020;46:1740–53.
Article  Google Scholar 

69.
Mölsä, H. Management of fisheries on Lake Tanganyika challenges for research and the community. University of Kuopio; 2008.

70.
Foley B, Jones ID, Maberly SC, Rippey B. Long-term changes in oxygen depletion in a small temperate lake: effects of climate change and eutrophication. Freshw Biol. 2012;57:278–89.
CAS  Article  Google Scholar  More

1.
Guerbois, C., Chapanda, E. & Fritz, H. Combining multi-scale socio-ecological approaches to understand the susceptibility of subsistence farmers to elephant crop raiding on the edge of a protected area. J. Appl. Ecol. 49, 1149–1158 (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 
2.
Felton, A. M. et al. Protein content of diets dictates the daily energy intake of a free-ranging primate. Behav. Ecol. 20, 685–690 (2009).
Article  Google Scholar 

3.
Rode, K. D., Chiyo, P. I., Chapman, C. A. & McDowell, L. R. Nutritional ecology of elephants in Kibale National Park, Uganda, and its relationship with crop-raiding behaviour. J. Trop. Ecol. 22, 441–449 (2006).
Article  Google Scholar 

4.
Duckworth, J. W., Sankar, K., Williams, A. C., Kumar, N. S. & Timmins, R. J. Bos gaurus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016, e.T2891A46363646 (2016).

5.
Royal Thai Government Gazette. Wildlife Preservation and Protection Act, B.E.2562 (2019) of Thailand. www.ratchakitcha.soc.go.th (2019, in Thai).

6.
Srikosamatara, S. & Suteethorn, V. Populations of gaur and banteng and their management in Thailand. Nat. His. Bull. Siam Soc. 43(1), 55–83 (1995).
Google Scholar 

7.
Laichanthuek, P., Sukmasuang, R. & Duengkae, P. Population and habitat use of gaur (Bos gaurus) around Khao Phaeng Ma Non-hunting Area, Nakhon Ratchasima Province. J. Wildl. Thailand 24, 83–95 (2017).
Google Scholar 

8.
Chetri, M. Diet analysis of gaur, Bos gaurus gaurus (Smith, 1827) by micro-histological analysis of fecal samples in Parsa Wildlife Reserve, Nepal. Our Nat. 4, 20–28 (2006).
Article  Google Scholar 

9.
Bell, R. H. V. The use of the herb layer by grazing ungulates in Serangeti. In Watson, A. (Ed.). Animal Population in Relation to Their Food Resources. (Blackwell Scientific Publication 1970).

10.
Jarman, P. J. The social organization of antelope in relation to their ecology. Behaviour 48, 215–266 (1974).
Article  Google Scholar 

11.
Bhumpakphan, N. & McShea, W. J. Ecology of gaur and banteng in the seasonally dry forests of Thailand. In: McShea, W. J., Davies, S. J. & Bhumpakphan, N. (Eds.). The Ecology and Conservation of Seasonally Dry Forests in Asia. (Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc. and Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press 2011).

12.
Steinmetz, R. Gaur (Bos gaurus) and banteng (Bos javanicus) in the lowland forest mosaic of Xe Pian Protection Area, Lao PDR: Abundance, habitat use and conservation. Mammalia 68, 141–157 (2004).
Article  Google Scholar 

13.
Karanth, K. U. & Sunquist, M. E. Population structure, density and biomass of large herbivores in the tropical forests of Nagarahole, India. J. Trop. Ecol. 8, 21–35 (1992).
Article  Google Scholar 

14.
Steinmetz, R. Ecological surveys, monitoring, and the role of local people in protected areas of Lao PDR. (International Institute for Environment and Development 2000).

15.
Choudhury, A. Distribution and conservation of gaur Bos gaurus in the Indian Subcontinent. Mammal. Rev. 12, 199–226 (2002).
Article  Google Scholar 

16.
Gad, S. D. & Shyama, S. K. Diet composition and quality in Indian bison (Bos gaurus) based on fecal analysis. Zool. Sci. 28(4), 264–267 (2011).
Article  Google Scholar 

17.
Velho, N., Srinivasan, U., Singh, P. & Laurance, W. F. Large mammal use of protected and community-managed lands in a biodiversity hotspot. Anim. Conserv. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12234 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

18.
Bidayabha, T. Ecology and behavior of gaur (Bos gaurus) in a degraded area at Khao Phaeng-Ma, the Northestern Edge of Khao Yai National Park. (Faculty of Biology, Mahidol University 2001).

19.
Panusittikorn, P. & Prato, T. Conservation of protected areas in Thailand: the case of Khao Yai National Park, protected areas in East Asia. George Wright Forum 18(2), 66–76 (2001).
Google Scholar 

20.
Sorensen, A. A., van Beest, F. M. & Brook, R. K. Quantifying overlap in crop selection patterns among three sympatric ungulates in an agricultural landscape. Basic App. Ecol. 16, 601–609 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

21.
Todorov, N. A. Cereals, pulses and oilseeds. Livestock Produc. Sci. 19, 47–95 (1988).
Article  Google Scholar 

22.
Curzer, H. J., Wallace, M. C., Perry, G., Muhlberger, P. J. & Perry, D. The ethics of wildlife research: a nine R theory. ILAR J. 54(1), 52–57 (2013).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

23.
Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation (DNP). Management plan for Dong Phayayen-Khao Yai Forest Complex. (Department of National Parks, Wildlife, and Plant Conservation 2006).

24.
Kao-mim, N. Use of Hyperspectral Imaging System Data from HJ – 1A Satellite for Forest Types Classification in Khao Yai National Park. (MS thesis, Kasetsart University 2018, in Thai).

25.
Ngoprasert, D. & Gale, G. A. Tiger density, dhole occupancy, and prey occupancy in the human disturbed Dong Phayayen – Khao Yai Forest Complex, Thailand. Mamm. Biol. 95, 51–58 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

26.
Lashley, M. A., Chitwood, M. C., Street, G. M., Moorman, C. E. & DePerno, C. S. Do indirect bite count surveys accurately represent diet selection of white-tailed deer in a forested environment?. Wildl. Res. 43, 254–260 (2016).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

27.
Lashley, M. A., Chitwood, M. C., Harper, C. A., Moorman, C. E. & DePerno, C. S. Collection, handling and analysis of forages for concentrate selectors. Wildl. Biol. Prac. 10(1), 6–15 (2014).
Google Scholar 

28.
Shafer, E. L. Jr. The twig-count method for measuring hardwood deer browse. J. Wildl. Manag. 27(3), 428–437 (1963).
Article  Google Scholar 

29.
Ivlev, V. S. Experimental Ecology of the Feeding of Fishes. (Yale University Press 1961).

30.
Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC). Guidelines for collaborative study procedure to validate characteristics of a method of analysis. J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 71, 161–171 (1988).

