More stories

  • in

    A network approach to elucidate and prioritize microbial dark matter in microbial communities

    Overall strategy to detect the relevance of Unknown taxa
    A pipeline based on network analysis was developed to detect and quantitatively measure the overall and individual impact of Unknown taxa on their environmental communities (Fig. 1). Briefly, Illumina 16S rRNA sequencing fastq files belonging to four distinctive aquatic extreme environments (i.e., hot springs, hypersaline, deep sea, and polar habitats that included both Arctic and Antarctic samples) were collected from public databases and 45 different BioProjects (Fig. 2a and Supplementary Dataset S1). We included different environment types to assess general and environment-specific patterns and chose to use extreme habitats as they comprise some of the harshest and relatively understudied habitats on Earth, and therefore, are likely to contain uncharacterized organisms.
    Fig. 1: Overview of the analysis pipeline.

    A minimum of 250 samples was retrieved for each of the four different extreme environments—hot springs (red), hypersaline (dark green), deep sea (turquoise), and polar (blue). Sequence reads were quality filtered, assigned to a taxonomy, and clustered to OTUs. At each classification level, any unassigned, ambiguous, or uncultured OTUs were designated as Unknowns, or “microbial dark matter” (MDM). For each environment, at each classification level, the direct co-occurrence relationship between all OTUs was mathematically modeled as a network. Networks were created for each environment, across all taxonomic classification levels, including all OTUs (Original, orange), excluding MDM (Without Unknowns, light green), and excluding an equal number of random Knowns (Bootstrap, blue). Network centrality metrics (i.e., degree, betweenness, and closeness) were calculated for each node, compared, and visualized as boxplots between these network types. Hub scores were calculated for each node in the Original network and networks were recreated, resizing by hub score, where the largest size node indicates a top hub species.

    Full size image

    Fig. 2: Summary of environmental 16S rRNA gene data.

    a Map of the sample sites used in this study. Circles symbolize sample locations and are color-coded by environment: hot springs (HS, red), hypersaline (HY, dark green), deep sea (DS, turquoise), and polar (PO, blue). b Summary of data used in this study. OTUs counts are provided at the genus level. c Proportion of “microbial dark matter” (MDM) OTUs for each environment labeled as unassigned (dark blue), uncultured (dark red), and ambiguous (yellow) after SILVA and UCLUST-based taxonomic assignment to OTU. d Venn diagram of shared OTUs in four extreme environments. Each pie chart depicts the proportion of unique OTUs that were Known (lighter shade) and Unknown (darker shade) for each environment, with the bottom-most pie chart showing combined data for all environments. e Prevalence curves indicate the number of unique OTUs consistently present at an increasing number of samples. Dotted lines signify the prevalence of MDM OTUs and solid lines signify the prevalence of Known OTUs.

    Full size image

    After quality filtering, reads were mapped to OTUs and annotated against the SILVA (v128) reference database [38] by an open-reference strategy, i.e., allowing the detection of Unknown OTUs [39]. Over two million Known and novel taxa were observed with the vast majority of the taxa annotated as Bacteria. Only the bacterial taxa or OTUs unclassified at the domain-level were targeted for downstream network analyses to demonstrate the feasibility of this approach across ecosystems. As the term “microbial dark matter” can have a broad meaning, here, we define Unknown taxa as uncultured, unassigned, or ambiguous by the reference database at each taxonomic classification level (e.g., phylum to genus). For each environment, networks reflecting across-samples co-occurrence relationships between all taxa, Known and Unknown, were constructed and referred to as the “Original” networks (Fig. 1). To assess the role of the Unknown taxa on network structure and properties, the Unknown nodes were removed from the ‘Original’ network and a new network, referred to as ‘Without Unknown’ was reconstructed. To ensure that changes in network properties were not caused just by the number of nodes, a third network, referred to as the “Bootstrap” network, was created where a random set of nodes of the same number as the Unknown OTUs was removed. The relevance of the Unknown taxa was assessed by comparing changes in degree, closeness, and betweenness scores between the three network types and by evaluating the frequency of Unknowns as top hubs within each of the “Original” environmental networks.
    A similar and significant fraction of Unknown taxa populates diverse environments
    To assess whether there were distinctive patterns or trends of Unknown taxa within the four targeted environments, data from each habitat type were mined from several geographical locations across the globe (Fig. 2a and Supplementary Dataset S1). Reads were collected from the online repositories National Center for Biotechnology Information Sequence Read Archive (NCBI SRA) and Joint Genome Institute Genomes Online Database (JGI Gold). For each environment, between 255 and 286 16S rRNA samples and between 51 and 57 million reads were included in the analysis, resulting in a total of 219,980,340 reads from 1086 samples (Fig. 2b).
    After processing, quality filtering, and OTU assignment steps were completed, there were 2102,595 unique OTUs totaling 164,896,127 amplicon read counts derived from these samples (Fig. 2b). The relative proportions of Unknown OTUs, which were designated as unassigned, ambiguous, or uncultured by the SILVA database, were compared between environments. Results indicated that all environments showed similar relative contributions of these three Unknown types, with unassigned and uncultured OTUs making up the majority of the Unknown component composition (Fig. 2c). Regardless of environment type, within each of the four habitats, between 25 and 38% of unique OTUs were cataloged as Unknown (Fig. 2b, d). Samples collected from polar habitats were significantly enriched (Fisher’s Exact Test p value < 0.05) in Unknown OTUs despite having the highest total read counts. The higher proportion of Unknown OTUs in the polar samples compared to the other habitats likely reflects the less-well-characterized biological diversity of these Arctic and Antarctic ecosystems. Next, the proportion of shared Known and Unknown OTUs between environments was evaluated. Most OTUs, regardless of assigned or unassigned taxonomic status, were environment-specific, with only 11,318 out of the 2,102,595 OTUs present in all four of the environments (Fig. 2d). The majority of shared OTUs were observed between the hypersaline and polar environments and between hypersaline and hot springs environments, possibly reflecting the widespread distribution of hypersaline habitats across diverse thermal zones. Unsurprisingly, polar and hot springs environmental samples shared the least number of OTUs (Fig. 2d). Given this low common OTU pool across environments, network analyses were applied to each environment independently. Last, the prevalence (i.e., the percentage of samples with nonzero counts in which an OTU was detected) of Known and Unknown OTUs was evaluated at the genus level to assess the consistency of OTU detection within each environment. The OTU matrix was sparse, with the majority of taxa observed in ≤50 (~20%) samples (Fig. 2e). However, prevalence curves were generally very similar for Known and Unknown OTUs in all four environments, indicating that Unknown OTUs are not necessarily rarer than already characterized species (Fig. 2e). Moreover, we confirmed that Unknown OTUs, like Known OTUs, were generally present and consistent across multiple studies within the same environment and did not tend to concentrate in any particular project (Supplementary Figs. S1–4). Consequently, these results indicated that a network analysis of these data would be a reflection of the co-occurrence structure of the community and not of potential compositional bias. Network analysis of OTU abundance at different taxonomic levels reveals the connectivity of unknown microbes Having demonstrated that the Unknown taxa comprise a substantial proportion of unique OTUs and have comparable abundances to Known taxa within a community, network metrics were used to effectively compare the ecological relevance of both Known and Unknown taxa in subsequent networks. Microbial association networks were constructed that featured only significant co-occurrence correlation relationships for OTUs with a notable prevalence in each environment, meaning that any OTUs that were not detected in a sufficient number of samples were removed. To select a suitable prevalence threshold, the proportion of Known and Unknown taxa across a range of sample percentages was evaluated (Supplementary Fig. S5). Across all taxonomic levels, the Known and Unknown taxa of hot springs and polar habitats were more prevalent than those of hypersaline and deep sea communities; therefore, a slightly more stringent prevalence threshold (40%) was chosen for the former, and a lower threshold value (30%) chosen for the latter environments. These thresholds resulted in the retention of a similar fraction of data from the initial OTU count (Table 1), with 102–297 nodes present per environment, making the networks both suitably large and comparable. Table 1 Breakdown of node and edge attributes across extreme environmental networks. Full size table The SpiecEasi Meinshausen–Buhlmann (MB) neighborhood algorithm was then used to construct networks (see “Methods”) that contained at least 100 nodes (i.e., OTUs) per environment and had edge-to-node ratios that varied from 1.9 and 2.9 (Table 1). Although most OTUs that passed the prevalence criteria became elements of the networks, no relationship between the initial data size (i.e., number of samples and taxa) and the interconnectedness (i.e., nodes/edges ratio) of the resulting network was observed (Table 1). The two environments with the highest number of initial OTUs (i.e., hypersaline and deep sea) had the lowest number of prevalent members, 193 and 102, respectively, and very different edge/node ratios, 2.7 and 1.9, respectively, indicating that high prevalence does not necessarily correlate with high co-occurrence. Similarly, the polar and hot springs networks retained a high number of prevalent OTUs but differed in edge number, yet again, indicating that the observed network structures were the result of the intrinsic properties of each environment and were not dependent on the sampling procedure. Interestingly, when evaluating the proportion of Unknown edges and Unknown-Unknown connections at the genus level, similar patterns were observed across environments. Between 45 and 62% of all connected nodes were Unknown OTUs and a higher proportion of Unknown-Unknown versus Known-Known links was present at the genus level (Table 1), for all environments but hot springs, where a higher proportion of Known-Unknown and Known-Known links was observed. The results of this global analysis of network construction and composition demonstrate that although the general community connectivity might be environment-specific, the relative contribution of Known and Unknown taxa to these networks is similar. Once again, network properties were not a direct outcome of sampling biases, but more likely, reflect the biology of their respective ecosystems. Unknown taxa play important roles in interconnectedness and connectivity of extreme environmental microbial networks Next, the position and neighborhood of Unknown nodes were examined. At the phylum level, Unknown taxa were present in the hot spring, hypersaline, and polar environments, but were not found in the deep sea network (Supplementary Fig. S6). The class level was the first taxonomic classification rank in which Unknown taxa were present in all environmental networks. To accurately assess the role of Unknowns, we evaluated class-level networks and observed that the hypersaline and polar Unknown OTUs created distinctive clusters, whereas hot springs and deep sea Unknown OTUs were intermixed with Known taxa (Fig. 3a). Hypersaline and polar Unknowns consistently appeared to be isolated and peripherally located compared to the centrally positioned hot springs and deep sea Unknown nodes across almost all classification ranks (Supplementary Fig. S6). Consequently, these results suggest that the clustering pattern is unrelated to a higher abundance of Unknowns and is more environment dependent. For example, the targeted hot spring environments had the highest number of Unknown OTUs yet showed the most dispersed connections between the these taxa (Fig. 3a). Thus, the inclusion of the Unknown taxa in our environmental networks models was, as anticipated, not solely the consequence of their level of prevalence, but rather a reflection of a particular abundance co-variation pattern. Fig. 3: Analysis of environmental network taxa interconnectedness. a Microbial networks at class taxonomic classification level. Nodes are colored by class assignment, with gray nodes representing Unknown taxa at the class level. b Bar graphs of the co-occurrence relationships (i.e., edges) of Unknown OTUs with other taxa at the class level within each environmental network. Y axis labels and colors signify the different classes with which Unknowns were found to co-occur. Unknown-Unknown relationships are represented in gray. Full size image For all four environments, Unknown OTUs had more frequently shared edges among them than with classified taxa (Fig. 3b). Unknown OTUs were found to frequently co-occur with each other within each environmental network, although the frequency of within-class interactions for Unknowns at the class level was found to be statistically no greater than all other within-class interactions for each environment (Supplementary Fig. S7). In fact, the pattern of a high frequency of shared edges among members of the same class held true for known classes as well (Supplementary Fig. S8). In accordance with other studies, these results demonstrate that OTUs of the same taxonomic classification most frequently co-occur with each other [40, 41]. Furthermore, the high frequency of shared edges between Unknown classes suggests that Unknown OTUs might be taxonomically related. To ensure that the observations found were reproducible, robust, and not biased by earlier steps of the analysis, the diversity and position of Unknown taxa in the networks were examined for several parameters. Although the number of Unknown nodes changed at each level (Supplementary Fig. S6), the environment-specific network patterns observed at the class level (Fig. 3a) were retained at other taxonomic levels. In addition, to determine whether the topology of the network was a direct consequence of our correlation metric of choice or the prevalence threshold, three other network construction approaches were used: SparCC [11], CClasso [42], and Pearson correlation. Network analyses were performed across a range of prevalence thresholds (15–35%, at 5% increments). Again, regardless of the network construction approach or sample percentage applied, network shape and Unknown OTU position remained consistent and each environment exhibited a distinctive pattern of Unknown taxa inclusion. For example, Unknown nodes continued to occupy peripheral positions for hypersaline and polar networks, whereas nodes in hot springs and deep sea environments were more centrally located when applying different correlation metrics (Supplementary Fig. S9). Although networks appeared “noisy” at more lenient prevalence thresholds (15–20%; Supplementary Figs. S10–13), the networks and positioning of Unknowns at higher percent thresholds were similar in appearance to the “Original” networks for all environments. Based on these results, we found that our general analysis strategy was robust across parameter choices and, therefore, these networks captured critical features of the relationships among taxa within each distinctive environment. Microbial dark matter acts as unifiers and frequent hubs within extreme environmental networks Although these results suggest that Unknown taxa were highly interconnected, these observations did not reveal how the presence of Unknowns affected the overall community structure. To more fully understand this role, we analyzed how network properties changed in the presence and absence of Unknown OTU nodes. We evaluated changes in degree, betweenness, and closeness, as different network metrics reveal different aspects of the relevance of nodes within their networks. This approach has the potential to ascertain whether certain Unknown OTUs were more centrally positioned (e.g., due to high closeness scores), more essential for joining other taxa (e.g., high betweenness), or simply more prevalent and likely to co-occur with others (e.g., high degree). To control for the effect of node removal and distinguish effects of Unknown taxa from network size, networks were generated that excluded several randomly picked Known nodes equal to the number of Unknown OTUs. This process was repeated 100 times to create a distribution of “Null” or “Bootstrap” networks for statistical comparisons. Differences in network parameters between networks without Unknown OTUs and the “Original” or “Bootstrap” networks were determined by the Wilcoxon test and p values were adjusted using the Holm method [43]. Strikingly, removal of the Unknown taxa caused a statistically significant impact on all measured network metrics in all four studied environments (Table 2, Fig. 4, and Supplementary Figs. S14–24). In the polar environments, for example, removal of Unknown OTUs caused a significant decrease in degree (p value  More

  • in

    Population genetic structure of the great star coral, Montastraea cavernosa, across the Cuban archipelago with comparisons between microsatellite and SNP markers

    1.
    Carson, H. S., Cook, G. S., López-Duarte, P. C. & Levin, L. A. Evaluating the importance of demographic connectivity in a marine metapopulation. Ecology 92, 1972–1984. https://doi.org/10.1890/11-0488.1 (2011).
    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 
    2.
    Jackson, J. B. C., Donovan, M. K., Cramer, K. L., Lam, V. & Lam, W. Status and trends of Caribbean coral reefs: 1970–2012. Glob. Coral Reef Monit. Network, IUCN, Gland. Switz. 306 (2014).

