More stories

  • in

    A multi-scale eco-evolutionary model of cooperation reveals how microbial adaptation influences soil decomposition

    Construction of the five-compartment model
    Here we explain the construction of the five-compartment model (Fig. 1a). This is step 1 among the four steps described in “Results” section (subsection “Ecosystem dynamics at microsite scale”). We use upper bars in our initial notations to indicate parameters prior to rescaling.
    The five-compartment model captures the stochastic processes acting at the level of C, D, M, Z, X entities (molecules, cells) (Fig. 1a) within a microsite. Dynamics of C, D, M, Z, X occur in continuous time. Mt is the number of cells at time t. Ct, Dt, Zt are the numbers of SOC molecules, DOC molecules, and enzyme molecules respectively. Xt is the number of complexes formed by an enzyme molecule binding a SOC molecule. There are constant external sources of SOC and DOC. When a cell dies, a fraction p of the molecules released are recycled into SOC, while the rest is recycled into DOC. A fraction l of dead microbes and deactivated enzymes may be lost due to leaching.
    We denote by α the structural cost of a cell, which is the equivalent in number of DOC molecules of one cell (without storage). We denote by (alpha ^{prime}) the energetic cost of a cell, which is the number of DOC molecules consumed to produce the energy needed for the synthesis reactions involved in the production of one cell. We denote by β the equivalent in number of DOC molecules of one SOC molecule, and the structural and energetic cost of producing one molecule of enzyme by ρ and (rho ^{prime}), respectively. We assume that the energetic costs are carbon released by cells as CO2 (cell respiration) that diffuses out of the system instantly. We define the biomass production fraction and enzyme allocation fraction as

    $${bar{gamma }}_{M}:=frac{1}{alpha +alpha ^{prime} },quad {bar{gamma }}_{Z}:=frac{1}{rho +rho ^{prime} }.$$
    (1)

    The event times are given by independent exponential random variables whose parameters are defined by event rates (Supplementary Tables 2–4). These event rates give an approximation of the average frequency of each event. The rates of cell growth and enzyme production depend on the trait φ. Once a cell has doubled its initial size, reproduction occurs by releasing the mother cell at its initial size, and the daughter cell at its same size. The cell must therefore take up and store its structural and energetic cost, ((alpha +alpha ^{prime} )), in DOC molecules in order to reproduce. We denote N the number of uptake events before reproduction. The number of DOC molecules taken up at each uptake event is then ((alpha +alpha ^{prime} )/N), hence the notation ({{bf{1}}}_{{Dge (alpha +alpha ^{prime} )/N}}) which equals 1 if (Dge (alpha +alpha ^{prime} )/N), and 0 otherwise. The same notation, ({{bf{1}}}_{{Dge rho +rho ^{prime} }}), is used for the production event of an enzyme molecule. Uptake is stochastic, but reproduction is deterministic, which means that when a cell has performed N uptake events, it reproduces with probability 1. A larger N means a larger number of uptake events between 2 reproduction events, which also means less DOC molecules taken up at each uptake event. The model tracks the dynamics of the number of cells, SOC, DOC, enzyme molecules, and also of the DOC stored in each cell.
    Enzyme–substrate complexes form at rate ({bar{lambda }}^{k}) as one enzyme molecule (e.g. cellulase) bind one SOC molecule (e.g. cellulose). A complex may either dissociate (with no decomposition) at rate ({bar{lambda }}_{-1}^{varepsilon }), or react at rate ({bar{mu }}^{varepsilon }) and convert the molecule of SOC into β molecule of DOC while the enzyme is released and free again to react with new molecules of SOC (Supplementary Table 3).
    System size k does not appear in this system of equations, yet it enters the volume-dependent parameters of the model, IC, ID, θ, and Km. We denote V the unit volume of soil that contains on average one microbial cell and the corresponding equilibrium of carbon mass of SOC, DOC and enzymes. The system size k is the number of well-mixed unit volumes in one microsite, which determines the number of cells sharing SOC, DOC, and enzymes. The volume of one microsite is therefore k × V. Increasing k amounts to increasing microsite volume, the number of cells sharing resources in one microsite, the amount of resources per microsite, and the volume-dependent parameters, such as the amount of SOC entering a microsite per unit of time, IC. In our analysis, the unit volume V is fixed, and we vary k to investigate the effect of microsite volume on the system’s eco-evolutionary dynamics. With very large k, the hybrid model can be approximated by a fully deterministic model which takes the form of a system of four ordinary differential equations (see Supplementary Information 3.3 and Supplementary Fig. 1), similar to the microbial decomposition model first introduced by Allison et al.53. However, empirical data suggest that k is of the order of 10–10054. When k = 1, there is only one cell in the microsite, which volume is V defined as the unit soil volume expected to contain a single cell. A value of k greater than 1 means that each microsite contains k cells and k times the amount of SOC, DOC and enzyme molecules of 1 cell; thus, the microsite volume is k × V, and volume-dependent parameters are rescaled by k. Specifically, there are four volume-dependent parameters: the external input of C, ({bar{I}}_{C}^{k}), the external input of D, ({bar{I}}_{D}^{k}), the half-saturation constant of DOC uptake, ({bar{K}}_{m}^{k}), and the encounter intensity of two given SOC and enzyme molecules, ({bar{lambda }}^{k}). The external inputs increase proportionally with the volume of the microsite, while the encounter intensity of two given molecules in a microsite decreases as its volume increases. The half-saturation is inversely proportional to the affinity between a given cell M and a given DOC molecule d, which decreases with increasing microsite volume. We thus obtain the following scaling relationships:

    $${bar{I}}_{C}^{k}=k{bar{I}}_{C}, {bar{I}}_{D}^{k}=k{bar{I}}_{D}, {bar{lambda }}^{k}=frac{lambda }{k} {rm{and}} {bar{K}}_{m}^{k}=k{bar{K}}_{m}.$$
    (2)

    In our simulations, we generally assume that k is equal to 10, to match the empirical observation that (cells) in soil habitat tend to interact with 10 to 100 other cells at all time54.
    Derivation of the hybrid model
    In Supplementary Information 3, we present the next two steps (2 and 3 in “Ecosystem dynamics at microsite scale” of “Results” section) to derive the hybrid model on which all our results are based. In Supplementary Information 3.1, we explain how the dynamics generated by the five-compartment model can be captured with a reduced model with four-state variables (step 2). In Supplementary Information 3.2, we explain how the stochastic-deterministic PDMP model can be derived from the stochastic four-state variable model (step 3). In the hybrid model (step 4), only cell death remains stochastic, and cell dynamics is measured in unit of number of individuals (M), while other entities are now in carbon mass unit. The rescaled SOC, DOC and enzyme abundances are denoted with lower case letters c, d, and z.
    Simulation algorithm for the hybrid spatial model
    One technical benefit of the hybrid model is its much greater computational tractability. Here we describe the algorithm used to perform simulations of the hybrid model. We ran the model on single microsite to produce the simulations reported in Fig. 2. We ran the model on a 10 × 10 lattice of microsites for the subsequent figures. The algorithm is based on the Gillepsie algorithm55 as used in Champagnat et al.37, Fournier and Méléard56, which straightforwardly extends to the simulation of PDMPs.
    To couple PDMP models across microsites, we account for the DOC and dispersal of cells between adjacent microsites. The DOC diffusion between microsites is modeled by approximating a continuous diffusion with a Euler scheme in which time is discretized with a fixed time step interval, τdiff. τdiff is chosen sufficiently small to provide a fine enough discretization of the DOC diffusion.
    A simulation starts with a given amount of M, z, c, and d in each microsite at time t = 0, while the initial amount of DOC stored within each cell is determined uniformly at random. Two stochastic events (death of a cell) may not occur at the same time. Assume that the process has been computed until time ti; to continue the computation to time ti+1, we proceed as follows.
    First, we simulate T, an exponential random variable with parameter r(ti) = dMM(ti), which corresponds to the death rate of the total cell population at time ti (M(ti) being the total number of cells on the entire lattice). We then compute

    $${t}_{i+1}:={t}_{i}+min left(T,{tau }_{{rm{diff}}}right).$$

    To obtain c(ti+1), d(ti+1), and z(ti+1) in each microsite at time ti+1, and the variation in amount of DOC stored within a cell in the corresponding microsite, we use a Euler scheme that solves the dynamical system

    $$left{begin{array}{l}hskip -136pt dot{c}(t)={I}_{C}-{l}_{C}c-theta zc,\ dot{d}(t)={I}_{D}-{l}_{D}d+theta zc+(1-l){d}_{Z}z-{V}_{max }frac{d}{{K}_{m}{,}+{,}d}{omega }_{M}M,\ hskip -84pt dot{z}(t)=varphi {gamma }_{Z}{V}_{max }frac{d}{{K}_{m}{,}+{,}d}{omega }_{M}M-{d}_{Z}z,\ hskip -93pt dot{Delta }(t)=(1-varphi ){gamma }_{M}{V}_{max }frac{d}{{K}_{m}{,}+{,}d}{omega }_{M},end{array}right.$$

    in each microsite between ti and ti+1, where M is the number of cells in the microsite at time ti, Δ gives the amount variation of DOC stored within a cell, Δ(ti) = 0 and the other initial conditions are the biomass of c, d, z in the corresponding microsite at time ti.
    Note that, within a microsite, the variation of stored DOC is the same for all cells and corresponds to Δ(ti+1). Hence, this amount is added to the amount of DOC stored within each cell living in the corresponding microsite. If, for a cell j, the resulting amount Sj(Ti) + Δ(ti+1) is over ωM, a new cell appears. The amount of stored DOC within the new cell and the mother cell is then updated: Sj(ti+1) = (Sj(Ti) + Δ(ti+1) − ωM)/2. Otherwise, Sj(ti+1) = Sj(Ti) + Δ(ti+1). To determine the position of the new cell, the following steps are taken:

    A uniform random variable ϑ1 in [0, 1] is simulated.

    If ϑ1  More

  • in

    Linking microbial Sphagnum degradation and acetate mineralization in acidic peat bogs: from global insights to a genome-centric case study

    1.
    Amesbury MJ, Gallego-Sala A, Loisel J. Peatlands as prolific carbon sinks. Nat Geosci. 2019;12:880–1.
    CAS  Google Scholar 
    2.
    Rydin H, Jeglum J. The biology of peatlands. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2013.

