Ecology

1.
Jackson, J., Donovan, M., Cramer, K. & Lam, V. Status and Trends of Caribbean Coral Reefs: 1970–2012. Glob. Coral Reef Monit. Network, Int. Union for Conserv. Nat. Glob. Mar. Polar Program, Washington, DC (2014).
2.
Baird, A. H., Babcock, R. C. & Mundy, C. P. Habitat selection by larvae influences the depth distribution of six common coral species. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 252, 289–293 (2003).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

3.
Harrington, L., Fabricius, K., De’ath, G. & Negri, A. Recognition and selection of settlement substrata determine post-settlement survival in corals. Ecol. 85, 3428–3437 (2004).
Article  Google Scholar 

4.
Roff, G. & Mumby, P. J. Global disparity in the resilience of coral reefs. Trends Ecol. & Evol. 27, 404–413 (2012).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

5.
Lessios, H. A. Mass mortality of Diadema antillarum in the Caribbean: What Have We Learned? Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 19, 371–393 (1988).
Article  Google Scholar 

6.
Patterson, K. L. et al. The etiology of white pox, a lethal disease of the Caribbean elkhorn coral, Acropora palmata. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 99, 8725–8730 (2002).

7.
Eakin, C. M. et al. Caribbean Corals in Crisis: Record Thermal Stress, Bleaching, and Mortality in 2005. PLoS ONE 5, 1–9 (2010).
Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

8.
Wilkinson, C. R. In Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2004 (Townsville: Australian Institute of Marine Science, 2004).
Google Scholar 

9.
Miller, J., Waara, R., Muller, E. & Rogers, C. Coral bleaching and disease combine to cause extensive mortality on reefs in US Virgin Islands. Coral Reefs 25, 418 (2006).
Article  Google Scholar 

10.
Donner, S. D., Knutson, T. R. & Oppenheimer, M. Model-based assessment of the role of human-induced climate change in the 2005 Caribbean coral bleaching event. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104, 5483–5488 (2007).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

11.
Hughes, T. P. et al. Global warming and recurrent mass bleaching of corals. Nat. 543, 373–377 (2017).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

12.
Gardner, T. A., Côté, I. M., Gill, J. A., Grant, A. & Watkinson, A. R. Hurricanes and Caribbean coral reefs: impacts, recovery patterns, and role in long-term decline. Ecol. 86, 174–184 (2005).
Article  Google Scholar 

13.
Smith, S. R. Patterns of Coral Recruitment and Post-Settlement Mortality on Bermuda’s Reefs: Comparisons to Caribbean and Pacific Reefs. Am. Zool. 32, 663–673 (1992).
Article  Google Scholar 

14.
Arnold, S. N. & Steneck, R. S. Settling into an Increasingly Hostile World: The Rapidly Closing “Recruitment Window” for Corals. PLoS ONE 6, e28681 (2011).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

15.
Edmunds, P. J. et al. Geographic variation in long-term trajectories of change in coral recruitment: a global-to-local perspective. Mar. Freshw. Res. 66, 609–622 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

16.
Glassom, D., Zakai, D. & Chadwick-Furman, N. Coral recruitment: a spatio-temporal analysis along the coastline of Eilat, northern Red Sea. Mar. Biol. 144, 641–651 (2004).
Article  Google Scholar 

17.
Edmunds, P. J. et al. Why more comparative approaches are required in time-series analyses of coral reef ecosystems. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 608, 297–306 (2019).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

18.
Hughes, T. P. Catastrophes, Phase Shifts, and Large-Scale Degradation of a Caribbean Coral Reef. Sci. 265, 1547–1551 (1994).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

19.
Jackson, J. B. C. et al. Historical Overfishing and the Recent Collapse of Coastal Ecosystems. Sci. 293, 629–637 (2001).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

20.
McCook, L. Macroalgae, nutrients and phase shifts on coral reefs: scientific issues and management consequences for the Great Barrier Reef. Coral Reefs 18, 357–367 (1999).
Article  Google Scholar 

21.
Loh, T., McMurray, S. E., Henkel, T. P., Vicente, J. & Pawlik, J. R. Indirect effects of overfishing on Caribbean reefs: sponges overgrow reef-building corals. PeerJ 3, e901 (2015).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

22.
Lenz, E., Bramanti, L., Lasker, H. & Edmunds, P. J. Long-term variation of octocoral populations in St. John, US Virgin Islands. Coral Reefs 34, 1099–1109 (2015).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

23.
Gleason, D. F. & Hofmann, D. K. Coral larvae: From gametes to recruits. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 408, 42–57 (2011).
Article  Google Scholar 

24.
Siboni, N. et al. Using Bacterial Extract along with Differential Gene Expression in Acropora millepora Larvae to Decouple the Processes of Attachment and Metamorphosis. PLoS ONE 7, e37774 (2012).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

25.
Doropoulos, C. et al. Characterizing the ecological trade-offs throughout the early ontogeny of coral recruitment. Ecol. Monogr. 86, 20–44 (2016).
Google Scholar 

26.
Ritson-Williams, R., Arnold, S. N., Paul, V. J. & Steneck, R. S. Larval settlement preferences of Acropora palmata and Montastraea faveolata in response to diverse red algae. Coral Reefs 33, 59–66 (2014).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

27.
Ritson-Williams, R., Paul, V. J., Arnold, S. N. & Steneck, R. S. Larval settlement preferences and post-settlement survival of the threatened caribbean corals Acropora palmata and A. cervicornis. Coral Reefs 29, 71–81 (2010).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

28.
Johnson, C. R., Muir, D. G. & Reysenbach, A. L. Characteristic bacteria associated with surfaces of coralline algae: a hypothesis for bacterial induction of marine invertebrate larvae. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 74, 281–294 (1991).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

29.
Heyward, A. J. & Negri, A. P. Natural inducers for coral larval metamorphosis. Coral Reefs 18, 273–279 (1999).
Article  Google Scholar 

30.
Webster, N. S. et al. Metamorphosis of a Scleractinian Coral in Response to Microbial Biofilms. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 70, 1213–1221 (2004).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

31.
Hadfield, M. G. Biofilms and Marine Invertebrate Larvae: What Bacteria Produce that Larvae Use to Choose Settlement Sites. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 3, 453–470 (2011).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

32.
Sneed, J. M., Ritson-Williams, R. & Paul, V. J. Crustose coralline algal species host distinct bacterial assemblages on their surfaces. ISME J. 9, 2527–2536 (2015).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

33.
Negri, A. P., Webster, N. S., Hill, R. T. & Heyward, A. J. Metamorphosis of broadcast spawning corals in response to bacteria isolated from crustose algae. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 223, 121–131 (2001).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

34.
Sneed, J. M., Sharp, K. H., Ritchie, K. B. & Paul, V. J. The chemical cue tetrabromopyrrole from a biofilm bacterium induces settlement of multiple Caribbean corals. Proc. Royal Soc. B 281, 20133086 (2014).
PubMed  Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

35.
Tebben, J. et al. Induction of Larval Metamorphosis of the Coral Acropora millepora by Tetrabromopyrrole Isolated from a Pseudoalteromonas Bacterium. PLoS ONE 6, e19082 (2011).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

36.
Tebben, J. et al. Chemical mediation of coral larval settlement by crustose coralline algae. Sci. Reports 5, 10803 (2015).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

37.
Morse, D. E., Morse, A. N. C., Raimondi, P. T. & Hooker, N. Morphogen-Based Chemical Flypaper for Agaricia humilis Coral Larvae. The Biol. Bull. 186, 172–181 (1994).
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

38.
Raimondi, P. T. & Morse, A. N. C. The consequences of complex larval behavior in a coral. Ecol. 81, 3193–3211 (2000).
Article  Google Scholar 

39.
Antonius, A. & Ballesteros, E. Epizoism: a new threat to coral health in Caribbean reefs. Revista de Biol. Trop. 46, 145–156 (1998).
Google Scholar 

40.
Verlaque, M., Ballesteros, E. & Antonius, A. Metapeyssonnelia corallepida sp. nov. (Peyssonneliaceae, Rhodophyta), an Atlantic Encrusting Red Alga Overgrowing Corals. Bot. Mar. 43, 191–200 (2000).

41.
Pueschel, C. M. & Saunders, G. W. Ramicrusta textilis sp. nov. (Peyssonneliaceae, Rhodophyta), an anatomically complex Caribbean alga that overgrows corals. Phycol. 48, 480–491 (2009).
Article  Google Scholar 

42.
Eckrich, C. E., Engel, M. S. & Peachey, R. B. J. Crustose, calcareous algal bloom (Ramicrusta sp.) overgrowing scleractinian corals, gorgonians, a hydrocoral, sponges, and other algae in Lac Bay, Bonaire, Dutch Caribbean. Coral Reefs 30, 131–131 (2011)

43.
Eckrich, C. E. & Engel, M. S. Coral overgrowth by an encrusting red alga (Ramicrusta sp.): a threat to Caribbean reefs?. Coral Reefs 32, 81–84 (2013).

44.
Ballantine, D. & Ruiz, H. Metapeyssonnelia milleporoides, a new species of coral-killing red alga (Peyssonneliaceae) from Puerto Rico, Caribbean Sea. Bot. Mar. 54, 47–51 (2011).

45.
Edmunds, P. J., Zimmerman, S. A. & Bramanti, L. A spatially aggressive peyssonnelid algal crust (PAC) threatens shallow coral reefs in St. John, US Virgin Islands. Coral Reefs 38, 1329–1341 (2019).

46.
Basso, D. Carbonate production by calcareous red algae and global change. Geodiversitas 34, 13–33 (2012).

47.
Taylor, W. & Arndt, C. The marine algae of the southwestern Peninsula of Hispaniola. Am. J. Bot. 16, 651–662 (1929).

48.
Van Den Hoek, C., Cortel-Breeman, A. & Wanders, J. Algal zonation in the fringing coral reef of Curaçao, Netherlands Antilles, in relation to zonation of corals and gorgonians. Aquatic. Bot. 1, 269–308 (1975).

49.
Sammarco, P. W. Effects of grazing by Diadema antillarum Philippi (Echinodermata: Echinoidea) on algal diversity and community structure. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 65, 83–105 (1982).

50.
Littler, M. M., Taylor, P. R., Littler, D. S., Sims, R. H. & Norris, J. N. Dominant macrophyte standing stocks, productivity and community structure on a Belizean barrier-reef. Atoll Res. Bull. 302, 1–24 (1987).

51.
Ballantine, D. & Ruiz, H. A unique red algal reef formation in Puerto Rico. Coral Reefs 32, 411–411 (2013).

52.
Ballantine, D., Ruiz, H., Lozada-Troche, C. & Norris, J. N. The genus Ramicrusta (Peyssonneliales, Rhodophyta) in the Caribbean Sea, including Ramicrusta bonairensis sp. nov. and Ramicrusta monensis sp. nov. Bot. Mar. 59, 417–431 (2016).

53.
Zhang, D. & Zhou, J. Ramicrusta, a new genus of Peyssonneliaceae (Cryptonemiales, Rhodophyta). Oceanol. et Limnol. Sinica 12, 538–544 (1981).

54.
Bramanti, L., Lasker, H. R. & Edmunds, P. J. An encrusting peyssonnellid preempts vacant space and overgrows corals in St. John, US Virgin Islands. Reef Encount. 32, 68–70 (2017).

55.
Tran, C. & Hadfield, M. G. Larvae of Pocillopora damicornis (Anthozoa) settle and metamorphose in response to surface-biofilm bacteria. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 433, 85–96 (2011).

56.
Golbuu, Y. & Richmond, R. H. Substratum preferences in planula larvae of two species of scleractinian corals, Goniastrea retiformis and Stylaraea punctata. Mar. Biol. 152, 639–644 (2007).