    3.
    Palumbi, S. R. Population genetics, demographic connectivity, and the design of marine reserves. 13, 146–158, https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2003)013[0146:PGDCAT]2.0.CO;2 (2003).

    4.
    Botsford, L. W. et al. Connectivity and resilience of coral reef metapopulations in marine protected areas: matching empirical efforts to predictive needs. Coral Reefs 28, 327–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-009-0466-z (2009).
    ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    5.
    Galindo, H. M., Olson, D. B. & Palumbi, S. R. Seascape genetics: a coupled oceanographic-genetic model predicts population structure of Caribbean corals. Curr. Biol. 16, 1622–1626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2006.06.052 (2006).
    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    6.
    Rippe, J. P. et al. Population structure and connectivity of the mountainous star coral, Orbicella faveolata, throughout the wider Caribbean region. Ecol. Evol. 7, 9234–9246. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3448 (2017).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

    7.
    Studivan, M. S. & Voss, J. D. Population connectivity among shallow and mesophotic Montastraea cavernosa corals in the Gulf of Mexico identifies potential for refugia. Coral Reefs 37, 1183–1196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-018-1733-7 (2018).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    8.
    Baums, I. B., Johnson, M. E., Devlin-Durante, M. K. & Miller, M. W. Host population genetic structure and zooxanthellae diversity of two reef-building coral species along the Florida Reef Tract and wider Caribbean. Coral Reefs 29, 835–842. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-010-0645-y (2010).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    9.
    Serrano, X. M. et al. Long distance dispersal and vertical gene flow in the Caribbean brooding coral Porites astreoides. Sci. Rep. 6, 21619. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep21619 (2016).
    ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    10.
    Serrano, X. et al. Geographic differences in vertical connectivity in the Caribbean coral Montastraea cavernosa despite high levels of horizontal connectivity at shallow depths. Mol. Ecol. 23, 4226–4240. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.12861 (2014).
    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    11.
    Bongaerts, P. et al. Deep reefs are not universal refuges: reseeding potential varies among coral species. Sci. Adv. 3, e1602373. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1602373 (2017).
    ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

    12.
    Eckert, R. J., Studivan, M. S. & Voss, J. D. Populations of the coral species Montastraea cavernosa on the Belize Barrier Reef lack vertical connectivity. Sci. Rep. 9, 7200. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-43479-x (2019).
    ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    13.
    Goodbody-Gringley, G., Vollmer, S. V., Woollacott, R. M. & Giribet, G. Limited gene flow in the brooding coral Favia fragum (Esper, 1797). Mar. Biol. 157, 2591–2602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-010-1521-6 (2010).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    14.
    Goodbody-Gringley, G., Woollacott, R. M. & Giribet, G. Population structure and connectivity in the Atlantic scleractinian coral Montastraea cavernosa (Linnaeus, 1767). Mar. Ecol. 33, 32–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0485.2011.00452.x (2012).
    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    15.
    Nunes, F. L. D., Norris, R. D. & Knowlton, N. Long distance dispersal and connectivity in Amphi-Atlantic corals at regional and basin scales. PLoS ONE 6, e22298. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0022298 (2011).
    ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    16.
    Brazeau, D. A., Lesser, M. P. & Slattery, M. Genetic structure in the coral, Montastraea cavernosa: assessing genetic differentiation among and within mesophotic reefs. PLoS ONE 8, e65845. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0065845 (2013).
    ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    17.
    Foster, N. L. et al. Connectivity of Caribbean coral populations: complementary insights from empirical and modelled gene flow. Mol. Ecol. 21, 1143–1157. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2012.05455.x (2012).
    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    18.
    García-Machado, E., Ulmo-Díaz, G., Castellanos-Gell, J. & Casane, D. Patterns of population connectivity in marine organisms of Cuba. Bull. Mar. Sci. 94, 193–211. https://doi.org/10.5343/bms.2016.1117 (2018).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    19.
    Ulmo-Díaz, G. et al. Genetic differentiation in the mountainous star coral Orbicella faveolata around Cuba. Coral Reefs 37, 1217–1227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-018-1722-x (2018).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    20.
    Creary, M. et al. Status of coral reefs in the northern Caribbean and western Atlantic GCRMN node in 2008. in Status of Coral Reefs of the World (ed. Wilkinson, C.) 239–252 (2008).

    21.
    Claro, R., Reshetnikov, Y. S. & Alcolado, P. M. Physical attributes of coastal Cuba. Ecol. Mar. fishes Cuba 1–20 (2001).

    22.
    Whittle, D. & Rey Santos, O. Protecting Cuba’s environment: efforts to design and implement effective environmental laws and policies in Cuba. Cuban Stud. 37, 73–103. https://doi.org/10.1353/cub.2007.0018 (2006).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    23.
    Caballero, H., Alcolado, P. M. & Semidey, A. Condición de los arrecifes de coral frente a costas con asentamientos humanos y aportes terrígenos: el caso del litoral habanero. Cuba. Rev. Ciencias Mar. y Costeras 1, 49. https://doi.org/10.15359/revmar.1.3 (2009).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    24.
    González-Díaz, P. et al. Status of Cuban coral reefs. Bull. Mar. Sci. 94, 229–247. https://doi.org/10.5343/bms.2017.1035 (2018).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    25.
    Alcolado, P. M., Caballero, H. & Perera, S. Tendencia del cambio en el cubrimiento vivo por corales pétreos en los arrecifes coralinos de Cuba. Ser. Ocean. 5, 1–14 (2009).
    Google Scholar 

    26.
    Toth, L. T. et al. Do no-take reserves benefit Florida’s corals? 14 years of change and stasis in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Coral Reefs 33, 565–577. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-014-1158-x (2014).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    27.
    Zlatarski, V. N. & Estalella, N. M. Los esclaractinios de Cuba. (2017).

    28.
    Zlatarski, V. N. Investigations on mesophotic coral ecosystems in Cuba (1970–1973) and Mexico (1983–1984). CICIMAR Oceánides 33, 27–43 (2018).
    Google Scholar 

    29.
    Reed, J. et al. Cuba’s mesophotic coral reefs and associated fish communities. Rev. Investig. Mar. 38, 56–125 (2018).
    Google Scholar 

    30.
    Baisre, J. A. An overview of Cuban commercial marine fisheries: the last 80 years. Bull. Mar. Sci. 94, 359–375. https://doi.org/10.5343/bms.2017.1015 (2018).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    31.
    Gil-Agudelo, D. L. et al. Coral reefs in the Gulf of Mexico large marine ecosystem: conservation status, challenges, and opportunities. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 807. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00807 (2020).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    32.
    Perera Valderrama, S. et al. Marine protected areas in Cuba. Bull. Mar. Sci. 94, 423–442. https://doi.org/10.5343/bms.2016.1129 (2018).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    33.
    NOAA. Sister Sanctuary: Memorandum of Understanding. (2015).

    34.
    Budd, A. F., Nunes, F. L. D., Weil, E. & Pandolfi, J. M. Polymorphism in a common Atlantic reef coral (Montastraea cavernosa) and its long-term evolutionary implications. Evol. Ecol. 26, 265–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-010-9460-8 (2012).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    35.
    Bongaerts, P., Ridgway, T., Sampayo, E. M. & Hoegh-Guldberg, O. Assessing the `deep reef refugia’ hypothesis: focus on Caribbean reefs. Coral Reefs 29, 309–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-009-0581-x (2010).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    36.
    Reed, J. K. Deepest distribution of Atlantic hermaptypic corals discovered in the Bahamas. Proc. Fifth Int. Coral Reef Congr. 6, 249–254 (1985).
    Google Scholar 

    37.
    Szmant, A. M. Sexual reproduction by the Caribbean reef corals Montastrea annularis and M. cavernosa. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 74, 13–25. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps074013 (1991).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    38.
    Highsmith, R. C., Lueptow, R. L. & Schonberg, S. C. Growth and bioerosion of three massive corals on the Belize barrier reef. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 13, 261–271 (1983).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    39.
    Kitchen, S. A., Crowder, C. M., Poole, A. Z., Weis, V. M. & Meyer, E. De novo assembly and characterization of four anthozoan (Phylum Cnidaria) transcriptomes. G3 (Genes|Genomes|Genetics). 5, 2441–2452, https://doi.org/10.1534/g3.115.020164 (2015).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    40.
    Matz Lab. Montastraea cavernosa annotated genome. (2018).

    41.
    Drury, C., Pérez Portela, R., Serrano, X. M., Oleksiak, M. & Baker, A. C. Fine-scale structure among mesophotic populations of the great star coral Montastraea cavernosa revealed by SNP genotyping. Ecol. Evol. 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6340 (2020).

    42.
    Ellegren, H. Microsatellites: simple sequences with complex evolution. Nat. Rev. Genet. 5, 435–445. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg1348 (2004).
    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    43.
    Joshi, D., Ram, R. N. & Lohani, P. Microsatellite markers and their application in fisheries. Int. J. Adv. Agric. Sci. Technol. 4, 67–104 (2017).
    Google Scholar 

    44.
    Jarne, P. & Lagoda, P. J. L. Microsatellites, from molecules to populations and back. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11, 424–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(96)10049-5 (1996).
    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    45.
    Flores-Rentería, L. & Krohn, A. Scoring microsatellite loci. in Methods in molecular biology (ed. Kantartzi, S. K.) 319–336, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-62703-389-3_21 (Elsevier, 2013).

    46.
    Andrews, K. R., Good, J. M., Miller, M. R., Luikart, G. & Hohenlohe, P. A. Harnessing the power of RADseq for ecological and evolutionary genomics. Nat. Rev. Genet. 17, 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg.2015.28 (2016).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    47.
    Davey, J. L. & Blaxter, M. W. RADseq: next-generation population genetics. Brief. Funct. Genomics 9, 416–423. https://doi.org/10.1093/bfgp/elq031 (2010).
    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    48.
    Wang, S., Meyer, E., McKay, J. K. & Matz, M. V. 2b-RAD: a simple and flexible method for genome-wide genotyping. Nat. Methods 9, 808–810. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2023 (2012).
    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    49.
    Bradbury, I. R. et al. Transatlantic secondary contact in Atlantic Salmon, comparing microsatellites, a single nucleotide polymorphism array and restriction-site associated DNA sequencing for the resolution of complex spatial structure. Mol. Ecol. 24, 5130–5144. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13395 (2015).
    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    50.
    Jeffries, D. L. et al. Comparing RADseq and microsatellites to infer complex phylogeographic patterns, an empirical perspective in the Crucian carp, Carassius carassius. L. Mol. Ecol. 25, 2997–3018. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13613 (2016).
    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    51.
    Bohling, J., Small, M., Von Bargen, J., Louden, A. & DeHaan, P. Comparing inferences derived from microsatellite and RADseq datasets: a case study involving threatened bull trout. Conserv. Genet. 20, 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-018-1134-z (2019).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    52.
    Thornhill, D. J., Xiang, Y., Fitt, W. K. & Santos, S. R. Reef endemism, host specificity and temporal stability in populations of symbiotic dinoflagellates from two ecologically dominant Caribbean corals. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0006262 (2009).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

    53.
    Eckert, R. J., Reaume, A. M., Sturm, A. B., Studivan, M. S. & Voss, J. D. Depth influences Symbiodiniaceae associations among Montastraea cavernosa corals on the Belize Barrier Reef. Front. Microbiol. 11, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.00518 (2020).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    54.
    Hume, B. C. C. et al. SymPortal: a novel analytical framework and platform for coral algal symbiont next-generation sequencing ITS2 profiling. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 19, 1063–1080. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13004 (2019).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    55.
    Pochon, X., Putnam, H. M., Burki, F. & Gates, R. D. Identifying and characterizing alternative molecular markers for the symbiotic and free-living dinoflagellate genus Symbiodinium. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0029816 (2012).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

    56.
    LaJeunesse, T. C. & Thornhill, D. J. Improved resolution of reef-coral endosymbiont (Symbiodinium) species diversity, ecology, and evolution through psbA non-coding region genotyping. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0029013 (2011).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

    57.
    Manzello, D. P. et al. Role of host genetics and heat-tolerant algal symbionts in sustaining populations of the endangered coral Orbicella faveolata in the Florida Keys with ocean warming. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 1016–1031. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14545 (2018).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    58.
    Warner, M. E., LaJeunesse, T. C., Robison, J. D. & Thur, R. M. The ecological distribution and comparative photobiology of symbiotic dinoflagellates from reef corals in Belize: potential implications for coral bleaching. Limnol Ocean. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2006.51.4.1887 (2006).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    59.
    Finney, J. C. et al. The relative significance of host–habitat, depth, and geography on the ecology, endemism, and speciation of coral endosymbionts in the genus Symbiodinium. Microb. Ecol. 60, 250–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-010-9681-y (2010).
    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    60.
    Bongaerts, P. et al. Deep down on a Caribbean reef: lower mesophotic depths harbor a specialized coral-endosymbiont community. Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep07652 (2015).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

    61.
    Reed, J. et al. Cruise report Cuba’s twilight zone reefs: Remotely Operated Vehicle surveys of deep/mesophotic coral reefs and associated fish communities of Cuba. (2017).