    3.
    Kremer C, Pettolino F, Bacic A, Drinnan A. Distribution of cell wall components in Sphagnum hyaline cells and in liverwort and hornwort elaters. Planta. 2004;219:1023–35.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    4.
    Theander O. Studies on Sphagnum peat. III. A quantitative study on the carbohydrate constituents of Sphagnum mosses and Sphagnum peat. Acta Chem Scand. 1954;8:989–1000.
    CAS  Google Scholar 

    5.
    Ballance S, Borsheim KY, Inngjerdingen K, Paulsen BS, Christensen BE. A re-examination and partial characterisation of polysaccharides released by mild acid hydrolysis from the chlorite-treated leaves of Sphagnum papillosum. Carbohydr Polym. 2007;67:104–15.
    CAS  Google Scholar 

    6.
    Painter TJ. Residues of D-lyxo-5-hexosulopyranuronic acid in Sphagnum holocellulose, and their role in cross-linking. Carbohydr Res. 1983;124:C18–C21.
    CAS  Google Scholar 

    7.
    Bartels D, Baumann A, Maeder M, Geske T, Heise EM, von Schwartzenberg K, et al. Evolution of plant cell wall: arabinogalactan-proteins from three moss genera show structural differences compared to seed plants. Carbohydr Polym. 2017;163:227–35.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    8.
    Woodcroft BJ, Singleton CM, Boyd JA, Evans PN, Emerson JB, Zayed AAF, et al. Genome-centric view of carbon processing in thawing permafrost. Nature. 2018;560:49–54.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    9.
    Ivanova AA, Wegner C-E, Kim Y, Liesack W, Dedysh SN. Identification of microbial populations driving biopolymer degradation in acidic peatlands by metatranscriptomic analysis. Mol Ecol. 2016;25:4818–35.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    10.
    Duddleston KN, Kinney MA, Kiene RP, Hines ME. Anaerobic microbial biogeochemistry in a northern bog: acetate as a dominant metabolic end product. Glob Biogeochem Cycles. 2002;16:11–1-11–9.
    Google Scholar 

    11.
    Ye R, Jin Q, Bohannan B, Keller JK, McAllister SA, Bridgham SD. pH controls over anaerobic carbon mineralization, the efficiency of methane production, and methanogenic pathways in peatlands across an ombrotrophic-minerotrophic gradient. Soil Biol Biochem. 2012;54:36–47.
    CAS  Google Scholar 

    12.
    van Beelen P, Wouterse MJ, Masselink MJ, Spijker J, Mesman M. The application of a simplified method to map the aerobic acetate mineralization rates at the groundwater table of the Netherlands. J Contam Hydrol. 2011;122:86–95.
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    13.
    Conrad R. Importance of hydrogenotrophic, aceticlastic and methylotrophic methanogenesis for methane production in terrestrial, aquatic and other anoxic environments: a mini review. Pedosphere. 2020;30:25–39.
    Google Scholar 

    14.
    Walpen N, Getzinger GJ, Schroth MH, Sander M. Electron-donating phenolic and electron-accepting quinone moieties in peat dissolved organic matter: quantities and redox transformations in the context of peat biogeochemistry. Environ Sci Technol. 2018;52:5236–45.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    15.
    Dettling MD, Yavitt J, Zinder S. Control of organic carbon mineralization by alternative electron acceptors in four peatlands, central New York State, USA. Wetlands. 2006;26:917–27.
    Google Scholar 

    16.
    Keller JK, Bridgham SD. Pathways of anaerobic carbon cycling across an ombrotrophic-minerotrophic peatland gradient. Limnol Oceanogr. 2007;52:96–107.
    CAS  Google Scholar 

    17.
    Keller JK, Takagi KK. Solid-phase organic matter reduction regulates anaerobic decomposition in bog soil. Ecosphere. 2013;4:1–12.
    Google Scholar 

    18.
    Keller JK, Weisenhorn PB, Megonigal JP. Humic acids as electron acceptors in wetland decomposition. Soil Biol Biochem. 2009;41:1518–22.
    CAS  Google Scholar 

    19.
    Yavitt JB, Seidman-Zager M. Methanogenic conditions in northern peat soils. Geomicrobiol J. 2006;23:119–27.
    CAS  Google Scholar 

    20.
    He S, Lau MP, Linz AM, Roden EE, McMahon KD. Extracellular electron transfer may be an overlooked contribution to pelagic respiration in humic-rich freshwater lakes. mSphere. 2019;4:1–8.
    Google Scholar 

    21.
    Lovley DR, Coates JD, Blunt-Harris EL, Phillips EJ, Woodward JC. Humic substances as electron acceptors for microbial respiration. Nature. 1996;382:445–8.
    CAS  Google Scholar 

    22.
    Stams AJM, De Bok FAM, Plugge CM, Van Eekert MHA, Dolfing J, Schraa G. Exocellular electron transfer in anaerobic microbial communities. Environ Microbiol. 2006;8:371–82.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    23.
    Klupfel L, Piepenbrock A, Kappler A, Sander M. Humic substances as fully regenerable electron acceptors in recurrently anoxic environments. Nat Geosci. 2014;7:195–200.
    Google Scholar 

    24.
    Bräuer SL, Yavitt JB, Zinder SH. Methanogenesis in McLean Bog, an acidic peat bog in upstate New York: stimulation by H2/CO2 in the presence of rifampicin, or by low concentrations of acetate. Geomicrobiol J. 2004;21:433–43.
    Google Scholar 

    25.
    Cadillo-Quiroz H, Brauer S, Yashiro E, Sun C, Yavitt J, Zinder S. Vertical profiles of methanogenesis and methanogens in two contrasting acidic peatlands in central New York State, USA. Environ Microbiol. 2006;8:1428–40.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    26.
    Kotsyurbenko O, Chin K, Glagolev M, Stubner S, Simankova M, Nozhevnikova A, et al. Acetoclastic and hydrogenotrophic methane production and methanogenic populations in an acidic West-Siberian pear bog. Environ Microbiol. 2004;6:1159–73.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    27.
    Lai DYF. Methane dynamics in northern peatlands: a review. Pedosphere. 2009;19:409–21.
    CAS  Google Scholar 

    28.
    Xu XF, Elias DA, Graham DE, Phelps TJ, Carroll SL, Wullschleger SD, et al. A microbial functional group-based module for simulating methane production and consumption: application to an inbucated permafrost soil. J Geophys Res Biogeosci. 2015;120:1315–33.
    CAS  Google Scholar 

    29.
    Chen I-MA, Markowitz VM, Chu K, Palaniappan K, Szeto E, Pillay M, et al. IMG/M: integrated genome and metagenome comparative data analysis system. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017;45:D507–16.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    30.
    Langfelder P, Horvath S. WGCNA: an R package for weighted correlation network analysis. BMC Bioinformat. 2008;9:559.
    Google Scholar 

    31.
    Langfelder P, Horvath S. Eigengene networks for studying the relationships between co-expression modules. BMC Syst Biol. 2007;1:54.
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    32.
    Sun CL, Brauer SL, Cadillo-Quiroz H, Zinder SH, Yavitt JB. Seasonal changes in methanogenesis and methanogenic community in three peatlands, New York State. Front Microbiol. 2012;3:81.
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    33.
    Osvald H. Vegetation and stratigraphy of peatlands in North America. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis; 1970.

    34.
    Pepe-Ranney C, Campbell AN, Koechli CN, Berthrong S, Buckley DH. Unearthing the ecology of soil microorganisms using a high resolution DNA-SIP approach to explore cellulose and xylose metabolism in soil. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:703.
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    35.
    Nurk S, Meleshko D, Korobeynikov A, Pevzner PA. metaSPAdes: a new versatile metagenomic assembler. Genome Res. 2017;27:824–34.
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    36.
    Ondov BD, Treangen TJ, Melsted P, Mallonee AB, Bergman NH, Koren S, et al. Mash: fast genome and metagenome distance estimation using MinHash. Genome Biol. 2016;17:132.
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    37.
    Kang D, Froula J, Egan R, Wang Z. MetaBAT, an efficient tool for accurately reconstructing single genomes from complex microbial communities. PeerJ. 2015;3:e1165.
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    38.
    Parks DH, Imelfort M, Skennerton CT, Hugenholtz P, Tyson GW. CheckM: assessing the quality of microbial genomes recovered from isolates, single cells, and metagenomes. Genome Res. 2015;25:1043–55.
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    39.
    Bowers RM, Kyrpides NC, Stepanauskas R, Harmon-Smith M, Doud D, Reddy TBK, et al. Minimum information about a single amplified genome (MISAG) and a metagenome-assembled genome (MIMAG) of bacteria and archaea. Nat Biotechnol. 2017;35:725.
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    40.
    Segata N, Börnigen D, Morgan XC, Huttenhower C. PhyloPhlAn is a new method for improved phylogenetic and taxonomic placement of microbes. Nat Commun. 2013;4:2304.
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    41.
    Buchfink B, Xie C, Huson DH. Fast and sensitive protein alignment using DIAMOND. Nat Methods. 2014;12:59.
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    42.
    Parks DH, Chuvochina M, Waite DW, Rinke C, Skarshewski A, Chaumeil P-A, et al. A standardized bacterial taxonomy based on genome phylogeny substantially revises the tree of life. Nat Biotechnol. 2018;36:996–1004.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    43.
    Rodriguez-R LM, Tsementzi D, Luo C, Konstantinidis KT. Iterative substractive binning of freshwater chronoseries metagenomes identifies over 400 novel species and their ecologic preferences. Environ Microbiol. 2020;22:3394–412.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    44.
    Langmead B, Salzberg SL. Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nat Methods. 2012;9:357–9.
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    45.
    Quinlan AR, Hall IM. BEDTools: a flexible suite of utilities for comparing genomic features. Bioinformatics. 2010;26:841–2.
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    46.
    Rodriguez-R LM, Konstantinidis KT. The enveomics collection: a toolbox for specialized analyses of microbial genomes and metagenomes. PeerJ Prepr. 2016;4:e1900v1.
    Google Scholar 

    47.
    Nayfach S, Pollard KS. Average genome size estimation improves comparative metagenomics and sheds light on the functional ecology of the human microbiome. Genome Biol. 2015;16:51.
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    48.
    Zalman C, Keller JK, Tfaily M, Kolton M, Pfeifer-Meister L, Wilson RM, et al. Small differences in ombrotrophy control regional-scale variation in methane cycling among Sphagnum-dominated peatlands. Biogeochemistry. 2018;139:155–77.
    CAS  Google Scholar 

