Ecology

1.
Breitbart M, Thompson L, Suttle C, Sullivan M. Exploring the vast diversity of marine viruses. Oceanography. 2007;20:135–9.
Google Scholar 
2.
Fuhrman JA. Marine viruses and their biogeochemical and ecological effects. Nature. 1999;399:541–8.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

3.
Weinbauer MG. Ecology of prokaryotic viruses. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2004;28:127–81.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

4.
Howard-Varona C, Lindback M, Bastien G, Solonenko N, Zayed A, Jang HB, et al. Phage-specific metabolic reprogramming of virocells. ISME J. 2020;14:881–95.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

5.
Sullivan M, Lindell D, Lee J, Thompson L, Bielawski J, Chisholm S. Prevalence and evolution of core photosystem II genes in marine cyanobacterial viruses and their hosts. PLoS Biol. 2006;4:1344–57.
CAS  Google Scholar 

6.
Lindell D, Jaffe JD, Coleman ML, Futschik ME, Axmann IM, Rector T. Genome-wide expression dynamics of a marine virus and host reveal features of co-evolution. Nature. 2007;449:83–6.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

7.
Hurwitz BL, Hallam SJ, Sullivan MB. Metabolic reprogramming by viruses in the sunlit and dark ocean. Genome Biol. 2013;14:R123.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

8.
Ahlgren NA, Fuchsman C, Rocap G, Fuhrman JA. Discovery of several novel, widespread, and ecologically distinct marine Thaumarchaeota viruses that encode amoC nitrification genes. ISME J. 2019;13:618–31.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

9.
Zeng Q, Chisholm SW. Marine viruses exploit their host’s two-component regulatory system in response to resource limitation. Curr Biol. 2012;22:124–8.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

10.
Anantharaman K, Duhaime MB, Breier JA, Wendt KA, Toner BM, Dick GJ. Sulfur oxidation genes in diverse deep-sea viruses. Science. 2014;344:757–60.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

11.
Roux S, Brum JR, Dutilh BE, Sunagawa S, Duhaime MB, Loy A, et al. Ecogenomics and potential biogeochemical impacts of globally abundant ocean viruses. Nature. 2016;537:689–93.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

12.
Sullivan MB, Coleman ML, Weigele P, Rohwer F, Chisholm SW. Three Prochlorococcus cyanophage genomes: signature features and ecological interpretations. PLoS Biol. 2005;14:e144.
Google Scholar 

13.
Dwivedi B, Xue B, Lundin D, Edwards R, Breitbart M. A bioinformatic analysis of ribonucleotide reductase genes in phage genomes and metagenomes. BMC Evol Biol. 2013;13:33.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

14.
Hagay E, Mandel-Gutfreund Y, Béjà O. Comparative metagenomics analyses reveal viral-induced shifts of host metabolism towards nucleotide biosysnthesis. Microbiome. 2014;2:9.
Google Scholar 

15.
Breitbart M. Marine viruses: truth or dare. Annu Rev Mar Sci. 2012;4:425–48.
Google Scholar 

16.
Chen LX, Méheust R, Crits-Christoph A, McMahon KD, Nelson TC, Warren LA et al. Large freshwater phages with the potential to augment aerobic methane oxidation. BioRxiv 2020.02.13.942896; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.13.942896.

17.
Feiner R, Argov T, Rabinovich L, Sigal N, Borovok I, Herskovits AA. A new perspective on lysogeny: prophages as active regulatory switches of bacteria. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2015;10:641–50.
Google Scholar 

18.
Breitbart M, Bonnain C, Malki K, Sawaya NA. Phage puppet masters of the marine microbial realm. Nat Microbiol. 2018;3:754–66.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

19.
Roux S, Hawley AK, Torres Beltran M, Scofield M, Schwientek P, Stepanauskas R, et al. Ecology and evolution of viruses infecting uncultivated SUP05 bacteria as revealed by single-cell- and meta- genomics. eLife. 2014;3:e03125.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

20.
Edgcomb VP, Orsi W, Bunge J, Jeon SO, Christen R, Leslin C, et al. Protistan microbial observatory in the Cariaco Basin, Caribbean. I. Pyrosequencing vs Sanger insights into species richness. J Int Soc. Micro Ecol. 2011;5:1344–56.
CAS  Google Scholar 

21.
Bertagnolli AD, Stewart FJ. Microbial niches in marine oxygen minimum zones. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2018;16:723–729.22.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

22.
Cassman N, Prieto-Davó A, Walsh K, Silva GG, Angly F, Akhter S, et al. Oxygen minimum zones harbour novel viral communities with low diversity. Environ Microbiol. 2012;4:3043–65.
Google Scholar 

23.
Schmidtko S, Stramma L, Visbeck M. Decline in global oceanic oxygen content during the past five decades. Nature. 2017;542:335–9.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

24.
Scranton MI, Sayles FL, Bacon MP, Brewer PG. Temporal changes in the hydrography and chemistry of the Cariaco Trench. Deep-Sea Res. 1987;34:945–63.
CAS  Google Scholar 

25.
Taylor GT, Iabichella M, Ho TY, Scranton MI, Thunell MC, Muller-Karger F, et al. Chemoautotrophy in the redox transition zone of the Cariaco Basin: a significant midwater source of organic carbon production. Limnol Oceanogr. 2001;46:148–63.
CAS  Google Scholar 

26.
Scranton MI, Astor Y, Bohrer R, Ho TY, Muller-Karger F. Controls on temporal variability of the geochemistry of the deep Cariaco Basin. Deep-Sea Res. 2001;48:1605–25.
CAS  Google Scholar 

27.
Scranton MI, Taylor GT, Thunell R, Benitez-Nelson C, Muller-Karger F, Fanning K, et al. Interannual and decadal variability in the nutrient geochemistry of the Cariaco Basin. Oceanography. 2014;27:148–59.
Google Scholar 

28.
Peterson LC, Overpeck JT, Kipp NG, Imbrie J. A high-resolution late quaternary upwelling record from the anoxic Cariaco Basin, Venezuela. Paleoceanography. 1991;6:99–119.
Google Scholar 

29.
Scranton MI, Novelli PC, Loud PA. The distribution and cycling of hydrogen gas in the waters of two marine environments. Limnol Oceanogr. 1984;29:993–1003.
CAS  Google Scholar 

30.
Madrid V, Taylor GT, Scranton MI, Chistoserdov AY. Phylogenetic diversity of bacterial and archaeal communities in the anoxic zone of the Cariaco Basin. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2001;67:1663–74.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

31.
Wakeham SG, Turich C, Schubotz F, Podlaska A, Li XN, Varela R, et al. Biomarkers, chemistry and microbiology show chemoautotrophy in a multilayer chemocline in the Cariaco Basin. Deep-Sea Res. 2012;63:133–56.
CAS  Google Scholar 

32.
Suter EA, Pachiadaki M, Taylor GT, Astor Y, Edgcomb VP. Free-living chemoautotrophic and particle-attached heterotrophic prokaryotes dominate microbial assemblages along a pelagic redox gradient. Environ Microbiol. 2018;20:693–712.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

33.
Taylor GT, Hein C, Iabichella M. Temporal variations in viral distributions in the anoxic Cariaco Basin. Aquat Micro Ecol. 2003;30:103–16.
Google Scholar 

34.
Astor YM, Lorenzoni L, Scranton MI (eds). Handbook of methods for the analysis of oceanographic parameters at the Cariaco Time Series Station. Cariaco Time Series Study. Caracas, Venezuela: Fundación La Salle de Ciencias Naturales; 2013.