    62.
    Arriaza, L. et al. Modelación numérica de corrientes marinas alrededor del occidente de Cuba. Serie Oceanológica. 10, 11–22. (2012).
    Google Scholar 

    63.
    Gordon, A. & Hannon, G. FASTX-Toolkit. FASTQ/A short-reads pre-processing tools. (2010). Available at: https://hannonlab.cshl.edu/fastx_toolkit/.

    64.
    Bayer, T. et al. Symbiodinium transcriptomes: genome insights into the dinoflagellate symbionts of reef-building corals. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0035269 (2012).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

    65.
    Davies, S. W., Ries, J. B., Marchetti, A. & Castillo, K. D. Symbiodinium functional diversity in the coral Siderastrea siderea is influenced by thermal stress and reef environment, but not ocean acidification. Front. Mar. Sci. 5, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00150 (2018).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    66.
    Ladner, J. T., Barshis, D. J. & Palumbi, S. R. Protein evolution in two co-occurring types of Symbiodinium: an exploration into the genetic basis of thermal tolerance in Symbiodinium clade D. BMC Evol. Biol. 12, 217. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-12-217 (2012).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    67.
    Langmead, B. & Salzberg, S. L. Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nat. Methods 9, 357–359. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.1923 (2012).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    68.
    Korneliussen, T. S., Albrechtsen, A. & Nielsen, R. ANGSD: Analysis of Next Generation Sequencing Data. BMC Bioinformatics 15, 356. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12859-014-0356-4 (2014).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

    69.
    Peakall, R. & Smouse, P. E. GenALEx 65: Genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research-an update. Bioinformatics 28, 2537–2539. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bts460 (2012).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    70.
    Excoffier, L., Smouse, P. E. & Quattro, J. M. Analysis of Molecular Variance inferred from metric distances among DNA haplotypes: application to human mitochondrial DNA restriction data. Genetics 131, 479–491 (1992).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

    71.
    Benjamini, Y. & Hochberg, Y. Controlling the False Discovery Rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 57, 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x (1995).
    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

    72.
    Prevosti, A., Ocaña, J. & Alonso, G. Distances between populations of Drosophila subobscura, based on chromosome arrangement frequencies. Theor. Appl. Genet. 45, 231–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00831894 (1975).
    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    73.
    Kamvar, Z. N., Tabima, J. F. & Gr̈unwald, N. J. ,. Poppr: An R package for genetic analysis of populations with clonal, partially clonal, and/or sexual reproduction. PeerJ 2014, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.281 (2014).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    74.
    R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. (2019).

    75.
    Jombart, T. & Ahmed, I. adegenet 13–1: new tools for the analysis of genome-wide SNP data. Bioinformatics 27, 3070–3071. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btr521 (2011).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    76.
    Mantel, N. The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. Cancer Res. 27, 209–220 (1967).
    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

    77.
    Pritchard, J. K., Stephens, M. & Donnelly, P. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155, 945–959 (2000).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

    78.
    Besnier, F. & Glover, K. A. ParallelStructure: A R package to distribute parallel runs of the population genetics program STRUCTURE on multi-core computers. PLoS ONE 8, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0070651 (2013).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    79.
    Earl, D. A. & vonHoldt, B. M. STRUCTURE HARVESTER: A website and program for visualizing STRUCTURE output and implementing the Evanno method. Conserv. Genet. Resour. 4, 359–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12686-011-9548-7 (2012).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    80.
    Catchen, J., Hohenlohe, P. A., Bassham, S., Amores, A. & Cresko, W. A. Stacks: an analysis tool set for population genomics. Mol. Ecol. 22, 3124–3140. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.12354 (2013).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

    81.
    Pembleton, L. W., Cogan, N. O. I. & Forster, J. W. StAMPP: An R package for calculation of genetic differentiation and structure of mixed-ploidy level populations. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 13, 946–952. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12129 (2013).
    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    82.
    Oksanen, J. et al. Vegan: community ecology package. (2019).

    83.
    Alexander, D. H. D., Novembre, J. & Lange, K. Fast model-based estimation of ancestry in unrelated individuals. Genome Res. 19, 1655–1664. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.094052.109 (2009).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    84.
    Skotte, L., Korneliussen, T. S. & Albrechtsen, A. Estimating individual admixture proportions from next generation sequencing data. Genetics 195, 693–702. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.113.154138 (2013).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    85.
    Foll, M. & Gaggiotti, O. A genome-scan method to identify selected loci appropriate for both dominant and codominant markers: a Bayesian perspective. Genetics 180, 977–993. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.108.092221 (2008).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

    86.
    Evanno, G., Regnaut, S. & Goudet, J. Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software STRUCTURE: a simulation study. Mol. Ecol. 14, 2611–2620. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2005.02553.x (2005).
    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    87.
    Centurioni, L. R. & Niiler, P. P. On the surface currents of the Caribbean Sea. Geophys. Res. Lett. 30, 10–13. https://doi.org/10.1029/2002GL016231 (2003).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    88.
    Candela, J. et al. The flow through the gulf of Mexico. J. Phys. Oceanogr. 49, 1381–1401. https://doi.org/10.1175/JPO-D-18-0189.1 (2019).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    89.
    Kourafalou, V., Androulidakis, Y., Le Hénaff, M. & Kang, H. S. The Dynamics of Cuba Anticyclones (CubANs) and interaction with the Loop Current/Florida Current system. J. Geophys. Res. Ocean. 122, 7897–7923. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JC012928 (2017).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    90.
    Arriaza, L. et al. Marine current estimations in southeast Cuban shelf. Ser. Ocean. 4, 1–10 (2008).
    Google Scholar 

    91.
    Carracedo-Hidalgo, D., Reyes-Perdomo, D., Calzada-estrada, A., Chang-Domínguez, D. & Rodríguez-Pupo, A. Characterization of sea currents in sea adjacent to Cuba . Main trends in the last years. Rev. Cuba. Meteorol. 25, (2019).

    92.
    Frys, C. et al. Fine-scale coral connectivity pathways in the Florida Reef Tract: implications for conservation and restoration. Front. Mar. Sci. 7, 1–42. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00312 (2020).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    93.
    Kuba, A. Transgenerational effects of thermal stress: impacts on and beyond coral reproduction. (Nova Southeastern University, 2016).

    94.
    Claro, R., Lindeman, K. C., Kough, A. S. & Paris, C. B. Biophysical connectivity of snapper spawning aggregations and marine protected area management alternatives in Cuba. Fish. Oceanogr. 28, 33–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/fog.12384 (2019).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    95.
    Holstein, D. M., Paris, C. B. & Mumby, P. J. Consistency and inconsistency in multispecies population network dynamics of coral reef ecosystems. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 499, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps10647 (2014).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    96.
    Szmant, A. M. Reproductive ecology of Caribbean reef corals. Coral Reefs 5, 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00302170 (1986).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    97.
    Drury, C. et al. Genomic variation among populations of threatened coral: Acropora cervicornis. BMC Genomics 17, 286. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-016-2583-8 (2016).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    98.
    Devlin-Durante, M. K. & Baums, I. B. Genome-wide survey of single-nucleotide polymorphisms reveals fine-scale population structure and signs of selection in the threatened Caribbean elkhorn coral. Acropora palmata. PeerJ 5, e4077. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4077 (2017).
    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    99.
    Wang, J., Feng, C., Jiao, T., Von Wettberg, E. B. & Kang, M. Genomic signature of adaptive divergence despite strong nonadaptive forces on Edaphic Islands: a case study of Primulina juliae. Genome Biol. Evol. 9, 3495–3508. https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evx263 (2017).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

    100.
    Ramos-Silva, P. et al. The skeletal proteome of the coral Acropora millepora: the evolution of calcification by co-option and domain shuffling. Mol. Biol. Evol. 30, 2099–2112. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mst109 (2013).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    101.
    Takeuchi, T., Yamada, L., Shinzato, C., Sawada, H. & Satoh, N. Stepwise evolution of coral biomineralization revealed with genome-wide proteomics and transcriptomics. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156424 (2016).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

    102.
    Aranda, M. et al. Differential sensitivity of coral larvae to natural levels of ultraviolet radiation during the onset of larval competence. Mol. Ecol. 20, 2955–2972. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05153.x (2011).
    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    103.
    Reynolds, W. S., Schwarz, J. A. & Weis, V. M. Symbiosis-enhanced gene expression in cnidarian-algal associations: cloning and characterization of a cDNA, sym32, encoding a possible cell adhesion protein. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. Part A Mol. Integr. Physiol. 126, 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-8413(00)00099-2 (2000).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    104.
    Iguchi, A. et al. Apparent involvement of a β1 type integrin in coral fertilization. Mar. Biotechnol. 9, 760–765. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10126-007-9026-0 (2007).
    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    105.
    Lesser, M. P. et al. Photoacclimatization by the coral Montastraea cavernosa in the mesophotic zone: light, food, and genetics. Ecology 91, 990–1003. https://doi.org/10.1890/09-0313.1 (2010).
    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    106.
    Klepac, C. et al. Seasonal stability of coral-Symbiodinium associations in the subtropical coral habitat of St. Lucie Reef, Florida. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 532, 137–151. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps11369 (2015).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    107.
    Polinski, J. M. & Voss, J. D. Evidence of photoacclimatization at mesophotic depths in the coral-Symbiodinium symbiosis at Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary and McGrail Bank. Coral Reefs 37, 779–789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-018-1701-2 (2018).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    108.
    LaJeunesse, T. C. et al. Systematic revision of Symbiodiniaceae highlights the antiquity and diversity of coral endosymbionts. Curr. Biol. 28, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.07.008 (2018).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    109.
    Swain, T. D., Chandler, J., Backman, V. & Marcelino, L. Consensus thermotolerance ranking for 110 Symbiodinium phylotypes: an exemplar utilization of a novel iterative partial-rank aggregation tool with broad application potential. Funct. Ecol. 31, 172–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12694 (2017).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    110.
    Hodel, R. G. J. et al. Adding loci improves phylogeographic resolution in red mangroves despite increased missing data: comparing microsatellites and RAD-Seq and investigating loci filtering. Sci. Rep. 7, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-16810-7 (2017).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    111.
    Lemopoulos, A. et al. Comparing RADseq and microsatellites for estimating genetic diversity and relatedness — implications for brown trout conservation. Ecol. Evol. 9, 2106–2120. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4905 (2019).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

    112.
    Puckett, E. E. Variability in total project and per sample genotyping costs under varying study designs including with microsatellites or SNPs to answer conservation genetic questions. Conserv. Genet. Resour. 9, 289–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12686-016-0643-7 (2017).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    113.
    Hale, M. L., Burg, T. M. & Steeves, T. E. Sampling for microsatellite-based population genetic studies: 25 to 30 individuals per population is enough to accurately estimate allele frequencies. PLoS ONE 7, e45170. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0045170 (2012).
    ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    114.
    Luikart, G., Sherwin, W. B., Steele, B. M. & Allendorf, F. W. Usefulness of molecular markers for detecting population bottlenecks via monitoring genetic change. Mol. Ecol. 7, 963–974. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294x.1998.00414.x (1998).
    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    115.
    Willing, E.-M., Dreyer, C. & van Oosterhout, C. Estimates of genetic differentiation measured by FST do not necessarily require large sample sizes when using many SNP markers. PLoS ONE 7, e42649. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0042649 (2012).
    ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    116.
    Nazareno, A. G., Bemmels, J. B., Dick, C. W. & Lohmann, L. G. Minimum sample sizes for population genomics: an empirical study from an Amazonian plant species. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 17, 1136–1147. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12654 (2017).
    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar  More

  • in

    China’s researchers have valuable experiences that the world needs to hear about

    EDITORIAL
    22 September 2020

    As China prepares to take on a crucial role in the governance of global biodiversity, its researchers must be at the table.

    China’s researchers have shown that the country’s largest body of fresh water, Poyang Lake (pictured) in Jianxi province, has been drying out, in part because of the Three Gorges Dam.Credit: Fu Jianbin/Xinhua/ZUMA Wire