    49.
    Williams CJ, Yavitt JB. Botanical composition of peat and degree of peat decomposition in three temperate peatlands. Ecoscience. 2003;10:85–95.
    Google Scholar 

    50.
    Dedysh SN. Cultivating uncultured bacteria from northern wetlands: knowledge gained and remaining gaps. Front Microbiol. 2011;2:184.
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    51.
    Hattori S. Syntrophic acetate-oxidizing microbes in methanogenic environments. Microbes Environ. 2008;23:118–27.
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    52.
    Hines ME, Duddleson KN, Kiene RP. Carbon flow to acetate and C1 compounds in northern wetlands. Geophys Res Lett. 2001;28:4251–4.
    CAS  Google Scholar 

    53.
    Karakashev D, Batstone DJ, Trably E, Angelidaki I. Acetate oxidation is the dominant methanogenic pathway from acetate in the absence of Methanosaetaceae. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006;72:5138–41.
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    54.
    Cervantes FJ, van der Velde S, Lettinga G, Field JA. Competition between methanogenesis and quinone respiration for ecologically important substrates in anaerobic consortia. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2000;34:161–71.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    55.
    Cervantes FJ, Gutierrez CH, Lopez KY, Estrada-Alvarado MI, Meza-Escalante AC, Texier AC, et al. Contribution of quinone-reducing microorganisms to the anaerobic biodegradation of organic compounds under different redox conditions. Biodegradation. 2008;19:235–46.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    56.
    Lokshina LY, Vavilin VA, Kettunen RH, Rintala JA, Holliger C, Nozhevnikova AN. Evaluation of kinetic coefficients using integrated monod and haldane models for low-temperature acetoclastic methanogenesis. Water Res. 2001;35:2913–22.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    57.
    Kotsyurbenko OR, Friedrich MW, Simankova MV, Nozhevnikova AN, Golyshin PN, Timmis KN, et al. Shift from acetoclastic to H2-dependent methanogenesis in a West Siberain peat bog at low pH values and isolation of an acidophilic Methanobacterium strain. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007;73:2344–8.
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    58.
    Schmidt O, Hink L, Horn M, Drake H. Peat: home to novel syntrophic species that feed acetate- and hydrogen-scavenging methanogens. ISME J. 2016;10:1954–66.
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    59.
    Wolfe AJ. The acetate switch. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2005;69:12–50.
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    60.
    Starai VJ, Escalante-Semerena JC. Acetyl-coenzyme A synthetase (AMP forming). Cell Mol Life Sci. 2004;61:2020–30.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    61.
    Pankratov TA, Dedysh SN, Zavarzin GA. The leading role of Actinobacteria in aerobic cellulose degradation in Sphagnum peat bogs. Dokl Biol Sci. 2006;410:428–30.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    62.
    Mannisto M, Ganzert L, Tjirola M, Haggblom MM, Stark S. Do shifts in life strategies explain microbial community responses to increasing nitrogen in tundra soil? Soil Biol Biochem. 2016;96:216–28.
    CAS  Google Scholar 

    63.
    Kang H, Kwon MJ, Kim S, Lee S, Jones TG, Johncock AC, et al. Biologically driven DOC release from peatlands during recovery from acidification. Nat Commun. 2018;9:3807.
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    64.
    Dedysh SN, Dunfield PF. Beijerinckiaceae. In: Whitman WB, editor. Bergey’s manual of systematics of archaea and bacteria. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2016. p. 1–4. More

  • in

    Quorum sensing controls persistence, resuscitation, and virulence of Legionella subpopulations in biofilms

    1.
    Newton HJ, Ang DK, van Driel IR, Hartland EL. Molecular pathogenesis of infections caused by Legionella pneumophila. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2010;23:274–98.
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 
    2.
    Hilbi H, Hoffmann C, Harrison CF. Legionella spp. outdoors: colonization, communication and persistence. Environ Microbiol Rep. 2011;3:286–96.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    3.
    Fields BS. The molecular ecology of Legionella. Trends Microbiol. 1996;4:286–90.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    4.
    Greub G, Raoult D. Microorganisms resistant to free-living amoebae. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2004;17:413–33.
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    5.
    Hoffmann C, Harrison CF, Hilbi H. The natural alternative: protozoa as cellular models for Legionella infection. Cell Microbiol. 2014;16:15–26.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    6.
    Boamah DK, Zhou G, Ensminger AW, O’Connor TJ. From many hosts, one accidental pathogen: The diverse protozoan hosts of Legionella. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2017;7:477.
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    7.
    Swart AL, Harrison CF, Eichinger L, Steinert M, Hilbi H. Acanthamoeba and Dictyostelium as cellular models for Legionella infection. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2018;8:61.
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    8.
    Sherwood RK, Roy CR. A Rab-centric perspective of bacterial pathogen-occupied vacuoles. Cell Host Microbe. 2013;14:256–68.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    9.
    Asrat S, de Jesus DA, Hempstead AD, Ramabhadran V, Isberg RR. Bacterial pathogen manipulation of host membrane trafficking. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2014;30:79–109.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    10.
    Finsel I, Hilbi H. Formation of a pathogen vacuole according to Legionella pneumophila: how to kill one bird with many stones. Cell Microbiol. 2015;17:935–50.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    11.
    Qiu J, Luo ZQ. Legionella and Coxiella effectors: strength in diversity and activity. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2017;15:591–605.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    12.
    Personnic N, Bärlocher K, Finsel I, Hilbi H. Subversion of retrograde trafficking by translocated pathogen effectors. Trends Microbiol. 2016;24:450–62.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    13.
    Steiner B, Weber S, Hilbi H. Formation of the Legionella-containing vacuole: phosphoinositide conversion, GTPase modulation and ER dynamics. Int J Med Microbiol. 2018;308:49–57.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    14.
    Declerck P. Biofilms: the environmental playground of Legionella pneumophila. Environ Microbiol. 2010;12:557–66.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    15.
    Abdel-Nour M, Duncan C, Low DE, Guyard C. Biofilms: the stronghold of Legionella pneumophila. Int J Mol Sci. 2013;14:21660–75.
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    16.
    Pécastaings S, Allombert J, Lajoie B, Doublet P, Roques C, Vianney A. New insights into Legionella pneumophila biofilm regulation by c-di-GMP signaling. Biofouling. 2016;32:935–48.
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    17.
    Hochstrasser R, Hilbi H. Intra-species and inter-kingdom signaling of Legionella pneumophila. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:79.
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    18.
    Mampel J, Spirig T, Weber SS, Haagensen JAJ, Molin S, Hilbi H. Planktonic replication is essential for biofilm formation by Legionella pneumophila in a complex medium under static and dynamic flow conditions. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006;72:2885–95.
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    19.
    Hindré T, Brüggemann H, Buchrieser C, Héchard Y. Transcriptional profiling of Legionella pneumophila biofilm cells and the influence of iron on biofilm formation. Microbiology. 2008;154:30–41.
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    20.
    Pécastaings S, Berge M, Dubourg KM, Roques C. Sessile Legionella pneumophila is able to grow on surfaces and generate structured monospecies biofilms. Biofouling. 2010;26:809–19.
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    21.
    Wai SN, Mizunoe Y, Yoshida S. How Vibrio cholerae survive during starvation. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 1999;180:123–31.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    22.
    Balaban NQ, Merrin J, Chait R, Kowalik L, Leibler S. Bacterial persistence as a phenotypic switch. Science. 2004;305:1622–5.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    23.
    Harms A, Maisonneuve E, Gerdes K. Mechanisms of bacterial persistence during stress and antibiotic exposure. Science. 2016;354:aaf4268.
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    24.
    Claudi B, Sprote P, Chirkova A, Personnic N, Zankl J, Schurmann N, et al. Phenotypic variation of Salmonella in host tissues delays eradication by antimicrobial chemotherapy. Cell. 2014;158:722–33.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    25.
    Hélaine S, Cheverton AM, Watson KG, Faure LM, Matthews SA, Holden DW. Internalization of Salmonella by macrophages induces formation of nonreplicating persisters. Science. 2014;343:204–8.
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    26.
    Conlon BP, Rowe SE, Gandt AB, Nuxoll AS, Donegan NP, Zalis EA, et al. Persister formation in Staphylococcus aureus is associated with ATP depletion. Nat Microbiol. 2016;1:16051.
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    27.
    Personnic N, Striednig B, Lezan E, Manske C, Welin A, Schmidt A, et al. Quorum sensing modulates the formation of virulent Legionella persisters within infected cells. Nat Commun. 2019;10:5216.
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    28.
    Molofsky AB, Swanson MS. Differentiate to thrive: lessons from the Legionella pneumophila life cycle. Mol Microbiol. 2004;53:29–40.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    29.
    Hammer BK, Swanson MS. Co-ordination of Legionella pneumophila virulence with entry into stationary phase by ppGpp. Mol Microbiol. 1999;33:721–31.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    30.
    Dalebroux ZD, Yagi BF, Sahr T, Buchrieser C, Swanson MS. Distinct roles of ppGpp and DksA in Legionella pneumophila differentiation. Mol Microbiol. 2010;76:200–19.
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    31.
    Tiaden A, Spirig T, Hilbi H. Bacterial gene regulation by α-hydroxyketone signaling. Trends Microbiol. 2010;18:288–97.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    32.
    Personnic N, Striednig B, Hilbi H. Legionella quorum sensing and its role in pathogen-host interactions. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2018;41:29–35.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    33.
    Spirig T, Tiaden A, Kiefer P, Buchrieser C, Vorholt JA, Hilbi H. The Legionella autoinducer synthase LqsA produces an α-hydroxyketone signaling molecule. J Biol Chem. 2008;283:18113–23.
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    34.
    Tiaden A, Spirig T, Sahr T, Wälti MA, Boucke K, Buchrieser C, et al. The autoinducer synthase LqsA and putative sensor kinase LqsS regulate phagocyte interactions, extracellular filaments and a genomic island of Legionella pneumophila. Environ Microbiol. 2010;12:1243–59.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    35.
    Kessler A, Schell U, Sahr T, Tiaden A, Harrison C, Buchrieser C, et al. The Legionella pneumophila orphan sensor kinase LqsT regulates competence and pathogen-host interactions as a component of the LAI-1 circuit. Environ Microbiol. 2013;15:646–62.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    36.
    Tiaden A, Spirig T, Weber SS, Brüggemann H, Bosshard R, Buchrieser C, et al. The Legionella pneumophila response regulator LqsR promotes host cell interactions as an element of the virulence regulatory network controlled by RpoS and LetA. Cell Microbiol. 2007;9:2903–20.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    37.
    Tiaden A, Spirig T, Carranza P, Brüggemann H, Riedel K, Eberl L, et al. Synergistic contribution of the Legionella pneumophila lqs genes to pathogen-host interactions. J Bacteriol. 2008;190:7532–47.
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    38.
    Schell U, Simon S, Sahr T, Hager D, Albers MF, Kessler A, et al. The α-hydroxyketone LAI-1 regulates motility, Lqs-dependent phosphorylation signalling and gene expression of Legionella pneumophila. Mol Microbiol. 2016;99:778–93.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    39.
    Hochstrasser R, Hutter CAJ, Arnold FM, Bärlocher K, Seeger MA, Hilbi H. The structure of the Legionella response regulator LqsR reveals amino acids critical for phosphorylation and dimerization. Mol Microbiol. 2020;113:1070–84.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    40.
    Hochstrasser R, Kessler A, Sahr T, Simon S, Schell U, Gomez-Valero L, et al. The pleiotropic Legionella transcription factor LvbR links the Lqs and c-di-GMP regulatory networks to control biofilm architecture and virulence. Environ Microbiol. 2019;21:1035–53.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    41.
    Hochstrasser R, Hilbi H. Legionella quorum sensing meets cyclic-di-GMP signaling. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2020;55:9–16.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    42.
    Simon S, Schell U, Heuer N, Hager D, Albers MF, Matthias J, et al. Inter-kingdom signaling by the Legionella quorum sensing molecule LAI-1 modulates cell migration through an IQGAP1-Cdc42-ARHGEF9-dependent pathway. PLoS Pathog. 2015;11:e1005307.
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    43.
    Faucher SP, Friedlander G, Livny J, Margalit H, Shuman HA. Legionella pneumophila 6S RNA optimizes intracellular multiplication. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2010;107:7533–8.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    44.
    Faucher SP, Shuman HA. Small regulatory RNA and Legionella pneumophila. Front Microbiol. 2011;2:98.
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    45.
    Balaban NQ, Hélaine S, Lewis K, Ackermann M, Aldridge B, Andersson DI, et al. Definitions and guidelines for research on antibiotic persistence. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2019;17:441–8.
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    46.
    Brauner A, Fridman O, Gefen O, Balaban NQ. Distinguishing between resistance, tolerance and persistence to antibiotic treatment. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2016;14:320–30.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    47.
    Personnic N, Striednig B, Hilbi H. Single cell analysis of Legionella and Legionella-infected Acanthamoeba by agarose embedment. Methods Mol Biol. 2019;1921:191–204.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    48.
    Byrne B, Swanson MS. Expression of Legionella pneumophila virulence traits in response to growth conditions. Infect Immun. 1998;66:3029–34.
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    49.
    Lewis K. Persister cells, dormancy and infectious disease. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2007;5:48–56.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    50.
    Lewis K. Multidrug tolerance of biofilms and persister cells. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 2008;322:107–31.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    51.
    Hall CW, Mah TF. Molecular mechanisms of biofilm-based antibiotic resistance and tolerance in pathogenic bacteria. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2017;41:276–301.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    52.
    Brenzinger S, van der Aart LT, van Wezel GP, Lacroix JM, Glatter T, Briegel A. Structural and proteomic changes in viable but non-culturable Vibrio cholerae. Front Microbiol. 2019;10:793.
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    53.
    Defraine V, Fauvart M, Michiels J. Fighting bacterial persistence: current and emerging anti-persister strategies and therapeutics. Drug Resist Updates. 2018;38:12–26.
    Google Scholar 