31.
Petterson, D. S., Harris, D. J., Rayner, C. J., Blakeney, A. B. & Choct, M. Methods for the analysis of premium livestock grains. Aus. J Agric. Res. 50, 775–787 (1999).
Article  Google Scholar 

32.
Midkiff, V. A century of analytical excellence. The history of feed analysis, as chronicled in the development of AOAC official methods, 1884–1984. J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 67, 851–860 (1984).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

33.
Brown, R. H. & Mueller-Harvey, I. Evaluation of the novel Soxflo technique for rapid extraction of crude fat in foods and animal feeds. J. AOAC Int. 82, 1369–1374 (1999).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

34.
Leopold, B. D. & Krausman, P. R. Diurnal activity patterns of desert mule deer in relation to temperature. Texas J. Sci. 39, 49–53 (1987).
Google Scholar 

35.
Holechek, J. L., Vavra, M. & Pieper, R. D. Botanical composition determination of range herbivore diets: a review. J. Range Manag. 35(3), 309–315 (1982).
Article  Google Scholar 

36.
Jayson, E. A. Assessment of Human-Wildlife Conflict and Mitigation Measures in Northern Kerala: Final Report of the Research Project KFRI/653/12. (Kerala Forest Research Institute 2016).

37.
Prayong, N. & Srikosamatara, S. Cutting trees in a secondary forest to increase gaur Bos gaurus numbers in Khao Phaeng Ma Reforestation area, Nakhon Ratchasima Province, Thailand. Conserv. Evid. 14, 5–9 (2017).
Google Scholar 

38.
Cervasio, F., Argenti, G., Genghini, M. & Ponzetta, M. P. Agronomic methods for mountain grassland habitat restoration for faunistic purposes in a protected area of the northern Apennines (Italy). iForest 9, 490–496 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

39.
Argenti, G., Racanelli, V., Bartolozzi, S., Staglianò, N. & Guerri, F. S. Evaluation of wild animals browsing preferences in forage resources. Ital. J. Agron. 12, 884 (2017).
Google Scholar 

40.
Freschi, P. et al. Diet composition of the Italian roe deer (Capreolus capreolus italicus) (Mammalia: Cervidae) from two protected areas. Eur. Zool. J. 84, 34–42 (2017).
Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

41.
Robbins, C. T., Spalinger, D. E. & van Hoven, W. Adaptation of ruminants to browse and grass diets: are anatomical-based browser-grazer interpretations valid?. Oecologia 103, 208–213 (1995).
ADS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

42.
Ahrestani, F. S., Heitkönig, I. M. A., Matsubayashi, H. & Prins, H. H. T. 2016. Grazing and browsing by large herbivores in South and Southeast Asia. In: Ahrestani, F. S. & Sankaran, M. (Eds). The ecology of large herbivores in South and Southeast Asia. Ecol. Stud. 225 (2016).

43.
Krishnan, M. An ecological survey of the large mammals of Peninsular India. J. Bombay Nat. His. Soc. 69, 297–315 (1972).
Google Scholar 

44.
Ahrestani, F. S. et al. Estimating densities of large herbivores in tropical forests: rigorous evaluation of a dung-based method. Ecol. Evol. 8, 7312–7322 (2018).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

45.
Ahrestani, F. S. Bos gaurus (Artiodactyla: Bovidae). Mamm. Species 50, 34–50 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

46.
Nayak, B. K. & Patra, A. K. Food and feeding habits of Indian bison, Bos gaurus (Smith, 1827) in Kuldiha Wildlife Sanctuary, Balasore, Odisha, India and its conservation. Int. Res. J. Biol. Sci. 4(5), 73–79 (2015).
Google Scholar 

47.
Gad, S. D. & Shyama, S. K. Studies on the food and feeding habits of gaur Bos gaurus H Smith (Mammalia: Artiodactyla: Bovidae) in two protected areas of Goa. J. Threat. Taxa 1, 128–130 (2009).
Article  Google Scholar 

48.
Fresehi, P., Riccioli, F., Argenti, G. & Ponzetta, M. P. The sustainability of wildlife in agroforestry land. Agric. Agric. Sci. Proc. 8, 148–157 (2016).
Google Scholar 

49.
Moser, B., Schutz, M. & Hindenlang, K. E. Resource selection by roe deer: Are wind throw gaps attractive feeding places?. For. Ecol. Manag. 255, 1179–1185 (2008).
Article  Google Scholar 

50.
Wilsey, B. J. & Martin, L. M. Top-down control of rare species abundances by native ungulates in a grassland restoration. Restor. Ecol. 23, 465–472 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

51.
Kouch, T., Preston, T. R. & Ly, J. Studies on utilization of trees and shrubs as the sole feedstuff by growing goats; foliage preferences and nutrient utilization. Livestock Res. Rural Dev. 15(7), http://www.lrrd.org/irrd15/7/kouc157.htm (2003).

52.
Kaitho, R. J. et al. Palatability of multipurpose tree species: effect of species and length of study on intake and relative palatability by sheep. Agrofor. Syst. 33, 249–261 (1996).
Article  Google Scholar 

53.
Kaitho, R. J. et al. Palatability of wilted and dried multipurpose tree species fed to sheep and goats. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 65, 151–163 (1997).
Article  Google Scholar 

54.
Provenza, M. P., Cervasio, F., Crocetti, C., Messeri, A. & Argenti, G. Habitat improvements with wildlife purposes in a grazed area on the Apennine mountains. Ital. J. Agron. 5, 233–238 (2003).
Google Scholar 

55.
Lucas, J. R. Role of foraging time constraints and variable prey encounter in optimal diet choice. Am. Nat. 122(2), 191–209 (1983).
Article  Google Scholar 

56.
Poapongsakorn, N., Ruhs, M. & Tangjitwisuth, S. Problems and outlook of agriculture in Thailand. TDRI Quar. Rev. 13(2), 3–14 (1998).
Google Scholar 

57.
Retamosa, M. I., Humberg, L. A., Beasley, J. C. & Rhodes, O. E. Jr. Modeling wildlife damage to crops in northern Indiana. Human-Wild. Conf. 2(2), 225–239 (2008).
Google Scholar 

58.
Su, K., Ren, J., Yang, J., Hou, Y. & Wen, Y. Human-Elephant conflicts and villagers’ attitudes and knowledge in the Xishuangbanna Nature Reserve, China. Inter. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17238910 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar  More

Wintertime outbreaks in the northern hemisphere
In Fig. 1a we use case data (see “Methods”) to estimate the effective reproductive number of infection for New York City from the start of 2020 to the present (July 2020)14. Estimated values of Reffective peak early in the outbreak and then settle close to 1 in the summer months as NPIs act to lower transmission. We assume the Reffective values approximate R0 and compare them to the predicted seasonal R0, derived from our climate-driven SIRS model. The model assumes the climate sensitivity of betacoronavirus HKU1 and that seasonal variations in transmission are driven by specific humidity. Current rates (average over second and third weeks of July) of Reffective in New York city are found to be approximately 35% below the R0 levels predicted by our climate-driven model. We assume this 35% decline is due to the efficacy of NPIs. To project future scenarios we assume that R0 remains at either the current levels (constant) or a relative 35% decrease in our climate-driven R0, which means R0 oscillates with specific humidity (Fig. 1a, top plot).
Fig. 1: Wintertime outbreaks in New York City.