35.
John SG, Mendez CB, Deng L, Poulos B, Kauffamn AKM, Kern S, et al. A simple and efficient method for concentration of ocean viruses by chemical flocculation. Environ Microbiol Rep. 2011;3:195–202.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

36.
Ohio Supercomputer Center 1987. Ohio Supercomputer Center. Columbus OH: Ohio Supercomputer Center. http://osc.edu/ark:/19495/f5s1ph73.

37.
Duhaime MB, Sullivan MB. Ocean viruses: rigorously evaluating the metagenomic sample-to-sequence pipeline. Virology. 2012;434:181–6.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

38.
Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for illumina se-quence data. Bioinformatics. 2014;30:2114–20.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

39.
Nurk S, Bankevich A, Antipov D, Gurevich A, Korobeynikov A, Lapidus A et al. Assembling genomes and mini-metagenomes from highly chimeric reads. In: Deng M, Jiang R, Sun F, Zhang X (eds). Research in computational molecular biology. Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag; 2013 p. 158–70.

40.
Sullivan MJ, Petty NK, Beatson SA. Easyfig: a genome comparison visualizer. Bioinformatics. 2011;27:1009–10.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

41.
Garneau J, Depardieu F, Fortier LC, Bikard D, Monot M. PhageTerm: a fast and user-friendly software to determine bacteriophage termini and packaging mode using randomly fragmented NGS data. Sci Rep. 2017;7:8292.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

42.
Roux S, Emerson JB, Eloe-Fadrosh EA, Sullivan MB. Benchmarking viromics: an in silico evaluation of metagenome-enabled estimates of viral community composition and diversity. PeerJ. 2017;5:e3817.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

43.
Roux S, Enault F, Hurwitz BL, Sullivan MB. VirSorter: mining viral signal from microbial genomic data. PeerJ. 2015;3:e985.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

44.
Ren J, Ahlgren NA, Lu YY, Fuhrman JA, Sun F. VirFinder: a novel k-mer based tool for identifying viral sequences from assembled metagenomic data. Microbiome. 2017;5:69.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

45.
Cambuy DD, Coutinho FH, Dutilh BE. Contig annotation tool CAT robustly classifies assembled metagenomic contigs and long sequences. BioRxiv 2016;072868:1–8.
Google Scholar 

46.
Arndt D, Grant J, Marcu A, Sajed T, Pon A, Liang Y, et al. PHASTER: a better, faster version of the PHAST phage search tool. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44:W16–21.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

47.
Gregory AC, Zayed AA, Conceição-Neto N, Temperton B, Bolduc B, Alberti A, et al. Marine DNA viral macro- and microdiversity from Pole to Pole. Cell. 2019;177:1109–23.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

48.
Kurtz S, Phillippy A, Delcher AL, Smoot M, Shumway M, Antonescu C. Versatile and open software for comparing large genomes. Genome Biol. 2004;5:R12.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

49.
Hyatt D, LoCascio PF, Hauser LJ, Uberbacher EC. Gene and translation initiation site prediction in metagenomics sequences. Bioinformatics. 2012;28:2223–30.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

50.
Daly RA, Borton MA, Wilkins MJ, Hoyt DW, Kountz DJ, Wolfe RA, et al. Microbial metabolisms in a 2.5-km-deep ecosystem created by hydraulic fracturing in shales. Nat Microbiol. 2016;1:16146.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

51.
Cock PA, Chang AT, Chapman BA, Cox CJ, Dalke A, Friedberg I, et al. Biophython: freely available Python tools for computational molecular biology and bioinformatics. Bioinformatics. 2009;25:1422–3.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

52.
Solovyev V, Salamov A 2011. Automatic annotation of microbial genomes and metagenomic sequences In: Li RW, editor. Metagenomics and its applications in agriculture biomedicine and environmental studies. NY, USA: Nova Science Publishers, Hauppauge; p. 61–78.

53.
Umarov RK, Solovyev VV. Recognition of prokaryotic and eukaryotic promoters using convolutional deep learning neural networks. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0171410.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

54.
Sigrist CJA, de Castro E, Cerutti L, Cuche BA, Hulo N, Bridge A, et al. New and continuing developments at PROSITE. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;41:D344–7.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

55.
Kelley LA, Mezulis S, Yates CM, Wass MN, Sternberg MJE. The Phyre2 web portal for protein modelling, prediction and analysis. Nat Protoc. 2015;10:845–58.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

56.
Dixon P. VEGAN, a package of R functions for community ecology. J Veg Sci. 2003;14:927–30.
Google Scholar 

57.
Suzuki R, Shimodaira H. Pvclust: an R package for assessing the uncertainty in hierarchical clustering. Bioinformatics. 2006;22:1540–2.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

58.
Jang HB, Bolduc B, Zablocki O, Kuhn JH, Roux S, Adriaenssens EM, et al. Taxonomic assignment of uncultivated prokaryotic virus genomes is enabled by gene-sharing networks. Nat Biotechnol. 2019;37:632–9.
Google Scholar 

59.
Gregory AC, Solonenko SA, Ignacio-Espinoza JC, LaButti K, Copeland A, Sudek S, et al. Genomic differentiation among wild cyanophages despite widespread horizontal gene transfer. BMC Genomics. 2016;17:930.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

60.
Duhaime MB, Solonenko N, Roux S, Verberkmoes NC, Wichels A, Sullivan MB. Comparative omics and trait analyses of marine Pseudoalteromonas phages advance the phage OTU concept. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:1241.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

61.
Roux S, Adriaenssens EM, Dutlith BE, Koonin EV, Kropinski AM, Krupovic M, et al. Minimum information about an uncultivated virus genome (MIUViG): a community consensus on standards and best practices for describing genome sequences from uncultivated viruses. Nat Biotechnol. 2019;37:29–37.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

62.
Brum JR, Ignacio-Espinoza JC, Roux S, Doulcier G, Acinas SG, Alberti A, et al. Patterns and ecological drivers of ocean viral communities. Science. 2015;348:1261498.
PubMed  Google Scholar 

63.
Haegeman B, Hamelin J, Moriarty J, Neal P, Dushoff J, Weitz JS. Robust estimation of microbial diversity in theory and in practice. ISME J. 2013;7:1092–101.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

64.
Sullivan MB, Huang KH, Ignacio-Espinoza JC, Berlin AM, Kelly L, Weigele PR, et al. Genomic analysis of oceanic cyanobacterial myoviruses compared with T4-like myoviruses from diverse hosts and environments. Environ Microbiol. 2010;12:3035–56.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

65.
Jones-Mortimer MC. Mapping of structural genes for the enzymes of cysteine biosynthesis in Escherichia coli K12 and Salmonella typhimurium LT2. Heredity. 1973;31:213–LT221.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

66.
Grote J, Schott T, Bruckner CG, Glöckner FO, Jost G, Teeling H, et al. Genome and physiology of a model Epsilonproteobacterium responsible for sulfide detoxification in marine oxygen depletion zones. PNAS. 2012;109:506–10.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

67.
Shapiro JA. Molecular model for the transposition and replication of bacteriophage Mu and other transposable elements. PNAS. 1979;76:1933–7.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

68.
Pato ML Bactioriophage Mu. In: Howe M, Berg D (eds). Mobile DNA. Washington DC, USA: ASM Press; 1989 p. 23–52.

69.
Mhammedi-Alaoui A, Pato M, Gama MJ, Toussaint A. A new component of bacteriophage Mu replicative transposition machinery: the Escherichia coli ClpX protein. Mol Microbiol. 1994;11:1109–16.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

70.
Howe MM. Prophage deletion mapping of bacteriophage Mu-1. Virology. 1973;54:93–101.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

71.
Fogg PC, Hynes AP, Digby E, Lang AS, Beatty JT. Characterization of a newly discovered Mu-like bacteriophage, RcapMu, in Rhodobacter capsulatus strain SB1003. Virology. 2011;421:211–21.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