    54.
    Wu B, Liang W, Kan B. Growth phase, oxygen, temperature, and starvation affect the development of viable but non-culturable state of Vibrio cholerae. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:404.
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    55.
    Ackermann M. A functional perspective on phenotypic heterogeneity in microorganisms. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2015;13:497–508.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    56.
    Epstein SS. Microbial awakenings. Nature 2009;457:1083.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    57.
    Sturm A, Dworkin J. Phenotypic diversity as a mechanism to exit cellular dormancy. Curr Biol. 2015;25:2272–7.
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    58.
    Carlson HK, Vance RE, Marletta MA. H-NOX regulation of c-di-GMP metabolism and biofilm formation in Legionella pneumophila. Mol Microbiol. 2010;77:930–42.
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    59.
    Loh E, Righetti F, Eichner H, Twittenhoff C, Narberhaus F. RNA thermometers in bacterial pathogens. Microbiol Spectr. 2018;6.

    60.
    Terskikh A, Fradkov A, Ermakova G, Zaraisky A, Tan P, Kajava AV, et al. “Fluorescent timer”: protein that changes color with time. Science. 2000;290:1585–8.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Variation and conservation implications of the effectiveness of anti-bear interventions

    1.
    Sathyakumar, S. & Viswanath, S. Observations on food habits of Asiatic black bear in Kedarnath Wildlife Sanctuary, India: preliminary evidence on their role in seed germination and dispersal. Ursus 14, 99–103 (2003).
    Google Scholar 
    2.
    Barua, M. Mobilizing metaphors: the popular use of keystone, flagship and umbrella species concepts. Biodivers. Conserv. 20, 1427–1440 (2011).
    Google Scholar 

    3.
    Rozylowicz, L., Popescu, V. D., Pătroescu, M. & Chişamera, G. The potential of large carnivores as conservation surrogates in the Romanian Carpathians. Biodivers. Conserv. 20, 561–579 (2011).
    Google Scholar 

    4.
    Ratnayeke, S. & van Manen, F. T. Assessing sloth bears as surrogates for carnivore conservation in Sri Lanka. Ursus 23, 206–217 (2012).
    Google Scholar 

    5.
    Can, Ö. E., D’Cruze, N., Garshelis, D. L., Beecham, J. & Macdonald, D. W. Resolving human-bear conflict: a global survey of countries, experts, and key factors. Conserv. Lett. 7, 501–513 (2014).
    Google Scholar 

    6.
    Di Minin, E. et al. Global priorities for national carnivore conservation under land use change. Sci. Rep. 6, 23814. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep23814 (2016).
    ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    7.
    Linnell, J. D. C. et al. Border security fencing and wildlife: the end of the transboundary paradigm in Eurasia? PLoS Biol. 14, e1002483. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002483 (2016).
    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    8.
    Wolf, C. & Ripple, W. J. Range contractions of the world’s large carnivores. R. Soc. Open Sci. 4, 170052. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170052 (2017).
    ADS  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    9.
    Chapron, G. et al. Recovery of large carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes. Science 346, 1517–1519 (2014).
    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

    10.
    IUCN. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2020–1. https://www.iucnredlist.org (2020).

    11.
    Linnell, J. D. C., Swenson, J. E. & Andersen, R. Conservation of biodiversity in Scandinavian boreal forests: large carnivores as flagships, umbrellas, indicators, or keystones? Biodivers. Conserv. 9, 857–868 (2000).
    Google Scholar 

    12.
    Fredrikkson, G. Human-sun bear conflicts in East Kalimantan, Indonesian Borneo. Ursus 16, 130–137 (2005).
    Google Scholar 

    13.
    Smith, T. S., Herrero, S., Debruyn, T. D. & Wilder, J. M. Efficacy of bear deterrent spray in Alaska. J. Wildl. Manage. 72, 640–645 (2008).
    Google Scholar 

    14.
    Kobashikawa, S., Trentin, B. & Koike, S. The benefit of wrapping trees in biodegradable material netting to protect against bark stripping by bears extends to surrounding stands. Forest Ecol. Manage. 437, 134–138 (2019).
    Google Scholar 

    15.
    Woodroffe, R., Frank, L. G., Lindsey, P. A., ole Ranah, S. M. K. & Romañach, S. Livestock husbandry as a tool for carnivore conservation in Africa’s community rangelands: a case-control study. Biodivers. Conserv. 16, 1245–1260 (2007).

    16.
    Davidson-Nelson, S. J. & Gehring, T. M. Testing fladry as a nonlethal management tool for wolves and coyotes in Michigan. Hum-Wildl. Interact. 4, 87–94 (2010).
    Google Scholar 

    17.
    Iliopoulos, Y. et al. Tools for co-existence: fladry corrals efficiently repel wild wolves (Canis lupus) from experimental baiting sites. Wildl. Res. 46, 484–498 (2019).
    Google Scholar 

    18.
    Andelt, W. F. & Hopper, S. N. Livestock guard dogs reduce predation on domestic sheep in Colorado. J. Range Manage. 53, 259–267 (2000).
    Google Scholar 

    19.
    Papworth, S. K. et al. Bear-proof fences reduce livestock losses in the Tibetan Autonomous Region China. Conserv. Evid. 11, 8–11 (2014).
    Google Scholar 

    20.
    Otto, T. E. & Roloff, G. J. Black bear exclusion fences to protect mobile apiaries. Hum-Wildl. Interact. 9, 78–86 (2015).
    Google Scholar 

    21.
    Di Vittorio, M., Costrini, P., Rocco, M., Bragalanti, N. & Borsetta, M. Assessing the efficacy of electric fences to prevent bear damage in Italy. Carnivore Damage Prevent. News 12, 31–37 (2016).
    Google Scholar 

    22.
    Yamazaki, K. Effects of pruning and brush clearing on debarking within damaged conifer stands by Japanese black bears. Ursus 14, 94–98 (2003).
    Google Scholar 

    23.
    Zimmermann, B., Wabakken, P. & Dötterer, M. Brown bear-livestock conflicts in a bear conservation zone in Norway: are cattle a good alternative to sheep? Ursus 14, 72–83 (2003).
    Google Scholar 

    24.
    Gore, M. L., Knuth, B. A., Scherer, C. W. & Curtis, P. D. Evaluating a conservation investment designed to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Conserv. Lett. 1, 136–145 (2008).
    Google Scholar 

    25.
    Breck, S. W. et al. Domestic calf mortality and producer detection rates in the Mexican wolf recovery area: implications for livestock management and carnivore compensation schemes. Biol. Conserv. 144, 930–936 (2011).
    Google Scholar 

    26.
    Kavčič, I., Adamič, M., Kaczensky, P., Krofel, M. & Jerina, K. Supplemental feeding with carrion is not reducing brown bear depredations on sheep in Slovenia. Ursus 24, 111–119 (2013).
    Google Scholar 