Estimated and projected R0 values (top plot) assuming a 35% and b 15% reduction in R0 due to NPIs. Corresponding time series show the simulated outbreaks in the climate (blue) or constant (black/dashed) scenarios, with middle row plots assuming a 10% reporting rate and bottom row plots assuming a 3% reporting rate. Corresponding susceptible time series are shown in orange (susceptibles = S/population = N). Case data from New York City are shown in gray. Surface plots (top) show the peak wintertime proportion infected (infected = I/population = N) in the scenarios with c the constant R0 and d the climate-driven R0. e shows the difference between the climate and constant R0 scenario. The timing of peak incidence in years from July is shown for the f constant and g climate scenarios. The difference between climate and constant scenario is shown in h. Points in c–h show the scenarios is a, b. Dashed line shows estimated susceptibility in New York based on ref. 24.

Full size image

In Fig. 1a (lower plots) we show the proportion infected over time using the climate-driven and constant R0 values. We also vary the reporting rate of observed cases relative to modeled cases; while this accounts for under-reporting it also allows us to vary the proportion susceptible over a feasible range (see “Methods”). In the middle figure, the reporting rate is 10% (estimates for US reporting rates are  1 for both the climate and constant scenario and case numbers begin to grow exponentially. With a 10% reporting rate a large secondary outbreak is observed in both the constant and climate scenarios (Fig. 1b, middle plot). With a 3% reporting rate, meaning a larger depletion of susceptibles, the secondary outbreak appears much larger in the climate scenario: this supports the hypothesis that the disease will become more sensitive to climate as the susceptible proportion declines, much like the seasonal endemic diseases.
In Fig. 1c–h we simulate model outcomes across a broad range of parameter space varying the proportion susceptible (in July) and the reduction in R0 due to NPIs. The proportion susceptible is varied by initializing the epidemic with different sizes of the infected population (initializing with a large number results in a relatively larger outbreak and initializing with a small number results in a smaller outbreak). We vary this starting number over a feasible range given the case data, i.e., such that observed cases never exceed modeled cases or that the reporting rate never drops below 1%. Over this range, the model plausibly tracks the observed case data.
Figure 1e shows the change in winter peak size (max proportion infected between September–March) due to climate. Peak size results for the constant and climate scenarios are shown in Fig. 1c and d, respectively. When the susceptible proportion is high and the effect of NPIs are minimal (relative R0 given NPI = 1), large outbreaks are possible in both the climate and constant R0 scenarios meaning the relative effect of climate on peak size and timing is close to 0 (top right Fig. 1e). As the proportion susceptible declines (moving left along the x-axis of Fig. 1e), case trajectories become more sensitive to the wintertime weather resulting in larger peaks in the climate scenario. However, sufficiently strong NPIs, in combination with low susceptibility, reduce incidence to zero in both the climate and control scenarios (bottom left Fig. 1e). NPIs are not as effective at reducing cases when susceptibility is higher (bottom right Fig. 1e).
We also consider the effect of climate on secondary peak timing. Figure 1f, g shows the peak timing in years (relative to July 2020) in the constant and climate scenarios, respectively. In the climate scenario, peak timing for New York is clustered in the winter months (Fig. 1a, b). In the constant R0 scenario, secondary peaks can occur at a wide range of times over the next 1.5 years. As in the peak size results, high susceptibility and limited NPIs reduce the effect of climate and peak timing is matched for both the climate and control scenarios (top right Fig. 1h). Gray areas represent regions where there is no secondary peak in either the climate or control scenario.
Climate effects on global risk
We next consider the relative effect of climate on peak size for nine global locations (Fig. 2b). In this case, as opposed to using estimated Reffective values (given case data are not available for several of the global cities), we simulate the epidemic from July 2020 using a fixed number of infecteds and vary the starting proportion of susceptibles (example results from select global locations, using estimated Reffective, are shown in Supplementary Figs. 1–3). Results from the New York surface in Fig. 2b qualitatively match our tailored simulation in Fig. 1. Locations in the southern hemisphere are expected to be close to their maximum wintertime R0 values in mid-2020 (Fig. 2a), meaning that secondary peaks in the climate scenario are lower than the constant R0 scenario for these locations (Fig. 2b). Tropical locations experience minimal difference in the climate versus constant R0 scenario given the relatively mild seasonal variations in specific humidity in the tropics. Broadly, the results across hemisphere track the earlier results from New York: high susceptibility and a lack of NPIs lead to a limited role of climate, but an increase in NPI efficacy or a reduction in susceptibility may increase climate effects. This result is more striking in regions with a large seasonality in specific humidity (e.g. New York, Delhi and Johannesburg).
Fig. 2: Climate sensitivity of outbreaks across global locations.

a The climate effect on R0 assuming a 35% reduction due to NPIs shown for August and December. b The effect of climate, changing susceptibility, and NPIs on peak proportion infected (infected = I/population = N), post July 2020, for nine global locations.

Full size image

Drivers of variability in secondary outbreak size
Our results suggest that climate may play an increasing role in determining the future course of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, depending on levels of susceptibility and NPIs. We next evaluate the extent to which interannual variability in specific humidity could influence peak size. We simulate separate New York pandemic trajectories using 11 years (2008–2018) of specific humidity data. Figure 3a shows the variability in R0 and secondary peak size based on these runs (with 35% reduction in R0 due to NPIs and 10% reporting rate—the same as Fig. 1a). While a relatively large peak occurs in all years, the largest peak (0.038 proportion infected) is almost double the smallest peak year (0.020 proportion infected). In Fig. 3b we calculate the coefficient of variation of the peak size for different susceptible proportions and NPI intensities. These results qualitatively track Fig. 1e. Sensitivity to interannual variation appears most important when the susceptible population has been reduced by at least 20% and minimal controls are in place.
Fig. 3: Climate variability and wintertime cases in New York.

a Climate-driven R0 and corresponding infected time series (infected = I/population = N) based on the last 10 years of specific humidity data for New York, assuming a 35% reduction due to NPIs. b The effect of changing susceptibility and NPIs on the coefficient of variation of peak incidence for simulations using specific humidity data from 2008 to 2018. Dashed line shows estimated susceptibility in New York based on ref. 24.