57.
Longford, S. R. et al. Comparisons of diversity of bacterial communities associated with three sessile marine eukaryotes. Aquatic. Microb. Ecol. 48, 217–229 (2007).

58.
Shade, A. & Handelsman, J. Beyond the Venn diagram: the hunt for a core microbiome. Environ. Microbiol. 14, 4–12 (2011).

59.
Edmunds, P. J. The hidden dynamics of low coral cover communities. Hydrobiol. 818, 193–209 (2018).

60.
Green, D. H., Edmunds, P. J., Pochon, X. & Gates, R. D. The effects of substratum type on the growth, mortality, and photophysiology of juvenile corals in St. John, US Virgin Islands. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 384, 18–29 (2010).

61.
Holmström, C. & Kjelleberg, S. Marine Pseudoalteromonas species are associated with higher organisms and produce biologically active extracellular agents. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 30, 285–293 (1999).

62.
Offret, C. et al. Spotlight on Antimicrobial Metabolites from the Marine Bacteria Pseudoalteromonas: Chemodiversity and Ecological Significance. Mar. Drugs 14, 129 (2016).

63.
Huang, Y.-L., Dobretsov, S., Xiong, H. & Qian, P.-Y. Effect of Biofilm Formation by Pseudoalteromonas spongiae on Induction of Larval Settlement of the Polychaete Hydroides elegans. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 73, 6284–6288 (2007).

64.
Wolfaardt, G. M., Lawrence, J. R. & Korber, D. R. Function of EPS. In Wingender, J., Neu, T. R. & Flemming, H. (eds.) Microbial extracellular polymeric substances: characterization, structure, and function, 186–190 (Springer, New York, NY, 1999).
Google Scholar 

65.
Huggett, M. J., Williamson, J. E., de Nys, R., Kjelleberg, S. & Steinberg, P. D. Larval settlement of the common Australian sea urchin Heliocidaris erythrogramma in response to bacteria from the surface of coralline algae. Oecologia 149, 604–619 (2006).
ADS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

66.
Shikuma, N. J., Antoshechkin, I., Medeiros, J. M., Pilhofer, M. & Newman, D. K. Stepwise metamorphosis of the tubeworm Hydroides elegans is mediated by a bacterial inducer and MAPK signaling. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113, 10097–10102 (2016).
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

67.
Freckleton, M. L., Nedved, B. T. & Hadfield, M. G. Induction of Invertebrate Larval Settlement; Different Bacteria, Different Mechanisms? Sci. Reports 7, 42557 (2017).

68.
Kato, A., Baba, M., Kawai, H. & Masuda, M. Reassessment of the little-known crustose red algal genus Polystrata (Gigartinales), based on morphology and SSU rDNA sequences. J. Phycol. 42, 922–933 (2006).

69.
Dixon, K. R. & Saunders, G. W. DNA barcoding and phylogenetics of Ramicrusta and Incendia gen. nov., two early diverging lineages of the Peyssonneliaceae (Rhodophyta). Phycol. 52, 82–108 (2013).

70.
Nieder, C., Chen, P.-C., Chen, C. A. & Liu, S.-L. New record of the encrusting alga Ramicrusta textilis overgrowing corals in the lagoon of Dongsha Atoll, South China Sea. Bull. Mar. Sci. 95, 459–462 (2019).

71.
Smith, T. B., Ennis, R., Kadison, E., Nemeth, R. S. & Henderson, L. The United States Virgin Islands Territorial Coral Reef Monitoring Program. 2016 Annu. Report, Univ. Virgin Islands, United States Virgin Islands 1–286 (2016).

72.
Adey, W. H. A survey of red algal biology and ecology with reference to carbonate geology, and the role of reds in algal ridge and reef construction. In Recent Advances in Carbonate Studies, vol. 6, 3–6 (West Indies Laboratory, St. Croix, USVI, 1974).

73.
Woelkerling, W. J. South Florida benthic marine algae. In Sedimenta V (University of Miami, 1976).

74.
Hoegh-Guldberg, O. et al. Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification. Sci. 318, 1737–1742 (2007).

75.
Hay, M. E. Marine Chemical Ecology: Chemical Signals and Cues Structure Marine Populations, Communities, and Ecosystems. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 1, 193–212 (2009).

76.
Schupp, P. J. & Paul, V. J. Calcium Carbonate and Secondary Metabolites in Tropical Seaweeds: Variable Effects on Herbivorous Fishes. Ecol. 75, 1172–1185 (1994).

77.
Pennings, S. C., Puglisi, M. P., Pitlik, T. J., Himaya, A. C. & Paul, V. J. Effects of secondary metabolites and CaCO(_{3}) on feeding by surgeonfishes and parrotfishes: within-plant comparisons. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 134, 49–58 (1996).

78.
Blunt, J. W. et al. Marine natural products. Nat. Prod. Reports 24, 31–86 (2007).

79.
Blunt, J. W. et al. Marine natural products. Nat. Prod. Reports 25, 35–94 (2008).

80.
Lane, A. L. et al. Ecological leads for natural product discovery: novel sesquiterpene hydroquinones from the red macroalga Peyssonnelia sp. Tetrahedron 66, 455–461 (2010).

81.
Sawabe, T. et al. Pseudoalteromonas bacteriolytica sp. nov., a marine bacterium that is the causative agent of red spot disease of Laminaria japonica. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 48, 769–774 (1998).

82.
Steneck, R. & Dethier, M. A Functional Group Approach to the Structure of Algal-Dominated Communities. Oikos 69, 476–498 (1994).

83.
Edmunds, P. J. Decadal-scale changes in the community structure of coral reefs of St. John, US Virgin Islands. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 489, 107–123 (2013).

84.
Wilson, B. et al. Changes in Marine Prokaryote Composition with Season and Depth Over an Arctic Polar Year. Front. Mar. Sci. 4, 95 (2017).

85.
Øvreås, L., Forney, L., Daae, F. L. & Torsvik, V. Distribution of bacterioplankton in meromictic Lake Saelenvannet, as determined by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis of PCR-amplified gene fragments coding for 16S rRNA. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 63, 3367–3373 (1997).

86.
Caporaso, J. G. et al. Global patterns of 16S rRNA diversity at a depth of millions of sequences per sample. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108, 4516–4522 (2011).

87.
Freshwater, D., Fredericq, S. & Bailey, J. Characteristics and utility of nuclear-encoded large-subunit ribosomal gene sequences in phylogenetic studies of red algae. Phycol. Res. 47, 33–38 (1999).

88.
Krayesky, D. M., Norris, J. N., Gabrielson, P. W., Gabriel, D. & Fredericq, S. A new order of red algae based on the Peyssonneliaceae, with an evaluation of the ordinal classification of the Florideophyceae (Rhodophyta). Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 122, 364–391 (2009).

89.
Yoon, H. S., Hackett, J. D. & Bhattacharya, D. A single origin of the peridinin- and fucoxanthin-containing plastids in dinoflagellates through tertiary endosymbiosis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 99, 11724–11729 (2002).

90.
Caporaso, J. G. et al. QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat. Methods 7, 335–6 (2010).

91.
Edgar, R. C. Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinforma. 26, 2460–2461 (2010).

92.
Haas, B. J. et al. Chimeric 16S rRNA sequence formation and detection in Sanger and 454-pyrosequenced PCR amplicons. Genome Res. 21, 494–504 (2011).

93.
Caporaso, J. G. et al. PyNAST: a flexible tool for aligning sequences to a template alignment. Bioinforma. 26, 266–267 (2009).

94.
DeSantis, T. Z. et al. Greengenes, a Chimera-Checked 16S rRNA Gene Database and Workbench Compatible with ARB. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 72, 5069–5072 (2006).

95.
Joshi, N. A. & Fass, J. N. Sickle: A sliding-window, adaptive, quality-based trimming tool for FastQ files (Version 1.33) (2011). Available at https://github.com/najoshi/sickle. Accessed 6 Nov 2020.

96.
Rice, P., Longden, I. & Bleasby, A. EMBOSS: The European Molecular Biology Open Software Suite. Trends Genet. 16, 276–277 (2000).

97.
Altschul, S., Gish, W., Miller, W., Myers, E. & Lipman, D. Basic local alignment search tool. J. Mol. Biol. 215, 403–410 (1990).

98.
GNU General Public License. URL http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html. Accessed 6 Nov 2020. More

1.
Herring, P. J. The Biology of the Deep Ocean (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007).
Google Scholar 
2.
Chapman, G. Transparency in organisms. Experientia 32, 123–125 (1976).
Article  Google Scholar 

3.
Bagge, L. E. Not as clear as it may appear: Challenges associated with transparent camouflage in the ocean. Integr. Comp. Biol. 59, 1653–1663 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

4.
Johnsen, S. Hide and seek in the open sea: Pelagic camouflage and visual countermeasures. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 6, 369–392 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

5.
Kakiuchida, H., Sakai, D., Nishikawa, J. & Hirose, E. Measurement of refractive indices of tunicates’ tunics: Light reflection of the transparent integuments in an ascidian Rhopalaea sp. and a salp Thetys vagina. Zool. Lett. 3, 7 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

6.
Sakai, D., Kakiuchida, H., Nishikawa, J. & Hirose, E. Physical properties of the tunic in the pinkish-brown salp Pegea confoederata (Tunicata: Thaliacea). Zool. Lett. 4, 1–9 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

7.
Giguère, L. A. & Northcote, T. G. Ingested prey increase risks of visual predation in transparent Chaoborus larvae. Oecologia 73, 48–52 (1987).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

8.
Cronin, T. W. Camouflage: Being invisible in the open ocean. Curr. Biol. 26, R1179–R1181 (2016).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

9.
Hansson, L. A. Induced pigmentation in zooplankton: A trade-off between threats from predation and ultraviolet radiation. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 267, 2327–2331 (2000).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

10.
Johnsen, S. Hidden in plain sight: The ecology and physiology of organismal transparency. Biol. Bull. 201, 301–318 (2001).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

11.
Yasuo, H. & McDougall, A. Practical guide for ascidian microinjection: Phallusia mammillata. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 1029, 15–24 (2018).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

12.
Piliszek, A., Kwon, G. S. & Hadjantonakis, A.-K. Embryological methods in ascidians: The Villefranche-sur-Mer protocols. In Methods in Molecular Biology (Clifton, N.J.) Vol. 770 (ed. Pelegri, F. J.) 243–257 (Humana Press, Totowa, 2011).
Google Scholar 

13.
Burighel, P. & Cloney, R. A. Urochordata: Ascidiacea. Microscopic Anatomy of Invertebrates 221–347 (1997).

14.
Conklin, E. G. Mosaic development in ascidian eggs. J. Exp. Zool. 2, 145–223 (1905).
Article  Google Scholar 

15.
Jeffery, W. R. Identification of proteins and mRNAs in isolated yellow crescents of ascidian eggs. J. Embryol. Exp. Morphol. 89, 275–287 (1985).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

16.
Arai, M. N. Biological interactions. in A Functional Biology of Scyphozoa 203–223 (Springer Netherlands, 1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-1497-1_9

17.
Nishikawa, T. et al. Molecular and morphological discrimination between an invasive ascidian, Ascidiella aspersa, and its congener A. scabra (Urochordata: Ascidiacea). Zool. Sci. 31, 180–185 (2014).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

18.
Passamaneck, Y. J. & Di Gregorio, A. Ciona intestinalis: Chordate development made simple. Dev. Dyn. https://doi.org/10.1002/dvdy.20300 (2005).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

19.
Dehal, P. et al. The draft genome of Ciona intestinalis: Insights into chordate and vertebrate origins. Science 298, 2157–2167 (2002).
ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

20.
Tassy, O. et al. The ANISEED database: Digital representation, formalization, and elucidation of a chordate developmental program. Genome Res. 20, 1459–1468 (2010).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