    27.
    Alldredge, M. W., Walsh, D. P., Sweanor, L. L., Davies, R. B. & Trujillo, A. Evaluation of translocation of black bears involved in human-bear conflicts in south-central Colorado. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 39, 334–340 (2015).
    Google Scholar 

    28.
    Bromley, C. & Gese, E. M. Surgical sterilization as a method of reducing coyote predation on domestic sheep. J. Wildl. Manage. 65, 510–519 (2001).
    Google Scholar 

    29.
    Hawley, J. E. et al. Developing a new shock-collar design for safe and efficient use on wild wolves. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 37, 416–422 (2013).
    Google Scholar 

    30.
    Hamr, J., Popp, J. N., Brown, D. L. & Mallory, F. F. Problem behaviour of black bears (Ursus americanus) in central Ontario: the effects of hunting and natural food availability. Anim. Biol. 65, 151–161 (2015).
    Google Scholar 

    31.
    Breck, S. W., Lance, N. & Callahan, P. A shocking device for protection of concentrated food sources from black bears. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 34, 23–26 (2006).
    Google Scholar 

    32.
    Miller, J. R. B. et al. Effectiveness of contemporary techniques for reducing livestock depredations by large carnivores. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 40, 806–815 (2016).
    Google Scholar 

    33.
    Treves, A., Krofel, M. & McManus, J. Predator control should not be a shot in the dark. Front. Ecol. Environ. 14, 380–388 (2016).
    Google Scholar 

    34.
    Eklund, A., López-Bao, J. V., Tourani, M., Chapron, G. & Frank, J. Limited evidence on the effectiveness of interventions to reduce livestock predation by large carnivores. Sci. Rep. 7, 2097. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-02323-w (2017).
    ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    35.
    Van Eeden, L. M. et al. Managing conflict between large carnivores and livestock. Conserv. Biol. 32, 26–34 (2017).
    Google Scholar 

    36.
    Khorozyan, I. & Waltert, M. A framework of most effective practices in protecting human assets from predators. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 24, 380–394 (2019).
    Google Scholar 

    37.
    Khorozyan, I. & Waltert, M. How long do anti-predator interventions remain effective? Patterns, thresholds and uncertainty. R. Soc. Open Sci. 6, 190826. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.190826 (2019).
    ADS  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    38.
    Blackwell, B. F. et al. No single solution: application of behavioural principles in mitigating human-wildlife conflict. Anim. Behav. 120, 245–254 (2016).
    Google Scholar 

    39.
    Blumstein, D. T. Habituation and sensitization: new thoughts about old ideas. Anim. Behav. 120, 255–262 (2016).
    Google Scholar 

    40.
    Wooldridge, D. R. Polar bear electronic deterrent and detection systems. Int. Conf. Bear Res. Manage. 5, 264–269 (1983).
    Google Scholar 

    41.
    Beckmann, J. P., Lackey, C. W. & Berger, J. Evaluation of deterrent techniques and dogs to alter behavior of “nuisance” black bears. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 32, 1141–1146 (2004).
    Google Scholar 

    42.
    Obbard, M. E. et al. Relationships among food availability, harvest, and human-bear conflict at landscape scales in Ontario, Canada. Ursus 25, 98–110 (2014).
    Google Scholar 

    43.
    Sagør, J. T., Swenson, J. E. & Røskaft, E. Compatibility of brown bear Ursus arctos and free-ranging sheep in Norway. Biol. Conserv. 81, 91–95 (1997).
    Google Scholar 

    44.
    Morehouse, A. T. & Boyce, M. S. Evaluation of intercept feeding to reduce livestock depredation by grizzly bears. Ursus 28, 66–80 (2017).
    Google Scholar 

    45.
    Riley, S. J., Aune, K., Mace, R. D. & Madel, M. J. Translocation of nuisance grizzly bears in northwestern Montana. Int. Conf. Bear Res. Manage. 9, 567–573 (1994).
    Google Scholar 

    46.
    Wooldridge, D. R. & Belton, P. Natural and synthesized aggressive sounds as polar bear repellents. Bears Biol. Manag. 4, 85–91 (1980).
    Google Scholar 

    47.
    Huygens, O. C. & Hayashi, H. Using electric fences to reduce Asiatic black bear depredation in Nagano Prefecture, central Japan. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 27, 959–964 (1999).
    Google Scholar 

    48.
    Levin, M. Electrical fences against large predators. Carnivore Damage Prevent. News 2, 6–7 (2000).
    Google Scholar 

    49.
    Clark, J. D. et al. American black bears and bee yard depredation at Okefenokee Swamp, Georgia. Ursus 16, 234–244 (2005).
    Google Scholar 

    50.
    Seijas, J. M. et al. Effectiveness of brown bear damage protection measures to protect apiaries in the Cantambrian Mountains. Carnivore Damage Prevent. News 12, 26–30 (2016).
    Google Scholar 

    51.
    Parish, J. A. & Rheinhart, J. D. Calving season selection considerations. Mississippi State University Extension. Publication 2501 (POD-10–15). https://extension.msstate.edu (2015).

    52.
    Landa, A., Gudvangen, K., Swenson, J. E. & Røskaft, E. Factors associated with wolverine Gulo gulo predation on domestic sheep. J. Appl. Ecol. 36, 963–973 (1999).
    Google Scholar 

    53.
    Anderson, C. R., Ternent, M. A. & Moody, D. S. Grizzly bear-cattle interactions on two grazing allotments in northwest Wyoming. Ursus 13, 247–256 (2002).
    Google Scholar 

    54.
    Smith, T. S., Herrero, S., Layton, C. S., Larsen, R. T. & Johnson, K. R. Efficacy of firearms for bear deterrence in Alaska. J. Wildl. Manage. 76, 1021–1027 (2012).
    Google Scholar 

    55.
    Miller, G. D. Field tests of potential polar bear repellents. Int. Conf. Bear Res. Manage. 7, 383–390 (1987).
    Google Scholar 

    56.
    Rauer, G., Kaczensky, P. & Knauer, F. Experiences with aversive conditioning of habituated brown bears in Austria and other European countries. Ursus 14, 215–224 (2003).
    Google Scholar 

    57.
    Knarrum, V. et al. Brown bear predation on domestic sheep in central Norway. Ursus 17, 67–74 (2006).
    Google Scholar 

    58.
    Leigh, J. Effects of aversive conditioning on behavior of nuisance Louisiana black bears. MSc thesis. (Louisiana State University, 2007).

    59.
    Mazur, R. L. Does aversive conditioning reduce human-black bear conflict? J. Wildl. Manage. 74, 48–54 (2010).
    ADS  Google Scholar 

    60.
    Meadows, L. E. & Knowlton, F. F. Efficacy of guard llamas to reduce canine predation on domestic sheep. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 28, 614–622 (2000).
    Google Scholar 

    61.
    Hansen, I. & Smith, M. E. Livestock-guarding dogs in Norway. Part II: different working regimes. J. Range Manage. 52, 312–316 (1999).
    Google Scholar 

    62.
    Barrett, M. A., Telesco, D. J., Barrett, S. E., Widness, K. M. & Leone, E. H. Testing bear-resistant trash cans in residential areas of Florida. Southeast. Nat. 13, 26–39 (2014).
    Google Scholar 

    63.
    Johnson, H. E., Lewis, D. L., Lischka, S. A. & Breck, S. W. Assessing ecological and social outcomes of a bear-proofing experiment. J. Wildl. Manage. 82, 1102–1114 (2018).
    Google Scholar 

    64.
    Ziegltrum, G. J. Efficacy of black bear supplemental feeding to reduce conifer damage in western Washington. J. Wildl. Manage. 68, 470–474 (2004).
    Google Scholar 

    65.
    Stringham, S. F. & Bryant, A. Distance-dependent effectiveness of diversionary bear bait sites. Hum-Wildl. Interact. 9, 229–235 (2015).
    Google Scholar 

    66.
    Landriault, L. J., Brown, G. S., Hamr, J. & Mallory, F. F. Age, sex and relocation distance as predictors of return for relocated nuisance black bears Ursus americanus in Ontario, Canada. Wildl. Biol. 15, 155–164 (2009).
    Google Scholar 

    67.
    Treves, A., Kapp, K. J. & MacFarland, D. M. American black bear nuisance complaints and hunter take. Ursus 21, 30–42 (2010).
    Google Scholar 

    68.
    Lennox, R. J., Gallagher, A. J., Ritchie, E. G. & Cooke, S. J. Evaluating the efficacy of predator removal in a conflict-prone world. Biol. Conserv. 224, 277–289 (2018).
    Google Scholar 

    69.
    Goldstein, I. et al. Andean bear-livestock conflicts: a review. Ursus 17, 8–15 (2006).
    Google Scholar 

    70.
    Debata, S., Swain, K. K., Sahu, H. K. & Palei, H. S. Human-sloth bear conflict in a human-dominated landscape of northern Odisha, India. Ursus 27, 90–98 (2016).
    Google Scholar 

    71.
    Herrero, S. & Higgins, A. Field use of capsicum spray as a bear deterrent. Ursus 10, 533–537 (1998).
    Google Scholar 

    72.
    Andelt, W. F. Relative effectiveness of guarding-dog breeds to deter predation on domestic sheep in Colorado. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 27, 706–714 (1999).
    Google Scholar 

    73.
    Nakagawa, S. & Cuthill, I. C. Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists. Biol. Rev. 82, 591–605 (2007).
    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Integration of absolute multi-omics reveals dynamic protein-to-RNA ratios and metabolic interplay within mixed-domain microbiomes