    Last week, the United Nations confirmed that the world has failed, again, to achieve its goals to protect nature. This grim conclusion was delivered in the fifth edition of the United Nations Global Biodiversity Outlook report.
    The report from the UN Convention on Biological Diversity reviewed progress towards 20 biodiversity targets that the convention’s participating countries set for themselves in Aichi, Japan, a decade ago (www.cbd.int/gbo).
    None of the targets, which include making progress towards the sustainable harvesting of fish, controlling the spread of invasive species and preventing the extinction of threatened wildlife, will have been achieved by the deadline at the end of this year.
    This is no time for regret or apology, but for urgency to act. Last year, an analysis by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services revealed that some one million plant and animal species are at risk of extinction. And the wildlife charity WWF’s latest Living Planet Index, published earlier this month (see go.nature.com/32wzvdz), was similarly sobering, stating that vertebrate populations monitored between 1970 and 2017 have declined by an average of 68%.
    All nations must do more, but some of the greatest responsibility now rests on the shoulders of China: the nation, along with the leaders of the UN biodiversity convention, will jointly host the next Conference of the Parties (COP) in Kunming next year. That summit, originally scheduled for this year, is where biodiversity targets for the next decade must be set.
    As we have written before, the previous targets were destined to fail, in part because their format made progress hard to measure, and because countries did not need to report on what they were doing. This must now change. The targets, furthermore, need to be more closely aligned with the UN System of Environmental Economic Accounting, which is becoming the global standard for environmental reporting. Without these changes, the next set of biodiversity targets will almost certainly fail again.
    At the same time, China’s biodiversity scientists and policy researchers should be at the table, too, as plans for Kunming start to take shape. The country has decades of experience of studying how to — and how not to — balance economic development with controlling species and ecosystems loss. The world needs to hear these stories, in all their complexity.
    Learn from China
    The Global Biodiversity Outlook report confirms that known species are on an accelerated path to extinction, with cycad and coral species among the groups most at risk. The report shows that, although deforestation has slowed in the past decade, forests are still being splintered by agriculture, tree-felling and urban growth. Such fragmentation will further harm biodiversity and increase carbon emissions.
    Demand for food and agricultural production continue to be the main drivers of biodiversity loss. And governments are not helping. On average, they invest some US$500 billion per year in initiatives that harm the environment — eclipsing financing for biodiversity projects by a factor of 6, the report says.
    China has a set of experiences that could help the world learn valuable lessons. Its rapid economic growth lifted a generation out of poverty; however, this created a cascade of environmental problems, not least elevated pollution in the air and on land. People in China rightly questioned their leaders for underestimating — if not downplaying — the environmental and social impacts of its industrialization. Partly in response, China’s authorities have been working with researchers from China and around the world to chart a greener way forward.
    For example, national and local administrations have been devising and experimenting with environmental targets, and creating mechanisms for monitoring and reporting progress towards them — albeit with mixed success.
    China’s national biodiversity strategy includes creating what it calls ‘redlines’ — areas where human activities are restricted to protect biodiversity — across the country.
    Then there’s China’s US$6-trillion Belt and Road Initiative — a massive programme to build roads, ports and infrastructure, which will run through natural habitats across Asia, Europe and Africa. Much of this investment did not initially come with safeguards to mitigate environmental risks — but these are now being actively studied.
    And last but not least, China has a large community of researchers working to quantify, in monetary terms, the value of natural capital and ecosystem services, so that people and policymakers can more clearly understand that nature’s services to people do not come for free.
    On 30 September, heads of governments will meet at the UN for a day of talks on biodiversity, ahead of next year’s Kunming COP. Nature spoke to a number of representatives of national delegations who plan to attend this meeting, including researchers and non-governmental observers. All want the Kunming COP to succeed in bringing nations together and reaching an agreement on targets that are measurable and meaningful. But they expressed concern over the limited public engagement from China’s government about its goals or strategy for Kunming — and the relatively limited involvement of its researchers in the process so far.
    Scientists in China have been central to their country’s conservation and economic-development journey. Their collective experience on what works, and what doesn’t, can provide important learning opportunities for countries as they look to slow down and eventually reverse bio-diversity and ecosystem loss. These researchers are in the academy of sciences; in universities; in the academy of environmental planning; and in the community of Chinese and international non-governmental organizations.
    Many are also active in the China Council for Inter-national Cooperation on Environment and Development, an organization located in both Canada and China, which last week concluded a two-day conference presenting its latest research outputs. This important but little-known advisory body, now nearly three decades old, has been instrumental in connecting China’s environmental-science and environmental-policy communities with international counterparts.
    Next year will be the first time that China has hosted an international environmental meeting — similar to the 2015 Paris climate accords — where the stakes are too high to fail. It must draw on its rich diversity of talent and experience. Other nations’ researchers must be equally forthcoming with their knowledge. All sides must put aside political differences to agree on ambitious targets, ways to achieve them and methods to measure that progress.
    The best way to preserve and revive biodiversity is to acknowledge where we’ve all failed it before, to learn from that and to try again, together.

    Nature 585, 481-482 (2020)
    doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-02697-4

    Latest on:

    Biodiversity

    Government

    An essential round-up of science news, opinion and analysis, delivered to your inbox every weekday.

    Related Articles More

  • in

    Potential of aquatic weeds to improve water quality in natural waterways of the Zambezi catchment

    Study area description
    The Zambezi is Africa’s fourth largest river and the most important draining into the Indian Ocean. We focused our analysis on four sub-catchments of the Zambezi River in southern Zambia where invasions of Water Hyacinth have been reported in literature and/or which we observed from satellite imagery. These rivers are: Kafue, Chongwe, Maramba and Little Chongwe (Fig. 1). The catchments differ in size and dominant human land-use.
    Figure 1

    Location of the four catchments: Chongwe, Kafue (subcatchment between Itezhi-Tezhi Dam and Kafue Gorge), Little Chongwe and Maramba, covered in this study with urban and agricultural land cover15, wetlands and major dams in southern Zambia (www.openstreetmap.org). The four primary surface water sampling sites (pink) as well as reference sampling sites (yellow) are located through crosses. Map created using QGIS 3.4.11 (https://qgis.org).

    Full size image

    The Kafue River is a major tributary of the Zambezi and is characterized by two major hydropower dams bracketing the large Kafue Flats floodplain: Itezhi-Tezhi Dam upstream and Kafue Gorge Upper Power Station (which we subsequently refer to as simply “Kafue Gorge Dam”) downstream. Operation of these dams has greatly altered the hydrology of the lower reaches of the Kafue River leading to changes in the seasonal biochemical functioning of the Kafue Flats16,17 compared to the Barotse Plains, a reference floodplain unmodified by dams18. The lower end of the Kafue Flats has expansive coverage of sugar cane cultivation and the downstream river reach above the reservoir formed by the Kafue Gorge Dam (“Kafue Gorge Reservoir”) receives urban and industrial wastewaters from Kafue. Local reports implicate these nutrient sources as drivers of the recurrence of Water Hyacinth blooms in this area including the Kafue Gorge Reservoir. The Kafue River was subject to nutrient loading studies and intensive weed control campaigns from 1998 to 200019. Confusingly, control efforts are described as “ineffective” in the literature19, and yet the weed problem abated for a decade from 2001 to 2011. Water Hyacinth is back in recent years, following a seasonal pattern of coverage on the Kafue Gorge Reservoir surface. Mechanical control efforts have also been resumed (personal observations of the authors, February 2019).
    The Chongwe River drains one of the more densely populated catchments in Zambia, including parts of the capital, Lusaka, and several nearby townships. After tumbling down the same geographic escarpment as the Kafue, it meets the Zambezi in the Lower Zambezi National Park, approximately 55 km downstream from the confluence of the Kafue with the Zambezi River.
    The Maramba River meets the Zambezi just upstream of Victoria Falls and drains a small, but highly urbanized catchment containing most of Livingstone, a popular tourist destination for its convenient access to the falls. According to reports, overflow discharge from Livingstone’s wastewater treatment pools enters the Maramba just upstream of the confluence with the Zambezi19. During the latter stages of the dry season, low flows in the Maramba allow the river to build up a dense coverage of Water Hyacinth. These mats are seasonally flushed into the Zambezi when the rains at the end of the dry season restore the flow of the Maramba20,21.
    The Little Chongwe River meets the Kafue just 8 km upstream of the Kafue’s confluence with the Zambezi. Its small catchment drains a small portion of a large array of pivot irrigation agriculture.
    Assessment of floating vegetation cover
    To assess levels of floating vegetation, we used a combination of field surveys and analysis of satellite imagery. Floating vegetation on the Kafue Gorge Reservoir can clearly be detected with Landsat imagery. We used Google Earth Engine to group all available images in the Landsat archive in two-month intervals and extracted floating vegetation cover from 1990 to 201922.
    To assess floating vegetation cover on the Maramba, we visually inspected all available historical high-resolution imagery in Google Earth Pro (35 images from 2005 to 2019). We hand-digitized floating vegetation cover over the lower reaches of the river for which channel morphology was clearly and consistently visible and resolvable (2.3 km of linear stream reach). Since there were multiple cases of complete coverage on the Maramba River surface we interpreted complete coverage as a conservative estimate for annual Water Hyacinth biomass export in the catchment.
    Relatively few high-resolution satellite images are available in Google Earth Pro for the lower reaches of the Chongwe River and the Little Chongwe (8 each) and they do not provide complete seasonal coverage, making it impossible to apply the same process as for the Maramba. Instead we simply hand-digitized the area of visible floating vegetation from the image with the most cover (16 June, 2016) and added to this an estimate of the area of fringing floating vegetation based on four ground-based inspections of the coverage in 2018 and 2019. We estimated that fringing vegetation has a coverage of 0.5 m wide running for 1.2 km upstream of the confluence with the Zambezi. Hippo presence prevented us from surveying further upstream and we assumed no floating vegetation presence beyond this point, making our estimates conservative.
    To convert areal coverage to biomass and nutrient content, we used a synthetic mean of biomass per area from 15 studies and synthetic mean nitrogen and phosphorus content from 14 and 17 studies respectively to estimate the total pool macronutrients bound to Water Hyacinth (Supplemental Tables S1,S2). The nutrient content of Water Hyacinth varies substantially between and within studies, presumably in response to differences in nutrient availability and limitation is experiences as it grows and ages23. The Water Hyacinth in Zambian waters spends different parts of its life cycle in very different nutrient settings, ranging from urban wastewater effluent to hyperoligotrophic natural rivers, and we should therefore expect that its nutrient content should also vary substantially in space and time. The synthetic mean nutrient content from varied nutrient settings probably represent a reasonable estimate the nutrient content of Water Hyacinth in Zambia, which grows under a similarly wide range of nutrient conditions. We report uncertainty surrounding mean nutrient content using the standard error of this mean.
    Nutrient sampling
    In order to assess the potential for floating vegetation to sequester nutrients from river systems we modelled river nutrient loading for four Zambezi tributaries infested with invasive floating vegetation and estimated the amount of nutrients bound within floating vegetation biomass. We collected surface water samples from these rivers: the Maramba, the Chongwe, the Little Chongwe and the Kafue near the town of Kafue, once every three months for a year starting in March 2018. To evaluate the nutrient environment in the backwaters where we expect Water Hyacinth to be originating, we also sampled two additional sites in the larger catchments in November 2019. In the Kafue Catchment, we sampled two drainage canals conveying industrial wastewater from Kafue. In the Chongwe catchment, we sampled two points on the Gwerere River, an urban stream draining densely populated portions of Lusaka. We sampled additional points on the Kafue and Zambezi Rivers to provide reference nutrient conditions for the region’s major rivers. These sites include the Kafue River: near Hook Bridge, below the Itezhi-Tezhi Dam, near Mazabuka, near Chirundu; and the Zambezi: near Livingstone, below Kariba Dam, near Chirundu, just above Lower Zambezi National Park (for coordinates and exact sampling dates, see Supplemental Table S3).
    We passed nitrate and phosphate samples through pre-combusted, pre-weighed glass fiber filters and collected unfiltered samples for analysis of bulk nitrogen and phosphorus content. We collected all samples in triplicate and kept them cool during handling and until analysis in the laboratories at Eawag, Switzerland. We digested unfiltered water samples via autoclave with an alkaline potassium peroxidisulfate solution. We analyzed filtered water samples and digests colorimetrically using a Skalar (Breda, Netherlands) SAN++ automated flow injection analyzer following24 and standard procedure ISO 13395:1996. We note that acid digestion of unfiltered surface water is susceptible to underestimation of total phosphorus because of settling of clay particles during sample storage and sub-sampling leading to a bias against potentially phosphorus-rich particulate matter25. We assume that such underestimation in our samples is relatively minor because of low stream velocities we observed at our sampling sites, dominance of sandy rather than clay-rich soils in the region, and because we observed low C:N ratios in particulate matter (Supplemental Table S4), indicating a low-density microbial (rather than mineral) composition. Nevertheless, we refer to our P data as “digestible” rather than “total,” to allow for this potential underestimation.
    Discharge calculations, nutrient load estimation and relative importance
    We calculated average monthly discharges based on hydrographs collected by the Zambia Electricity Supply Corporation (ZESCO) between 1977 and 2017 for the Kafue Gorge Dam. For the Maramba, Chongwe and Little Chongwe Rivers, we estimated discharge by generating a catchment area: discharge curve using nearby stations from the Global Runoff Data Centre. We estimated rainfall for the Maramba catchment through monthly means from the Climate Hazards Group InfraRed Precipitation with Stations (CHIRPS) dataset26.
    In order to estimate annual river nutrient loading, we multiplied mean annual discharge by mean digestible phosphorus and mean digestible nitrogen concentrations from our surface water sampling. Our reliance on using the mean of four seasonal concentration values may not fully capture the seasonality of load and is susceptible to effects from outliers. In order to check for evidence of bias from outliers, we also calculated loading based on median concentrations and found that differences translated into a maximum decreased relative importance of plant-bound nutrients of approximately 2%. This is a minor difference compared to other sources of error, such as those stemming from uncertainty in plant biomass per area and nutrient content of plant biomass.
    We estimated the relative contributions of plant-bound versus bulk surface water nutrients to riverine nutrient export, by simply calculating the percentage of each relative to their sum. We used the product of standard errors of mean plant biomass and nutrient content values from literature to generate uncertainty envelops around our estimations for the importance of plant-bound nutrients. Here we assumed that the peak plant biomass we detected represents an annual export of intact plant material from each watershed. This assumption provides a conservative underestimate of the importance of plants because the choke points where the plants accumulate seasonally are unlikely to be 100% efficient as traps. Some plant biomass may be exported without being accounted for, but at least in the case of the Maramba and Kafue where hydrologic conditions favor clear trapping and flushing seasons, this is the most reliable approach available to estimate annual plant-bound nutrient export.
    Landcover analysis
    The river catchments were extracted from the HydroSheds global database27. For the Kafue River, we considered only the catchment below the Itezhi-Tezhi Dam, as we expected the dam to interfere with the nutrient transport from further upstream28.
    To calculate the area of urban and agricultural land within each catchment we used fractional land cover maps for 2015 from the Copernicus Global Land Service29. Using the raster package30 in R, we extracted pixel values within each catchment polygon and then calculated the area for all pixels with a fraction of more than 50% for the respective class.
    All analyses and figures were completed using R version 3.6.131. More

  • in

    Forensic tracers of exposure to produced water in freshwater mussels: a preliminary assessment of Ba, Sr, and cyclic hydrocarbons