21.
Brozovic, M. et al. ANISEED 2017: Extending the integrated ascidian database to the exploration and evolutionary comparison of genome-scale datasets. Nucleic Acids Res. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkx1108 (2017).
Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

22.
Delsuc, F. F. et al. A phylogenomic framework and timescale for comparative studies of tunicates. BMC Biol. 16, 1–14 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

23.
Epel, D., Hemela, K., Shick, M. & Patton, C. Development in the floating world: Defenses of eggs and embryos against damage from UV radiation. Am. Zool. 39, 271–278 (1999).
Article  Google Scholar 

24.
Eaton, T. H. & Cott, H. B. Adaptive coloration in animals. Am. Midl. Nat. https://doi.org/10.2307/2420875 (1940).
Article  Google Scholar 

25.
Lindquist, N., Hay, M. E. & Fenical, W. Defense of ascidians and their conspicuous larvae: Adult vs larval chemical defenses. Ecol. Monogr. 62, 547–568 (1992).
Article  Google Scholar 

26.
Hirose, E., Ohtake, S.-I. & Azumi, K. Morphological characterization of the tunic in the edible ascidian, Halocynthia roretzi (Drasche), with remarks on ‘soft tunic syndrome’ in aquaculture. J. Fish Dis. 32, 433–445 (2009).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

27.
Jacobs, G. H. Ultraviolet vision in vertebrates. Am. Zool. 32, 544–554 (1992).
Article  Google Scholar 

28.
Karentz, D., Bosch, I. & Mitchell, D. M. Limited effects of Antarctic ozone depletion on sea urchin development. Mar. Biol. 145, 277–292 (2004).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

29.
Winckler, K. & Fidhiany, L. Combined effects of constant sublethal UVA irradiation and elevated temperature on the survival and general metabolism of the convict-cichlid fish, Cichlasoma nigrofasciatum. Photochem. Photobiol. 63, 487–491 (1996).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

30.
Bingham, B. L. & Reitzel, A. M. Solar damage to the solitary ascidian, Corella inflata. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK 80, 515–521 (2000).
Article  Google Scholar 

31.
Hirose, E. Pigmentation and acid storage in the tunic: Protective functions of the tunic cells in the tropical ascidian Phallusia nigra. Invertebr. Biol. 118, 414 (1999).
Article  Google Scholar 

32.
Hirose, E., Hirabayashi, S., Hori, K., Kasai, F. & Watanabe, M. M. UV protection in the photosymbiotic ascidian Didemnum molle inhabiting different depths. Zool. Sci. 23, 57–63 (2006).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

33.
Olson, R. R. Ascidian-prochloron symbiosis: The role of larval photoadaptations in midday larval release and settlement. Biol. Bull. 165, 221–240 (1983).
Article  Google Scholar 

34.
Sensui, N. & Hirose, E. Cytoplasmic UV-R absorption in an integumentary matrix (Tunic) of photosymbiotic ascidian colonies. Zool. Stud. 57, 1–11 (2018).
Google Scholar 

35.
Hirose, E., Ohtsuka, K., Ishikura, M. & Maruyama, T. Ultraviolet absorption in ascidian tunic and ascidian-Prochloron symbiosis. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK 84, 789–794 (2004).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

36.
Hansson, L. A. & Hylander, S. Effects of ultraviolet radiation on pigmentation, photoenzymatic repair, behavior, and community ecology of zooplankton. Photochem. Photobiol. Sci. 8, 1266–1275 (2009).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

37.
Hansson, L. A., Hylander, S. & Sommaruga, R. Escape from UV threats in zooplankton: A cocktail of behavior and protective pigmentation. Ecology 88, 1932–1939 (2007).
Article  Google Scholar 

38.
Pineda, M. C., Lorente, B., López-Legentil, S., Palacín, C. & Turon, X. Stochasticity in space, persistence in time: Genetic heterogeneity in harbour populations of the introduced ascidian Styela plicata. PeerJ 4, e2158 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

39.
Zaniolo, G., Burighel, P. & Martinucci, G. Ovulation and placentation in Botryllus schlosseri (Ascidiacea): An ultrastructural study. Can. J. Zool. 65, 1181–1190 (1987).
Article  Google Scholar 

40.
Mukai, H., Saito, Y. & Watanabe, H. Viviparous development in Botrylloides (compound ascidians). J. Morphol. 193, 263–276 (1987).
Article  Google Scholar 

41.
Burighel, P., Cloney, R. A. & Cloney, B. Microscopic anatomy of invertebrates. Microsc. Anat. Invertebr. 15, 221–347 (1997).
Google Scholar 

42.
Sardet, C. et al. Chapter 14 Embryological methods in ascidians: The Villefranche-sur-Mer protocols. Vertebr. Embryog. Methods Mol. Biol. 770, (2011).

43.
Chatterjee, A. et al. Cephalopod-inspired optical engineering of human cells. Nat. Commun. 11, 2708 (2020).
ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

44.
Tsagkogeorga, G. et al. An updated 18S rRNA phylogeny of tunicates based on mixture and secondary structure models. BMC Evol. Biol. 9, 187 (2009).
Article  Google Scholar 

45.
Folmer, O., Black, M., Hoeh, W., Lutz, R. & Vrijenhoek, R. DNA primers for amplification of mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I from diverse metazoan invertebrates. Mol. Mar. Biol. Biotechnol. https://doi.org/10.1071/ZO9660275 (1994).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

46.
Hasegawa, N. & Kajihara, H. A redescription of syncarpa composita (Ascidiacea, stolidobranchia) with an inference of its phylogenetic position within styelidae. Zookeys 2019, 1–15 (2019).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

47.
Katoh, K. & Standley, D. M. MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: Improvements in performance and usability. Mol. Biol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mst010 (2013).
Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

48.
Castresana, J. Estimation of genetic distances from human and mouse introns. Genome Biol. https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2002-3-6-research0028 (2002).
Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

49.
Kumar, S., Stecher, G. & Tamura, K. MEGA7: Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 7.0 for bigger datasets. Mol. Biol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msw054 (2016).
Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

50.
Stamatakis, A. RAxML version 8: A tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btu033 (2014).
Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

51.
Huelsenbeck, J. P. & Ronquist, F. MRBAYES: Bayesian inference of phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/17.8.754 (2001).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

52.
Ronquist, F. & Huelsenbeck, J. P. MrBayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btg180 (2003).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

53.
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. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msw260 (2017).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

54.
Rambaut, A., Drummond, A. J., Xie, D., Baele, G. & Suchard, M. A. Posterior summarization in Bayesian phylogenetics using Tracer 1.7. Syst. Biol. 67, 901–904 (2018).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar  More

To the Editor — A wildlife consumption ban, which China enacted in February as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, has been welcomed by most conservationists as a step towards avoiding a future outbreak of zoonotic diseases1. There are dissenting voices against this ban, arguing that wildlife generates multiple benefits for people who co-exist with wild species2. While both schools of thought have their own valid arguments, neither has yet to actively lobby for the free, prior and informed consent or consultation of the people who will be directly affected by conservation decisions related to COVID-19.

Throughout the years, indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs) have been seen as either culprits of biodiversity decline or as ‘unseen sentinels’ effectively managing and monitoring their territories, which are often highly biodiverse3. This polarized view of IPLCs signals a prevailing lack of understanding of their way of life, where most of their dependence on nature is on a subsistence level. Wildlife consumption is often an essential part of their diets. A blanket ban on wildlife consumption may, therefore, exacerbate food insecurity in these communities. In other cases, IPLC wildlife consumption is more than just for subsistence. It may also have cultural roots and should be respected in that regard. Calling for education campaigns to ‘discredit engrained cultural beliefs’ that lead to wildlife consumption ignores the dynamics of cultural development and would most likely fail to conserve wildlife or fail to prevent another zoonotic disease outbreak4. What is needed is to craft bottom-up solutions together with the IPLCs directly depending on wildlife and to learn from their nuanced understanding of nature.

Through creating opportunities and spaces for dialogue, governments and institutions can involve IPLCs in setting guidelines for wildlife consumption. They can adopt the dialogue approach employed by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), where IPLCs engage in knowledge exchange with technical experts and government representatives5. The dialogue, through parallel contributions of indigenous, local, scientific and practical knowledge, can enhance the understanding of wildlife consumption6. Governments and institutions can tap into the network of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that closely collaborate with IPLCs and have them facilitate these dialogues. They need to listen carefully to IPLCs, learn from their customary protocols on wildlife use and consumption, and draft laws that could potentially prevent another zoonotic disease outbreak without jeopardizing the livelihoods and well-being of IPLCs. Likewise, IPLCs and civil society can continue to build on processes of self-strengthening and assert themselves in spaces where they can proactively engage in efforts to raise awareness and understanding of traditional wildlife consumption practices. These multiple stakeholders must work together to co-craft potential solutions to this global yet also very local concern of wildlife consumption and its connection to zoonotic diseases.

References

1.
Butler, R. A. Conservationists welcome China’s wildlife trade ban. Mongabay (26 January 2020); https://go.nature.com/3pohgzZ

2.
Roe, D. Despite COVID-19, using wild species may still be the best way to save them. International Institute for Environment and Development (1 April 2020); https://go.nature.com/3pjRNYt

3.
Sheil, D., Boissière, M. & Beaudoin, G. Ecol. Soc. 20, 39 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

4.
Ribeiro, J., Bingre, P., Strubbe, D. & Reino, L. Nature 578, 217 (2020).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

5.
Hill, R. et al. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 43, 8–20 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

6.
Tengö, M., Brondizio, E. S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P. & Spierenburg, M. AMBIO 43, 579–591 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Center for Development Research (ZEF) Bonn, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
Denise Margaret S. Matias

Institute for Social-Ecological Research (ISOE), Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Denise Margaret S. Matias

Non-Timber Forest Products Exchange Programme (NTFP-EP) Asia, Quezon City, Philippines
Eufemia Felisa Pinto & Diana San Jose

Non-Timber Forest Products Exchange Programme (NTFP-EP) India, c/o Keystone Foundation, Kotagiri, India
Madhu Ramnath

Authors
Denise Margaret S. Matias

Eufemia Felisa Pinto

Madhu Ramnath

Diana San Jose

Contributions
D.M.S.M. conceptualized and drafted the Correspondence. E.F.P. and D.S.J. provided input. M.R. reviewed the Correspondence.
Corresponding author
Correspondence to Denise Margaret S. Matias.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article
Matias, D.M.S., Pinto, E.F., Ramnath, M. et al. Local communities and wildlife consumption bans. Nat Sustain (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00662-7
Download citation More

1.
Connell, J. H. & Slatyer, R. O. Mechanisms of succession in natural communities and their role in community stability and organization. Am. Nat. 111, 1119–1144 (1977).
Article  Google Scholar 
2.
Sandin, S. A. & Sala, E. Using successional theory to measure marine ecosystem health. Evol. Ecol. 26, 435–448 (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 

3.
Buma, B., Bisbing, S., Krapek, J. & Wright, G. A foundation of ecology rediscovered: 100 years of succession on the William S. Cooper plots in Glacier Bay, Alaska. Ecology 98, 1513–1523 (2017).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

4.
Odum, E. P. The strategy of ecosystem development. Science 164, 262–270 (1969).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

5.
Copper, P. Ecological succession in Phanerozoic reef ecosystems: Is it real?. Palaios 3, 136–151 (1988).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

6.
Vercelloni, J., Kayal, M., Chancerelle, Y. & Planes, S. Exposure, vulnerability, and resiliency of French Polynesian coral reefs to environmental disturbances. Sci. Rep. 9, 1027 (2019).
ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

7.
Connell, J. H. Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs. Science 199, 1302–1310 (1978).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

8.
Grigg, R. Community structure, succession and development of coral reefs in Hawaii. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 11, 1–14 (1983).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

9.
Hughes, T. P. et al. Global warming transforms coral reef assemblages. Nature 556, 492–496 (2018).
ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

10.
Knowlton, N. Multiple, “stable” states and the conservation of marine ecosystems. Prog. Oceanogr. 60, 387–396 (2004).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

11.
Norström, A. V., Nyström, M., Lokrantz, J. & Folke, C. Alternative states on coral reefs: beyond coral-macroalgal phase shifts. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 376, 295–306 (2009).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

12.
van de Leemput, I. A., Hughes, T. P., van Nes, E. H. & Scheffer, M. Multiple feedbacks and the prevalence of alternate stable states on coral reefs. Coral Reefs 35, 857–865 (2016).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

13.
Kitayama, K., Mueller-Dombois, D. & Vitousek, P. M. Primary succession of Hawaiian montane rain forest on a chronosequence of eight lava flows. J. Veg. Sci. 6, 211–222 (1995).
Article  Google Scholar 

14.
Walker, L. R. & del Moral, R. Primary Succession and Ecosystem Rehabilitation. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615078.