72.
Lang AS, Zhaxybayeva O, Beatty JT. Gene transfer agents: phage-like elements of genetic exchange. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2012;10:472–82.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

73.
Mosig G. Recombination and recombination-dependent DNA replication in bacteriophage T4. Annu Rev Genet. 1998;32:379–413.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

74.
Mosig G, Gewin J, Luder A, Colowick N, Vo D. Two recombination-dependent DNA replication pathways of bacteriophage T4, and their roles in mutagenesis and horizontal gene transfer. PNAS. 2001;98:8306–831.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

75.
Bragg JG, Chisholm SW. Modeling the fitness consequences of a cyanophage-encoded photosynthesis gene. PLoS One. 2008;14:e3550.
Google Scholar 

76.
Shapiro JA. A role for the Clp protease in activating Mu-mediated DNA rearrangements. J Bacteriol. 1993;175:2625–31.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

77.
Hurwitz BL, Brum JR, Sullivan MB. Depth-stratified functional and taxonomic niche specialization in the ‘core’ and ‘flexible’ Pacific Ocean Virome. ISME J. 2015;9:472–84.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

78.
Derelle E, Ferraz C, Escande ML, Eychenie S, Cooke R, Piganeau G, et al. Life-cycle and genome of OtV5, a large DNA virus of the pelagic marine unicellular green alga Ostreococcus tauri. PLoS One. 2008;3:e2250.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

79.
Madsen JS, Hylling O, Jacquiod S, Pécastaings S, Hansen LH, Riber L, et al. An intriguing relationship between the cyclic diguanylate signaling system and horizontal gene transfer. ISME J. 2018;12:2330–4.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

80.
Hengge R. Principles of c-di-GMP signalling in bacteria. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2009;7:263–73.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

81.
Taylor GT, Thunell RC, Varela R, Benitez-Nelson C, Scranton MI. Hydrolytic ectoenzyme activity associated with suspended and sinking organic particles above and within the anoxic Cariaco Basin. Deep-Sea Res. 2009;56:1266–83.
CAS  Google Scholar 

82.
Nothaft H, Szymanski CM. Protein glycosylation in bacteria: sweeter than ever. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2010;8:765–78.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

83.
Chen CR, Makhatadze GI. Molecular determinant of the effects of hydrostatic pressure on protein folding stability. Nat Commun. 2017;8:14561.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

84.
Lee HS, Qi Y, Im W. Effects of N-glycosylation on protein conformation and dynamics: Protein Data Bank analysis and molecular dynamics simulation study. Sci Rep. 2015;5:8926.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

85.
Mills DC, Jervis AJ, Abouelhadid S, Yates LE, Cuccui J, Linton D, et al. Functional analysis of N-linking oligosaccharyl transferase enzymes encoded by deep-sea vent proteobacteria. Glycobiology. 2016;26:398–409.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

86.
Xu C, Ng DTW. Glycosylation-directed quality control of protein folding. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2015;16:742–52.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

87.
Kandiba L, Eichler J. Archaeal S-layer glycoproteins: post-translational modification in the face of extremes. Front Microbiol. 2014;5:661.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

88.
Wolfe AJ. The acetate switch. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2005;69:12–50.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

89.
Schilling B, Christensen D, Davis R, Sahu AK, Hul LI, Walker‐Peddakotla A. Protein acetylation dynamics in response to carbon overflow in Escherichia coli. Mol Micro. 2015;98:847–63.
CAS  Google Scholar 

90.
Marine R, Nasko D, Wray J, Polson SW, Wommack E. Novel chaperonins are prevalent in the virioplankton and demonstrate links to viral biology and ecology. ISME J. 2017;11:2479–91.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

91.
Philosof A, Yutin N, Flores-Uribe J, Sharon I, Koonin EV, Béjà O. Novel abundant oceanic viruses of uncultured marine Group II Euryarchaeota. Curr Biol. 2017;2:1362–8.
Google Scholar 

92.
Nishimura Y, Watai H, Honda T, Mihara T, Omae K, Roux S, et al. Environmental viral genomes shed new light on virus-host interactions in the ocean. mSphere. 2017;2:e00359–16.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

93.
Vik DR, Roux S, Brum JR, Bolduc B, Emerson JB, Padilla CC, et al. Putative archaeal viruses from the mesopelagic ocean. PeerJ. 2017;5:e3428.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

94.
Ho TY, Scranton MI, Taylor GT, Varela R, Thunell RC, Muller‐Karger F. Acetate cycling in the water column of the Cariaco Basin: seasonal and vertical variability and implication for carbon cycling. Limnol Oceanogr. 2002;47:1119–28.
CAS  Google Scholar 

95.
Sharon I, Battchikova N, Aro EM, Giglione C, Meinnel T, Glaser F, et al. Comparative metagenomics of microbial traits within oceanic viral communities. ISME J. 2011;5:1178–1190.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

96.
Johnson DC, Dean DR, Smith AD, Johnson MK. Structure, function, and formation of biological iron–sulfur clusters. Annu Rev Biochem. 2005;74:247–81.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

97.
Zhao D, Curatti L, Rubio LM. Evidence for nifU and nifS participation in the biosynthesis of the iron-molybdenum cofactor of nitrogenase. J Biol Chem. 2007;282:37016–25.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

98.
Iyer LM, Babu MM, Aravind L. The HIRAN domain and recruitment of chromatin remodeling and repair activities to damaged DNA. Cell Cycle. 2006;5:775–82.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

99.
Peters DL, McCutcheon JG, Stothard P, Dennis JJ. Novel Stenotrophomonas maltophilia temperate phage DLP4 is capable of lysogenic conversion. BMC Genomics. 2019;20:300.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

100.
Sullivan MB, Krastins B, Hughes JL, Kelly L, Chase M, Sarracino D, et al. The genome and structural proteome of an ocean siphovirus: a new window into the cyanobacterial ‘mobilome’. Environ Microbiol. 2009;11:2935–51.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  More

1.
Hughes, T. P. et al. Coral reefs in the Anthropocene. Nature 546, 82–90 (2017).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 
2.
Hoegh-Guldberg, O. et al. Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification. Science 318, 1737–1742 (2007).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

3.
De’ath, G., Fabricius, K. E., Sweatman, H. & Puotinen, M. The 27-year decline of coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef and its causes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 17995–17999 (2012).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

4.
Brodie, J., De’ath, G., Devlin, M., Furnas, M. & Wright, M. Spatial and temporal patterns of near-surface chlorophyll a in the Great Barrier Reef lagoon. Mar. Freshw. Res. 58, 342–353 (2007).
CAS  Google Scholar 

5.
Schaffelke, B., Carleton, J., Skuza, M., Zagorskis, I. & Furnas, M. J. Water quality in the inshore Great Barrier Reef lagoon: implications for long-term monitoring and management. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 65, 249–260 (2012).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

6.
Hughes, T. P. et al. Global warming and recurrent mass bleaching of corals. Nature 543, 373–377 (2017).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

7.
Hughes, T. P. et al. Global warming impairs stock-recruitment dynamics of corals. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1081-y (2019).
Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

8.
ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies. (ed Hugues, T. P.) (2020).

9.
Bourne, D. & Webster, N. in Coral Reef Microbial Communities (ed Rosenberg, E.) (Springer, 2013).

10.
Gast, G. J., Wiegman, S., Wieringa, E., Duyl, F. C. & Bak, R. P. M. Bacteria in coral reef water types: removal of cells, stimulation of growth and mineralization. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 167, 37–45 (1998).
Google Scholar 

11.
Bourne, D. G., Morrow, K. M. & Webster, N. S. Insights into the coral microbiome: underpinning the health and resilience of Reef ecosystems. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 70, 317–340 (2016).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

12.
Dinsdale, E. A. et al. Microbial ecology of four coral atolls in the northern line islands. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0001584 (2008).