    1.
    Clark, C. & Veil, J. Produced water volumes and management practices in the United States. Argonne Natl. Lab. Rep. https://doi.org/10.2172/1007397 (2009).
    Article  Google Scholar 
    2.
    Dolan, F. C., Cath, T. Y. & Hogue, T. S. Assessing the feasibility of using produced water for irrigation in Colorado. Sci. Total Environ. 640–641, 619–628 (2018).
    ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    3.
    McDevitt, B. et al. Isotopic and element ratios fingerprint salinization impact from beneficial use of oil and gas produced water in the Western U.S. Sci. Total Environ. 716, 137006 (2020).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    4.
    McLaughlin, M. C., Borch, T., McDevitt, B., Warner, N. R. & Blotevogel, J. Water quality assessment downstream of oil and gas produced water discharges intended for beneficial reuse in arid regions. Sci. Total Environ. 713, 136607 (2020).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    5.
    Kahrilas, G. A., Blotevogel, J., Stewart, P. S. & Borch, T. Biocides in hydraulic fracturing fluids: a critical review of their usage, mobility, degradation, and toxicity. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 16–32 (2015).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    6.
    Haluszczak, L. O., Rose, A. W. & Kump, L. R. Geochemical evaluation of flowback brine from Marcellus gas wells in Pennsylvania, USA. Appl. Geochem. 28, 55–61 (2013).
    CAS  Google Scholar 

    7.
    Lester, Y. et al. Characterization of hydraulic fracturing flowback water in Colorado: Implications for water treatment. Sci. Total Environ. 512–513, 637–644 (2015).
    ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    8.
    Michael Thurman, E., Ferrer, I., Blotevogel, J. & Borch, T. Analysis of hydraulic fracturing flowback and produced waters using accurate mass: identification of ethoxylated surfactants. Anal. Chem. 86, 9653–9661 (2014).
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    9.
    Hoelzer, K. et al. Indications of transformation products from hydraulic fracturing additives in shale-gas wastewater. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 8036–8048 (2016).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    10.
    Piotrowski, P. K. et al. Elucidating environmental fingerprinting mechanisms of unconventional gas development through hydrocarbon analysis. Anal. Chem. 90, 5466–5473 (2018).
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    11.
    Piotrowski, P. K. et al. Non-Targeted chemical characterization of a Marcellus shale gas well through GC × GC with scripting algorithms and high-resolution time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Fuel 215, 363–369 (2018).
    CAS  Google Scholar 

    12.
    He, Y. et al. Chemical and toxicological characterizations of hydraulic fracturing flowback and produced water. Water Res. 114, 78–87 (2017).
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    13.
    Llewellyn, G. T. et al. Evaluating a groundwater supply contamination incident attributed to Marcellus Shale gas development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112, 6325 (2015).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    14.
    Drollette, B. D. et al. Elevated levels of diesel range organic compounds in groundwater near Marcellus gas operations are derived from surface activities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112, 13184–13189 (2015).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    15.
    Cozzarelli, I. M. et al. Environmental signatures and effects of an oil and gas wastewater spill in the Williston Basin, North Dakota. s 579, 1781–1793 (2016).
    Google Scholar 

    16.
    Digiulio, D. C. & Jackson, R. B. Impact to underground sources of drinking water and domestic wells from production well stimulation and completion practices in the Pavillion, Wyoming, Field. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 4524–4536 (2016).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    17.
    Gross, S. A. et al. Analysis of BTEX groundwater concentrations from surface spills associated with hydraulic fracturing operations. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 63, 424–432 (2013).
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    18.
    Hildenbrand, Z. L. et al. Temporal variation in groundwater quality in the Permian Basin of Texas, a region of increasing unconventional oil and gas development. Sci. Total Environ. 562, 906–913 (2016).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    19.
    Kassotis, C. D. et al. Endocrine disrupting activities of surface water associated with a West Virginia oil and gas industry wastewater disposal site. Sci. Total Environ. 557–558, 901–910 (2016).
    ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    20.
    Burgos, W. D. et al. Watershed-scale impacts from surface water disposal of oil and gas wastewater in Western Pennsylvania. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 8851–8860 (2017).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    21.
    Getzinger, G. J. et al. Natural gas residual fluids: sources, endpoints, and organic chemical composition after centralized waste treatment in Pennsylvania. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 8347–8355 (2015).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    22.
    Blewett, T. A. et al. Sublethal and reproductive effects of acute and chronic exposure to flowback and produced water from hydraulic fracturing on the water Flea Daphnia magna. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 3032–3039 (2017).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    23.
    Blewett, T. A., Delompré, P. L. M., Glover, C. N. & Goss, G. G. Physical immobility as a sensitive indicator of hydraulic fracturing fluid toxicity towards Daphnia magna. Sci. Total Environ. 635, 639–643 (2018).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    24.
    He, Y. et al. Developmental toxicity of the organic fraction from hydraulic fracturing Flowback and produced waters to early life stages of Zebrafish (Danio rerio). Environ. Sci. Technol. 52, 3820–3830 (2018).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    25.
    He, Y. et al. Effects on biotransformation, oxidative stress, and endocrine disruption in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) exposed to hydraulic fracturing flowback and produced water. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 940–947 (2017).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    26.
    Blewett, T. A., Weinrauch, A. M., Delompré, P. L. M. & Goss, G. G. The effect of hydraulic flowback and produced water on gill morphology, oxidative stress and antioxidant response in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Sci. Rep. 7, 46582 (2017).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    27.
    Tasker, T. L. et al. Environmental and human health impacts of spreading oil and gas wastewater on roads. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52, 7081–7091 (2018).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    28.
    McDevitt, B. et al. Emerging investigator series: radium accumulation in carbonate river sediments at oil and gas produced water discharges: implications for beneficial use as disposal management. Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts 21, 324–338 (2019).
    MathSciNet  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    29.
    McLaughlin, M. C. et al. Mutagenicity assessment downstream of oil and gas produced water discharges intended for agricultural beneficial reuse. Sci. Total Environ. 715, 136944 (2020).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    30.
    Folkerts, E. J., Blewett, T. A., He, Y. & Goss, G. G. Alterations to Juvenile Zebrafish (Danio rerio) swim performance after acute embryonic exposure to sub-lethal exposures of hydraulic fracturing flowback and produced water. Aquat. Toxicol. 193, 50–59 (2017).
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    31.
    Folkerts, E. J., Blewett, T. A., He, Y. & Goss, G. G. Cardio-respirometry disruption in zebrafish (Danio rerio) embryos exposed to hydraulic fracturing flowback and produced water. Environ. Pollut. 231, 1477–1487 (2017).
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    32.
    Delompré, P. L. M. et al. The osmotic effect of hyper-saline hydraulic fracturing fluid on rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss. s 211, 1–10 (2019).
    Google Scholar 

    33.
    Wang, N. et al. Acute toxicity of sodium chloride and potassium chloride to a unionid mussel (Lampsilis siliquoidea) in water exposures. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 37, 3041–3049 (2018).
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    34.
    Wang, N., Kunz, J. L., Cleveland, D., Steevens, J. A. & Cozzarelli, I. M. Biological effects of elevated major ions in surface water contaminated by a produced water from oil production. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 76, 670–677 (2019).
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    35.
    Wang, N. et al. Evaluation of chronic toxicity of sodium chloride or potassium chloride to a unionid mussel (Lampsilis siliquoidea) in water exposures using standard and refined toxicity testing methods. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 37, 3050–3062 (2018).
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    36.
    Patnode, K. A., Hittle, E., Anderson, R. M., Zimmerman, L. & Fulton, J. W. Effects of high salinity wastewater discharges on unionid mussels in the allegheny river Pennsylvania. J. Fish Wildl. Manag. 6, 55–70 (2015).
    Google Scholar 

    37.
    Geeza, T. J., Gillikin, D. P., McDevitt, B., Van Sice, K. & Warner, N. R. Accumulation of marcellus formation oil and gas wastewater metals in freshwater mussel shells. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52, 10883–10892 (2018).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    38.
    De los Ríos, A. et al. Assessment of the effects of discontinuous sources of contamination through biomarker analyses on caged mussels. Sci. Total Environ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.03.297 (2018).
    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    39.
    Pilote, M., André, C., Turcotte, P., Gagné, F. & Gagnon, C. Metal bioaccumulation and biomarkers of effects in caged mussels exposed in the Athabasca oil sands area. Sci. Total Environ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.08.023 (2018).
    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    40.
    Bonnefille, B., Arpin-Pont, L., Gomez, E., Fenet, H. & Courant, F. Metabolic profiling identification of metabolites formed in Mediterranean mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis) after diclofenac exposure. Sci. Total Environ. 583, 257–268 (2017).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    41.
    Spring, S. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 71 National Status and Trends Program for Marine Environmental Quality Sampling and Analytical Methods of the National Status and Trends Program National Benthic Surveillance and Mussel Watch Projects 1984–1992 Volume I Overview and Summary of Methods noaa NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION Coastal Monitoring and Bioeffects Assessment Division Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment National Ocean Service. (1993).

    42.
    Lydeard, C. et al. The global decline of Nonmarine Mollusks. Bioscience 54, 321–330 (2004).
    Google Scholar 

    43.
    Strayer, D. L. et al. Changing perspectives on pearly mussels, North America’s most imperiled animals. Bioscience 54, 429–439 (2004).
    Google Scholar 

    44.
    Lopes-Lima, M. et al. Conservation status of freshwater mussels in Europe: state of the art and future challenges. Biol. Rev. 92, 572–607 (2017).
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    45.
    Shulkin, V. M., Presley, B. J. & Kavun, V. I. Metal concentrations in mussel Crenomytilus grayanus and oyster Crassostrea gigas in relation to contamination of ambient sediments. Environ. Int. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-4120(03)00004-7 (2003).
    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    46.
    Ishikawa, Y., Kagaya, H. & Saga, K. Biomagnification of 7Be, 234Th, and 228Ra in marine organisms near the northern Pacific coast of Japan. J. Environ. Radioact. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvrad.2004.03.021 (2004).
    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    47.
    Brenner, M., Smoak, J. M., Leeper, D. A., Streubert, M. & Baker, S. M. Radium-226 accumulation in Florida freshwater mussels. Limnol. Oceanogr. 52, 1614–1623 (2007).
    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

    48.
    Jeffree, R. A., Markich, S. J. & Brown, P. L. Comparative accumulation of alkaline-earth metals by two freshwater mussel species from the Nepean River, Australia: consistencies and a resolved paradox. Aust. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 44, 609–634 (1993).
    CAS  Google Scholar 

    49.
    Markich, S. J., Brown, P. L. & Jeffree, R. A. Divalent metal accumulation in freshwater bivalves: an inverse relationship with metal phosphate solubility. Sci. Total Environ. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-9697(00)00721-X (2001).
    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    50.
    Markich, S. J. & Jeffree, R. A. Absorption of divalent trace metals as analogues of calcium by Australian freshwater bivalves: an explanation of how water hardness reduces metal toxicity. Aquat. Toxicol. https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-445X(94)90072-8 (1994).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    51.
    Fritz, L., Ragone, L., Lutz, R. & Swapp, S. Biomineralization of barite in the shell of the freshwater asiatic clam Corbicula fluminea (Mollusca: Bivalvia). Limnol. Oceanogr. 35, 756–762 (1990).
    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

    52.
    Ricciardi, A., Neves, R. J. & Rasmussen, J. B. Impending extinctions of North American freshwater mussels (Unionoida) following the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) invasion. J. Anim. Ecol. 67, 613–619 (1998).
    Google Scholar 

    53.
    Ricciardi, A. & Rasmussen, J. B. Extinction rates of North American freshwater fauna. Conserv. Biol. 13, 1220–1222 (1999).
    Google Scholar 

    54.
    Vaughn, C. C. & Taylor, C. M. Impoundments and the decline of freshwater mussels: a case study of an extinction gradient. Conserv. Biol. 13, 912–920 (1999).
    Google Scholar 

    55.
    Weggler, B. A. et al. Untargeted identification of wood type-specific markers in particulate matter from wood combustion. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 10073–10081 (2016).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    56
    Colborn, T. & Smolen, M. J. Epidemiological analysis of persistent organochlorine contaminants in cetaceans. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-8478-6_4 (1996).
    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    57.
    Halbrook, R. S., Kirkpatrick, R. L., Scanlon, P. F., Vaughan, M. R. & Veit, H. P. Environmental Contamination a n d Toxicology Muskrat Populations in Virginia’s Elizabeth River: Physiological Condition and Accumulation of Environmental Contaminants. Arch. Environ. Contain. Toxicol 25, (ARCHIVES OF, 1993).