15.
Prach, K. & Walker, L. R. Four opportunities for studies of ecological succession. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26, 119–123 (2011).
PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

16.
Turner, M. G., Whitby, T. G., Tinker, D. B. & Romme, W. H. Twenty-four years after the Yellowstone Fires: Are postfire lodgepole pine stands converging in structure and function?. Ecology 97, 1260–1273 (2016).
PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

17.
Rossi, S., Bramanti, L., Gori, A. & Orejas, C. Animal forests of the world: An overview. In Marine Animal Forests (eds. Rossi, S., Bramanti, L., Gori, A. & Orejas, C.) 1–28 (Springer, New York, 2017).

18.
Moberg, F. & Folke, C. Ecological goods and services of coral reef ecosystems. Ecol. Econ. 29, 215–233 (1999).
Article  Google Scholar 

19.
Wilkinson, C. Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2008. (Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network and Reef and Rainforest Research Center, 2008).

20.
Kittinger, J. N., Finkbeiner, E. M., Glazier, E. W. & Crowder, L. B. Human dimensions of coral reef social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 17, 17 (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 

21.
Bellwood, D. R., Hughes, T. P., Folke, C. & Nyström, M. Confronting the coral reef crisis. Nature 429, 827–833 (2004).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

22.
Edmunds, P. J. et al. Persistence and change in community composition of reef corals through present, past, and future climates. PLoS ONE 9, e107525 (2014).
ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

23.
Hughes, T. P. et al. Coral reefs in the Anthropocene. Nature 546, 82–90 (2017).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

24.
Bruno, J. F. & Selig, E. R. Regional decline of coral cover in the Indo-Pacific: Timing, extent, and subregional comparisons. PLoS ONE 2, e711 (2007).
ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

25.
Adjeroud, M. et al. Recovery of coral assemblages despite acute and recurrent disturbances on a South Central Pacific reef. Sci. Rep. 8, 9680 (2018).
ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

26.
Dudgeon, S. R., Aronson, R. B., Bruno, J. F. & Precht, W. F. Phase shifts and stable states on coral reefs. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 413, 201–216 (2010).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

27.
Coles, S. L. & Brown, E. K. Twenty-five years of change in coral coverage on a hurricane impacted reef in Hawai’i: The importance of recruitment. Coral Reefs 26, 705–717 (2007).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

28.
Jouffray, J.-B. et al. Identifying multiple coral reef regimes and their drivers across the Hawaiian archipelago. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 370, 20130268 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

29.
Doropoulos, C., Roff, G., Visser, M. S. & Mumby, P. J. Sensitivity of coral recruitment to subtle shifts in early community succession. Ecology 98, 304–314 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

30.
Hixon, M. A. & Brostoff, W. N. Succession and herbivory: effects of differential fish grazing on Hawaiian coral-reef algae. Ecol. Monogr. 66, 67–90 (1996).
Article  Google Scholar 

31.
Burkepile, D. E. & Hay, M. E. Impact of herbivore identity on algal succession and coral growth on a Caribbean reef. PLoS ONE 5, e8963 (2010).
ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

32.
Humphries, A. T., McClanahan, T. R. & McQuaid, C. D. Differential impacts of coral reef herbivores on algal succession in Kenya. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 504, 119–132 (2014).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

33.
Grigg, R. & Maragos, J. Recolonization of hermatypic corals on submerged lava flows in Hawaii. Ecology 55, 387–395 (1974).
Article  Google Scholar 

34.
Tomascik, T., van Woesik, R. & Mah, A. J. Rapid coral colonization of a recent lava flow following a volcanic eruption, Banda Islands, Indonesia. Coral Reefs 15, 169–175 (1996).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

35.
Smallhorn-West, P. F. et al. Coral reef annihilation, persistence and recovery at Earth’s youngest volcanic island. Coral Reefs 39, 529–536 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

36.
Edmunds, P. J., Nelson, H. R. & Bramanti, L. Density-dependence mediates coral assemblage structure. Ecology 99, 2605–2613 (2018).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

37.
Pearson, R. G. Recovery and recolonization of coral reefs. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 4, 105–122 (1981).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

38.
Kayal, M. et al. Predicting coral community recovery using multi-species population dynamics models. Ecol. Lett. 21, 1790–1799 (2018).
PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

39.
van Hooidonk, R., Maynard, J. A. & Planes, S. Temporary refugia for coral reefs in a warming world. Nat. Clim. Change. 3, 508–511 (2013).
ADS  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

40.
Yates, K. K. et al. Diverse coral communities in mangrove habitats suggest a novel refuge from climate change. Biogeosciences 11, 4321–4337 (2014).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

41.
Cacciapaglia, C. & van Woesik, R. Reef-coral refugia in a rapidly changing ocean. Glob. Change. Biol. 21, 2272–2282 (2015).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

42.
Kavousi, J. & Keppel, G. Clarifying the concept of climate change refugia for coral reefs. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 75, 43–49 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

43.
Tanguy, J. C., Bachèlery, P. & LeGoff, M. Archeomagnetism of Piton de la Fournaise: Bearing on volcanic activity at La Réunion Island and geomagnetic secular variation in Southern Indian Ocean. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 303, 361–368 (2011).
ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

44.
Michon, L. & Saint-Ange, F. Morphology of Piton de la Fournaise basaltic shield volcano (La Réunion Island): Characterization and implication in the volcano evolution. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 113, B03203 (2008).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

45.
Schleyer, M. H., Benayahu, Y., Parker-Nance, S., van Soest, R. W. M. & Quod, J. P. Benthos on submerged lava beds of varying age off the coast of Reunion, western Indian Ocean: sponges, octocorals and ascidians. Biodiversity 17, 93–100 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

46.
Zubia, M. et al. Diversity and assemblage structure of tropical marine flora on lava flows of different ages. Aquat. Bot. 144, 20–30 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

47.
Pinault, M. et al. Marine fish communities in shallow volcanic habitats. J. Fish Biol. 82, 1821–1847 (2013).
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

48.
Pinault, M. et al. Fish community structure in relation to environmental variation in coastal volcanic habitats. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 460, 62–71 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

49.
Bollard, S. et al. Biodiversity of echinoderms on underwater lava flows with different ages, from the Piton de la Fournaise (Reunion Island, Indian Ocean). Cah. Biol. Mar. 54, 491–497 (2013).
Google Scholar 

50.
Camoin, G. F. et al. Holocene sea level changes and reef development in the southwestern Indian Ocean. Coral Reefs 16, 247–259 (1997).
Article  Google Scholar 

51.
Quod, J.-P. & Bigot, L. Coral Bleaching in the Indian Ocean Islands: Ecological Consequences and Recovery in Madagascar, Comoros, Mayotte and Réunion. Coral Reef Degradation in the Indian Ocean, Status Report. (2000).

52.
Scopélitis, J. et al. Changes of coral communities over 35 years: Integrating in situ and remote-sensing data on Saint-Leu Reef (La Réunion, Indian Ocean). Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 84, 342–352 (2009).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

53.
Wickel, J. et al. Coral reef status report for the Western Indian Ocean. Reunion (France). In Coral Reef Status Report for the Western Indian Ocean, Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN)/International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI) (eds. Obura, D. et al.) 96–108 (2017).

54.
Putts, M. R., Parrish, F. A., Trusdell, F. A. & Kahng, S. E. Structure and development of Hawaiian deep-water coral communities on Mauna Loa lava flows. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 630, 69–82 (2019).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

55.
Loya, Y. Community structure and species diversity of hermatypic corals at Eilat, Red Sea. Mar. Biol. 13, 100–123 (1972).
Article  Google Scholar 

56.
Beenaerts, N. & Vanden Berghe, E. Comparative study of three transect methods to assess coral cover, richness and diversity. West Indian Ocean J. Mar. Sci. 4, 29–37 (2005).
Google Scholar 

57.
Mundy, C. N. An appraisal of methods used in coral recruitment studies. Coral Reefs 19, 124–131 (2000).
Article  Google Scholar 

58.
Adjeroud, M., Penin, L. & Carroll, A. G. Spatio-temporal heterogeneity in coral recruitment around Moorea, French Polynesia: Implications for population maintenance. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 341, 204–218 (2007).
Article  Google Scholar 

59.
Babcock, R. C., Baird, A. H., Piromvaragorn, S., Thomson, D. P. & Willis, B. L. Identification of scleractinian coral recruits from Indo-Pacific reefs. Zool. Stud. 42, 211–226 (2003).
Google Scholar 

60.
Lê, S., Josse, J. & Husson, F. FactoMineR: An R package for multivariate analysis. J. Stat. Softw. 25, 1–18 (2008).
Article  Google Scholar 

61.
Legendre, P. & Legendre, L. Numerical Ecology. 2nd English Ed. (Elsevier Science BV, Amsterdam, 1998).

62.
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, 2018).

63.
Huston, M. A. Patterns of species diversity on coral reefs. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 16, 149–177 (1985).
Article  Google Scholar 

64.
Connell, J. H., Hughes, T. P. & Wallace, C. C. A 30-year study of coral abundance, recruitment, and disturbance at several scales in space and time. Ecol. Monogr. 67, 461–488 (1997).
Article  Google Scholar 

65.
Karlson, R. H. & Cornell, H. V. Species richness of coral assemblages: Detecting regional influences at local spatial scales. Ecology 83, 452–463 (2002).
Article  Google Scholar 

66.
Adjeroud, M., Poisson, E., Peignon, C., Penin, L. & Kayal, M. Spatial patterns and short-term changes of coral assemblages along a cross-shelf gradient in the southwestern lagoon of New Caledonia. Diversity 11, 21 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

67.
Bouchon, C. Quantitative study of the scleractinian coral communities of a fringing reef at Reunion Island (Indian Ocean). Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 4, 273–288 (1981).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

68.
Connell, J. H. Population ecology of reef-building corals. In Biology and Geology of Coral Reefs 205–245 (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1973). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-395526-5.50015-8.