Full size image

Many factors, including weather variability, determine the size of a possible secondary outbreak. Another factor that may play an important role is the length of immunity to the disease. While the length of immunity may not affect the dynamics in the early stage of the pandemic, it could have complex and uncertain outcomes for future trajectories16. In our main results, we assume a length of immunity equal to betacoronvirus HKU1, based on prior estimates1. We also assume a climate sensitivity based on estimates for HKU1. However parameters for SARS-CoV-2, such as immunity length and climate sensitivity, are still fundamentally uncertain.
We consider the possible contribution of uncertainty in parameters to the variance in the wintertime peak size following the method developed by Yip et al.17 (see “Methods”). We run our simulation for New York while varying parameter values for the efficacy of NPIs, the length of immunity to the disease, the reporting rate of prior cases (which defines susceptibility in July), the climate sensitivity of the pathogen (in terms of the strength of the relationship with specific humidity), and the weather variability (interannual variability determined by historic weather observations from a particular year, 2009–2018). We then perform an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the determinants of wintertime peak size.
Figure 4 shows contribution to variance in wintertime peak size of these five parameters: NPIs efficacy, immunity length, reporting rate, climate sensitivity of the virus, and interannual weather variability. We find that climate sensitivity is an important factor but secondary to the efficacy of NPIs and immunity length in determining peak transmission. Uncertainty in immunity length and reporting together influence susceptibility and collectively account for the second largest portion of total uncertainty. Uncertainty in interannual variability, i.e. weather, has a smaller impact on peak size. NPIs contribute the largest proportion to total variance in peak size. It is important to note that while other parameters are external features of either the virus, climate, or disease trajectories to date, the efficacy of NPIs is determined directly by policy interventions and therefore the size of future outbreaks is largely under human control.
Fig. 4: Contribution to uncertainty in New York wintertime 20/21 peak size.

The relative importance of NPI efficacy [0–35%], immunity length (10–60 weeks), reporting (1–100%), climate sensitivity of the virus [−32.5 to −227.5], and interannual weather variability [10 years] in determining wintertime peak size. Immunity length and reporting rate collectively determine susceptibility, S.

Full size image More

1.
Pittelkow, C. M. et al. When does no-till yield more? A global meta-analysis. Field Crops Res. 183, 156–168 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 
2.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Save and Grow: A Policymaker’s Guide to the Sustainable Intensification of Smallholder Crop Production (2013). http://www.fao.org/3/a-i2215e.pdf.

3.
Michler, J. D., Baylis, K., Arends-Kuenning, M. & Mazvimavi, K. Conservation agriculture and climate resilience. J. Environ. Econom. Manage. 93, 148–169 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

4.
Page, K. L., Dang, Y. P. & Dalal, R. C. The ability of conservation agriculture to conserve soil organic carbon and the subsequent impact on soil physical, chemical, and biological properties and yield. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.00031 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

5.
Farooq, M. & Siddique, K. H. M. Conservation Agriculture (Springer, Berlin, 2015).
Google Scholar 

6.
Holland, J. M. The environmental consequences of adopting conservation tillage in Europe: Reviewing the evidence. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 103, 1–25 (2004).
Article  Google Scholar 

7.
Govaerts, B. et al. Infiltration, soil moisture, root rot and nematode populations after 12 years of different tillage, residue and crop rotation managements. Soil Tillage Res. 94, 209–219 (2007).
Article  Google Scholar 

8.
Zhang, W., Zheng, C., Song, Z., Deng, A. & He, Z. Farming systems in China: Innovations for sustainable crop production. In Crop Physiology (eds Zhang, W. et al.) 43–64 (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2015).
Google Scholar 

9.
Pittelkow, C. M. et al. Productivity limits and potentials of the principles of conservation agriculture. Nature 517, 365–368 (2015).
ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

10.
Scopel, E. et al. Conservation agriculture cropping systems in temperate and tropical conditions, performances and impacts. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 33, 113–130 (2013).
Article  Google Scholar 

11.
Steward, P. R. et al. The adaptive capacity of maize-based conservation agriculture systems to climate stress in tropical and subtropical environments: A meta-regression of yields. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 251, 194–202 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

12.
Knapp, S. & van der Heijden, M. G. A. A global meta-analysis of yield stability in organic and conservation agriculture. Nat. Commun. 9, 1–9 (2018).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

13.
Laborde, J. P., Wortmann, C. S., Blanco-Canqui, H., Baigorria, G. A. & Lindquist, J. L. Identifying the drivers and predicting the outcome of conservation agriculture globally. Agric. Syst. 177, 102692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102692 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

14.
Su, Y., Gabrielle, B. & Makowski, D. A global dataset for crop production under conventional tillage and no tillage practice. Figshare. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12155553 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

15.
Su, Y., Gabrielle, B. & Makowski, D. A global dataset for crop production under conventional tillage and no tillage systems. Sci. Data 8, 33. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-021-00817-x (2021).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

16.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Conservation Agriculture (2020). http://www.fao.org/conservation-agriculture/en/.

17.
Ho, T. K. Random decision forests. In Proc. 3rd International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition, 278–282 (1995).

18.
Meinshausen, N. Quantile regression forests. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 7, 983–999 (2006).
MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

19.
University of Wisconsin-Madison. Crop Calendar Dataset: netCDF 5 Degree (2020). https://nelson.wisc.edu/sage/data-and-models/crop-calendar-dataset/netCDF0-5degree.php.

20.
Sacks, W. J., Deryng, D., Foley, J. A. & Ramankutty, N. Crop planting dates: an analysis of global patterns. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 19, 607–620 (2010).
Google Scholar 

21.
University of Tokyo. Soil Texture Map (2020). http://hydro.iis.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~sujan/research/gswp3/soil-texture-map.html.

22.
NOAA/OAR/ESRL PSL. University of Delaware Air Temperature & Precipitation (2020). https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/data.UDel_AirT_Precip.html.