13.
Kwong, W. K., Del Campo, J., Mathur, V., Vermeij, M. J. A. & Keeling, P. J. A widespread coral-infecting apicomplexan with chlorophyll biosynthesis genes. Nature 568, 103–107 (2019).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

14.
Ainsworth, T. D. & Gates, R. D. Corals’ microbial sentinels. Science 352, 1518–1519 (2016).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

15.
Ziegler, M. et al. Coral microbial community dynamics in response to anthropogenic impacts near a major city in the central Red Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.12.045 (2016).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

16.
Beatty, D. S. et al. Variable effects of local management on coral defenses against a thermally regulated bleaching pathogen. Sci. Adv. 5, eaay1048 (2019).

17.
Pearman, J. K. et al. Microbial planktonic communities in the Red Sea: high levels of spatial and temporal variability shaped by nutrient availability and turbulence. Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-06928-z (2017).

18.
Weber, L. et al. Microbial signatures of protected and impacted Northern Caribbean reefs: changes from Cuba to the Florida Keys. Environ. Microbiol. https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.14870 (2019).

19.
Vega Thurber, R. L. et al. Chronic nutrient enrichment increases prevalence and severity of coral disease and bleaching. Glob. Change Biol. 20, 544–554 (2014).
Google Scholar 

20.
Bruce, T. et al. Abrolhos bank Reef health evaluated by means of water quality, microbial diversity, benthic cover, and fish biomass data. PLoS ONE 10.1371/journal.pone.0036687 (2012).

21.
Zaneveld, J. R. et al. Overfishing and nutrient pollution interact with temperature to disrupt coral reefs down to microbial scales. Nat. Commun. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms11833 (2016).

22.
Mumby, P. J. Phase shifts and the stability of macroalgal communities on Caribbean coral reefs. Coral Reefs 28, 761–773 (2009).
Google Scholar 

23.
Kelly, L. W. et al. Black reefs: iron-induced phase shifts on coral reefs. ISME J. 6, 638–649 (2012).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

24.
Haas, A. F. et al. Effects of coral Reef benthic primary producers on dissolved organic carbon and microbial activity. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0027973 (2011).

25.
Barott, K. L. & Rohwer, F. L. Unseen players shape benthic competition on coral reefs. Trends Microbiol. 20, 621–628 (2012).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

26.
Haas, A. F. et al. Global microbialization of coral reefs. Nat. Microbiol. https://doi.org/10.1038/NMICROBIOL.2016.42 (2016).

27.
McDole, T. et al. Assessing coral reefs on a pacific-wide scale using the microbialization score. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043233 (2012).

28.
Mumby, P. J. & Steneck, R. S. Paradigm lost: dynamic nutrients and missing detritus on coral reefs. Bioscience 68, 487–495 (2018).
Google Scholar 

29.
Kelly, L. W. et al. Local genomic adaptation of coral reef-associated microbiomes to gradients of natural variability and anthropogenic stressors. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1403319111 (2014).

30.
Angly, F. E. et al. Marine microbial communities of the Great Barrier Reef lagoon are influenced by riverine floodwaters and seasonal weather events. PeerJ 4, e1511 (2016).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

31.
Alongi, D. M. et al. Phytoplankton, bacterioplankton and virioplankton structure and function across the southern Great Barrier Reef shelf. J. Mar. Syst. 142, 25–39 (2015).
Google Scholar 

32.
Glasl, B. et al. Microbial indicators of environmental perturbations in coral reef ecosystems. Microbiome 7, 94 (2019).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

33.
Martiny, J. B. H. et al. Microbial biogeography: putting microorganisms on the map. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 4, 102–112 (2006).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

34.
MacNeil, M. A. et al. Water quality mediates resilience on the Great Barrier Reef. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 620–627 (2019).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

35.
Mellin, C. et al. Spatial resilience of the Great Barrier Reef under cumulative disturbance impacts. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 2431–2445 (2019).
Google Scholar 

36.
Glasl, B., Bourne, D. G., Frade, P. R. & Webster, N. S. Establishing microbial baselines to identify indicators of coral reef health. Microbiol. Aust. https://doi.org/10.1071/MA18011 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

37.
van Oppen, M. J. H. et al. Shifting paradigms in restoration of the world’s coral reefs. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 3437–3448 (2017).
Google Scholar 

38.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2019. (Townsville, 2019).

39.
Emslie, M. Long-term Reef Monitoring Program – Annual Summary Report on coral reef condition for 2019 (Townsville, 2019).

40.
Epstein, H. E., Torda, G., Munday, P. L. & van Oppen, M. J. H. Parental and early life stage environments drive establishment of bacterial and dinoflagellate communities in a common coral. ISME J. 13, 1635–1638 (2019).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

41.
Brown, M. V. et al. Systematic, continental scale temporal monitoring of marine pelagic microbiota by the Australian Marine Microbial Biodiversity Initiative. Nat. Sci. Data https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2018.130 (2018).

42.
Wang, Z. et al. Microbial communities across nearshore to offshore coastal transects are primarily shaped by distance and temperature. Environ. Microbiol. https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.14734 (2019).

43.
Mo, Y. Y. et al. Biogeographic patterns of abundant and rare bacterioplankton in three subtropical bays resulting from selective and neutral processes. ISME J. 12, 2198–2210 (2018).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

44.
Nelson, C. E., Alldredge, A. L., McCliment, E. A., Amaral-Zettler, L. A. & Carlson, C. A. Depleted dissolved organic carbon and distinct bacterial communities in the water column of a rapid-flushing coral reef ecosystem. ISME J. 5, 1374–1387 (2011).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

45.
Devlin, M. J. & Brodie, J. Terrestrial discharge into the Great Barrier Reef Lagoon: nutrient behavior in coastal waters. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 51, 9–22 (2005).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

46.
Alongi, D. M. & McKinnon, A. D. The cycling and fate of terrestrially-derived sediments and nutrients in the coastal zone of the Great Barrier Reef shelf. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 51, 239–252 (2005).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

47.
Hopley, D., Smithers, S. G. & Parnell, K. E. The Geomorphology of the Great Barrier Reef: Development, Diversity and Change (Cambridge University Press, 2007).

48.
Yeo, S. K., Huggett, M. J., Eiler, A. & Rappe, M. S. Coastal bacterioplankton community dynamics in response to a natural disturbance. PLoS ONE 8, e56207 (2013).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

49.
Furnas, M., Mitchell, A., Skuza, M. & Brodie, J. In the other 90%: phytoplankton responses to enhanced nutrient availability in the Great Barrier Reef Lagoon. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 51, 253–265 (2005).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

50.
Brodie, J. E., Devlin, M., Haynes, D. & Waterhouse, J. Assessment of the eutrophication status of the Great Barrier Reef lagoon (Australia). Biogeochemistry 106, 281–302 (2010).
Google Scholar 

51.
Morris, R. M. et al. SAR11 clade dominates ocean surface bacterioplankton communities. Nature 420, 806–810 (2002).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

52.
Partensky, F., Hess, W. R. & Vaulot, D. Prochlorococcus, a marine photosynthetic prokaryote of global significance. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 63, 106 (1999).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

53.
Scanlan, D. J. & West, N. J. Molecular ecology of the marine cyanobacterial genera Prochlorococcus and Synechococcus. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 40, 1–12 (2002).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

54.
Jang, Y. et al. Genome sequence of strain IMCC3088, a Proteorhodopsin-containing marine bacterium belonging to the OM60/NOR5 clade. J. Bacteriol. 193, 3415–3416 (2011).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