69.
Clark, S. & Edwards, A. J. Use of artificial reef structures to rehabilitate reef flats degraded by coral mining in the Maldives. Bull. Mar. Sci. 55, 724–744 (1994).
Google Scholar 

70.
Penin, L. et al. Early post-settlement mortality and the structure of coral assemblages. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 408, 55–64 (2010).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

71.
Darling, E. S., Alvarez-Filip, L., Oliver, T. A., McClanahan, T. R. & Côté, I. M. Evaluating life-history strategies of reef corals from species traits. Ecol. Lett. 15, 1378–1386 (2012).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

72.
Kayal, M., Vercelloni, J., Wand, M. P. & Adjeroud, M. Searching for the best bet in life-strategy: A quantitative approach to individual performance and population dynamics in reef-building corals. Ecol. Complex. 23, 73–84 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

73.
Jouval, F., Latreille, A. C., Bureau, S., Adjeroud, M. & Penin, L. Multiscale variability in coral recruitment in the Mascarene Islands: From centimetric to geographical scale. PLoS ONE 14, e0214163 (2019).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

74.
Sutherland, J. P. & Karlson, R. H. Development and stability of the fouling community at Beaufort, North Carolina. Ecol. Monogr. 47, 452–446 (1977).
Article  Google Scholar 

75.
Karlson, R. H. & Hurd, L. E. Disturbance, coral reef communities, and changing ecological paradigms. Coral Reefs 12, 117–125 (1993).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

76.
Bramanti, L. & Edmunds, P. J. Density-associated recruitment mediates coral population dynamics on a coral reef. Coral Reefs 35, 543–553 (2016).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar  More

We consider a two-layer network. One layer is the slave layer, which corresponds to the original network over which one wants to impose the desired dynamics (i.e. a given evolution compatible with the equations of motion). The other layer is the master layer, which is identical to the slave layer, but starts from a different initial condition (i.e. the one generating the specific desired dynamics towards which the state of the slave layer is to be steered), and evolves autonomously. In applications, the master layer may just be an experimental recording or a simulation of the original system—as long as it can be coupled to the slave network its physical nature is irrelevant. Our control method consists then in establishing directed inter-layer links from nodes in the master layer to their counterparts in the slave layer. Once they are established, these links remain in place as more nodes are connected in sequential control steps. At each step the selected node is the one whose pinning causes the most rapid approach towards inter-layer synchronization (i.e. the imposition of the evolution followed by the master layer on the slave layer). While the two layers have to be identical, the nodes (i.e. the dynamical units) and links (the coupling structure connecting the dynamical systems) on each layer can be completely different, as we will see below. This is thus a generalization of the method proposed in Ref.6.
We illustrate our method by applying it to networks of identical chaotic oscillators, and leave the applicability to more challenging real-world systems to the next section. Specifically, we consider networks of (N=50) nodes whose topology is that of a mixed random graph, i.e. containing both bidirectional and unidirectional links. These graphs are realizations of the configuration model22 with the in-degree (k_text {in}) (i.e. the number of links pointing to a given node) and the out-degree (k_text {out}) (i.e. the number of links emanating from a given node) uniformly distributed in ({5,6,ldots ,45}). Each node evolves autonomously in time as a chaotic Rössler oscillator, which we simply denote as ({dot{mathbf{r}}} = mathbf{f}(mathbf{r})), where (mathbf{r} = (x,y,z)^text {T}) and ({dot{x}} = -y – z, {dot{y}} = x + a y, {dot{z}} = b + z (x – c)), with parameters (a=0.2), (b=0.2) and (c=7). Nodes are coupled quadratically via their z variables, a nonlinear coupling form that was previously considered in Ref.23.
Before the first control step is applied (prior to the creation of the first inter-layer connection) both master and slave layers evolve spontaneously as follows

$$begin{aligned} {dot{mathbf{r}}}_i = mathbf{f}(mathbf{r}_i) + sigma _1 sum _{j=1}^N D_{ji} (z_j^2-z_i^2) = mathbf{f}(mathbf{r}_i) + sigma _1 sum _{j=1}^N {mathcal {L}}_{ji} z_j^2. end{aligned}$$
(1)

where (D_{ji} = 1) if there is a directed link from node j to node i, and is zero otherwise (for bidirectional links (D_{ij} = D_{ji})). As we do not consider self-links, the diagonal terms vanish, i.e. (D_{ii} = 0 forall , i), and the in-degree of node i is (k_{text {in},i} = sum _{j} D_{ji}). The graph can thus be alternatively represented by the Laplacian matrix ({mathcal {L}}_{ji} =D_{ji} – k_{text {in},i} delta _{ji}). The vector field (mathbf{f}(mathbf{r}_i)) governs the dynamics of node i, which would evolve autonomously (if uncoupled from its neighbors) simply as ({dot{mathbf{r}}}_i = mathbf{f}(mathbf{r}_i)), and the parameter (sigma _1) is the intra-layer coupling strength
When the control procedure starts, each node i in the master network keeps evolving according to the dynamics in Eq. (1), ({dot{mathbf{r}}}^M_i = mathbf{f}(mathbf{r}^M_i) + sigma _1 sum _{j} {mathcal {L}}_{ji} (z^M_j)^2). In the slave layer dynamics, however, one has to consider an additional term which accounts for the inter-layer coupling from the master layer (without loss of generality, we here take a linear coupling through the y variable). One has

$$begin{aligned} {dot{mathbf{r}}}^S_i = mathbf{f}(mathbf{r}^S_i) + sigma _1 sum _{j} {mathcal {L}}_{ji} (z^S_j)^2 + sigma _2 chi _i (y^M_i – y^S_i). end{aligned}$$
(2)

Here (chi _i) is a binary variable that is one if there is a link coupling node i in the master layer to node i in the slave layer (i.e. if the targeting procedure includes a pinning action from master to slave at node i) and is zero otherwise. The parameter (sigma _2) is the inter-layer coupling strength. We emphasize that the coupling that is linear (in fact, diffusive) is the externally-imposed inter-layer coupling, which does not restrict in any way the form of the (intra-layer) couplings between the nodes of the system under study. Such diffusive inter-layer coupling is chosen as it is the simplest form that makes the inter-layer synchronization manifold into an invariant set of the dynamics (for a detailed mathematical treatment of invariant sets and related concepts, see e.g. Ref.24).
Figure 1

Controlling the dynamics of a mixed network with uniform (k_text {in}) and (k_text {out}) distributions comprising (N=50) nonlinearly-coupled Rössler oscillators with intra-layer coupling (sigma _1 = 0.01) and inter-layer coupling (sigma _2 = 1). (Top) Maximum Lyapunov exponent (lambda _text {max}) (main panel) and synchronization error (inset) as functions of the targeting step. (Bottom) Influence index (k_text {out}/k_text {in}) of the node that is pinned at each targeting step. The curves are averages of 20 different network realizations. A 4th-order Runge-Kutta method with a step of 0.01 time units has been employed for the numerical integration of the systems of (3 N=150) ordinary differential equations corresponding to each layer.

Full size image

The results of applying our method to the network of Rössler chaotic oscillators are shown in Fig. 1. Two observables are employed to characterize the inter-layer synchronization between master and slave as more and more inter-layer links are established in successive targeting steps. One is the maximum Lyapunov exponent, (lambda _text {max}), computed from the dynamics of the slave network linearized around that of the master network as in Ref.6. For a review of the theory and numerical computation of Lyapunov spectra, see e.g. Refs.25,26. The other observable is the synchronization error, which is the time average of the Euclidean distance in phase space ({mathbb {R}}^{N m}) (N is the number of nodes, m is the phase space dimensionality of the node dynamics—in our case (N=50), (m = 3)) between the full state of the master layer and that of the slave layer, (lim _{Trightarrow infty } frac{1}{T} int _0^T sqrt{ sum _{i=1}^{N} (x^M_i(t) – x^S_i(t))^2 } dt). In practice, T is finite, but orders of magnitude larger than the characteristic timescales of oscillation (thus the numerical convergence to an asymptotic value is guaranteed). In the top panel of Fig. 1, we show the maximum Lyapunov exponent (lambda _text {max}) as a function of the targeting step, which is seen to progressively decrease as more and more nodes are pinned. Analogous results in terms of the synchronization error are reported in the inset, which shows how the synchronization error becomes zero when (lambda _text {max}) becomes negative.
The maximum Lyapunov exponent is also used to identify the node to be targeted at each step: of all the nodes that remain unconnected to their counterparts in the other layer, the one that, when a master-slave connection is established, leads to the largest decrease in (lambda _text {max}) is targeted next. An exploration of possible correlations between the resulting targeting sequence (i.e. the ordered list of nodes that are targeted at successive steps) and local topological properties yields a remarkable correspondence between the targeting sequence position and the ranking of nodes in terms of their influence index (k_text {out}/k_text {in}), as shown in the lower panel of Fig. 1. This index is large when a node has a privileged position for influencing other nodes, while receiving very little influence from the rest of the network. No such correlations are observed for connectivity indices that are insensitive to the directionality of connections, such as ((k_text {in}+k_text {out})/2), while correlations only based on (k_text {out}) or (k_text {in}) give considerably poorer results that those shown in the figure. Other measures of connection directionality that we have inspected, such as ((k_text {out} – k_text {in})/(k_text {out} + k_text {in})), show weaker correlations with the targeting sequence than the influence index does. While these results are based on networks with uniform distributions of (k_text {in}) and (k_text {out}), which have been chosen precisely because a large variety of possible degree values is desirable, a strong correlation between the influence-index ranking and the targeting ranking is also observed for Barabási-Albert scale-free networks27 and Erdös-Rényi random graph28 topologies, as shown in Sect. A of the Supplementary Information.
This correlation is most clearly seen for small values of the intra-layer coupling strength, such as the value (sigma _1 = 0.01) considered in Fig. 1. For larger values of (sigma _1), which make inter-layer synchronization possible with a very small number of steps, the correlation is less strong, while no obvious correlation between the targeting sequence and local topological properties are found for very large (sigma _1), see again Sect. A of the Supplementary Information. This might be related to the enhanced contribution of next-nearest neighbors and other relative distant nodes as the coupling strength is increased. Despite its limited range of validity, this correlation is nontheless remarkable, as it is very robust, and quite different from the situation observed in undirected networks, where the topological observable correlating with the targeting sequence is the degree6. On the other hand, there is an intriguing parallel between the correlation reported in the lower panel of Fig. 1 and the fact that, in undirected networks, nodes with a higher dynamic vulnerability are those with less influence from the rest of the network, followed by those that have the strongest ability to influence the rest29. In fact, both aspects of a node position are combined in the influence index in the case of directed or mixed networks. More

A waterborne, abiotic, and other indirectly transmitted (WAIT) model for the dynamics of emergent viral outbreaks
Several models have been engineered to explore aspects of COVID-19 dynamics. For example, models have been used to investigate the role of social distancing20,42, social mixing43, the importance of undocumented infections44, the role of mobility in the early spread of disease in China45, and the potential for contact tracing as a solution46. Only a few notable models of SARS-CoV-2 transmission incorporate features of indirect or environmental transmission40,46 and none consider the dynamical properties of viral free-living survival in the environment. Such a model structure would provide an avenue towards exploring how variation in free-living survival influences disease outbreaks. Indirect transmission includes those routes where pathogen is spread through means other than from person to person, and includes transmission through environmental reservoirs. Environmental transmission models are aplenty in the literature and serve as a theoretical foundation for exploring similar concepts in newer, emerging viruses1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10.
Here, we parameterize and validate an SEIR-W model: Susceptible (S), Exposed (E), Infectious (I), Recovered (R), and WAIT (W) model. Here W represents the environmental component of the transmission cycle during the early stage of the SARS CoV-2 pandemic. This component introduces more opportunities for infection, and complex dynamics resulting from viral persistence in the environment. In this framework, both indirect and direct transmission occur via mass-action, “random” encounters.
This model is derived from a previously developed framework called “WAIT”—which stands for Waterborne, Abiotic, and other Indirectly Transmitted—that incorporates an environmental reservoir where a pathogen remains in the environment and “waits” for hosts to interact with it11,12. The supplementary information contains a much more rigorous discussion of the modeling details. In the main text, we provide select details.
Building the SEIR-W model framework for SARS-CoV-2
Here W represents the environmental component of the early stage of the SARS CoV-2 pandemic (Fig. S1). This environmental compartment refers to reservoirs that people may have contact with on a daily basis, such as doorknobs, appliances, and non-circulating air indoors. The W compartment of our model represents the fraction of these environmental reservoirs that house some sufficiently transmissible amount of infectious virus. We emphasize that the W compartment is meant to only represent reservoirs that are common sites for interaction with people. Thus, inclusion of the W compartment allows us to investigate the degree to which the environment is infectious at any given point, and its impact on the transmission dynamics of SARS CoV-2.
Model parameters are described in detail in Table 1. The system of equations in the proposed mathematical model corresponding to these dynamics are defined in Eqs. (1)–(6):
Table 1 Model population definitions and initial values denoted with subscript 0 for each state variable.
Full size table

$$frac{dS}{dt}=mu (N-S)-left(frac{{beta }_{A}{I}_{A}+{beta }_{S}{I}_{S}}{N}+{beta }_{W}Wright)S$$
(1)

$$frac{dE}{dt}=left(frac{{beta }_{A}{I}_{A}+{beta }_{S}{I}_{S}}{N}+{beta }_{W}Wright)S-(epsilon +mu )E$$
(2)

$$frac{d{I}_{A}}{dt}=epsilon E-(omega +mu ){I}_{A}$$
(3)

$$frac{d{I}_{S}}{dt}=(1-p)omega {I}_{A}-(nu +{mu }_{S}){I}_{S}$$
(4)

$$frac{dR}{dt}=pomega {I}_{A}+nu {I}_{S}-mu R$$
(5)

$$frac{dW}{dt}=left(frac{{sigma }_{A}{I}_{A}+{sigma }_{S}{I}_{S}}{N}right)left(1-Wright)-kW$$
(6)