    Taxonomic and functional resolution of the omics
    In order to explore the RNA/protein dynamics in a microbiome setting, we first needed to characterize our test community over time at the molecular level. We previously genomically reconstructed and resolved the SEM1b community, retrieving 11 metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) as well as two isolate genomes (see “Methods” section)10, covering the taxonomic and functional niches that are required to convert cellulosic material to methane/CO2 in an anaerobic biogas reactor15. Taxonomic analysis of both 16S rRNA genes and the MAGs of SEM1b inferred population-level affiliations to Rumini(Clostridium) thermocellum (RCLO1), Clostridium sp. (CLOS1), Coprothermobacter proteolyticus (COPR1, BWF2A, SW3C), Tepidanaerobacter (TEPI1-2), Synergistales (SYNG1-2), Tissierellales (TISS1), and the methanogen Methanothermobacter (METH1)10, as depicted in Fig. 1a. Herein we estimated that the total genomic potential of SEM1b includes 39,144 open reading frames (ORFs) (Supplementary Data 1). Since ORFs with very high sequence similarity may produce RNAs and proteins that are indistinguishable in MT and MP data, all the ORFs were gathered into ORF-groups (ORFGs) during the MT and MP data processing (see “Methods” section), where a singleton ORFG is defined as a group with a single ORF, and thus a single gene. Using this approach, our MT and MP data identified 12552 (96% singleton) and 3235 (78% singletons) highly transcribed and translated ORFGs, respectively. The discrepancy between the singleton percentages was as expected, due to the fact that variations in DNA/RNA sequences are greater than in proteins since different codons can code for the same amino acid (codon degeneracy). Degeneracy also implies that the chance to distinguish between homologous genes using MT is greater than using MP. Previous MG analyses using assembly algorithms have shown that genomic regions difficult to assemble in a given environmental contig can harbor variants from multiple, closely related strains, which can be further linked to normal strain-level variability within a population and species divergence16,17,18. Within SEM1b, the ORFGs that contained multiple homologous ORFs predominantly originated from several strains of a single species. For example, in the MT, 444 non-singleton ORFGs (88% of the total) contained ORFs from different strains of the same species, whilst this was the case for 294 ORFGs (32%) in the MP.
    Fig. 1: Life cycle of the SEM1b consortium and sampling scheme.

    a In the SEM1b consortium, seven major microbial populations perform the metabolic processes that lead from saccharification to methanogenesis. In the first phase, RCLO1 and CLOS1 degrade the spruce substrate (predominantly cellulose and hemicellulose), thanks to a sophisticated and flexible enzymatic array, which releases simple oligosaccharides and sugars. Subsequently, the consortium grows (the protein concentration in the samples increases) up to t4 (23 h post inoculum), alongside the degradation (and fermentation) of mono- and disaccharides by RCLO1, CLOS1, TEPI1, TISS1, and COPR1+ strains. One of the sugars released from the degradation of xylan, xylose, is briefly accumulated (Fig. 4a). In addition, SCFAs are accumulated as a byproduct of microbial fermentation. In the last step, the synergetic partnership between TEP1 and METH1 (syntrophic acetate oxidizer and methanogen, respectively) converts the SCFAs and H2 to methane. The bars in the protein profile represent the maxima and minima of the measurements. b To characterize SEM1b, 24 flasks containing spruce media were inoculated with a SEM1b culture at t0. Starting from t1 (8 h), three flasks were opened every 5 h and their content processed. From the eight time points (plus t0) different omic- and meta-data were collected (depicted in the table). Every dot represents a replicate sample, and most measurements are taken in triplicate (except for cellulose degradation).

    Full size image

    All ORFs were annotated using KEGG Ontology (KO), and at least one term was found for 19070 (49%) representatives from our complete data set (Supplementary Data 2). The predominant ORF annotations included Membrane transport, Carbohydrate metabolism, Translation, Amino acid metabolism, and Replication and repair (Supplementary Fig. 1). As expected, these functional categories were also among the top five most abundant for the MT, and top six in MP (plus Energy metabolism), although in a different order. The Membrane transport category is poorly represented in the MP (2% of the terms), which is likely explained by well-known technical issues with the gel-based sample preparation method that we used, which limits the extraction of transmembrane proteins19. The most abundant annotation categories mentioned above are all in line with the community function of cellulose degradation. The abundance ranking of the KO categories was assessed using the Kendall τ, which takes values from −1 (opposite direction of the ranking) to +1 (total agreement in ranking). Its score is interpreted as a correlation measure; however, it is more conservative. The ranking is largely preserved from MG to MT (Kendall τ: 0.77, p  More

  • in

    Symbiotic fouling of Vetulicola, an early Cambrian nektonic animal

    Systematic palaeontology
    Clade Bilateria, Clade Protostomia
    Vermilituus gregarius gen. et sp. nov.
    Etymology: Genus name from vermis (Latin) meaning worm and lituus (Latin) meaning a curved trumpet, alluding to the shape of the fossils. Species name from gregarius (Latin), meaning flock or herd.
    Holotype: YKLP 13079a, b (counterparts), U-shaped tube (Fig. 1a, b), 6.5-mm long, and reaching a maximum width of 0.6 mm: the holotype is associated with Vetulicola rectangulata YKLP 13075a, b. Paratypes (with preserved shell annulation), YKLP 13084 and 13085 (Fig. 1c, f) associated with V. rectangulata YKLP 13074, and YKLP 13082 and 13083 (Fig. 1e) associated with V. rectangulata YKLP 13073.
    Fig. 1: Different styles of preservation and morphology of Vermilituus gregarius.

    a, b Holotype, YKLP 13079a, flattened specimen showing U-shape morphology, under cross-polarised light (a) and fluorescence light (b). c Paratype YKLP 13084, partial 3D with well-preserved annulation, J-shape morphology. d, h YKLP 13086 under direct light (d) and fluorescence light (h), white arrow shows possible soft tissues. e Paratypes YKLP 13082 and 13083, preserved in 3D with annulation visible proximally: sinusoidal shape and J-shape morphology, respectively (the latter is broken distally and shows sediment fill). f Paratype YKLP 13085, partial 3D with well-preserved annulation, sinusoidal morphology. g, i–k Scanning electron microscopy images. g YKLP 13087 with J-shape morphology. i, j YKLP 13088, boxed area in “i” shows possible paired soft tissues at the termination, magnified in “j”. k YKLP 13089, with possible paired soft tissues at the terminal end. Scale bars: a–d, g–i, k, 500 μm; e, f, 1 mm; j, 200 μm.

    Full size image

    Referred material: About 192 specimens from Ercaicun, 75 from Mafang and 10 from Jianshan associated with Vetulicola rectangulata, all in the collections of the Yunnan Key Laboratory for Palaeobiology (YKLP). In total, 17 specimens from Xiaolantian and 55 specimens from Heimadi associated with Vetulicola cuneata, all in the collections of the Chengjiang Fossil Museum (CJHMD, Supplementary data file).
    Locality: Ercaicun (type locality), Mafang and Jianshan localities in the Haikou area of Kunming, and Xiaolantian and Heimadi in Chengjiang County, Yunnan Province, China (for localities see ref. 5).
    Horizon: Yu’anshan Member, Chiungchussu Formation, Eoredlichia-Wutingaspis trilobite Biozone, Nangaoan Stage of Chinese regional usage, Cambrian Series 2, Stage 3. All specimens are from rapidly sedimented ‘event beds’5.
    Diagnosis for genus (monotypic) and species. Small (0.8–7.2-mm long) elongated, conical tubes having three general forms, as a U-shape, J-shape or complex sinusoid, the latter being the dominant type: occasionally the tube also begins with a 360° planispiral coil before straightening. Coiling can be both dextral and sinistral and is in a single plane. The proximal end of the tube blunts (no bulb-like origin). Tubes increase in diameter very slowly, the proximal diameter being about 0.2 mm and the distal diameter reaching 1 mm. No longitudinal ornament. The transverse ornament of the tube consists of distinct annulation, there being about 12–16 annulae per mm. Most tubes are discrete, but in some cases two or more tubes cross. The tube wall appears to be very thin, and there is no evidence of internal septae, pseudopunctae or punctae. Paired crescentic structures are preserved at the open end of the tube in some specimens.
    Host–symbiont association
    All specimens of Vermilituus gregarius are associated with vetulicolians, a group of extinct animals of disputed phylogenetic affinity that possessed a convex anterior part with frontal and lateral openings, articulating with a tail-like posterior extension (Figs. 2–6; Supplementary Figs. 1 and 2; for a summary of vetulicolians see ref. 6). The soft anatomy of these animals is largely unknown, but the anterior part of Vetulicola has been hypothesised to comprise a pharynx with gill-like structures that flexed by means of horizontal and longitudinal muscle fibres attached to four flexible plates covered by a thin outer membrane (see below).
    Fig. 2: Vetulicola cuneata infested by Vermilituus gregarius.

    a CJHMD 00031a, right view of the internal mould. Specimen infested with circa 20 V. gregarius. b CJHMD 00031b, left view of the internal mould. c Close-up of the area indicated in the box of image “a”, showing concentration of V. gregarius specimens in the anterior section. d, e CJHMD 00032b, interior surface of the right side (dorsal to top) of the anterior section, and close-up of a sinusoidal V. gregarius tube. f Enlargement of arrowed area in image “a”, showing concentration of three specimens along the central groove. An—anus, Ao—anterior opening, As—anterior section, Dp—posterodorsal projection, Lg—lateral groove, Lp—lateral pouch, Ls—lip-like structure, Ps—posterior section, S—segment, Vp—posteroventral projection (see ref. 2 for terminology). Scale bars: a, b, d 1 cm; c 5 mm; e, f 1 mm.

    Full size image

    Fig. 3: Vetulicola rectangulata infested by Vermilituus gregarius.

    a, b YKLP 13073, left view of the internal mould of the anterior section (incomplete) and part of the posterior section. Specimen infested with circa 46 V. gregarius, with one aggregate toward the anterodorsal area (seen in “b”) comprising 29 specimens. c–f YKLP 13075, left view of the internal mould of the anterior section, and composite mould of the posterior section infested with 88 V. gregarius, including three aggregates of between 10 and 25 specimens (e.g., seen in “e”), and concentration of 24 specimens along the central groove (close-up in “f”): note that these are oriented with the narrow end associated with the groove. This specimen also shows four specimens in the tail (“d”). g, h YKLP 13074, right view of the internal mould of the anterior section infested with about 52 V. gregarius that form aggregates of between 5 and 14, including those that preserve annulation (“h”). Scale bars: a, c, g, 1 mm; b, d, e, f, h 2 mm.

    Full size image

    Fig. 4: Vetulicola cuneata, CJHMD 00033 showing taphonomic relationships with Vermilituus gregarius.

    Stereo images have a tilt of 20°, to emphasise that both the worms and the Vetulicola are 3-dimensional. a, b Lateral view (stereo pair) of the whole specimen and c, d close-up of the anterior section (stereo pair), respectively. The specimen is a composite mould, with the external surface (ES) evident only in part of the posterior section, while most of the fossil shows an interior surface (see also Supplementary Fig. 3). Scale bars: a, b 1 cm; c, d 5 mm.