55.
Yan, S. et al. Biogeography and phylogeny of the NOR5/OM60 clade of Gammaproteobacteria. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 32, 124–139 (2009).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

56.
Roder, C., Arif, C., Daniels, C., Weil, E. & Voolstra, C. R. Bacterial profiling of White Plague Disease across corals and oceans indicates a conserved and distinct disease microbiome. Mol. Ecol. 23, 965–974 (2014).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

57.
Lofmark, S., Jernberg, C., Jansson, J. K. & Edlund, C. Clindamycin-induced enrichment and long-term persistence of resistant Bacteroides spp. and resistance genes. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 58, 1160–1167 (2006).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

58.
Glasl, B. et al. Comparative genome-centric analysis reveals seasonal variation in the function of coral reef microbiomes. ISME J. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-020-0622-6 (2020).
Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

59.
Baldini, J. I. et al. in The Prokaryotes (eds Rosenberg, E. et al.) 533–618 (Springer, 2014).

60.
Dupont, C. L. et al. Genomic insights to SAR86, an abundant and uncultivated marine bacterial lineage. ISME J. 6, 1186–1199 (2012).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

61.
Zubkov, M. V., Fuchs, B. M., Tarran, G. A., Burkill, P. H. & Amann, R. High rate of uptake of organic nitrogen compounds by Prochlorococcus cyanobacteria as a key to their dominance in oligotrophic oceanic waters. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 69, 1299–1304 (2003).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

62.
Martiny, J. B., Jones, S. E., Lennon, J. T. & Martiny, A. C. Microbiomes in light of traits: a phylogenetic perspective. Science 350, aac9323 (2015).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

63.
Martiny, A. C., Coleman, M. L. & Chisholm, S. W. Phosphate acquisition genes in Prochlorococcus ecotypes: evidence for genome-wide adaptation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 12552–12557 (2006).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

64.
Chase, A. B. & Martiny, J. B. H. The importance of resolving biogeographic patterns of microbial microdiversity. Microbiol. Aust. 38, 2015–2205 (2018).
Google Scholar 

65.
Nelson, C. E. et al. Coral and macroalgal exudates vary in neutral sugar composition and differentially enrich reef bacterioplankton lineages. ISME J. 7, 962–979 (2013).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

66.
Roach, T. N. F. et al. Microbial bioenergetics of coral-algal interactions. Peerj https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3423 (2017).

67.
McCliment, E. A. et al. An all-taxon microbial inventory of the Moorea coral reef ecosystem. ISME J. 6, 309–319 (2012).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

68.
Steven, A. D. L. et al. eReefs: an operational information system for managing the Great Barrier Reef. J. Operational Oceanogr. 12, S12–S28 (2019).

69.
Venables, W. N. & Ripley, B. D. Modern Applied Statistics with S. (Springer, 2002).

70.
Sammut, C. & Webb, G. I. in Encyclopedia of Machine Learning (eds Claude Sammut & Geoffrey I. Webb) 600-601 (Springer US, 2010).

71.
Cohen, J. Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychological Bull. 70, 213–220 (1968).
CAS  Google Scholar 

72.
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. M. & Walker, S. C. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 (2015).

73.
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B. & Christensen, R. H. B. lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. J. Stat. Softw. 82, 1–26 (2017).
Google Scholar 

74.
Chen, H. & Boutros, P. C. VennDiagram: a package for the generation of highly-customizable Venn and Euler diagrams in R. BMC Bioinforma. 12, 35 (2011).
Google Scholar 

75.
Oksanen, J. et al. vegan: community ecology package. R package version 2.4-6. (2018).

76.
Tang, Y., Horikoshi, M. & Li, W. ggfortify: unified interface to visualize statistical result of popular R packages. The R Journal 8 (2016).

77.
De Caceres, M., Legendre, P. & Moretti, M. Improving indicator species analysis by combining groups of sites. Oikos 119, 1674–1684 (2010).
Google Scholar 

78.
De Caceres, M. & Legendre, P. Associations between species and groups of sites: indices and statistical inference. Ecology 90, 3566–3574 (2009).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

79.
Glasl, B., Herndl, G. J. & Frade, P. R. The microbiome of coral surface mucus has a key role in mediating holobiont health and survival upon disturbance. ISME J. 10, 2280–2292 (2016).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

80.
R: A language and environment for statistical computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2015).

81.
McMurdie, P. J. & Holmes, S. phyloseq: An R Package for Reproducible Interactive Analysis and Graphics of Microbiome Census Data. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0061217 (2013).

82.
Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. (Springer-Verlag, 2009).

83.
Matthews, S. A., Mellin, C. & Frade, P. R. An adapted R script to extract environmental data from eReefs, https://github.com/sammatthews990/eReefs_Fradeetal2019 (2019). More

Compilation of population life-history data
We compiled population-specific life-history data for Indo-Pacific fishes from primary literature using a combination of systematic and opportunistic searches. We obtained references primarily from Google Scholar and the web page of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO, http://www.isdm-gdsi.gc.ca/csas-sccs/applications/publications/index-eng.asp), using a combination of species name and the following keywords: Pacific, temperature effects, von Bertalanffy growth, age at maturation, or natural mortality. Species names for 107 common teleosts in the Indo-Pacific Ocean were obtained from the global-capture production database of the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO, ISSCAAP groups 31-37; available at: http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/global-capture-production/query/en). Although similar data are available in FishBase, a global and freely available database on fish, we opted not to use data from FishBase because temperature data associated with population records are often missing and difficult to restore due to lacking spatial coordinates in FishBase.
In total, we screened around 8000 references published in 1958–2017. We extracted data from 440 references representing peer-reviewed journal papers, stock assessment reports, governmental documents, graduate theses, and conference proceedings. Our data include 332 species, with conspecific life-history data of ≥2 records in 206 species.
We extracted available population data of seven life-history traits related to growth and maturation for each population: i.e., the von Bertalanffy growth coefficient K (yr-1) and asymptotic length L∞ (cm), age and length at 50% maturity (A50 (yrs) and L50 (cm)), allometric exponent (b) of length–weight relationship (W = aL^b), lifespan (Amax (yrs)), and natural mortality (yr-1). To make the length traits (L∞ and L50) comparable among populations, we standardized different length measures (e.g., standard length or fork length) into total length using available regression models (Supplementary Table 7). To account for between-sex differences in traits values, we coded life-history data of each population as sex-specific or combined-sexes. When data of single- and combined-sexes were both available, we primarily used combined-sexes data for our analysis. When only sex-specific data were available, we used female data.
In our selected references, the von Bertalanffy growth coefficients are primarily estimated via fitting length-at-age data (Lt, where L is length and t is age) with one of these methods: the Ford–Walford method, length-based method, and nonlinear regression fitting. As all these fitting methods involve the same model form (L_t = L_infty left( {1 – e^{ – Kleft( {t – t_0} right)}} right)) and similar optimization processes (e.g., minimizing residual errors), we consider that the growth coefficients estimated with these methods are generally comparable. However, we excluded the growth coefficient data derived from other model forms, as transforming those coefficients could introduce biases (e.g., Gompertz model or weight-based form of von Bertalanffy model). The population natural mortality data were derived from various models with distinct assumptions (Supplementary Table 8); thus, these natural mortality estimates may not be comparable. To investigate the temperature effects on natural mortality, we re-estimated natural mortality estimates for individual populations using a life-history invariant method (see Methods: Derivation of M).
We recorded additional descriptive variables for each population: e.g., ecological group (coded based on habitat types following definitions in FishBase, Supplementary Table 5), family, species, latitude, and longitude of sampling site (in decimal degrees; for the studies with multiple sampling sites, the minimum and maximum of latitudes and longitudes of sampling sites are recorded), minimum and maximum sampling depths, and sample size. Latitudes and longitudes of sampling sites were derived from available spatial coordinates, names of sampling ports, or the maps in the references.
Some references were excluded to avoid ambiguity. For example, we excluded references of fish in estuary and artificial habitats (e.g., aquaculture species). To alleviate noise in the datasets, we rejected data lacking clear descriptions of study area (e.g., studies that did not define sampling sites or those that aggregated samples across a very broad range) and those lacking explicit information on fitting procedures for the growth or maturation models (e.g., lacking information on sample size, suitable range of length-at-age data, independent samples, description of the fitting methods, a plot of data with the fitted line, or other means for assessing the fit). Similarly, we excluded studies without descriptions of fitting methods for estimating natural mortality (as suggested by 14). For stock assessment reports and review papers, we scrutinized the summarized data based on original publications and rejected data lacking clear sampling or fitting information. Lastly, we removed duplicated data cited in multiple reports.
Compilation of population temperature data
We used available in situ data of mean decadal sea temperature as habitat data. These temperature data were obtained from the World Ocean Atlas 2013 (NOAA Atlas NESDIS 73; 43; hereafter referred to as WOA13; available at: https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/OC5/woa13). Sources of the WOA13 temperature data include temperature profiles measured by various instruments43. The mean decadal temperature profile was calculated by averaging six decadal datasets spanning 1955–201243. For our analysis, we used the mean decadal temperature profile data in the Indo-Pacific region, with a horizontal resolution of 0.25° and depth segments of 5 m from surface to 100 m and depth segments of 25−100 m for >100 m (maximum depth = 5500 m)43. As rates of temporal changes in the ocean temperature were slow (e.g., 1.48 °C per century; 25), we did not account for the small temperature changes due to differences in time of measurements between the temperature and life-history data.
We matched the mean decadal temperature profile data with spatial coordinates for each of these populations. For populations with single sampling sites, we assumed that their potential habitats centered at the sampling sites and extended for 0.5° in the north, south, east, and west directions. Further, for populations with multiple sampling sites, we assumed that their habitats were bounded by the ranges of latitudes and longitudes of sampling sites. To account for habitat depths, we estimated the minimum and maximum depths of populations based on ranges of sampling depths or description of depths of species habitats in the references. When depth information was unavailable, we used the maximum depth of the species in FishBase as the maximum depth for a population. For each population, we derived two habitat variables: SST and BT. SST is the temperature at 0 m (WOA13 data; 43). BT is the temperature at the maximum depths of populations. Finally, we calculated the minimum, mean, maximum, and coefficients of variation of each of the habitat indices for each population.
Derivation of natural mortality (M)
Population-specific natural mortality (hereafter referred as M) provides insight into population sustainability under fishing or environmental changes (i.e., high natural mortality indicates high degree of sustainability13,15). However, because estimates of M from different models are not necessarily comparable, we re-estimated M for each population using the model II of Gislason et al.14, which builds on well-established empirical relationships44,45 and has some theoretical backing46,47. The equation is:

$$ln left( M right) = 0.55 – 1.61ln left( L right) + 1.44ln left( {L_infty } right) + ln left( K right),$$
(1)

where M is natural mortality and L is the midpoint of length range (cm) of a population, respectively14. As the length range data were not available to us, we constrained L to be the length at age-at-50% maturity (A50) to estimate M, following the invariant relationship among mortality-at-age at maturation, L50, L∞ and K13,48. Further, because A50 data are available for fewer number of populations (n = 119, about 8.5% of total populations), we restored the missing values of A50 based on a theoretical linear relationship between population A50 and (frac{{L_{50}}}{{K times L_infty }})49. With the available data of A50, L50, L∞, and K for 70 populations, we fitted this linear relationship (F = 204.6, df = 1,68, R2 = 0.75, P  25 yr-1). Range of M’s for the remaining 1387 populations is 0.05–21.8 yr-1 (Supplementary Fig. 1). These Gislason M estimates were used in the subsequent regression and life-table modeling analysis.
Evaluation of the relationships between temperature and life-history traits
Because life-history variation is nested within phylogenetic levels, we used the linear mixed-effect model (LME) to explore the relationships between each life-history trait and each temperature index, simultaneously accounting for species- and family-related variance as random effects. We used the lme4 and lmetest packages in R (www.r-project.org50;) to construct these LME models. Given the eight different temperature indices (e.g., four descriptive metrics nested within two temperature variables), we constructed eight LME models for each life-history trait. For each model, a natural-log transformed life-history trait is the response variable, a species mean-centered habitat index is a single fixed-effect variable, and species and family are two random-effect variables. We considered four alternative model structures for random effects: i.e., with either family or species as random intercepts, and with either family or species as random intercepts and slopes.
We evaluated strength of each of fixed- and random-effect variables using the likelihood ratio test51. Specifically, we estimated the log likelihood between a pair of full and alternative models (with one less fixed or random variables), deriving the test statistics (i.e., 2 times the difference between log likelihood of two models) and P value. If the two models were not different significantly (e.g., P  > 0.05), we selected the more parsimonious model. Otherwise, significant difference between these two models (e.g., P ≤ 0.05) indicates pronounced variation in the response variable due to the additional fixed or random effect in the full model. Furthermore, when neither family nor species accounts for significant variance in the response variable, we reduced the model to a simple linear regression with a habitat index as the sole fixed-effect predictor. We selected the best model structure to depict the relationship between each of the eight habitat indices and a life-history trait.
We observed pronounced intra-specific variability in the empirical K and L∞ for some of our study species; e.g., ≥3-fold differences in these traits within some species. Because large variability in K and L∞ within a species may be partially due to that the estimation of these traits depends on one another, we conducted PCA with these two traits and evaluated the ratios of maximum-to-minimum scores of the first PC1 among species. We found 34 species with the absolute values of the ratios of PC1 scores ≥3, whereas 285 species had |ratios| 0 indicate positive warming effects on population growth rates). To derive (frac{{R_0}}{G}), we built an age-structured model (i.e., a life-table33;), incorporating functions for growth increment (in length and weight), maturity states, fecundity, and survivorship probability. The length-at-age data (Lt) were calculated using the von Bertalanffy growth model (Eq. (3)):

$$L_t = L_infty left( {1 – e^{ – Kleft( {t – t_0} right)}} right),$$
(3)

where t denotes age, and L∞, K, and t0 are the von Bertalanffy growth coefficients. Weight-at-age data (Wt) were estimated using an allometric function of Lt (Eq. (4)):

$$W_t = alpha L_t^beta.$$
(4)

Also, fecundity (mt) is an allometric function of Wt (Eq. (5)23:

$$m_t = delta W_t^gamma.$$
(5)

Because of lacking data on the length-weight and fecundity-weight relationships for many populations, we assumed constant intercepts and slopes for Eqs. (4) and (5) (i.e., α = 0.02, β = 3, γ = 1.18, δ = 2930). However, L∞ and K data are available for most populations in our data (n = 1,387). As a result, we used these data to derive length-at-age for each population (assuming t0 = 0). Also, we used the model-derived A50 estimates (Supplementary Fig. 7) to account for maturity state for mt for each population (i.e., mt = 0 for t  More

1.
World Meteorological Organization & Atmosphere Watch Global. The state of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere based on global observations through 2017. World Meteorol. Organ. Bull. 1–4 (2017). ISSN 2078-0796.
2.
Werner, C., Schmidt, H. P., Gerten, D., Lucht, W. & Kammann, C. Biogeochemical potential of biomass pyrolysis systems for limiting global warming to 1.5°C. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 044036 (2018).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

3.
Smith, P. et al. Impacts of land-based greenhouse gas removal options on ecosystem services and the United Nations sustainable development goals. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 44, 1–32 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

4.
Renforth, P. & Wilcox, J. Specialty grand challenge: negative emission technologies. Front. Clim. 1, 1–4 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

5.
de Coninck, H. et al. 2018: Strengthening and implementing the global response. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C Above Pre-industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty (ed. MassonDelmotte, V. et al.) (in press).