Infection trajectories
In addition to including a compartment for the environment (W), our model also deviates from traditional SEIR form by splitting the infectious compartment into an IA-compartment (A for asymptomatic), and an IS-compartment (S for symptomatic). As we discuss below, including asymptomatic (or sub-clinical) transmission is both essential for understanding how environmental—as opposed to simply unobserved or hidden—transmission affects the ecological dynamics of pathogens and also for analyzing SARS-CoV-2. The former represents an initial infectious stage (following the non-infectious, exposed stage), from which individuals will either move on to recovery directly (representing those individuals who experienced mild to no symptoms) or move on to the IS-compartment (representing those with a more severe response). Finally, individuals in the IS-compartment will either move on to recovery or death due to the infection. This splitting of the traditional infectious compartment is motivated by mounting evidence of asymptomatic transmission of SARS CoV-244,47,48,49,50. Thus, we consider two trajectories for the course of the disease, similar to those employed in prior studies42: (1) E → IA → R and (2) E → IA → IS → R (or death). More precisely, once in the E state, an individual will transition to the infectious state IA, at a per-person rate of ε. A proportion p will move from IA to the recovered state R (at a rate of p ⍵). A proportion (1—p) of individuals in the IA state will develop more severe systems and transition to Is (at a rate of (1—p) ⍵). Individuals in the Is state recover at a per-person rate of ν or die at a per-person rate μS. In each state, normal mortality of the individual occurs at the per-person rate μ and newly susceptible (S) individuals enter the population at a rate μN. The important differences between these two trajectories are in how likely an individual is to move down one path or another, how infectious individuals are (both for people and for the environment), how long individuals spend in each trajectory, and how likely death is along each trajectory.
Clarification on the interactions between hosts and reservoirs
The model couples the environment and people in two ways: (1) people can deposit the infectious virus onto environmental reservoirs (e.g. physical surfaces, and in the case of aerosols, the ambient air) and (2) people can become infected by interacting with these reservoirs. While most of our study is focused on physical surfaces, we also include data and analysis of SARS-CoV-2 survival in aerosols. While aerosols likely play a more significant role in person-to-person transmission, they also facilitate an indirect means of transmitting. For example, because SARS-CoV-2 can remain suspended in the air, other individuals can become infected without ever having to be in especially close physical proximity to the aerosol emitter (only requires that they interact with the same stagnant air, containing infectious aerosol particles)51. That is, a hypothetical infectious person A may produce aerosols, leave a setting, and those aerosols may infect a susceptible individual B who was never in close proximity to person A. In the transmission event between person A and person B, aerosol transmission functions in a similar fashion to surface transmission, where aerosols may be exchanged in the same room where infected individuals were, rather than exchanging infectious particles on a surface.
In our model, indirect infection via aerosols is encoded into the terms associated with the W component, just as the different physical surfaces are. Alternatively, aerosol transmission that leads to direct infection between hosts is encoded in the terms associated with direct infection between susceptible individuals and those infected (see section entitled Infection Trajectories).
Environmental reservoirs infect people through the βW term (Eqs. 1 and 2), a proxy for a standard transmission coefficient, corresponding specifically to the probability of successful infectious transmission from the environment reservoir to a susceptible individual (the full rate term being βWW·S). Hence, the βW factor is defined as the fraction of people who interact with the environment daily, per fraction of the environment, times the probability of transmitting infection from environmental reservoir to people. The factor βWW (where W is the fraction of environmental reservoirs infected) represents the daily fraction of people that will interact with the infected portion of the environment and become infected themselves. The full term βWW·S is thus the total number of infections caused by the environment per day.
In an analogous manner, we model the spread of infection to the environment with the two terms σAIA·(1—W) / N and σSIS·(1—W) / N representing deposition of infection to the environment by asymptomatic individuals, in the former, and symptomatic individuals, in the latter. In this case, σA (and analogously for σS) gives the fraction of surfaces/reservoirs that interact with people at least once per day, times the probability that a person (depending on whether they are in the IA or the IS compartment) will deposit an infectious viral load to the reservoir. Thus, σAIA/ N and σSIS/ N (where N is the total population of people) represent the daily fraction of the environment that interacts with asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals, respectively. Lastly, the additional factor of (1—W) gives the fraction of reservoirs in the environment that have the potential for becoming infected, and so σAIA·(1—W) / N (and analogously for IS) gives the fraction of the environment that becomes infected by people each day. We use W to represent a fraction of the environment, although one could also have multiplied the W equation by a value representing the total number of reservoirs in the environment (expected to remain constant throughout the course of the epidemic, assuming no intervention strategies).
Parameter values estimation
Table 1 displays information on the population definitions and initial values in the model. Tables 2 and 3 contain the fixed and estimated values and their sources (respectively). The model’s estimated parameters are based on model fits to 17 countries with the highest cumulative COVID-19 cases (of the 181 total countries affected) as of 03/30/2020, who have endured outbreaks that had developed for at least 30 days following the first day with ≥ 10 cumulative infected cases within each country14 (See supplementary information Tables S1–S3). In addition, we compare country fits of the SEIR-W model to fits with a standard SEIR model. Lastly, we compare how various iterations of these mathematical models compare to one another with regards to the general model dynamics. For additional details, see the supplementary information.
Table 2 Fixed parameter values estimated based on available published literature.
Full size table

Table 3 Estimated parameter values, averaged across countries.
Full size table

Basic reproductive ratios (({mathcal{R}}_{0}))
We can express the ({mathcal{R}}_{0}) (Eq. 7) in a form that makes explicit the contributions from the environment and from person-to-person interactions. In this way, the full ({mathcal{R}}_{0}) is observed to comprise two ({mathcal{R}}_{0}) sub-components: one the number of secondary infections caused by a single infected person through person-to-person contact alone (Rp) and the other is the number of secondary infections caused by exchanging infection with the environment (Re).

$${R}_{0}=frac{{R}_{p} + sqrt{{R}_{p}^{2} + 4 {R}_{e}^{2}}}{2}$$
(7)

where Rp and Re are defined in Eqs. (8a) and (8b)

$${R}_{p}=frac{varepsilon ({beta }_{A} ({mu }_{S }+ nu ) + {beta }_{S}(1 – p) omega )}{(mu + varepsilon )(mu + omega )({mu }_{S} + nu )}$$
(8a)

$${R}_{e}^{2}=frac{varepsilon { beta }_{W} ({sigma }_{A} ({mu }_{S }+ nu ) + {sigma }_{S}(1 – p) omega )}{k (mu + varepsilon )(mu + omega )({mu }_{S} + nu )}$$
(8b)

Note that when Rp = 0, the ({mathcal{R}}_{0}) reduces to Re and when Re = 0, the ({mathcal{R}}_{0}) reduces to Rp. Thus, when person-to-person transmission is set to zero, the ({mathcal{R}}_{0}) consists only of terms associated with transmission from the environment, and when transmission from the environment is set to zero, the ({mathcal{R}}_{0}) consists only of infection directly between people. When both routes of transmission are turned on, the two ({mathcal{R}}_{0})-components combine in the manner in Eq. (7).
While Re represents the component of the ({mathcal{R}}_{0}) formula associated with infection from the environment, the square of this quantity Re2 represents the expected number of people who become infected in the two-step infection process: people → environment → people, representing the flow of infection from people to the environment, and then from the environment to people. Thus, while Rp gives the expected number of people infected by a single infected person when the environmental transmission is turned off, Re2 gives the expected number of people infected by a single infected person by way of the environmental route exclusively, with no direct person-to-person transmission. Also note that Re2/(Re2 + Rp) can be used to measure the extent of transmission that is mediated by the environment exclusively. This proportion can be used as a proxy for how important environmental transmission is in a given setting. Elaboration on formulas 8a–b—and associated derivation-discussions—appear in the supplementary information. More

Case 1: spectacled eiders, from Wang et al.42
The experiment
This case is based on captive feeding trials conducted on 8 adult spectacled eiders, Somateria fischeri, which were maintained on an initial diet containing 1% Atlantic surf clam, 3% Antarctic krill, 88% Mazuri sea duck formula, 4% blue mussel and 4% Atlantic silverside, for 69 days prior to the start of the feeding experiment. After this, on day 0, a biopsy sample of the synsacral adipose tissue was obtained from each eider. With the FA data of the adipose tissue the authors calculated CCs. Feeding trials started on Day 0, and spectacled eiders were switched to diet A, consisting of 56% krill and 44% Mazuri sea duck formula for 21 days. On Day 21, eiders were biopsied again and switched to diet B consisting of 48% Mazuri formula and 52% silverside. On Day 50, a final biopsy sample was collected (Fig. 2A). FA turnover was considered near complete by 69 days.
Figure 2

Spectacled eiders case. (A) Feeding experiment: spectacled eiders (n = 8) spent 69 days on the initial diet described in the figure; after this, on day 0 eiders were biopsied and switched to diet A. On day 21 they were biopsied again and switched to diet B. After 29 days on diet B, eiders were biopsied on day 50. (B) Plots for diet estimations of spectacled eiders fed different combined diets. The true diet is indicated in each plot by the blue asterisks. CCs were calculated using FA data of day 0. Images by Alicia Guerrero.

Full size image

The model
This analysis is based on FA data from day 0, 21 and 50. We used the CCs calculated in this study after eiders were maintained on the same initial diet for 69 days. All sources were significantly different from each other (PERMANOVA, F4 = 9936.9, P = 0.001). ‘Day’ was set as fixed factor in the model.
Diet predictions
Based on FA data of day 0, MixSIAR estimated a contribution of 0.1% clam, 4% krill, 88% Mazuri, 6% mussel, and 1% silverside (Fig. 2B). After the first shift of diet, MixSIAR estimations changed to 28% krill and 62% Mazuri for FA data obtained on day 21. The final biopsy sample on day 50 produced estimations of 62% Mazuri, and 27% silverside.
Case 2: Steller’s eiders, from Wang et al.42
The experiment
This case corresponds to a feeding trial conducted simultaneously to the previous case by Wang et al.42, although the diet of Steller’s eiders, Polysticta stelleri, differed slightly. For 69 days prior to the start of the feeding trial, 8 adult Steller’s eiders were maintained on an initial diet containing 1% clam, 1% Antarctic krill, 88% Mazuri sea duck formula, 7% mussel, and 3% silverside. CCs were calculated after a biopsy was extracted to each eider on day 0. At the start of the feeding experiment, on day 0, Steller’s eiders were switched to diet A, containing 66% krill and 34% Mazuri formula. Then, on day 21, they were switched to diet B, consisting of 34% Mazuri formula and 66% silverside. Biopsy samples were collected on days 0, 21 and 50 (Fig. 3A). FA turnover was considered near complete by 69 days.
Figure 3

Steller’s eiders case. (A) Feeding experiment: eiders (n = 8) were maintained on the initial diet described in the figure for 69 days after which biopsy samples were collected (day 0) and eiders were switched to diet A. After 21 days, eiders were biopsied again and switched to diet B. On day 50, after 29 days on diet B, eiders were biopsied one last time. (B) Plots of diet estimation for Steller’s eiders fed different combined diets. Diet estimates are based on biopsy samples collected on days 0, 21 and 50. The true diet is indicated in each plot by red asterisks. CCs were calculated using FA data of day 0. Images by Alicia Guerrero.