    Full size image

    Fig. 5: Host specificity of Vermilituus gregarius with Vetulicola cuneata.

    a CJHMD 00033, Vetulicola cuneata preserved on rock slab with the fossil Eldonia. Vetulicola infested with circa 17 V. gregarius. Note that Eldonia was not infested. b CJHMD 00034, Vetulicola infested with circa 34 V. gregarius. c Close-up of the area indicated in the box of image “a”, showing one V. gregarius specimen near the anterior opening. d, e Close-up of the area indicated in the box of image “b”, showing concentration of three specimens along the central groove and one specimen at the position of the junction between the anterior and posterior section. Scale bars: a, b 1 cm; c–e 2 mm.

    Full size image

    Fig. 6: Reconstruction of Vetulicola cuneata (left) and V. rectangulata (right) in life.

    Infestation by Vermilituus gregarius is below the surface of the anterior section, that is, within the exoskeleton. Reconstructions are based on specimens about 6-cm long.

    Full size image

    Vermilituus gregarius occurs in four specimens of Vetulicola cuneata from the Chengjiang region (Figs. 2, 4, and 5), plus six specimens of Vetulicola rectangulata from the Haikou region (Fig. 3; Supplementary Figs. 1 and 2; Supplementary data file). Overall, at least 400 specimens of V. rectangulata and 80 specimens of V. cuneata have been collected from the Chengjiang biota (YKLP and CJHMD collections), meaning that Vermilituus gregarius is a rare associate of vetulicolians. Vetulicolian fossils occur as composite moulds where the rock splits through the specimen, each part containing components of both the external and internal surfaces (Supplementary Fig. 3). For the anterior part of Vetulicola, we interpret Vermilituus gregarius as occupying the space between the interior of the exoskeleton, and the convex surface that appears to demarcate the position of the internal anatomy (Figs. 2a–c, 3a, b, g, 4a, b; Supplementary Figs. 1b–e, 2a, b).
    The number of Vermilituus gregarius per associated vetulicolian is variable, ranging from a single tube to 88 individuals (Supplementary data file), and in some cases, V. gregarius occurs in local aggregates of up to 25 individuals, for example in YKLP 13075 (Fig. 3c, e, f). In most cases where V. gregarius aggregates, the individuals are discrete, but occasionally some overlap. The overall size of V. gregarius is from 0.8 to 7.2 mm in length, with maximum diameter ranging from 0.4 to 1 mm (proximal width is circa 0.2 mm). Average tube length varies within individual Vetulicola specimens (Supplementary data file), by a minimum of 1.6 mm (specimens associated with CJHMD 00031) to a maximum of 6.4 mm (specimens associated with YKLP 13073).
    Rather than representing post-mortem assemblages, or the result of Vermilituus scavenging or colonising vetulicolian carcasses, all evidence suggests that Vermilituus attached to the body surfaces of living vetulicolians. All infested vetulicolians are preserved within ‘event beds’5. This means that they were rapidly buried by sediment, and therefore post-mortem colonisation at the seabed is highly unlikely. Tubes of Vermilituus gregarius occur almost exclusively inside the vetulicolians, rather than the external body surface, and preferentially within the anterior part (Figs. 2–5; Supplementary Figs. 1 and 2). They are absent from other fossils preserved adjacent on the same slabs (Fig. 5a), and indeed have never been observed in other Chengjiang fossils in our investigations over the last three decades. Most specimens of V. gregarius occur in the anterior section of the vetulicolian body (n  > 345) (Figs. 2–5, Supplementary Figs. 1 and 2), with just 4 specimens associated with the posterior section of the most-infested specimen in our collection (YKLP 13075, Fig. 3d). In this rare case, V. gregarius may have over-spilled onto the external surface of the animal or has been displaced post-mortem. Among those in the anterior part, most are located in the convex area between the central groove and the fin-like margins, with some concentrations often in the anterodorsal region (Fig. 3a, b). Only a few tubes of V. gregarius occur along the margins of Vetulicola. In one case, at least 10 U-shaped tubes grow with a posterior orientation in Vetulicola YKLP 10906 (Supplementary Fig. 1e). In Vetulicola YKLP 13075, there is a clear association of 24 V. gregarius with the central groove (Fig. 3f), each having a distinctive orientation with the narrow end of the tube pointing towards the groove.
    The consistent occurrence of Vermilituus gregarius inside the anterior section of vetulicolians, combined with the observed patterns of localisation and occasional preferred orientation (Supplementary data file), argues against a chance post-mortem association, or generalist epibiontic habit. In the latter scenarios, the posterior section should also be infested. Furthermore, V. gregarius is absent from any other fossil organism in the Chengjiang biota, suggesting a highly specific relationship. The robust (possibly biomineralised) and curved tubes of V. gregarius are consistent with a sessile, attached ecology, but not with a motile scavenger that might have fed on vetulicolians after death. The size range of Vermilituus on each specimen (Supplementary data file) suggests animals growing in situ for some time, rather than colonising carrion. In addition, the lack of evidence for decay and disarticulation of infested vetulicolians combined with their preservation in event beds supports an in vivo association. In this light, the observed patterns in size, number and distribution of V. gregarius tubes also shed light on vetulicolian biology and the ecological relationship between the taxa. More

  • in

    Light intensity regulates flower visitation in Neotropical nocturnal bees

    1.
    Michener, C. D. The Bees of the World (The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 2007).
    Google Scholar 
    2.
    Wcislo, W. T. & Tierney, S. M. Behavioural environments and niche construction: The evolution of dim-light foraging in bees. Biol. Rev. 84, 19–37 (2009).
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    3.
    Warrant, E. J. Nocturnal bees. Curr. Biol. 17, 991–992 (2007).
    Google Scholar 

    4.
    Warrant, E. J. Seeing in the dark: Vision and visual behaviour in nocturnal bees and wasps. J. Exp. Biol. 211, 1737–1746 (2008).
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    5.
    Somanathan, H., Borges, R. M., Warrant, E. J. & Kelber, A. Visual ecology of Indian carpenter bees I: Light intensities and flight activity. J. Comp. Physiol. A Neuroethol. Sensory Neural Behav. Physiol. 194, 97–107 (2008).
    Google Scholar 

    6.
    Somanathan, H., Saryan, P. & Balamurali, G. S. Foraging strategies and physiological adaptations in large carpenter bees. J. Comp. Physiol. A Neuroethol. Sensory Neural Behav. Physiol. 205, 387–398 (2019).
    Google Scholar 

    7.
    Engel, M. S. Classification of the bee tribe Augochlorini (Hymenoptera: Halictidae). Bull. Am. Museum Nat. Hist. 250, 1–90 (2000).
    Google Scholar 

    8.
    Silveira, F. A., Melo, G. A. R. & Almeida, E. A. B. Abelhas Brasileiras: Sistemática e Identificação (Fundação Araucária, Belo Horizonte, 2002).
    Google Scholar 

    9.
    Wcislo, W. T. et al. The evolution of nocturnal behaviour in sweat bees, Megalopta genalis and M. ecuadoria (Hymenoptera: Halictidae): An escape from competitors and enemies?. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 83, 377–387 (2004).
    Google Scholar 

    10.
    Carvalho, A. T., Maia, A. C. D., Ojima, P. Y., dos Santos, A. A. & Schlindwein, C. Nocturnal bees are attracted by widespread floral scents. J. Chem. Ecol. 38, 315–318 (2012).
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    11.
    Janzen, D. Notes on nesting and foraging behavior of Megalopta (Hymenoptera: Halictidae) in Costa Rica. J. Kansas Entomol. Soc. 41, 342–350 (1968).
    Google Scholar 

    12.
    Roberts, R. B. Biology of the crepuscular bee Ptiloglossa guinnae N. sp. with notes on associated bees, mites, and yeasts. J. Kansas Entomol. Soc. 44, 283–294 (1971).
    Google Scholar 

    13.
    Rozen, J. G. Nesting biology of Diphaglossine bees (Hymenoptera, Colletidae). Am. Museum Novit. 2786, 1–33 (1984).
    Google Scholar 

    14.
    Santos, L. M., Tierney, S. M. & Wcislo, W. T. Nest descriptions of Megalopta aegis (Vachal) and M. guimaraesi Santos & Silveira (Hymenoptera, Halictidae) from the Brazilian Cerrado. Rev. Bras. Entomol. 54, 332–334 (2010).
    Google Scholar 

    15.
    Sarzetti, L., Genise, J., Sanchez, M. V., Farina, J. & Molina, A. Nesting behavior and ecological preferences of five Diphaglossinae species (Hymenoptera, Apoidea, Colletidae) from Argentina and Chile. J. Hymenopt. Res. 33, 63–82 (2013).
    Google Scholar 

    16.
    Wolda, H. & Roubik, D. W. Nocturnal bee abundance and seasonal bee activity in a Panamanian forest. Ecology 67, 426–433 (1986).
    Google Scholar 

    17.
    Linsley, E. G. & Cazier, M. A. Some competitive relationships among matinal and late afternoon foraging activities of Caupolicanine bees in Southeastern Arizona (Hymenoptera, Colletidae). J. Kansas Entomol. Soc. 43, 251–261 (1970).
    Google Scholar 

    18.
    Roulston, T. H. Hourly capture of two species of Megalopta (Hymenoptera: Apoidea; Halictidae) at black lights in Panama with notes on nocturnal foraging by bees. J. Kansas Entomol. Soc. 70, 189–196 (1997).
    Google Scholar 

    19.
    Smith, A. R., López Quintero, I. J., Moreno Patiño, J. E., Roubik, D. W. & Wcislo, W. T. Pollen use by Megalopta sweat bees in relation to resource availability in a tropical forest. Ecol. Entomol. 37, 309–317 (2012).
    Google Scholar 

    20.
    Dafni, A., Kevan, P. G. & Husband, B. C. Practical Pollination Biology (Enviroquest Ltd., Cambridge, 2005).
    Google Scholar 

    21.
    Somanathan, H. & Borges, R. M. Nocturnal pollination by the carpenter bee Xylocopa tenuiscapa (Apidae) and the effect of floral display on fruit set of Heterophragma quadriloculare (Bignoniaceae) in India. Biotropica 33, 78–89 (2001).
    Google Scholar 

    22.
    Contrera, F. A. L. & Nieh, J. C. The effect of ambient temperature on forager sound production and thoracic temperature in the stingless bee, Melipona panamica. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 61, 887–897 (2007).
    Google Scholar 

    23.
    Willmer, P. G. Thermal constraints on activity patterns in nectar-feeding insects. Ecol. Entomol. 8, 455–469 (1983).
    Google Scholar 