    58.
    Birdsall, K., Kukor, J. J. & Cheney, M. A. Uptake of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon compounds by the gills of the bivalve mollusk Elliptio complanata. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 20, 309–316 (2001).
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    59.
    Thorsen, W. A. et al. Elimination rate constants of 46 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the unionid mussel, Elliptio complanata. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00244-004-3186-y (2004).
    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    60.
    Gewurtz, S. B., Drouillard, K. G., Lazar, R. & Haffner, G. D. Quantitative biomonitoring of PAHs using the barnes mussel (Elliptio complanata). Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00244-002-1153-z (2002).
    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    61.
    Gewurtz, S. G., Lazar, R. & Haffner, G. D. Biomonitoring of bioavailable PAH and PCB water concentrations in the Detroit River using the freshwater mussel Elliptio complanata. J. Great Lakes Res. 29, 242–255 (2003).
    CAS  Google Scholar 

    62.
    Metcalfe, J. L. & Charlton, M. N. Freshwater mussels as biomonitors for organic industrial contaminants and pesticides in the St Lawrence River. Sci. Total Environ. 98, 595–615 (1990).
    ADS  Google Scholar 

    63
    Drouillard, K. G. et al. Quantitative biomonitoring in the Detroit River using Elliptio complanata: verification of steady state correction factors and temporal trends of PCBs in water between 1998 and 2015. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 97, 757–762 (2016).
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    64.
    Drouillard, K. G., Chan, S., O’Rourke, S., Douglas Haffner, G. & Letcher, R. J. Elimination of 10 polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) congeners and selected polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from the freshwater mussel, Elliptio complanata. Chemosphere 69, 362–370 (2007).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    65.
    O’Rourke, S., Drouillard, K. G. & Haffner, G. D. Determination of laboratory and field elimination rates of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the freshwater mussel, Elliptio complanata. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 47, 74–83 (2004).
    Google Scholar 

    66.
    Xu, M. et al. Quantitative structure-activity relationship for the depuration rate constants of polychlorinated biphenyls in the freshwater mussel, Elliptio complanata. J. Environ. Sci. Heal. Part B 44, 278–283 (2009).
    CAS  Google Scholar 

    67.
    Sabik, H., Gagné, F., Blaise, C., Marcogliese, D. J. & Jeannot, R. Occurrence of alkylphenol polyethoxylates in the St. Lawrence River and their bioconcentration by mussels (Elliptio complanata). Chemosphere 51, 349–356 (2003).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    68.
    Donkin, P., Smith, E. L. & Rowland, S. J. Toxic effects of unresolved complex mixtures of aromatic hydrocarhons accumulated by mussels, Mytilus edulis, from contaminated field sites. Environ. Sci. Technol. 37, 4825–4830 (2003).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    69.
    Booth, A. M. et al. Unresolved complex mixtures of aromatic hydrocarbons: thousands of overlooked persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic contaminants in mussels. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41, 457–464 (2007).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    70.
    Gillikin, D. P. et al. Barium uptake into the shells of the common mussel (Mytilus edulis) and the potential for estuarine paleo-chemistry reconstruction. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2005.09.015 (2006).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    71.
    Geeza, T. J. et al. Controls on magnesium, manganese, strontium, and barium concentrations recorded in freshwater mussel shells from Ohio. Chem. Geol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemgeo.2018.01.001 (2019).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    72.
    Abualfaraj, N., Gurian, P. L. & Olson, M. S. Characterization of marcellus shale flowback water. Environ. Eng. Sci. 31, 514–524 (2014).
    CAS  Google Scholar 

    73.
    Chapman, E. C. et al. Geochemical and strontium isotope characterization of produced waters from marcellus shale natural gas extraction. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 3545–3553 (2012).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    74.
    Poulain, C. et al. An evaluation of Mg/Ca, Sr/Ca, and Ba/Ca ratios as environmental proxies in aragonite bivalve shells. Chem. Geol. 396, 42–50 (2015).
    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

    75.
    Lorens, R. B. & Bender, M. L. The impact of solution chemistry on Mytilus edulis calcite and aragonite. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 44, 1265–1278 (1980).
    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

    76.
    Wheeler, A. Mechanisms of molluscan shell formation. (1992).

    77.
    Wilbur, K. M. The Mollusca (Academic Press, Cambridge, 1983).
    Google Scholar 

    78.
    Crenshaw, M. A. The inorganic composition of molluscan extrapallial fluid. Biol. Bull. 143, 6–512 (1972).
    Google Scholar 

    79.
    Mount, A. S., Wheeler, A. P., Paradkar, R. P. & Snider, D. Hemocyte-mediated shell mineralization in the Eastern Oyster. Science 304, 297–300 (2004).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    80.
    Nair, P. S. & Robinson, W. E. Calcium speciation and exchange between blood and extrapallial fluid of the quahog Mercenaria mercenaria (L.). Biol. Bull. 195, 43–51 (1998).
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    81.
    Kelemen, Z., Gillikin, D. P. & Bouillon, S. Relationship between river water chemistry and shell chemistry of two tropical African freshwater bivalve species. Chem. Geol. 526, 130–141 (2019).
    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

    82.
    Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. Canadian water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life. Water Quality Index. (2001).

    83.
    Todd, A. K. & Kaltenecker, M. G. Warm season chloride concentrations in stream habitats of freshwater mussel species at risk. Environ. Pollut. 171, 199–206 (2012).
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    84.
    O’Neil, D. D. & Gillikin, D. P. Do freshwater mussel shells record road-salt pollution?. Sci. Rep. 4, 1–6 (2014).
    Google Scholar 

    85.
    Ganoe, L. S., Brown, J. D., Yabsley, M. J., Lovallo, M. J. & Walter, W. D. A review of pathogens, diseases, and contaminants of muskrats (Ondatra zibethicus) in North America. Frontiers Veterin. Sci. 7, 233 (2020).
    Google Scholar 

    86.
    Warner, N. R., Christie, C. A., Jackson, R. B. & Vengosh, A. Impacts of shale gas wastewater disposal on water quality in Western Pennsylvania. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 11849–11857 (2013).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    87.
    United States Environmental Protection Agency. Method 3510C (SW-846): Separatory Funnel Liquid-Liquid Extraction, Revision 3. (1996).

    88.
    United States Environmental Protection Agency. Method 3005A (SW-846): Acid Digestion of Waters for Total Recoverable or Dissolved Metals for Analysis by FLAA or ICP Spectroscopy, Revision 3. (1992).

    89.
    Chong, J. et al. MetaboAnalyst 4.0: towards more transparent and integrative metabolomics analysis. Web Serv. 46, W486–W494 (2018).
    CAS  Google Scholar  More

  • in

    A database of chlorophyll and water chemistry in freshwater lakes

    1.
    Beeton, A. M. Large freshwater lakes: present state, trends, and future. Environ Conserv. 29, 21–38 (2002).
    CAS  Google Scholar 
    2.
    Shiklomanov, I. A. Water in Crisis: A Guide to the World’s Fresh Water Resources (Oxford Univ. Press, 1993).

    3.
    McMichael, A. J., Woodruff, R. E. & Hales, S. Climate change and human health: present and future risks. The Lancet 367, 859–869 (2006).
    Google Scholar 

    4.
    Meyer, M. F., Labou, S. G., Cramer, A. N., Brousil, M. R. & Luff, B. T. The global lake area, climate, and population dataset. Sci. Data 7, 1–12 (2020).
    Google Scholar 

    5.
    Wrona, F. J. et al. Climate change effects on aquatic biota, ecosystem structure and function. Ambio 35, 359–369 (2006).
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    6.
    Adrian, R. et al. Lakes as sentinels of climate change. Limnol. Oceanogr. 54, 2283–2297 (2009).
    ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    7.
    Nürnberg, G. K. & Shaw, M. Productivity of clear and humic lakes: nutrients, phytoplankton, bacteria. Hydrobiologia 382, 97–112 (1998).
    Google Scholar 

    8.
    Makri, S., Lami, A., Lods-Crozet, B. & Loizeau, J. L. Reconstruction of trophic state shifts over the past 90 years in a eutrophicated lake in western Switzerland, inferred from the sedimentary record of photosynthetic pigments. J. Paleolimnol. 61, 129–145 (2019).
    ADS  Google Scholar 

    9.
    Håkanson, L. & Boulion, V. V. Regularities in primary production, Secchi depth and fish yield and a new system to define trophic and humic state indices for lake ecosystems. Int. Rev. Hydrobiol. 86, 23–62 (2001).
    Google Scholar 

    10.
    Carlson, R. E. A trophic state index for lakes. Limnol. Oceanogr. 22, 361–369 (1977).
    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

    11.
    Sterner, R. W. In situ-measured primary production in Lake Superior. J. Great Lakes Res. 36, 139–149 (2010).
    Google Scholar 

    12.
    Li, X., Sha, J. & Wang, Z. L. Chlorophyll-a prediction of lakes with different water quality patterns in China based on hybrid neural networks. Water 9, 524 (2017).
    ADS  Google Scholar 

    13.
    Vollenweider, R. & Kerekes, J. Eutrophication of Waters: Monitoring, Assessment and Control. OECD (1982).

    14.
    Bennion, D. H., Warner, D. M., Esselman, P. C., Hobson, B. & Kieft, B. A comparison of chlorophyll a values obtained from an autonomous underwater vehicle to satellite-based measures for Lake Michigan. J. Great Lakes Res. 45, 726–734 (2019).
    CAS  Google Scholar 

    15.
    Elser, J. J. et al. Global analysis of nitrogen and phosphorus limitation of primary producers in freshwater, marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Ecol. Lett. 10, 1135–1142 (2007).
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    16.
    Hall, R. I., Leavitt, P. R., Quinlan, R., Dixit, A. S. & Smol, J. P. Effects of agriculture, urbanization, and climate on water quality in the northern Great Plains. Limnol. Oceanogr. 44, 739–756 (1999).
    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

    17.
    Bennett, E. M., Carpenter, S. R. & Caraco, N. F. Human impact on erodable phosphorus and eutrophication: a global perspective: increasing accumulation of phosphorus in soil threatens rivers, lakes, and coastal oceans with eutrophication. AIBS Bulletin 51, 227–234 (2001).
    Google Scholar 

    18.
    Williamson, C. E., Dodds, W., Kratz, T. K. & Palmer, M. A. Lakes and streams as sentinels of environmental change in terrestrial and atmospheric processes. Front. Ecol. Environ. 6, 247–254 (2008).
    Google Scholar 

    19.
    Carpenter, S. R. et al. Nonpoint pollution of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen. Ecol. Appl. 8, 559–568 (1998).
    Google Scholar 

    20.
    Williamson, C. E., Saros, J. E., Vincent, W. F. & Smol, J. P. Lakes and reservoirs as sentinels, integrators, and regulators of climate change. Limnol. Oceanogr. 54, 2273–2282 (2009).
    ADS  Google Scholar 

    21.
    Li, L., Li, L., Shi, K., Li, Z. & Song, K. A semi-analytical algorithm for remote estimation of phycocyanin in inland waters. Sci. Total Environ. 435, 141–150 (2012).
    ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    22.
    Odermatt, D., Danne, O., Philipson, P. & Brockmann, C. Diversity II water quality parameters from ENVISAT (2002-2012): a new global information source for lakes. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 10, 1527–1549 (2018).
    ADS  Google Scholar 

    23.
    Palmer, S. C., Kutser, T. & Hunter, P. D. Remote sensing of inland waters: Challenges, progress and future directions. Remote Sens. Environ. 157, 1–8 (2015).
    ADS  Google Scholar 

    24.
    Salama, M. S. & Verhoef, W. Two-stream remote sensing model for water quality mapping: 2SeaColor. Remote Sens. Environ. 157, 111–122 (2015).
    ADS  Google Scholar 

    25.
    Soranno, P. A. et al. LAGOS-NE: A multi-scaled geospatial and temporal database of lake ecological context and water quality for thousands of U.S. lakes. Gigascience 6, 1–22 (2017).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    26.
    Zeng, L. H. & Li, D. L. Development of in situ sensors for chlorophyll concentration measurement. J. Sens. 2015, 1–16 (2015).
    Google Scholar 

    27.
    Shimaraeva, S. V., Pislegina, E. V., Krashchuk, L. S., Shchapov, K. S. & Silow, E. A. Dynamics of chlorophyll a concentration in the South Baikal pelagic during the direct temperature stratification period. Inland Water Biol. 10, 59–63 (2017).
    Google Scholar 

    28.
    Eaton, A. D., & Franson, M. A. H. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, Water Environment Federation, Washington, Denver, Alexandria (2005).

    29.
    Torremorell, A., del Carmen Diéguez, M., Queimaliños, C., Izaguirre, I. & Zagarese, H. E. Phytoplankton limitation in Patagonian and Pampean shallow lakes: effect of phosphorus and light. Hydrobiologia 816, 91–105 (2018).
    CAS  Google Scholar 

    30.
    Messager, M. L., Lehner, B., Grill, G., Nedeva, I. & Schmitt, O. Estimating the volume and age of water stored in global lakes using a geo-statistical approach. Nat. Commun. 7, 13603 (2016).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    31.
    Filazzola, A. et al. A global database of chlorophyll and water chemistry in freshwater lakes. KNB Data Repository https://doi.org/10.5063/F1RV0M1S (2020).

    32.
    Marselina, M. & Burhanudin, M. Trophic status assessment of Saguling Reservoir, Upper Citarum Basin, Indonesia. Air, Soil and Water Res. 10, 1–8 (2017).
    Google Scholar 

    33.
    R Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing (2019).

    34.
    Wickham, H. & Henry, L. tidyr: Tidy Messy Data. R package version 1.0.0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=tidyr (2019).

    35.
    Wickham, H., François, R., Henry, L., & Müller, K. dplyr: A Grammar of Data Manipulation. R package version 0.8.3. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dplyr (2019).

    36.
    Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. (Springer-Verlag, New York, 2016).
    Google Scholar 

    37.
    Verpoorter, C., Kutser, T., Seekell, D. A. & Tranvik, L. J. A global inventory of lakes based on high‐resolution satellite imagery. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 6396–6402 (2014).
    ADS  Google Scholar 

    38.
    Filazzola, A. afilazzola/ChlorophyllDataPaper: Initial-Release. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3968735 (2020).

    39.
    Hampton, S. E. et al. Ecology under lake ice. Ecol. Lett. 20, 98–111 (2017).
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    40.
    Karatayev, Vadim, A. et al. Eutrophication and Dreissena invasion as drivers of biodiversity: A century of change in the mollusc community of Oneida Lake. PloS One 9 (2014).

    41.
    Richardson, D. C. et al. Transparency, geomorphology and mixing regime explain variability in trends in lake temperature and stratification across northeastern North America (1975–2014). Water 9, 442 (2017).
    Google Scholar 

    42.
    Mantzouki, E. et al. The European Multi Lake Survey (EMLS) dataset of physical, chemical, algal pigments and cyanotoxin parameters 2015. Environmental Data Initiative (2018).