Full size image

The model
We used the CCs calculated in the same study after Steller’s eiders were maintained on the same diet for 69 days. All sources were significantly different from each other (PERMANOVA, F4 = 10,079, P = 0.001). ‘Day’ was set as fixed factor in the model.
Diet predictions
Based on FA data of Day 0, MixSIAR estimated a contribution of 0.2% clam, 2% krill, 90% Mazuri, 4% mussel, and 3% silverside (Fig. 3B). After the first diet switch, MixSIAR estimations changed to 46% krill and 27% Mazuri. The final biopsy sample on day 50 produced estimations of 9% krill, 28% Mazuri, and 46% silverside.
Case 3: Atlantic salmon, from Budge et al.43
The experiment
For 22 weeks, tank-reared juvenile Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar (n = 132), were fed one of four different formulated feeds based on two marine oils: 100% krill oil, 100% herring oil, a mixture of 70:30 herring to krill oil, or a mixture of 30:70 herring to krill oil. Muscle samples were analysed for FAs after the 22-week experiment, which allowed the calculation of CCs. In this experiment, two sets of CCs were calculated: one derived from salmon fed the diet based on 100% herring oil and another from salmon fed the diet based on 100% krill oil (Fig. 4A). Unlike the previous two cases, where CCs were derived from consumers eating a mixed diet, here CCs were obtained from consumers feeding on a single type of source: either herring or krill oil. This allowed us to evaluate whether the source used to calculate the CCs affected dietary predictions. Additionally, we calculated a combined CC (an average value between CCs derived from krill and herring diets) and run a separate model. FA turnover was considered complete after 22 weeks on the same diet.
Figure 4

Atlantic salmon case. (A) Feeding experiment: Atlantic salmon fed formulated feeds based on either solely herring (n = 36) or krill oil (n = 28), or in proportions of 70:30 or 30:70 herring to krill oil (n = 34 each), for 22 weeks. (B) Plots of diet proportions estimated using MixSIAR for models using CCs derived from salmon fed a herring-oil diet (HO-CC), a krill-oil diet (KO-CC) or CCs averaged from these two treatments (Combined-CC). The true diet is indicated in each plot by black asterisks. Salmon image designed by Creazilla (https://creazilla.com).

Full size image

The model
We ran three independent models to estimate the diet of salmon fed each of the four diets: one using the set of CCs derived from herring oil, another using the CCs derived from krill oil, and one using the combined CCs. For each model, we used krill oil, herring oil and initial diet (commercial feed given to salmon prior to the experiment) as sources, and set ‘diet group’ as fixed factor. Significantly different FA compositions were found for the three sets of sources: those multiplied by herring oil CCs (PERMANOVA, F2 = 4008.7, P = 0.003), those multiplied by krill oil CCs (PERMANOVA, F2 = 3354.7, P = 0.002), and those multiplied by the combined CCs (PERMANOVA, F2 = 3677.2, P = 0.003).
Diet predictions
When we used CCs derived from salmon fed on a diet supplemented with herring oil only, MixSIAR correctly estimated the contribution of herring oil in the consumers (salmon) diet (98%). However, the contribution of herring was slightly overestimated where the consumers had been fed a mixture of herring and krill oil (Fig. 4B), and where the salmon’s diet was based on krill oil the contribution of krill oil was slightly underestimated (89%).
We found the opposite trend when we used CCs derived from salmon that had been fed a diet where krill oil had been the lipid source. Here, MixSIAR correctly estimated the contribution of krill oil in the salmon’s diet when they had been fed a diet based on krill oil (98%) or a mixture of 70:30 herring to krill oil (33% krill) or 30:70 herring to krill oil (70% krill); however, when herring oil had been the only dietary source this dietary contribution was underestimated (81%) (Fig. 4B).
Our dietary estimates were less biased when we used CC values that had been derived from the average between the herring- and krill-oil treatments (Combined-CCs). For example, we estimated herring contribution to be 90% of the diet when the actual diet was supplemented only with herring oil, and an estimate of 95% krill contribution when the actual diet was supplemented with krill oil only, and when the actual diet was a combination of herring (70%) and krill (30%), the estimations were 71% and 27%, and where the actual contribution of herring was 30% and 70% of krill, the estimated diets were 34% herring and 65% krill (Fig. 4B).
Case 4: tufted puffin nestlings, from Williams et al. 44
The experiment
Tufted puffin, Fratercula cirrhata, nestlings (n = 6) underwent an experimental feeding trial in their own burrows. Chicks were fed by their parents for approximately 10 days since hatching. When they were estimated to be 10-days old, the access to the burrows was blocked, so adults could not continue feeding their chicks. Through another access hole excavated by the researchers, chicks began being fed Pacific herring once a day, for 27 days. To infer the diet of free-living puffin nestlings during the first 10 days after hatching, wire screens were placed at burrow entrances to collect whole fish dropped by the parents. The species identified, in descending order (by mass), were Pacific sandlance, capelin, Pacific sandfish, salmonid and Pacific cod. An adipose tissue sample was collected on days 10 (start of the feeding trial), 19, 28 and 37. On day 37, assuming complete FA turnover after 27 days on a single prey diet (herring), the researchers calculated CCs (Fig. 5A). The data used to run this model included day 10, which represents the unknown diet provided by the parents, days 19, 28, and 37 which represent the herring diet at different extents. FA turnover was considered “close to, but not entirely complete” after 27 days44.
Figure 5

source even though it was not part of the nestlings’ diet. The red asterisks in each plot represent the potential diet fed by the parents (and used as priors in the first model). (D) Plots of diet estimations for tufted puffins fed herring, based on their FA profiles of days 19, 28 and 37. The true diet is indicated in each plot by red asterisks. CCs were calculated from tufted puffins fed herring, using FAs from day 37. Images by Alicia Guerrero.

Tufted puffins case. (A) Nestlings (n = 6) were fed by their parents for approximately 10 days since hatching. After this, they were fed herring for another 27 days as the entrance to their burrows was blocked and parents could not feed their chicks. (B) Non-metric multidimensional scaling plots for FAs obtained from chicks at different stages of the experiment and their sources. When FAs of sources were multiplied by their respective CCs, source (herring) and consumer (chicks, day 37) overlap in the plot. (C) Plots of the three models run to estimate the diet of nestlings on day 10. From left to right: Model using informative priors based on meals brought by the parents after the burrows were blocked; the same model without informative priors; and a third model without informative priors but including herring as

Full size image

The model
We used the CCs derived from these chicks feeding on Pacific herring for 27 days. For biopsy samples collected on day 10, we conducted three separate analyses: the first model excluded herring as potential prey, and incorporated informative priors based on the amount of different fish (% by mass) dropped by the parents at the burrow entrances; the second model was exactly the same but without prior information; and the third model was run without priors, and included herring as potential prey in order to determine whether this prey could be identified as absent.
For days 19, 28 and 37, we ran another analysis and included herring as source and no informative priors. ‘Day’ was set as a fixed factor in this model. All sources had significantly different FA compositions (PERMANOVA, F5 = 430.9, P = 0.001).
Diet predictions
In this example we included a non-metric dimensional scaling plot (Fig. 5B) to evaluate the effect of applying CCs to sources. Day 0 biopsies show greater variation than those of successive days, in both plots. When using original sources and consumer FA values, chicks are segregated from all the sources, although the similarity of the FAs increases toward the FA of herring as days pass, but they do not match. When CCs were applied to sources, the FA values of herring and chicks from day 37 overlap, indicating that they have the same FA compositions.
For day 0 (Fig. 5C), the estimated diet contributions were similar to meals brought by the parents when the model included informative priors, where the main dietary sources were sandlance (72%) and capelin (15%). Whereas estimates from the model without informative priors misrepresented the diet, as capelin was wrongly identified as the main dietary source (61%), cod the second most important prey (26%), and sandlance was incorrectly estimated to be only 6% of the diet. The third model including herring again identified capelin and cod as the main contributors (56% and 23%, respectively) whereas herring was identified as the least important prey, with 0.9% of contribution.
For day 19 (Fig. 5D), herring was identified as the main source, with 60% of contribution, followed by capelin and sandlance although with greater variation. From day 19 to 37, the contribution of herring increases from 60 to 97%, respectively.
Case 5. Harp seals, from Kirsch et al.45
The experiment
This study evaluated the effect of a low-fat diet on blubber FAs of harp seals, Pagophilus groenlandicus. Only for this experiment, the fat content of the different sources was available. Juvenile harp seals (n = 5) had been maintained on a diet of Atlantic herring (≥ 9% fat) for approximately 1 year prior to the feeding trial. On day 0, a full-depth blubber sample was collected from the posterior flank of each animal. For 30 days, seals were kept on a diet consisting solely of Atlantic pollock (1.7% fat). Blubber biopsies were taken again on days 14 and 30 (Fig. 6A). FA turnover was not considered complete after 30 days on the same diet, and authors suggest that a longer period on the diet, or higher intakes of fat, would be needed to accomplish it.
Figure 6

Diet estimates for juvenile harp seals fed a low-fat prey. (A) Feeding experiment: For a year prior to the feeding experiment, harp seals (n = 5) had been eating only Atlantic herring, a prey with a high-fat content. During the feeding experiment, seals were fed Atlantic pollock, a low-fat prey, for 30 days. (B) Plots of estimates derived from MixSIAR models based on FA data of whole blubber cores from days 0, 14 and 30. The black asterisks in the plots indicate the true diet. CCs correspond to harp seals fed herring, calculated using FAs from day 0. Images: fish by Lukas Guerrero Zambra, harp seal by Alicia Guerrero.

Full size image

The model
Since seals had been feeding on the same source for a year, we calculated CCs using FA data from day 0. Thus, consumer values were divided by Atlantic herring values producing CCs that were applied to both herring and pollock FA data. Sources were significantly different (PERMANOVA, F1 = 3680.4, P = 0.001) and ‘day’ was set as fixed factor in the model.
Diet predictions
For all three data sets (day 0, 14 and 30) the main contributor to the diet was Atlantic herring. The predicted proportion of Atlantic herring decreased only slightly from 99% on day 0 to 95% on day 30. Consequently, the contribution of pollock increased from 1% on day 0, to 5% on day 30 (Fig. 6B).
Case 6: Harbour seals, from Nordstrom et al.46
The experiment
Estimations are based on a feeding experiment by Nordstrom et al.46. Prior to the feeding study, juvenile harbour seals, Phoca vitulina, were fed a homogenate of 2:1 Pacific herring to salmon oil for approximately three weeks, and then fed only Pacific herring for four to six days. The feeding experiment consisted of three diets: one group of seals was fed only herring for 42 days (n = 3); the second group was fed only surf smelt for the same period (n = 6); and a third group (n = 7) was fed smelt for 21 days and then only herring for 21 days (Fig, 7A). Whole blubber core samples were collected on days 0, 21 and 42 for each group. Complete FA turnover was estimated to occur after at least 55 days on the same diet, although it could extend well beyond if turnover rate slowed with time.
The model
Since prey FA data was not provided in the same study, we used Pacific herring, surf smelt, and salmon FA values from Huynh and Kitts47, which had significantly different FA composition (PERMANOVA, F2 = 87.7, P = 0.001). CCs were derived from other harbour seals on a Pacific herring diet for over a year, in the same study46. We estimated the diet of the three groups of harbour seals, based on samples collected on day 42, setting ‘diet group’ as fixed factor in our model.
Diet predictions
Overall, diet differences were evident among groups, and the direction of the change was consistent with the shifts in diet. Estimates for harbour seals fed exclusively Pacific herring for 42 days, correctly showed that diet was predominantly based on herring (94.7%). For seals fed surf smelt for 42 days; however, estimates showed that surf smelt only accounted for 26.6% of the diet whereas herring remained to be the main component. For seals fed surf smelt for 21 days and then herring for another 21 days, MixSIAR again identified herring as the main component, with 90.9%, whereas surf smelt was only 3% (Fig. 7B).
Figure 7

Diet estimates for harbour seals. (A) Feeding experiment: For 42 days, seals were fed the following diets: solely herring (n = 3), solely surf smelt (n = 6), or surf smelt for the first 21 days and then herring for the remaining 21 days (n = 7). Prior to the feeding experiments they had been fed a mixture of herring and salmon. (B) Plots for MixSIAR diet estimations, based on blubber FAs obtained on day 42. The red asterisks indicate the true diet. CCs were obtained from harbour seals (other individuals) fed herring for over a year. Image by Alicia Guerrero.