23.
Martens, B. et al. GLEAM v3: Satellite-based land evaporation and root-zone soil moisture. Geosci. Model Dev. 10, 1903–1925 (2017).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

24.
Miralles, D. G. et al. Global land-surface evaporation estimated from satellite-based observations. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 15, 453–469 (2011).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

25.
NOAA/OAR/ESRL PSL. CPC Global Daily Temperature (2020). https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/data.cpc.globaltemp.html.

26.
Mandelkern, M. et al. Setting confidence intervals for bounded parameters. Stat. Sci. 17, 149–172 (2002).
MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

27.
Portmann, F. T., Siebert, S. & Döll, P. MIRCA2000-Global monthly irrigated and rainfed crop areas around the year 2000: A new high-resolution data set for agricultural and hydrological modeling. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GB003435 (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

28.
Friedman, J. H. Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine. Ann. Stat. 29, 1189–1232 (2001).
MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

29.
Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R. & Friedman, J. The Elements of Statistical Learning (Springer, New York, 2009).
Google Scholar 

30.
Zuazo, V. H. D. & Pleguezuelo, C. R. R. Soil-erosion and runoff prevention by plant covers. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 28, 65–86 (2008).
Article  Google Scholar 

31.
Shaxson, F. & Barber, R. Optimizing Soil Moisture for Plant Production, the Significance of Soil Porosity (FAO, 2003).

32.
Swanepoel, C. M. et al. The benefits of conservation agriculture on soil organic carbon and yield in southern Africa are site-specific. Soil Tillage Res. 183, 72–82 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

33.
Derpsch, R. Controle da Erosão no Paraná, Brasil: Sistemas de Cobertura do Solo, Plantio Direto e Preparo Conservacionista do Solo (GTZ/Curitiba, 1991).

34.
Scopel, E., da Silva, F. A. M., Corbeels, M., Affholder, F. & Maraux, F. Modelling crop residue mulching effects on water use and production of maize under semi-arid and humid tropical conditions. Agronomie 24, 383–395 (2004).
Article  Google Scholar 

35.
Thierfelder, C. & Wall, P. C. Investigating conservation agriculture (CA) systems in Zambia and Zimbabwe to mitigate future effects of climate change. J. Crop Improve. 24, 113–121 (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

36.
Lal, R. The role of residues management in sustainable agricultural systems. J. Sustain. Agric. 5, 51–78 (1995).
Article  Google Scholar 

37.
Shen, Y., McLaughlin, N., Zhang, X., Xu, M. & Liang, A. Effect of tillage and crop residue on soil temperature following planting for a Black soil in Northeast China. Sci. Rep. 8, 4500 (2018).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

38.
Muñoz-Romero, V., Lopez-Bellido, L. & Lopez-Bellido, R. J. Effect of tillage system on soil temperature in a rainfed Mediterranean Vertisol. Int. Agrophys. 29, 467–473 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

39.
Hatfield, J. L. & Prueger, J. H. Temperature extremes: Effect on plant growth and development. Weather Clim. Extr. 10, 4–10 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

40.
Ramakrishna, A., Tam, H. M., Wani, S. P. & Long, T. D. Effect of mulch on soil temperature, moisture, weed infestation and yield of groundnut in northern Vietnam. Field Crops Res. 95, 115–125 (2006).
Article  Google Scholar 

41.
Kumar, S. & Dey, P. Effects of different mulches and irrigation methods on root growth, nutrient uptake, water-use efficiency and yield of strawberry. Sci. Hortic. 127, 318–324 (2011).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

42.
van Wijk, W. R., Larson, W. E. & Burrows, W. C. Soil Temperature and the early growth of corn from mulched and unmulched soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 23, 428 (1959).
Article  Google Scholar 

43.
Kodzwa, J. J., Gotosa, J. & Nyamangara, J. Mulching is the most important of the three conservation agriculture principles in increasing crop yield in the short term, under sub humid tropical conditions in Zimbabwe. Soil Tillage Res. 197, 104515 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

44.
Giller, K. E., Witter, E., Corbeels, M. & Tittonell, P. Conservation agriculture and smallholder farming in Africa: The heretics’ view. Field Crops Res. 114, 23–34 (2009).
Article  Google Scholar 

45.
Andersson, J. A. & D’Souza, S. From adoption claims to understanding farmers and contexts: A literature review of conservation agriculture (CA) adoption among smallholder farmers in southern Africa. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 187, 116–132 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

46.
Mashingaidze, N., Madakadze, C., Twomlow, S., Nyamangara, J. & Hove, L. Crop yield and weed growth under conservation agriculture in semi-arid Zimbabwe. Soil Tillage Res. 124, 102–110 (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 

47.
Watt, M. S., Whitehead, D., Mason, E. G., Richardson, B. & Kimberley, M. O. The influence of weed competition for light and water on growth and dry matter partitioning of young Pinus radiata, at a dryland site. For. Ecol. Manage. 183, 363–376 (2003).
Article  Google Scholar 

48.
Abouziena, H., El-Saeid, M., Ahmed, A. & Amin, E.-S. Water loss by weeds: A review. Int. J. ChemTech Res. 7, 974–4290 (2014).
Google Scholar 

49.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). The Economics of Conservation Agriculture (2001).

50.
Olsson, L. et al. Land Degradation. In Climate Change and Land: an IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems (IPCC, 2019). More

Increasingly madcap measures are being tried to control the invasive Asian carp in the US midwest.Credit: USACE/Alamy

Under a White Sky: The Nature of the Future Elizabeth Kolbert Crown (2021)
Humans are brilliant at coming up with solutions. But often these bring new problems that require their own solutions — that bring their own problems. It’s like the old lady who swallowed a fly in the children’s rhyme.
Civilization, essentially, has been a project to control natural systems: a river that is in the wrong place for us; earth that is too wet, or not wet enough; forests that we replace with monocultures of food, and so on. But natural systems are not compliant, and the unintended consequences of our changes require further fixes. The result is a world dominated by human influence, the Anthropocene epoch. Our problems are global and so, too, are our fixes.
These cascades of geoengineering are the subject of the latest book from Elizabeth Kolbert, Pulitzer-prizewinning environment reporter at The New Yorker. Under The White Sky looks at what people are doing to address the catastrophes that Kolbert described in two previous books — climate change (Field Notes From A Catastrophe, 2006) and biodiversity loss (The Sixth Extinction, 2014). She tours a range of cutting-edge experiments, from the restorative to the radical, across the United States, Europe and Australia. The result is an arresting montage of just how hard it is to return balance to our exquisitely interconnected biosphere, and the extraordinary efforts people go to in the attempt.