    24.
    Linsley, E. G. The ecology of solitary bee. Hilgardia 27, 543–599 (1958).
    Google Scholar 

    25.
    Figueiredo-Mecca, G., Bego, L. R. & Nascimento, F. S. Foraging behavior of Scaptotrigona depilis (Hymenoptera, Apidae, Meliponini) and its relationship with temporal and abiotic factors. Sociobiology 60, 277–282 (2013).
    Google Scholar 

    26.
    Streinzer, M., Huber, W. & Spaethe, J. Body size limits dim-light foraging activity in stingless bees (Apidae: Meliponini). J. Comp. Physiol. A 202, 643–655 (2016).
    Google Scholar 

    27.
    Linsley, E. G. Temporal patterns of flower visitation by solitary bees, with particular reference to the southwestern United States. J. Kansas Entomol. Soc. 51, 531–546 (1978).
    Google Scholar 

    28.
    Borges, R. M., Somanathan, H. & Kelber, A. Patterns and processes in nocturnal and crepuscular pollination services. Q. Rev. Biol. 91, 389–418 (2016).
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    29.
    Warrant, E. J. Seeing better at night: Life style, eye design and the optimum strategy of spatial and temporal summation. Vis. Res. 39, 1611–1630 (1999).
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    30.
    Warrant, E. J. et al. Nocturnal vision and landmark orientation in a tropical halictid bee. Curr. Biol. 14, 1309–1318 (2004).
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    31.
    Warrant, E. Vision in the dimmest habitats on Earth. J. Comp. Physiol. A Neuroethol. Sensory Neural Behav. Physiol. 190, 765–789 (2004).
    Google Scholar 

    32.
    Warrant, E. & Dacke, M. Vision and visual navigation in nocturnal insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 56, 239–254 (2011).
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    33.
    Rozenberg, G. V. Twilight (Springer, New York, 1966).
    Google Scholar 

    34.
    O’Carroll, D. C. & Warrant, E. J. Vision in dim light: Highlights and challenges. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 372, 20160062 (2017).
    Google Scholar 

    35.
    Smith, A. R., Kitchen, S. M., Toney, R. M. & Ziegler, C. Is nocturnal foraging in a tropical bee an escape from interference competition?. J. Insect Sci. 17, 1–7 (2017).
    CAS  Google Scholar 

    36.
    Kapustjanskij, A., Streinzer, M., Paulus, H. F. & Spaethe, J. Bigger is better: implications of body size for flight ability under different light conditions and the evolution of alloethism in bumblebees. Funct. Ecol. 21, 1130–1136 (2007).
    Google Scholar 

    37.
    Lorenzi, H. Brazilian Trees: A Guide to the Identification and Cultivation of Brazilian Native Trees (Instituto Plantarum de Estudos da Flora, Nova Odessa, 2002).
    Google Scholar 

    38.
    Cordeiro, G. D., Pinheiro, M., Dötterl, S. & Alves-dos-Santos, I. Pollination of Campomanesia phaea (Myrtaceae) by night-active bees: A new nocturnal pollination system mediated by floral scent. Plant Biol. 19, 132–139 (2017).
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    39.
    Kelber, A. et al. Light intensity limits foraging activity in nocturnal and crepuscular bees. Behav. Ecol. 17, 63–72 (2006).
    Google Scholar 

    40.
    Polatto, L. P., Chaud-Netto, J. & Alves-Junior, V. V. Influence of abiotic factors and floral resource availability on daily foraging activity of bees. J. Insect Behav. 27, 593–612 (2014).
    Google Scholar 

    41.
    Willis, D. S. & Kevan, P. G. Foraging dynamics of Peponapis pruinosa (Hymenoptera: Anthophoridae) on pumpkin (Cucurbita pepo) in Southern Ontario. Can. Entomol. 127, 167–175 (1995).
    Google Scholar 

    42.
    Wcislo, W. T. & Cane, J. H. Floral resource utilization by solitary bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) and exploitation of their stored foods by natural enemies. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 41, 257–286 (1996).
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    43.
    Bellusci, S. & Marques, M. D. Circadian activity rhythm of the foragers of a eusocial bee (Scaptotrigona aff depilis, Hymenoptera, Apidae, Meliponinae) outside the nest. Biol. Rhythm Res. 32, 117–124 (2001).
    Google Scholar 

    44.
    Bloch, G., Bar-Shai, N., Cytter, Y. & Green, R. Time is honey: Circadian clocks of bees and flowers and how their interactions may influence ecological communities. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 372, 20160256 (2017).
    Google Scholar 

    45.
    Enright, J. T. Ecological aspects of endogenous rhythmicity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 1, 221–238 (1970).
    Google Scholar 

    46.
    Shelly, T. E., Villalobos, E. M., Buchmann, S. L. & Cane, J. H. Temporal patterns of floral visitation for two bee species foraging on Solanum. J. Kansas Entomol. Soc. 66, 319–327 (1993).
    Google Scholar 

    47.
    Gottlieb, D., Keasar, T., Shmida, A. & Motro, U. Possible foraging benefits of bimodal daily activity in Proxylocopa olivieri (Lepeletier) (Hymenoptera: Anthophoridae). Environ. Entomol. 34, 417–424 (2005).
    Google Scholar 

    48.
    Franco, E. L. & Gimenes, M. Pollination of Cambessedesia wurdackii in Brazilian campo rupestre vegetation, with special reference to crepuscular bees. J. Insect Sci. 11, 1–13 (2011).
    Google Scholar 

    49.
    Oliveira, F. S., Ribeiro, M. H. M., Nunez, C. V. & de Albuquerque, M. C. Flowering phenology of Mouriri guianensis (Melastomataceae) and its interaction with the crepuscular bee Megalopta amoena (Halictidae) in the restinga of Lençóis Maranhenses National Park, Brazil. Acta Amaz. 46, 281–290 (2016).
    Google Scholar 

    50.
    Willmer, P. & Stone, G. Temperature and water relations in desert bees. J. Therm. Biol. 22, 453–465 (1997).
    Google Scholar 

    51.
    Krug, C. et al. Nocturnal bee pollinators are attracted to guarana flowers by their scents. Front. Plant Sci. 9, 1072 (2018).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    52.
    Siqueira, E. et al. Pollination of Machaerium opacum (Fabaceae) by nocturnal and diurnal bees. Arthropod. Plant. Interact. 12, 633–645 (2018).
    Google Scholar 

    53.
    Orbán, L. L. & Plowright, C. M. S. Getting to the start line: How bumblebees and honeybees are visually guided towards their first floral contact. Insectes Soc. 61, 325–336 (2014).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    54.
    Burger, H., Dotterl, S. & Ayasse, M. Host-plant finding and recognition by visual and olfactory floral cues in an oligolectic bee. Funct. Ecol. 24, 1234–1240 (2010).
    Google Scholar 

    55.
    Milet-Pinheiro, P., Ayasse, M., Schlindwein, C., Dobson, H. E. M. & Dötterl, S. Host location by visual and olfactory floral cues in an oligolectic bee: Innate and learned behavior. Behav. Ecol. 23, 531–538 (2012).
    Google Scholar 

    56.
    Kantsa, A. et al. Community-wide integration of floral colour and scent in a Mediterranean scrubland. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1502–1510 (2017).
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    57.
    Peel, M. C., Finlayson, B. L. & McMahon, T. A. Updated world map of the Koppen-Geiger climate classification. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 11, 1633–1644 (2007).
    ADS  Google Scholar 

    58.
    Michener, C. D. & Lange, R. B. Observations on the behavior of Brasilian halictid bees, III. Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull. 39, 473–505 (1958).
    Google Scholar 

    59.
    Meinel, A. B. & Meinel, M. P. Sunsets, Twilights, and Evening Skies (Cambridge University, Cambridge, 1991).
    Google Scholar 

    60.
    R Core Team, R. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Found. Stat. Comput. Vienna, Austria. www.R-project.org (2017). Accessed 15 Dec 2017.

    61.
    Bolker, B. & R Core Team, R. bbmle: Tools for general maximum likelihood estimation. R Packag. version 1.0.20. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=bbmle (2017). Accessed 15 Dec 2017.

    62.
    Hartig, F. DHARMa: Residual diagnostics for hierarchical (multi-level/mixed) regression models. R Packag. version 0.1.5. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=DHARMa (2017). Accessed 15 Dec 2017.

    63.
    Wickham, H., Francois, R., Henry, L. & Müller, K. dplyr: A grammar of data manipulation. R Packag. version 0.7.4. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dplyr (2017). Accessed 15 Dec 2017.

    64.
    Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (Springer, New York, 2009).
    Google Scholar 

    65.
    Sarkar, D. Lattice: Multivariate data visualization with R. R Packag. version 0.20–38. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lattice (2008). Accessed 15 Dec 2017.

    66.
    Sarkar, D. & Andrews, F. latticeExtra: Extra graphical utilities based on lattice. R Packag. version 0.6-28. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=latticeExtra (2016). Accessed 15 Dec 2017.

    67.
    Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).
    Google Scholar 

    68.
    Kelley, D. & Richards, C. oce: Analysis of oceanographic data. R Packag. version 0.9-22. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=oce (2017). Accessed 15 Dec 2017.

    69.
    Wickham, H. & Henry, L. tidyr: Easily tidy data with ‘spread()’ and ‘gather()’ functions. R Packag. version 0.8.0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=tidyr (2018). Accessed 15 Dec 2017.

    70.
    Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N., Walker, N. J., Saveliev, A. A. & Smith, G. M. Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R (Springer, New York, 2009).
    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    The influence of soil age on ecosystem structure and function across biomes

    Cross-biome field survey and soil sample collection
    Soil and vegetation data were collected using standardized protocols between 2016 and 2017 from 16 soil chronosequences (also known as substrate age gradients) located in nine countries and six continents (Fig. 1 and Supplementary Table 1). Soil chronosequences are often used to evaluate the changes in ecosystem structure and function over millennia because soil age for these locations is frequently known from geological surveys, models, and isotopic dating techniques (Fig. 1 and Supplementary Table 1). In these soil chronosequences, all other soil-forming factors except substrate age are kept relatively constant (i.e., current climate, vegetation, topography, and parent material), which permits the separation of the effects of time on ecosystem development from other ecosystem development state factors1,2,3.
    Field surveys were conducted according to a standardized sampling protocol. We surveyed a 50 m × 50 m plot within each chronosequence stage, and within each quadrat, collected five composite surface soil samples from the surface 10 cm soil under the dominant vegetation types (e.g., trees, shrubs, grasses, etc.). Given the cross-biome nature of our study, we do not expect the timing (season) of sample collection to affect our results. Following field sampling, soils were sieved ( More