Full size image More

1.
Running, S. W. A measurable planetary boundary for the biosphere. Science 337, 1458–1459 (2012).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 
2.
Haberl, H. et al. Quantifying and mapping the human appropriation of net primary production in Earth’s terrestrial ecosystems. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 12942–12945 (2007).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

3.
Xia, J. et al. Spatio-temporal patterns and climate variables controlling of biomass carbon stock of global grassland ecosystems from 1982 to 2006. Remote Sens. 6, 1783 (2014).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

4.
Grace, J. B. et al. Integrative modelling reveals mechanisms linking productivity and plant species richness. Nature 529, 390–393 (2016).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

5.
Del Grosso, S. et al. Global potential net primary production predicted from vegetation class, precipitation, and temperature. Ecology 89, 2117–2126 (2008).
PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

6.
Galloway, J. N. et al. Nitrogen cycles: past, present, and future. Biogeochemistry 70, 153–226 (2004).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

7.
Chadwick, O. A., Derry, L. A., Vitousek, P. M., Huebert, B. J. & Hedin, L. O. Changing sources of nutrients during four million years of ecosystem development. Nature 397, 491–497 (1999).
ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

8.
McNaughton, S. J., Oesterheld, M., Frank, D. A. & Williams, K. J. Ecosystem-level patterns of primary productivity and herbivory in terrestrial habitats. Nature 341, 142–144 (1989).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

9.
Foley, J. A. et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478, 337–342 (2011).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

10.
White, R. P., Murray, S. & Rohweder, M. Pilot Analysis of Global Ecosystems (PAGE): Grassland Ecosystems, 70 (World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, 2000).

11.
Ripple, W. J. et al. Collapse of the world’s largest herbivores. Sci. Adv. 1, e1400103 (2015).

12.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 151 (Geneva, Switzerland, 2014).

13.
Canfield, D. E., Glazer, A. N. & Falkowski, P. G. The evolution and future of earth’s nitrogen cycle. Science 330, 192–196 (2010).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

14.
Stevens, C. J. Nitrogen in the environment. Science 363, 578–580 (2019).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

15.
Stevens, C. J. et al. Anthropogenic nitrogen deposition predicts local grassland primary production worldwide. Ecology 96, 1459–1465 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

16.
Reyer, C. P. O. et al. A plant’s perspective of extremes: terrestrial plant responses to changing climatic variability. Glob. Change Biol. 19, 75–89 (2013).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

17.
Knapp, A. K. et al. Consequences of more extreme precipitation regimes for terrestrial ecosystems. BioScience 58, 811–821 (2008).
MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

18.
LeBauer, D. S. & Treseder, K. K. Nitrogen limitation of net primary productivity in terrestrial ecosystems is globally distributed. Ecology 89, 371–379 (2008).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

19.
Fay, P. A. et al. Grassland productivity limited by multiple nutrients. Nat. Plants 1, 15080 (2015).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

20.
Borer, E. T. et al. Herbivores and nutrients control grassland plant diversity via light limitation. Nature 508, 517–520 (2014).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

21.
Knapp, A. K. & Seastedt, T. R. Detritus accumulation limits productivity of tallgrass prairie: the effects of its plant litter on ecosystem function make the tallgrass prairie unique among North American biomes. BioScience 36, 662–668 (1986).
Article  Google Scholar 

22.
Volterra, V. Variations and fluctuations of the numbers of individuals in animal species living together. Nature 118, 558–560 (1926).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

23.
Crawley, M. J. Herbivory: The Dynamics of Animal-Plant Interactions, Vol. 10, 437 (University of California Press, 1983).

24.
Oksanen, L. & Oksanen, T. The logic and realism of the hypothesis of exploitation ecosystems. Am. Nat. 155, 703–723 (2000).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

25.
Gruner, D. S. et al. A cross-system synthesis of consumer and nutrient resource control on producer biomass. Ecol. Lett. 11, 740–755 (2008).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

26.
Hillebrand, H. et al. Consumer versus resource control of producer diversity depends on ecosystem type and producer community structure. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 10904–10909 (2007).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

27.
Worm, B., Lotze, H. K., Hillebrand, H. & Sommer, U. Consumer versus resource control of species diversity and ecosystem functioning. Nature 417, 848–851 (2002).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

28.
Turkington, R. Top-down and bottom-up forces in mammalian herbivore – vegetation systems: an essay review. Botany 87, 723–739 (2009).
Article  Google Scholar 

29.
DeAngelis, D. L. Dynamics of Nutrient Cycling and Food Webs (Chapman and Hall, London, 1992).

30.
Arditi, R. & Ginzburg, L. R. Coupling in predator-prey dynamics: ratio-dependence. J. Theor. Biol. 139, 311–326 (1989).
Article  Google Scholar 

31.
Chase, J. M., Leibold, M. A., Downing, A. L. & Shurin, J. B. The effects of productivity, herbivory, and plant species turnover in grassland food webs. Ecology 81, 2485–2497 (2000).
Article  Google Scholar 

32.
Leibold, M. A. Resource edibility and the effects of predators and productivity on the outcome of trophic interactions. Am. Nat. 134, 922–949 (1989).
Article  Google Scholar 

33.
Endara, M. J. & Coley, P. D. The resource availability hypothesis revisited: a meta-analysis. Funct. Ecol. 25, 389–398 (2011).
Article  Google Scholar 

34.
Milchunas, D. G. & Lauenroth, W. K. Quantitative effects of grazing on vegetation and soils over a global range of environments. Ecol. Monogr. 63, 327–366 (1993).
Article  Google Scholar 

35.
Polis, G. A. & Strong, D. R. Food web complexity and community dynamics. Am. Nat. 147, 813–846 (1996).
Article  Google Scholar 

36.
Murdoch, W. Community structure, population control, and competition – a critique. Am. Nat. 100, 219–226 (1966).
Article  Google Scholar 

37.
Borer, E. T. et al. Finding generality in ecology: a model for globally distributed experiments. Methods Ecol. Evolution 5, 65–73 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

38.
Anderson, T. M. et al. Herbivory and eutrophication mediate grassland plant nutrient responses across a global climatic gradient. Ecology 99, 822–831 (2018).

39.
Zhu, D. et al. The large mean body size of mammalian herbivores explains the productivity paradox during the Last Glacial Maximum. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 640–649 (2018).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

40.
Hillebrand, H. Top-down versus bottom-up control of autotrophic biomass – a meta-analysis on experiments with periphyton. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 21, 349–369 (2002).
Article  Google Scholar 

41.
Frank, R. & Merle, L. F. Effects of annual applications of low N fertilizer rates on a mixed grass prairie. J. Range Manag. 36, 359–362 (1983).
Article  Google Scholar 

42.
Olofsson, J. et al. Long-term experiments reveal strong interactions between lemmings and plants in the Fennoscandian highland tundra. Ecosystems 17, 606–615 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

43.
Lemaire, G., Jeuffroy, M.-H. & Gastal, F. Diagnosis tool for plant and crop N status in vegetative stage: theory and practices for crop N management. Eur. J. Agron. 28, 614–624 (2008).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

44.
Hillebrand, H. et al. Herbivore metabolism and stoichiometry each constrain herbivory at different organizational scales across ecosystems. Ecol. Lett. 12, 516–527 (2009).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

45.
Hempson, G. P., Illius, A. W., Hendricks, H. H., Bond, W. J. & Vetter, S. Herbivore population regulation and resource heterogeneity in a stochastic environment. Ecology 96, 2170–2180 (2015).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

46.
Sickman, J. O. et al. Quantifying atmospheric N deposition in dryland ecosystems: a test of the Integrated Total Nitrogen Input (ITNI) method. Sci. Total Environ. 646, 1253–1264 (2019).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

47.
Yahdjian, L., Gherardi, L. & Sala, O. E. Nitrogen limitation in arid-subhumid ecosystems: a meta-analysis of fertilization studies. J. Arid Environ. 75, 675–680 (2011).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

48.
Koerner, S. E. et al. Plant community response to loss of large herbivores differs between North American and South African savanna grasslands. Ecology 95, 808–816 (2014).
PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

49.
Frank, D. A., McNaughton, S. J. & Tracy, B. F. The ecology of the Earth’s grazing ecosystems: profound functional similarities exist between the Serengeti and Yellowstone. Bioscience 48, 513–521 (1998).
Article  Google Scholar 

50.
Augustine, D. J. & McNaughton, S. J. Interactive effects of ungulate herbivores, soil fertility, and variable rainfall on ecosystem processes in a semi-arid savanna. Ecosystems 9, 1242–1256 (2006).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

51.
Ritchie, M. E., Tilman, D. & Knops, J. M. H. Herbivore effects on plant and nitrogen dynamics in oak savanna. Ecology 79, 165–177 (1998).
Article  Google Scholar 

52.
Pastor, J., Dewey, B., Naiman, R. J., McInnes, P. F. & Cohen, Y. Moose browsing and soil fertility in the boreal forests of Isle Royale National Park. Ecology 74, 467–480 (1993).
Article  Google Scholar 

53.
Grellmann, D. Plant responses to fertilization and exclusion of grazers on an Arctic tundra heath. Oikos 98, 190–204 (2002).
Article  Google Scholar 

54.
Hartley, S. E. & Mitchell, R. J. Manipulation of nutrients and grazing levels on heather moorland: changes in Calluna dominance and consequences for community composition. J. Ecol. 93, 990–1004 (2005).
Article  Google Scholar 

55.
Lind, E. M. et al. Increased grassland arthropod production with mammalian herbivory and eutrophication: a test of mediation pathways. Ecology 98, 3022–3033 (2017).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

56.
Hijmans, R. J., Cameron, S. E., Parra, J. L., Jones, P. G. & Jarvis, A. Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 25, 1965–1978 (2005).
Article  Google Scholar 

57.
Trabucco, A., Zomer, R. J., Bossio, D. A., van Straaten, O. & Verchot, L. V. Climate change mitigation through afforestation/reforestation: a global analysis of hydrologic impacts with four case studies. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 126, 81–97 (2008).
Article  Google Scholar 

58.
Dentener, F. J. Global Maps of Atmospheric Nitrogen Deposition, 1860, 1993, and 2050. Oak Ridge National Laboratory Distributed Active Archive Center. https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/830 (2006).

59.
Borer, E. T. et al. Environmental Data Initiative https://doi.org/10.6073/pasta/a318fe0fb11eb43c1a2c8233b2e3494f (2020). More