Kolbert visits the mighty Chicago River system in Illinois, which was re-plumbed to discharge the city’s sewage, with major tributaries rerouted and even reversed. Here, she documents efforts to prevent an invasive fish species — deliberately introduced into the Mississippi River basin — from causing havoc to the newly connected Great Lakes ecosystem. These include electrifying sections of river, fish-hunting carnivals and a range of madcap inventions, such as a “disco” noise-and-jet water barrier and sweet treats used as bait.
Further south, in coastal Louisiana, she finds engineers planning a multibillion-dollar artificial river system to replicate the former flows of the powerful Mississippi. Excessive tinkering with the river, straightening it and creating flood defences, have caused the land to sink and disappear, because alluvial soils are no longer replenished by regular sediment dumps. New Orleans is rapidly shrinking; smaller settlements have already been abandoned. As in her New Yorker essays, this is Kolbert at her most compelling — producing visceral, engrossing journalism with clear explanations of both science and social context.

Inside an aircraft attempting to seed clouds in Thailand in 2019.Credit: Athit Perawongmetha/Reuters

An element of the ridiculous is ever-present in the dance between human hubris and desperation. Kolbert orchestrates this comic strand with aplomb, never sacrificing empathy or the humanity of her characters. It is only a shame that the focus is entirely on problems and solutions in rich countries, given the global nature of the Anthropocene and the inequity of its burdens.
Artificial ecosystems
In the Mojave Desert, Nevada, she visits an expensively created, fully staffed, artificial pond cave, built to try to conserve a minuscule fish that humans have made critically endangered in the wild. In an aquatic laboratory in Australia, she observes coral spawning, cued by a simulated romantic sunset. This is the prelude to an in vitro fertilization programme that researchers hope will help to save the Great Barrier Reef from its calamitous decline in the wake of global heating. At one point, Kolbert wryly notes “how much easier it is to ruin an ecosystem than to run one”.

Kolbert meets genetic engineers hoping to replace struggling species such as endangered corals with ones modified to tolerate our environmental changes. Of this dramatic, ecosystem-altering step, one of the researchers points out: “We’re constantly moving genes around the world, usually in the form of entire genomes.” Consider the Peruvian potatoes planted in Europe’s fields or the domestic cats introduced by Europeans to New Zealand, where they have contributed to the extinction of at least nine native bird species.
Saving a fish species is hard, a coral-reef ecosystem immeasurably harder, but the ultimate challenge is fixing the global climate. Kolbert looks at geoengineering techniques to suck carbon dioxide from the air and store it, visiting facilities in the United States and Iceland. Options for ‘negative emissions’ were what finally got the 2015 Paris climate treaty over the line. The agreement to limit greenhouse-gas emissions factors in solutions such as planting forests to take up CO2 as they grow, and capturing industrial emissions at their source, then burying them.
The agreement does not mention more radical ‘hard geoengineering’ techniques to cool the climate, although research has been under way for decades. Kolbert talks to those studying methods to reflect the Sun’s heat, including spraying light-scattering calcite into the stratosphere, which would produce the white sky of the book’s title. This would be a drastic step. Yet, the extent of global heating brings its own terrible risks, which geoengineering could alleviate. “Doesn’t it have to be considered?” she asks, but can’t bring herself to answer.
There’s a grim fatalism to all this. We are so far down this path of global change that to turn back now is unthinkable, even impossible — like the old lady of the rhyme, who inevitably swallows the horse. Kolbert lays out this paradox perfectly. But she does so in the detached manner of an observer: always the reporter, documenting events but never asserting her own opinion. The book ends abruptly when the coronavirus ruins her plans for further research trips, leaving as much unresolved within its pages as outside them. It is, then, a superb and honest reflection of our extraordinary time. More

1.
Parmesan, C. Influences of species, latitudes and methodologies on estimates of phenological response to global warming. Glob. Change Biol. 13, 1860–1872. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01404.x (2007).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 
2.
Peñuelas, J. et al. Evidence of current impact of climate change on life: A walk from genes to the biosphere. Glob. Change Biol. 19, 2303–2338. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12143 (2013).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

3.
Thackeray, S. J. et al. Trophic level asynchrony in rates of phenological change for marine, freshwater and terrestrial environments. Glob. Change Biol. 16, 3304–3313. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02165.x (2010).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

4.
Dapporto, L. et al. Rise and fall of island butterfly diversity: Understanding genetic differentiation and extinction in a highly diverse archipelago. Divers. Distrib. 23, 1169–1181. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12610 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

5.
Hendry, A. P., Farrugia, T. J. & Kinnison, M. T. Human influences on rates of phenotypic change in wild animal populations. Mol. Ecol. 17, 20–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03428.x (2008).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

6.
Devictor, V. et al. Differences in the climatic debts of birds and butterflies at a continental scale. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 121–124. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1347 (2012).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

7.
Forister, M. L. & Shapiro, A. M. Climatic trends and advancing spring flight of butterflies in lowland California. Glob. Change Biol. 9, 1130–1135. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2003.00643.x (2003).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

8.
Altermatt, F. Tell me what you eat and I’ll tell you when you fly: Diet can predict phenological changes in response to climate change. Ecol. Lett. 13, 1475–1484. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01534.x (2010).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

9.
Stefanescu, C., Penuelas, J. & Filella, I. Effects of climatic change on the phenology of butterflies in the northwest Mediterranean Basin. Glob. Change Biol. 9, 1494–1506. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2003.00682.x (2003).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

10.
Roy, D. B. & Sparks, T. H. Phenology of British butterflies and climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 6, 407–416. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2000.00322.x (2000).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

11.
Diez, J. M. et al. Forecasting phenology: from species variability to community patterns. Ecol. Lett. 15, 545–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2012.01765.x (2012).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

12.
Schweiger, O., Settele, J., Kudrna, O., Klotz, S. & Kühn, I. Climate change can cause spatial mismatch of trophically interacting species. Ecology 89, 3472–3479. https://doi.org/10.1890/07-1748.1 (2008).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

13.
Glazaczow, A., Orwin, D. & Bogdziewicz, M. Increased temperature delays the late-season phenology of multivoltine insect. Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep38022 (2016).
Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

14.
van der Kolk, H.-J., WallisDeVries, M. F. & van Vliet, A. J. H. Using a phenological network to assess weather influences on first appearance of butterflies in the Netherlands. Ecol. Indicators 69, 205–212, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.04.028 (2016).

15.
Zografou, K. et al. Signals of climate change in butterfly communities in a mediterranean protected area. PLoS ONE 9, e87245. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0087245 (2014).
ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

16.
Visser, M. Keeping up with a warming world; assessing the rate of adaptation to climate change. Proc. Biol. Sci. R. Soc. 275, 649–659, https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2007.0997 (2008).