    43.
    Pollard, AminaI., Hampton, StephanieE. & Leech, DinaM. The Promise and Potential of Continental‐Scale Limnology Using the US Environmental Protection Agency’s National Lakes. Assessment. Limnol.Oceanogr. Bull. 27, 36–41 (2018).
    Google Scholar 

    44.
    Burnett, L., Moorhead, D., Hawes, I. & Howard-Williams, C. Environmental factors associated with deep chlorophyll maxima in Dry Valley lakes, South Victoria Land, Antarctica. Arct. Antarct. Alp. Res. 38, 179–189 (2006).
    Google Scholar 

    45.
    Takamura, N. & Nakagawa, M. The densities of bacteria, picophytoplankton, heterotrophic nanoflagellates and ciliates in Lake Kasumigaura (Japan) monitored monthly since 1996. Ecol. Res. 27, 839 (2012).
    Google Scholar 

    46.
    Gries, C., Gahler, M. R., Hanson, P. C., Kratz, T. K. & Stanley, E. H. Information management at the North Temperate Lakes Long-term Ecological Research site—Successful support of research in a large, diverse, and long running project. Ecol. Inform. 36, 201–208 (2016).
    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Fine-scale landscape genetics unveiling contemporary asymmetric movement of red panda (Ailurus fulgens) in Kangchenjunga landscape, India

    1.
    Margules, C. R. & Pressey, R. L. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405(6783), 243–253 (2000).
    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 
    2.
    Lindenmayer, D. B. & Fischer, J. Habitat Fragmentation and Landscape Change: An Ecological and Conservation Synthesis (Island Press, Washington, 2013).
    Google Scholar 

    3.
    Hilty, J. A., Lidicker, W. Z. Jr. & Merenlender, A. M. Corridor Ecology: The Science and Practice of Linking Landscapes for Biodiversity Conservation (Island Press, Washington, 2012).
    Google Scholar 

    4.
    Katayama, N. et al. Landscape heterogeneity–biodiversity relationship: Effect of range size. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0093359 (2014).
    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    5.
    Doherty, T. S. & Driscoll, D. A. Coupling movement and landscape ecology for animal conservation in production landscapes. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 285(1870), 2017–2272 (2018).
    Google Scholar 

    6.
    Frankham, R. Challenges and opportunities of genetic approaches to biological conservation. Biol. Conserv. 143(9), 1919–1927 (2010).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    7.
    Haddad, N. M. et al. Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Sci. Adv. 1(2), e1500052 (2015).
    ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

    8.
    Lambertucci, S. A. et al. Apex scavenger movements call for transboundary conservation policies. Biol. Conserv. 170, 145–150 (2014).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    9.
    Gurung, J. et al. Evolution of a transboundary landscape approach in the Hindu Kush Himalaya: Key learnings from the Kangchenjunga landscape. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 17, 1–15 (2019).
    Google Scholar 

    10.
    Wei, F., Feng, Z., Wang, Z., Zhou, A. & Hu, J. Use of the nutrients in bamboo by the red panda (Ailurus fulgens). J. Zool. 248(4), 535–541 (1999).
    Google Scholar 

    11.
    Choudhury, A. An overview of the status and conservation of the red panda Ailurus fulgens in India, with reference to its global status. Oryx 35(3), 250–259 (2001).
    Google Scholar 

    12.
    Glatston, A., Wei, F., Than, Z., & Sherpa, A. Ailurus fulgens. The IUCN red list of threatened species, 4 (2015).

    13.
    Roberts, M. S. & Gittleman, J. L. Ailurus fulgens. Mamm. Species 222, 1–8 (1984).
    Google Scholar 

    14.
    Wei, F., Feng, Z., Wang, Z. & Hu, J. Current distribution, status and conservation of wild red pandas Ailurus fulgens in China. Biol. Conserv. 89, 285–291 (1999).
    Google Scholar 

    15.
    Hu, Y. et al. Genomic evidence for two phylogenetic species and long-term population bottlenecks in red pandas. Sci. Adv. 9, 5751 (2020).
    ADS  Google Scholar 

    16.
    Thapa, A. et al. Predicting the potential distribution of the endangered red panda across its entire range using MaxEnt modeling. Ecol. Evol. 8, 10542–10554 (2018).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    17.
    Cohen, J. E. & Small, C. Hypsographic demography: The distribution of human population by altitude. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 95, 14009–14014 (1998).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    18.
    Panthi, S., Wang, T., Sun, Y. & Thapa, A. An assessment of human impacts on endangered red pandas (Ailurus fulgens) living in the Himalaya. Ecol. Evol. 9, 13413–13425 (2019).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    19.
    Hansen, A. J. & De Fries, R. Ecological mechanisms linking protected areas to surrounding lands. Ecol. Appl. 17(4), 974–988 (2007).
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    20.
    Pradhan, S., Saha, G. K. & Khan, J. A. Ecology of the red Panda Ailurus fulgens in the singhalila national Park, Darjeeling, India. Biol. Conserv. 98, 11–18 (2001).
    Google Scholar 

    21.
    Chakraborty, R. et al. Status, abundance, and habitat associations of the red panda (Ailurus fulgens) in Pangchen Valley, Arunachal Pradesh, India. Mammalia https://doi.org/10.1515/mammalia-2013-0105 (2015).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    22.
    Sharma, H. P., Belant, J. L. & Swenson, J. E. Effects of livestock on occurrence of the Vulnerable red panda Ailurus fulgens in Rara National Park, Nepal. Oryx 48(2), 228–231 (2014).
    Google Scholar 

    23.
    Panthi, S., Coogan, S. C., Aryal, A. & Raubenheimer, D. Diet and nutrient balance of red panda in Nepal. Sci. Nat. 102(9–10), 54 (2015).
    Google Scholar 

    24.
    Holderegger, R. & Wagner, H. H. Landscape genetics. Bioscience 58(3), 199–207 (2008).
    Google Scholar 

    25.
    Balkenhol, N., Waits, L. P. & Dezzani, R. J. Statistical approaches in landscape genetics: An evaluation of methods for linking landscape and genetic data. Ecography 32(5), 818–830 (2009).
    Google Scholar 

    26.
    Manel, S. et al. Perspectives on the use of landscape genetics to detect genetic adaptive variation in the field. Mol. Ecol. 19(17), 3760–3772 (2010).
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    27.
    Cushman, S. A., McKELVEY, K. S. & Schwartz, M. K. Use of empirically derived source-destination models to map regional conservation corridors. Conserv. Biol. 23(2), 368–376 (2009).
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    28.
    Brodie, J. F. et al. Evaluating multispecies landscape connectivity in a threatened tropical mammal community. Conserv. Biol. 29(1), 122–132 (2015).
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    29.
    Zeller, K. A. et al. Are all data types and connectivity models created equal? Validating common connectivity approaches with dispersal data. Divers. Distrib. 24(7), 868–879 (2018).
    Google Scholar 

    30.
    Menchaca, A. et al. Population genetic structure and habitat connectivity for jaguar (Panthera onca) conservation in Central Belize. BMC Genet. 20(1), 1–13 (2019).
    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

    31.
    Hedrick, P. Large variance in reproductive success and the Ne/N ratio. Evolution 59(7), 1596–1599 (2005).
    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    32.
    Mallick, J. K. Status of Red Panda Ailurus fulgens in Neora Valley National Park, Darjeeling District, West Bengal, India. Small Carnivore Conserv. 43(30), e36 (2010).
    Google Scholar 

    33.
    Zhang, Z. J. et al. Microhabitat separation during winter among sympatric giant pandas, red pandas and tufted deer: The effects of diet, body size, and energy metabolism. Can. J. Zool. 82, 1451–1458 (2004).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    34.
    Dorji, S., Vernes, K. & Rajaratnam, R. Habitat correlates of the Red Panda in the temperate forests of Bhutan. PLoS ONE 6(10), e26483 (2011).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

    35.
    Zhou, X. et al. The winter habitat selection of red panda (Ailurus fulgens) in the Meigu Dafengding national nature reserve, China. Curr. Sci. 105, 1425–1429 (2013).
    Google Scholar 

    36.
    Rao, A. N., Zhang, X. P. & Zhu, S. L. Selected papers on recent bamboo research in China (1991).

    37.
    Ziegler, S. et al. Sikkim-under the sign of the red panda. Z. Des Kölner Zoos 2, 79–92 (2010).
    Google Scholar 

    38.
    Ghose, D. & Dutta, P. K. Status and Distribution of Red Panda Ailurus fulgens fulgens in India. In Red Panda 357–373 (William Andrew Publishing, Park Ridge, 2011).
    Google Scholar 

    39.
    Buckland, S. T., Anderson, D. R., Burnham, K. P. & Laake, J. L. Distance Sampling: Estimating Abundance of Biological Populations (Chapman and Hall, London, 1993).
    Google Scholar 

    40.
    Hu, Y. et al. Genetic structuring and recent demographic history of red pandas (Ailurus fulgens) inferred from microsatellite and mitochondrial DNA. Mol. Ecol. 20(13), 2662–2675 (2011).
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    41.
    Liu, Z., Zhang, B., Wei, F. & Li, M. Isolation and characterization of microsatellite loci for the red panda, Ailurus fulgens. Mol. Ecol. Notes 5(1), 27–29 (2005).
    CAS  Google Scholar 

    42.
    Mallick, J. K. In situ and ex situ conservation of Red Panda in Darjeeling district, West Bengal, India. Animal Divers. Nat. Hist. Conserv. 5, 283–305 (2015).
    Google Scholar 

    43.
    Wilson, G. A. & Rannala, B. Bayesian inference of recent migration rates using multilocus genotypes. Genetics 163(3), 1177–1191 (2003).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    44.
    Bahuguna, N. C. & Mallick, J. K. Handbook of the Mammals of South Asia: With Special Emphasis on India, Bhutan, and Bangladesh (Natraj Publishers, Dehradun, 2010).
    Google Scholar 

    45.
    Deb, S., Ahmed, A. & Datta, D. An alternative approach for delineating eco-sensitive zones around a wildlife sanctuary applying geospatial techniques. Environ. Monit. Assess. 186(4), 2641–2651 (2014).
    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    46.
    Angert, A. L. et al. Do species’ traits predict recent shifts at expanding range edges?. Ecol. Lett. 14, 677–689 (2011).
    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    47.
    Guo, F., Lenoir, J. & Bonebrake, T. C. Land-use change interacts with climate to determine elevational species redistribution. Nat. Commun. 9, 1315 (2018).
    ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

    48.
    Santure, A. W. & Garant, D. Wild GWAS—Association mapping in natural populations. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 18(4), 729–738 (2018).
    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    49.
    Provan, J., Glendinning, K., Kelly, R. & Maggs, C. A. Levels and patterns of population genetic diversity in the red seaweed Chondrus crispus (Florideophyceae): A direct comparison of single nucleotide polymorphisms and microsatellites. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 108(2), 251–262 (2013).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    50.
    Allendorf, F. W., Hohenlohe, P. A. & Luikart, G. Genomics and the future of conservation genetics. Nat. Rev. Genet. 11(10), 697–709 (2010).
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    51.
    Waraniak, J. M., Fisher, J. D., Purcell, K., Mushet, D. M. & Stockwell, C. A. Landscape genetics reveal broad and fine-scale population structure due to landscape features and climate history in the northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) in North Dakota. Ecol. Evol. 9(3), 1041–1060 (2019).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    52.
    Champion, S. H., & Seth, S. K. A revised survey of the forest types of India. In A revised survey of the forest types of India. (1968).

    53.
    Wikramanayake, E. D., Dinerstein, E. & Loucks, C. J. Terrestrial Ecoregions of the Indo-Pacific: A Conservation Assessment (Island Press, Washington, 2002).
    Google Scholar 

    54.
    Joshi, B. D. et al. Field testing of different methods for monitoring mammals in Trans-Himalayas: A case study from Lahaul and Spiti. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 21, e00824 (2020).
    Google Scholar 

    55.
    Kramer-Schadt, S. et al. The importance of correcting for sampling bias in MaxEnt species distribution models. Divers. Distrib. 19(11), 1366–1379 (2013).
    Google Scholar 

    56.
    Lenoir, J. et al. Species better track climate warming in the oceans than on land. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1044–1059 (2020).
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    57.
    Bista, D. et al. Distribution and habitat use of red panda in the Chitwan-Annapurna landscape of Nepal. PLoS ONE 12(10), e0178797 (2017).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    58.
    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. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 25(15), 1965–1978 (2005).
    Google Scholar 

    59.
    Negi, S. P. Forest cover in Indian Himalayan states—An overview. Indian J. For. 32(1), 1–5 (2009).
    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

    60.
    Phillips, S. J., Anderson, R. P. & Schapire, R. E. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol. Model. 190(3–4), 231–259 (2006).
    Google Scholar 

    61.
    Elith, J. et al. Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data. Ecography 29(2), 129–151 (2006).
    Google Scholar 

    62.
    Elith, J. et al. A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists. Divers. Distrib. 17(1), 43–57 (2011).
    Google Scholar 

    63.
    Muscarella, R. et al. ENM eval: An R package for conducting spatially independent evaluations and estimating optimal model complexity for Maxent ecological niche models. Methods Ecol. Evol. 5(11), 1198–1205 (2014).
    Google Scholar 

    64.
    Dudík, M., Phillips, S. J. & Schapire, R. E. Correcting sample selection bias in maximum entropy density estimation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (eds Dietterich, T. G. et al.) 323–330 (MIT Press, Cambridge, 2006).
    Google Scholar 

    65.
    Warren, D. L., Glor, R. E. & Turelli, M. ENMTools: A toolbox for comparative studies of environmental niche models. Ecography 33(3), 607–611 (2010).
    Google Scholar 

    66.
    Sharma, L. K., Mukherjee, T., Saren, P. C. & Chandra, K. Identifying suitable habitat and corridors for Indian Grey Wolf (Canis lupus pallipes) in Chotta Nagpur Plateau and lower Gangetic planes: A species with differential management needs. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215019 (2019).
    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    67.
    Phillips, S. J., Anderson, R. P. & Schapire, R. E. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol. Model. 190, 231–259 (2006).
    Google Scholar 

    68.
    Bagaria, P. et al. West to east shift in range predicted for Himalayan Langur in climate change scenario. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 22, e00926 (2020).
    Google Scholar 

    69.
    Yang, X. Q., Kushwaha, S. P. S., Saran, S., Xu, J. & Roy, P. S. Maxent modeling for predicting the potential distribution of medicinal plant, Justicia adhatoda L. in Lesser Himalayan foothills. Ecol. Eng. 51, 83–87 (2013).
    CAS  Google Scholar 