6.
Lal, R. et al. The carbon sequestration potential of terrestrial ecosystems. J. Soil Water Conserv. 73, 145A-152A (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

7.
Pool, S. C. & Lal, R. Conceptual basis of managing soil carbon: inspired by nature and driven by science. J. Soil Water Conserv. 74, 29A-34A (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

8.
Lehmann, J., Gaunt, J. & Rondon, M. Bio-char sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems—a review. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 11, 403–427 (2006).
Article  Google Scholar 

9.
Woolf, D., Amonette, J. E., Street-Perrott, F. A., Lehmann, J. & Joseph, S. Sustainable biochar to mitigate global climate change. Nat. Commun. 1, 56 (2010).
ADS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

10.
Woolf, D., Lehmann, J. & Lee, D. R. Optimal bioenergy power generation for climate change mitigation with or without carbon sequestration. Nat. Commun. 7, 1–11 (2016).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

11.
Schmidt, H. P. et al. Pyrogenic carbon capture and storage. GCB Bioenergy 11, 573–591 (2019).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

12.
Clark, M., Hastings, M. G. & Ryals, R. Soil carbon and nitrogen dynamics in two agricultural soils amended with manure-derived biochar. J. Environ. Qual. 48, 727–734 (2019).
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

13.
Kammann, C. & Müller, C. Stimulation of methane oxidation by CH4-emitting rose chafer larvae in well-aerated grassland soil. Biol. Fertil. Soils https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-017-1199-8 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

14.
Simon, J. et al. Biochar boosts tropical but not temperate crop yields. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 53001 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

15.
Dai, Y., Zheng, H., Jiang, Z. & Xing, B. Combined Effects of Biochar Properties and Soil Conditions on Plant Growth: A Meta-analysis. Science of the Total Environment Vol. 713 (Elsevier BV, Amsterdam, 2020).
Google Scholar 

16.
Borchard, N. et al. Biochar, soil and land-use interactions that reduce nitrate leaching and N2O emissions: a meta-analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 651, 2354–2364 (2019).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

17.
Cayuela, M. L. et al. Biochar’s role in mitigating soil nitrous oxide emissions: a review and meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 191, 5–16 (2014).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

18.
Glaser, B., Kuzyakov, Y., Bogomolova, I. & Glaser, B. Biochar stability in soil: decomposition during eight years and transformation as assessed by compound-specific 14C analysis. Soil Biol. Biochem. 70, 229–236 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

19.
Schulz, H. et al. Positive effects of composted biochar on plant growth and soil fertility. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 33, 817–827 (2013).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

20.
Farrar, M. B. et al. Short-term effects of organo-mineral enriched biochar fertiliser on ginger yield and nutrient cycling. J. Soils Sedim. 19, 1–15 (2018).
Google Scholar 

21.
Cornelissen, G., Pandit, N. R., Taylor, P. & Pandit, B. H. Emissions and char quality of flame-curtain “Kon Tiki” Kilns for Farmer-Scale charcoal/biochar production. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154617 (2016).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

22.
Chen, L. et al. Formulating and optimizing a novel biochar-based fertilizer for simultaneous slow-release of nitrogen and immobilization of cadmium. Sustainability https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082740 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

23.
Joseph, S. et al. Shifting paradigms development of high-efficiency. Carbon Manag. 4, 323–343 (2013).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

24.
Shi, W. et al. Biochar bound urea boosts plant growth and reduces nitrogen leaching. Sci. Total Environ. 701, 134424 (2020).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

25.
Kammann, C. I. et al. Plant growth improvement mediated by nitrate capture in co-composted biochar. Sci. Rep. 5, 11080. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep11080 (2015).
ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

26.
Lawrinenko, M., Laird, D. A., Johnson, R. L. & Jing, D. Accelerated aging of biochars: impact on anion exchange capacity. Carbon 103, 217–227 (2016).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

27.
Haider, G., Steffens, D., Müller, C. & Kammann, C. I. C. I. Standard extraction methods may underestimate nitrate stocks captured by field-aged biochar. J. Environ. Qual. 45, 1196–1204 (2016).
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

28.
Haider, G., Steffens, D., Moser, G., Müller, C. & Kammann, C. I. Biochar reduced nitrate leaching and improved soil moisture content without yield improvements in a four-year field study. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 237, 80–94 (2017).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

29.
Joseph, S. et al. Microstructural and associated chemical changes during the composting of a high temperature biochar: mechanisms for nitrate, phosphate and other nutrient retention and release. Sci. Total Environ. 618, 1210–1223 (2018).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

30.
Hagemann, N., Kammann, C. I., Schmidt, H., Kappler, A. & Behrens, S. Nitrate capture and slow release in biochar amended compost and soil. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171214 (2017).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

31.
Hagemann, N. et al. Organic coating on biochar explains its nutrient retention and stimulation of soil fertility. Nat. Commun. 8, 1–11 (2017).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

32.
Wiedner, K. et al. Acceleration of biochar surface oxidation during composting?. J. Agric. Food Chem. 63, 3830–3837 (2015).
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

33.
Prendergast-Miller, M. T., Duvall, M. & Sohi, S. P. Biochar-root interactions are mediated by biochar nutrient content and impacts on soil nutrient availability. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 65, 173–185 (2014).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

34.
Xiang, Y., Deng, Q., Duan, H. & Guo, Y. Effects of biochar application on root traits: a meta-analysis. GCB Bioenergy 9, 1563–1572 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

35.
Qian, L. et al. Biochar compound fertilizer as an option to reach high productivity but low carbon intensity in rice agriculture of China. Carbon Manag. 5, 145–154 (2014).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

36.
Cornelissen, G. et al. Biochar effect on maize yield and soil characteristics in five conservation farming sites in Zambia. Agronomy 3, 256–274 (2013).
Article  Google Scholar 

37.
Schmidt, H. P., Pandit, B. H., Cornelissen, G. & Kammann, C. I. Biochar-based fertilization with liquid nutrient enrichment: 21 field trials covering 13 crop species in Nepal. Land. Degrad. Dev. 28, 2324–2342 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

38.
Hammer, E. C. et al. A mycorrhizal fungus grows on biochar and captures phosphorus from its surfaces. Soil Biol. Biochem. 77, 252–260 (2014).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

39.
Zemanová, V., Břendová, K., Pavlíková, D., Kubátová, P. & Tlustoš, P. Effect of biochar application on the content of nutrients(Ca, Fe, K, Mg, Na, P) and amino acids in subsequently growing spinach and mustard. Plant Soil Environ. 63, 322–327 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

40.
Kakabouki, ΙP. et al. Influence of fertilization and soil tillage on nitrogen uptake and utilization efficiency of quinoa crop (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 18, 220–235 (2018).
CAS  Google Scholar 

41.
Bascuñán-Godoy, L. et al. Nitrogen physiology of contrasting genotypes of Chenopodium quinoa Willd. (Amaranthaceae). Sci. Rep. 8, 1–12 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

42.
Lawrinenko, M., Jing, D., Banik, C. & Laird, D. A. Aluminum and iron biomass pretreatment impacts on biochar anion exchange capacity. Carbon 118, 422–430 (2017).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

43.
Conte, P. et al. Mechanisms of water interaction with pore systems of hydrochar and pyrochar from poplar forestry waste. J. Agric. Food Chem. 62, 4917–4923 (2014).
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

44.
Conte, P. & Laudicina, V. Mechanisms of organic coating on the surface of a poplar biochar. Curr. Org. Chem. 21, 559–565 (2017).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

45.
Kammann, C., Ratering, S., Eckhard, C. & Müller, C. Biochar and hydrochar effects on greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane) fluxes from soils. J. Environ. Qual. 41, 1052–1066 (2011).
Article  Google Scholar 

46.
Keeney, D. R. & Nelson, D. W. Nitrogen—inorganic forms. In Methods of Soil Analysis, Agronomy Monograph 9, Part 2, Second Edition (ed. Page, A. L.) 643–698 (ASA, SSSA, Madison, 1982).