17.
Kharouba, H. M., Paquette, S. R., Kerr, J. T. & Vellend, M. Predicting the sensitivity of butterfly phenology to temperature over the past century. Glob. Change Biol. 20, 504–514. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12429 (2014).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

18.
Roy, D. B. et al. Similarities in butterfly emergence dates among populations suggest local adaptation to climate. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 3313–3322. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12920 (2015).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

19.
Rapacciuolo, G. et al. Beyond a warming fingerprint: Individualistic biogeographic responses to heterogeneous climate change in California. Glob. Change Biol. 20, 2841–2855. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12638 (2014).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

20.
Fischer, K. & Fiedler, K. Life-history plasticity in the butterfly Lycaena hippothoe: Local adaptations and trade-offs. Biol. J. Lin. Soc. 75, 173–185. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1095-8312.2002.00014.x (2002).
Article  Google Scholar 

21.
Zografou, K. Who flies first?—Habitat-specific phenological shifts of butterflies and orthopterans in the light of climate change: A case study from the south-east Mediterranean Lepidoptera and Orthoptera phenology change. Ecol. Entomol. 40, 562–574. https://doi.org/10.1111/een.12220 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

22.
Suggitt Andrew, J. et al. Habitat microclimates drive fine-scale variation in extreme temperatures. Oikos 120, 1–8, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18270.x (2010).

23.
Dell, D., Sparks, T. & Dennis, R. Climate change and the effect of increasing spring temperatures on emergence dates of the butterfly Apatura iris (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Eur. J. Entomol. 102, 161–167. https://doi.org/10.14411/eje.2005.026 (2005).
Article  Google Scholar 

24.
Zipf, L., Williams, E. H., Primack, R. B. & Stichter, S. Climate effects on late-season flight times of Massachusetts butterflies. Int. J. Biometeorol. 61, 1667–1673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-017-1347-8 (2017).
ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

25.
Diamond, S. E., Frame, A. M., Martin, R. A. & Buckley, L. B. Species’ traits predict phenological responses to climate change in butterflies. Ecology 92, 1005–1012. https://doi.org/10.1890/i0012-9658-92-5-1005 (2011).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

26.
Melero, Y., Stefanescu, C. & Pino, J. General declines in Mediterranean butterflies over the last two decades are modulated by species traits. Biol. Cons. 201, 336–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.07.029 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

27.
Stefanescu, C., Peñuelas, J. & Filella, I. Butterflies highlight the conservation value of hay meadows highly threatened by land-use changes in a protected Mediterranean area. Biol. Cons. 126, 234–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.05.010 (2005).
Article  Google Scholar 

28.
Sparks, T. H., Huber, K. & Dennis, R. L. H. Complex phenological responses to climate warming trends? Lessons from history. Eur. J. Entomol. 103, 379–386 (2006).
Article  Google Scholar 

29.
Wong, M. K. L., Guénard, B. & Lewis, O. T. Trait-based ecology of terrestrial arthropods. Biol. Rev. 94, 999–1022. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12488 (2019).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

30.
Gutiérrez, D. & Wilson, R. J. Intra- and interspecific variation in the responses of insect phenology to climate. J. Anim. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.13348 (2020).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

31.
Zografou, K. et al. Butterfly phenology in Mediterranean mountains using space-for-time substitution. Ecol. Evolut. 10, 928–939. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5951 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

32.
Steltzer, H. & Post, E. Seasons and life cycles. Science 324, 886–887. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1171542 (2009).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

33.
Hale, R., Morrongiello, J. R. & Swearer, S. E. Evolutionary traps and range shifts in a rapidly changing world. Biol. Let. 12, 20160003. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2016.0003 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

34.
Ghalambor, C. K., McKay, J. K., Carroll, S. P. & Reznick, D. N. Adaptive versus non-adaptive phenotypic plasticity and the potential for contemporary adaptation in new environments. Funct. Ecol. 21, 394–407. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2007.01283.x (2007).
Article  Google Scholar 

35.
Macgregor, C. J. et al. Climate-induced phenology shifts linked to range expansions in species with multiple reproductive cycles per year. Nat. Commun. 10, 4455. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-12479-w (2019).
ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

36.
Pau, S. et al. Predicting phenology by integrating ecology, evolution and climate science. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 3633–3643. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02515.x (2011).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

37.
Sherry, R. A. et al. Divergence of reproductive phenology under climate warming. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104, 198. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0605642104 (2007).
ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

38.
Wilson, R. J. & Fox, R. Insect responses to global change offer signposts for biodiversity and conservation. Ecol. Entomol. https://doi.org/10.1111/een.12970 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

39.
Brooks, S. J. et al. The influence of life history traits on the phenological response of British butterflies to climate variability since the late-19th century. Ecography 40, 1152–1165. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.02658 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

40.
Cayton, H. L., Haddad, N. M., Gross, K., Diamond, S. E. & Ries, L. Do growing degree days predict phenology across butterfly species?. Ecology 96, 1473–1479. https://doi.org/10.1890/15-0131.1 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

41.
Stocker, T. F. et al. Summary for policymakers. In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 3–29 (2013).

42.
Swengel, A. B. Effects of fire and hay management on abundance of prairie butterflies. Biol. Cons. 76, 73–85 (1996).
Article  Google Scholar 

43.
Zografou, K. et al. Severe decline and partial recovery of a rare butterfly on an active military training area. Biol. Cons. 216, 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.09.026 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

44.
Gillingham, P. K., Huntley, B., Kunin, W. E. & Thomas, C. D. The effect of spatial resolution on projected responses to climate warming. Divers. Distrib. 18, 990–1000. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2012.00933.x (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 

45.
Roy David, B. et al. Similarities in butterfly emergence dates among populations suggest local adaptation to climate. Global Change Biol. 21, 3313–3322, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12920 (2015).