    70.
    Radosavljevic, A. & Anderson, R. P. Making better Maxent models of species distributions: Complexity, overfitting and evaluation. J. Biogeogr. 41(4), 629–643 (2014).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    71.
    Fielding, A. H. & Bell, J. F. A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environ. Conserv. 24(1), 38–49 (1997).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    72.
    Allouche, O., Tsoar, A. & Kadmon, R. Assessing the accuracy of species distribution models: Prevalence, kappa and the true skill statistic (TSS). J. Appl. Ecol. 43, 1223–1232 (2006).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    73.
    Amy, G. et al. Genetic landscapes GIS toolbox: Tools to map patterns of genetic divergence and diversity. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 11, 158–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2010.02904 (2010).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    74.
    Liszka, T. An interpolation method for an irregular net of nodes. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 20, 1599–1612 (1984).
    MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

    75.
    Mateo-Sánchez, M. C. et al. Estimating effective landscape distances and movement corridors: Comparison of habitat and genetic data. Ecosphere https://doi.org/10.1890/ES14-00387.1 (2015).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    76.
    Roffler, G. H., Schwartz, M. K. & Pilgrim, K. L. Identification of landscape features influencing gene flow: How useful are habitat selection models?. Evol. Appl. 9(6), 805–817 (2016).
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

    77.
    McRae, B. H. & Shah, V. B. Circuitscape User’s Guide (The University of California, Santa Barbara, 2009).
    Google Scholar 

    78.
    Liang, X. U. et al. Isolation and characterization of 16 tetranucleotide microsatellite loci in the red panda (Ailurus fulgens). Mol. Ecol. Notes 7(6), 1012–1014 (2007).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    79.
    Yang, A. et al. Twenty-five microsatellite loci of Ailurus fulgens identified by genome survey. Sichuan J. Zool. 38(1), 56–61 (2019).
    Google Scholar 

    80.
    Van Oosterhout, C., Hutchinson, W. F., Wills, D. P. & Shipley, P. MICRO-CHECKER: Software for identifying and correcting genotyping errors in microsatellite data. Mol. Ecol. Notes 4(3), 535–538 (2004).
    Google Scholar 

    81.
    Johnson, P. C. & Haydon, D. T. Maximum-likelihood estimation of allelic dropout and false allele error rates from microsatellite genotypes in the absence of reference data. Genetics 175(2), 827–842 (2007).
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    82.
    Peakall, R. O. D. & Smouse, P. E. GENALEX 6: Genetic analysis in excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research. Mol. Ecol. Notes 6(1), 288–295 (2006).
    Google Scholar 

    83.
    Rousset, F. Genepop ’007: A complete re-implementation of the genepop software for Windows and Linux. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 8(1), 103–106 (2008).
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    84.
    Weir, B. S. & Cockerham, C. C. Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution 38(6), 1358–1370 (1984).
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    85.
    Bonferroni, C. E., Bonferroni, C., & Bonferroni, C. E. Teoria statistica delle classi e calcolo delle probabilita’ (1936).

    86.
    Excoffier, L. & Lischer, H. E. Arlequin suite ver 3.5: A new series of programs to perform population genetics analyses under Linux and Windows. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 10(3), 564–567 (2010).
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    87.
    Vergara, M. et al. Inferring population genetic structure in widely and continuously distributed carnivores: The stone marten (Martes foina) as a case study. PLoS ONE 10(7), e0134257 (2015).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    88.
    Pritchard, J. K., Wen, W., & Falush, D. Documentation for STRUCTURE software: Version 2 (2003).

    89.
    Evanno, G., Regnaut, S. & Goudet, J. Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software STRUCTURE: A simulation study. Mol. Ecol. 14(8), 2611–2620 (2005).
    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    90.
    Earl, D. A. STRUCTURE HARVESTER: A website and program for visualizing STRUCTURE output and implementing the Evanno method. Conserv. Genet. Resour. 4(2), 359–361 (2012).
    Google Scholar 

    91.
    Guillot, G., Santos, F. & Estoup, A. Analysing georeferenced population genetics data with Geneland: A new algorithm to deal with null alleles and a friendly graphical user interface. Bioinformatics 24(11), 1406–1407 (2008).
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    92.
    Jombart, T. An introduction to adegenet 1.3-4. R vignette, R-Forge, The R Project for Statistical Computing (2012).

    93.
    Landguth, E. L., Cushman, S. A., Murphy, M. A. & Luikart, G. Relationships between migration rates and landscape resistance assessed using individual-based simulations. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 10(5), 854–862 (2010).
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    94.
    Piry, S. et al. GENECLASS2: A software for genetic assignment and first-generation migrant detection. J. Hered. 95(6), 536–539 (2004).
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    95.
    Paetkau, D., Slade, R., Burden, M. & Estoup, A. Genetic assignment methods for the direct, real-time estimation of migration rate: A simulation-based exploration of accuracy and power. Mol. Ecol. 13(1), 55–65 (2004).
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Two-way microscale interactions between immigrant bacteria and plant leaf microbiota as revealed by live imaging

    1.
    Lindow SE, Brandl MT. Microbiology of the phyllosphere. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003;69:1875–83.
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 
    2.
    Lindow SE, Leveau JH. Phyllosphere microbiology. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2002;13:238–43.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    3.
    Vorholt JA. Microbial life in the phyllosphere. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2012;10:828.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    4.
    Vacher C, Hampe A, Porté AJ, Sauer U, Compant S, Morris CE. The phyllosphere: microbial jungle at the plant–climate interface. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2016;47:1–24.
    Google Scholar 

    5.
    Bringel F, Couée I. Pivotal roles of phyllosphere microorganisms at the interface between plant functioning and atmospheric trace gas dynamics. Front Microbiol. 2015;6:486.
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    6.
    Redford AJ, Bowers RM, Knight R, Linhart Y, Fierer N. The ecology of the phyllosphere: geographic and phylogenetic variability in the distribution of bacteria on tree leaves. Environ Microbiol. 2010;12:2885–93.
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    7.
    Rastogi G, Sbodio A, Tech JJ, Suslow TV, Coaker GL, Leveau JH. Leaf microbiota in an agroecosystem: spatiotemporal variation in bacterial community composition on field-grown lettuce. ISME J. 2012;6:1812.
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    8.
    Beattie GA, Lindow SE. Bacterial colonization of leaves: a spectrum of strategies. Phytopathology. 1999;89:353–359.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    9.
    Agler MT, Ruhe J, Kroll S, Morhenn C, Kim S-T, Weigel D, et al. Microbial hub taxa link host and abiotic factors to plant microbiome variation. PLoS Biol. 2016;14:e1002352.
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    10.
    Laforest-Lapointe I, Messier C, Kembel SW. Tree phyllosphere bacterial communities: exploring the magnitude of intra-and inter-individual variation among host species. PeerJ. 2016;4:e2367.
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    11.
    Monier J-M, Lindow S. Frequency, size, and localization of bacterial aggregates on bean leaf surfaces. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2004;70:346–55.
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    12.
    Tecon R, Leveau JH. The mechanics of bacterial cluster formation on plant leaf surfaces as revealed by bioreporter technology. Environ Microbiol. 2012;14:1325–32.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    13.
    Remus-Emsermann MN, Lücker S, Müller DB, Potthoff E, Daims H, Vorholt JA. Spatial distribution analyses of natural phyllosphere-colonizing bacteria on A rabidopsis thaliana revealed by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Environ Microbiol. 2014;16:2329–40.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    14.
    Morris CE, Monier J, Jacques M. Methods for observing microbial biofilms directly on leaf surfaces and recovering them for isolation of culturable microorganisms. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1997;63:1570–6.
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    15.
    Esser DS, Leveau JH, Meyer KM, Wiegand K. Spatial scales of interactions among bacteria and between bacteria and the leaf surface. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2015;91:fiu034.
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    16.
    Remus-Emsermann MN, Schlechter RO. Phyllosphere microbiology: at the interface between microbial individuals and the plant host. N. Phytologist. 2018;218:1327–33.
    Google Scholar 

    17.
    Monier J-M, Lindow S. Spatial organization of dual-species bacterial aggregates on leaf surfaces. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005;71:5484–93.
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    18.
    Peredo EL, Simmons SL. Leaf-FISH: microscale imaging of bacterial taxa on phyllosphere. Front Microbiol. 2018;8:2669.
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    19.
    Remus-Emsermann MN, Tecon R, Kowalchuk GA, Leveau JH. Variation in local carrying capacity and the individual fate of bacterial colonizers in the phyllosphere. ISME J. 2012;6:756.
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    20.
    Remus-Emsermann MN, Kowalchuk GA, Leveau JH. Single-cell versus population-level reproductive success of bacterial immigrants to pre-colonized leaf surfaces. Environ Microbiol Rep. 2013;5:387–92.
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    21.
    Monier J-M, Lindow S. Aggregates of resident bacteria facilitate survival of immigrant bacteria on leaf surfaces. Microb Ecol. 2005;49:343–52.
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    22.
    Poza-Carrion C, Suslow T, Lindow S. Resident bacteria on leaves enhance survival of immigrant cells of Salmonella enterica. Phytopathology. 2013;103:341–51.
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    23.
    Grinberg M, Orevi T, Kashtan N. Bacterial surface colonization, preferential attachment and fitness under periodic stress. PLoS Comput Biol. 2019;15:e1006815.
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    24.
    Beattie GA, Lindow SE. Comparison of the behavior of epiphytic fitness mutants of Pseudomonas syringae under controlled and field conditions. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1994;60:3799–808.
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    25.
    Loper JE, Lindow SE. Lack of evidence for the in situ fluorescent pigment production by Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae on bean leaf surfaces. J Phytopathol. 1987;77:1449–54.
    Google Scholar 

    26.
    Wilson M, Hirano S, Lindow S. Location and survival of leaf-associated bacteria in relation to pathogenicity and potential for growth within the leaf. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1999;65:1435–43.
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    27.
    Stockwell V, Johnson K, Sugar D, Loper J. Control of fire blight by Pseudomonas fluorescens A506 and Pantoea vagans C9-1 applied as single strains and mixed inocula. Phytopathology. 2010;100:1330–9.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    28.
    Wilson M, Lindow S. Interactions between the biological control agent Pseudomonas fluorescens A506 and Erwinia amylovora in pear blossoms. Phytopathology. 1993;83:117–23.
    Google Scholar 

    29.
    Choi K-H, Schweizer HP. mini-Tn7 insertion in bacteria with single attTn7 sites: example Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Nat Protoc. 2006;1:153.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    30.
    Morris CE, Monier J-M, Jacques M-A. A technique to quantify the population size and composition of the biofilm component in communities of bacteria in the phyllosphere. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1998;64:4789–95.
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    31.
    Wang Q, Niemi J, Tan CM, You L, West M. Image segmentation and dynamic lineage analysis in single-cell fluorescence microscopy. Cytometry A. 2010;77:101–10.
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    32.
    Daims H, Lücker S, Wagner M. Daime, a novel image analysis program for microbial ecology and biofilm research. Environ Microbiol. 2006;8:200–13.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    33.
    Daims H, Wagner M. In situ techniques and digital image analysis methods for quantifying spatial localization patterns of nitrifiers and other microorganisms in biofilm and flocs. Methods Enzymol. 2011;496:185–215.

    34.
    Reed M, Howard C. Stereological estimation of covariance using linear dipole probes. J Microsc. 1999;195:96–103.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    35.
    Van Der Wal A, Tecon R, Kreft J-U, Mooij WM, Leveau JH. Explaining bacterial dispersion on leaf surfaces with an individual-based model (PHYLLOSIM). PloS ONE. 2013;8:e75633.
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    36.
    Schmidt H, Nunan N, Höck A, Eickhorst T, Kaiser C, Woebken D, et al. Recognizing patterns: spatial analysis of observed microbial colonization on root surfaces. Front Environ Sci. 2018;6:61.
    Google Scholar 

    37.
    Gantner S, Schmid M, Dürr C, Schuhegger R, Steidle A, Hutzler P, et al. In situ quantitation of the spatial scale of calling distances and population density-independent N-acylhomoserine lactone-mediated communication by rhizobacteria colonized on plant roots. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2006;56:188–94.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    38.
    Schillinger C, Petrich A, Lux R, Riep B, Kikhney J, Friedmann A, et al. Co-localized or randomly distributed? Pair cross correlation of in vivo grown subgingival biofilm bacteria quantified by digital image analysis. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e37583.
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    39.
    Mercier J, Lindow S. Role of leaf surface sugars in colonization of plants by bacterial epiphytes. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2000;66:369–74.
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    40.
    Zhao K, Tseng BS, Beckerman B, Jin F, Gibiansky ML, Harrison JJ, et al. Psl trails guide exploration and microcolony formation in early P. aeruginosa biofilms. Nature. 2013;497:388.
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    41.
    Hödl I, Hödl J, Wörman A, Singer G, Besemer K, Battin TJ. Voronoi tessellation captures very early clustering of single primary cells as induced by interactions in nascent biofilms. PloS ONE. 2011;6:e26368.
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    42.
    Mittelviefhaus M, Müller DB, Zambelli T, Vorholt JA. A modular atomic force microscopy approach reveals a large range of hydrophobic adhesion forces among bacterial members of the leaf microbiota. ISME J. 2019;13:1878–82.
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    43.
    Laganenka L, Colin R, Sourjik V. Chemotaxis towards autoinducer 2 mediates autoaggregation in Escherichia coli. Nat Commun. 2016;7:12984.
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    44.
    Laganenka L, Sourjik V. Autoinducer 2-dependent Escherichia coli biofilm formation is enhanced in a dual-species coculture. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2018;84:e02638–17.
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    45.
    Dulla G, Lindow SE. Quorum size of Pseudomonas syringae is small and dictated by water availability on the leaf surface. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2008;105:3082–7.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    46.
    Bertsche U, Mayer C, Götz F, Gust AA. Peptidoglycan perception—sensing bacteria by their common envelope structure. Int J Med Microbiol. 2015;305:217–23.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    47.
    Monier J-M, Lindow S. Differential survival of solitary and aggregated bacterial cells promotes aggregate formation on leaf surfaces. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2003;100:15977–82.
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    48.
    Grinberg M, Orevi T, Steinberg S, Kashtan N. Bacterial survival in microscopic surface wetness. eLife. 2019;8:e48508.
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    49.
    Shank EA, Kolter R. New developments in microbial interspecies signaling. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2009;12:205–14.
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  More