46.
Lemoine, N. P. Climate change may alter breeding ground distributions of eastern migratory monarchs (Danaus plexippus) via range expansion of asclepias host plants. PLoS ONE 10, e0118614. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118614 (2015).
CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

47.
Slansky, F. Phagism relationships among butterflies. J. N. Y. Entomol. Soc. 84, 91–105 (1976).
Google Scholar 

48.
Morin, X., Roy, J., Sonié, L. & Chuine, I. Changes in leaf phenology of three European oak species in response to experimental climate change. New Phytol. 186, 900–910. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03252.x (2010).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

49.
Chuine, I., Morin, X. & Bugmann, H. Warming. Photoperiods Tree Phenol. 329, 277–278. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.329.5989.277-e%JScience (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

50.
Luedeling, E., Girvetz, E. H., Semenov, M. A. & Brown, P. H. Climate change affects winter chill for temperate fruit and nut trees. PLoS ONE 6, e20155. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020155 (2011).
ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

51.
Fu, Y. S. H. et al. Variation in leaf flushing date influences autumnal senescence and next year’s flushing date in two temperate tree species. Proc. Natl. Acad. USA 111, 7355–7360. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1321727111%JProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciences (2014).
ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

52.
Renner, S. S. & Zohner, C. M. Climate change and phenological mismatch in trophic interactions among plants, insects, and vertebrates. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 49, 165–182. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110617-062535 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

53.
Barton, K. E., Edwards, K. F. & Koricheva, J. Shifts in woody plant defence syndromes during leaf development. Funct. Ecol. 33, 2095–2104. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13435 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

54.
Cohen, J. M., Lajeunesse, M. J. & Rohr, J. R. A global synthesis of animal phenological responses to climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 224–228. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0067-3 (2018).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

55.
Altermatt, F. Climatic warming increases voltinism in European butterflies and moths. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 277, 1281–1287. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.1910 (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

56.
Illán, J. G., Gutiérrez, D., Díez, S. B. & Wilson, R. J. Elevational trends in butterfly phenology: Implications for species responses to climate change. Ecol. Entomol. 37, 134–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2311.2012.01345.x (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 

57.
Nufio, C. R., McGuire, C. R., Bowers, M. D. & Guralnick, R. P. Grasshopper community response to climatic change: Variation along an elevational gradient. PLoS ONE 5, e12977. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0012977 (2010).
ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

58.
Van Dyck, H., Bonte, D., Puls, R., Gotthard, K. & Maes, D. The lost generation hypothesis: Could climate change drive ectotherms into a developmental trap?. Oikos 124, 54–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.02066 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

59.
Scott, J. A. The Butterflies of North America: A Natural History and Field Guide. (Stanford University Press, 1992).

60.
Division, E. Final Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan 17003–25002 (The Pennsylvania Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, Annville, 2002).
Google Scholar 

61.
Shuey, J. et al. Landscape-scale response to local habitat restoration in the regal fritillary butterfly (Speyeria idalia) (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). J. Insect Cons. 20, 773–780. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-016-9908-4 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

62.
Metzler, E., Shuey, J., Ferge, L., Henderson, R. & Goldstein, P. Contributions to the understanding of tallgrass prairie-dependent butterflies and moths (Lepidoptera) and their biogeography in the United States. Ohio Biol. Surv. Bull. New Ser. 15, 1–143 (2005).
Google Scholar 

63.
PNHP. PNHP Species Lists. Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program. http://www.naturalheritage.state.pa.us/Species.aspx (2019).

64.
Pollard, E. & Yates, T. J. Monitoring Butterflies for Ecology and Conservation (1993).

65.
Nufio, C. R., McGuire, C. R., Bowers, M. D. & Guralnick, R. P. Grasshopper community response to climatic change: Variation along an elevational gradient. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0012977 (2010).
Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

66.
Glassberg, J. Butterflies through binoculars, the East. A field guide to the butterflies of Eastern North America, 242. (Oxford University Press, Inc., 1999).

67.
Brock, J. P. & Kaufman, K. Field Guide to Butterflies of North America., 391 (Hillstar Editions L.C, 2003).

68.
Brakefield, P. M. Geographical variability in, and temperature effects on, the phenology of Maniola jurtina and Pyronia tithonus (Lepidoptera, Satyrinae) in England and Wales. Ecol. Entomol. 12, 139–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2311.1987.tb00993.x (1987).
Article  Google Scholar 

69.
de Arce Crespo, J. I. & Gutiérrez, D. Altitudinal trends in the phenology of butterflies in a mountainous area in central Spain. Eur. J. Entomol. 108, 651–658 (2011).

70.
Moussus, J.-P., Julliard, R. & Jiguet, F. Featuring 10 phenological estimators using simulated data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 1, 140–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2010.00020.x (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

71.
Penny, D. The comparative method in evolutionary biology. J. Classif. 9, 169–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02618482 (1992).
MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

72.
Earl, C., Belitz, M. et al. Spatial phylogenetics of butterflies in relation to environmental drivers and angiosperm diversity across North America. BioRxiv:2020.2007.2022.216119, https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.22.216119 (2020).

73.
PRISM. Climate Group, Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model. Oregon State University, http://prism.oregonstate.edu. Accessed 24 July 2018.

74.
Daly, C. et al. Physiographically sensitive mapping of climatological temperature and precipitation across the conterminous United States. Int. J. Climatol. 28, 2031–2064. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1688 (2008).
Article  Google Scholar 

75.
Peñuelas, J. et al. Response of plant species richness and primary productivity in shrublands along a north-south gradient in Europe to seven years of experimental warming and drought: Reductions in primary productivity in the heat and drought year of 2003. Glob. Change Biol. 13, 2563–2581. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01464.x (2007).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

76.
McMaster, G. S. & Wilhelm, W. W. Growing degree-days: One equation, two interpretations. Agric. For. Meteorol. 87, 291–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1923(97)00027-0 (1997).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

77.
Walters, E. J., Morrell, C. H. & Auer, R. E. An investigation of the median-median method of linear regression. J. Stat. Educ. https://doi.org/10.1080/10691898.2006.11910582 (2006).
Article  Google Scholar 

78.
Theil, H. in Henri Theil’s Contributions to Economics and Econometrics: Econometric Theory and Methodology (eds Baldev Raj & Johan Koerts) 345–381 (Springer Netherlands, 1992).

79.
Sen, P. K. Estimates of the regression coefficient based on Kendall’s Tau. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 63, 1379–1389. https://doi.org/10.2307/2285891 (1968).
MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

80.
Siegel, A. F. Robust regression using repeated medians. Biometrika 69, 242–244. https://doi.org/10.2307/2335877 (1982).
Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

81.
Schneider, G., Chicken, E. & Becvarik, R. NSM3: Functions and Datasets to Accompany Hollander, Wolfe, and Chicken – Nonparametric Statistical Methods, Third Edition. R Package Version 1.15. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=NSM3. (2020).

82.
Patrick Bogaart, Loo, M. v. d. & Pannekoek, J. rtrim: Trends and Indices for Monitoring Data. R Package Version 2.1.1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rtrim. (2020).

83.
Zografou, K. et al. Stable generalist species anchor a dynamic pollination network. Ecosphere 11, e03225. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3225 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

84.
Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S & D, S. nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models. R Package v. 3.1‐117. (www document). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme. (2015).

85.
Felsenstein, J. Phylogenies and quantitative characters. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 19, 445–471. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.19.110188.002305 (1988).
Article  Google Scholar  More