47.
Archanjo, B. S. et al. Nanoscale analyses of the surface structure and composition of biochars extracted from field trials or after co-composting using advanced analytical electron microscopy. Geoderma 294, 70–79 (2017).
ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar  More

Soil organic matter is essential for maintaining soil health and sustaining plant growth. Loss of soil organic matter often leads to degradation of soil quality1. It also constitutes the largest terrestrial organic carbon (C) pool (~ 2,400 Pg C in top 2 m soil). This soil organic C (SOC) pool is three times greater than the amount of C in the atmosphere2. An increase or decrease of C in soils by only a small percent represents a substantial C sink or source for atmospheric CO2. Studies have been conducted to predict SOC of croplands under climate change3,4,5. However, crop management changes with adaptation to future climate6,7,8,9 (such as changes in varieties and planting dates) were ignored in most studies. Thus, we carried out a regional study to assess the impact of projected climate change and elevated CO2 on SOC in agricultural systems with management adaptation.
A change in SOC is a result of the net effect of the changes in SOC decomposition rates (the main C outflow) and C inputs from plants10 (main C inflow). In a warmer climate, the higher temperature could increase the decomposition rate in both the short and long term11. Decomposition will also be sensitive to increases or decreases in precipitation10 predicted by climate models8. Carbon input is mainly from root and surface residue litter that is not removed from the system through harvest, grazing or burning. Changes in temperature, precipitation, and atmospheric CO2 all affect this input through plant growth and production6. These climatic changes are also likely to affect management practices in the future7. Although systemic management changes are possible that can limit the impact of climate change, such as moving from dryland to irrigated systems, smaller adjustments including changes in varieties and planting dates have less barriers for adoption. These adjustments to management have been found to affect both crop production (C input) and decomposition7,12, with potentially larger effects on crop production7. These interactions are complex, and the overall change to SOC pools in agricultural lands remains uncertain.
Here we present the results from a simulation of SOC dynamics for more than 54,000 locations, covering 34,600,000 ha of cropland in the U.S. Corn Belt (Supplementary Fig. 1a). These locations have historically been managed with a corn (Zea mays L.) and soybean (Glycine max L.) rotation, which is the most common crop rotation in this region. Corn and soybean yields in this region account for about 85% of US crop production13. In our simulation, the widely used biogeochemical model DayCent14,15 was driven by weather data from the Representative Concentration Pathway 4.5 (RCP 4.5) climate change scenario8. Predictions from three General Circulation Models (GCMs; GFDL-CM3, MIROC-ESM, and MRI-CGCM3) were downscaled to generate daily weather (32 km grid) and used to assess the uncertainty. The main goal was to quantify the change in surface soil C (0–20 cm) under management adaptation with the selection of alternative crop varieties and planting dates to maintain high levels of crop production in future climate scenarios from 2041 to 2071. Alternative crop varieties were based on those currently available in the United States without consideration of additional crop breeding or genetic modifications that could further enhance production in the future. A no climate change scenario (historical weather with current CO2 level) was used as the baseline for comparisons.
Crop production trends
We found that, without adaptation, the average corn yield during the 2041–2071 period in the Corn Belt would drop in all three GCM climate scenarios in comparison with the baseline with no climate change (Fig. 1). Yield decreased by 17% (GFDL-CM3), 34% (MIROC-ESM), and 2% (MRI-CGCM3) under the respective scenarios. The difference between GCMs can be attributed to differences in the projected temperature and precipitation (Supplementary Fig. 2). Similar yield decreases were seen for soybean as found for corn if there is no adaptation (decreased by 13% for GFDL-CM3, 28% for MIROC-ESM, and increased by 8% for MRI-CGCM3).
Figure 1

Predicted grain yield of (a) corn and (b) soybean in the 2041 to 2070 period.

Full size image

With adaptation, both corn and soybean yields increased compared with no adaptation: an increase of 5% for corn and 19% for soybean (average of the three GCMs) compared with the baseline. The larger increase in soybean yield was due to the C3 crop being more responsive to the CO2 fertilization than C4 crops16. The standard deviation of yields across the three GCMs in the adaptation scenarios was lower than that of the no adaptation scenarios (15% and 39% lower for corn and soybean respectively). Simulated crop yields were more stable under climate change with adaptation management compared to without adaptation. The stability in yields is because, without crop adaptation associated with the selection of alternative crop varieties, an increase in temperature shortens the growing period of the crop17,18. Each GCM predicts a longer growing season with warmer temperatures. When a longer-season maturity variety was simulated as an adaptation pathway, the extended growing period allows the crop to use the full window of optimal solar radiation. This leads to similar amounts of production from year to year between GCM climate scenarios. The spatial pattern of the yield changes was very different for the two crops (Supplementary Fig. 3) due to the difference in crop response to temperature, day length (photoperiod), and elevated CO2. Our overall predictions of crop yield change were generally in agreement with other studies9,17,19,20.
Carbon input trends
Crop yields are good indicators of total net primary production and are found to be proportional to the total C input to soils in the U.S. Corn Belt21 (i.e., crop yield to total biomass does not vary much geographically). Our simulations predicted the average input to be 3.7 Mg C ha−1 year−1 under the no climate change scenario for the 2041–2070 period (Supplementary Fig. 4). With climate change but no adaptation, all counties (an administrative subdivision of a state in the U.S.) had lower C input (GCMs ensemble mean) compared with the baseline. However, with adaptation, more than half of the counties (most counties in the northern part of the region) had higher C input than those of the baseline. Compared with the no adaptation scenario, all counties in the Corn Belt maintained higher C input with adaptation. The average C input across climate scenarios in the Corn Belt region was predicted to be 3.0 and 3.9 Mg C ha−1 (a change of − 19% and 5% from the baseline) with no adaptation and adaptation scenarios, respectively. The standard deviation of the adaptation scenarios across the three GCMs was 47% lower than without adaptation, suggesting a counteracting effect of adaptation to climate change.
Decomposition factor trend
In contrast to C input, the decomposition factor, which reflected the relative change in decomposition rate due to temperature and moisture effect (ranges from 0 to 1, with higher rates associated with values closer to 1), increased in all counties regardless of the adaptation (Supplementary Fig. 4). Larger decomposition factors can be explained by an increase in soil temperature and wetter soil conditions associated with climate change projections. Wetter soil conditions were a result of a reduced transpiration rate under high levels of atmospheric CO2 and increased precipitation projected by the three GCMs. The average decomposition factor (across three GCMs) was predicted to be 0.41, 0.49, and 0.47 for baseline, without adaptation, and with adaptation scenarios. The standard deviations were 27% lower with adaptation for the decomposition factor across the three GCMs than without adaptation. If adaptation does not occur under the GCM scenarios, the growing period of the crops was reduced due to global warming and resulted in less total transpiration and wetter soil conditions, which increased decomposition. With adaptation, the longer-season maturity variety continued to grow over a longer period and consumed more water, reducing soil moisture to lower levels, thus lowering decomposition (average annual evapotranspiration was 2.0–5.1% higher in the adaptation scenario compared with no adaptation). The soil moisture differences among GCMs were lower with crop adaptation.
Soil organic C trends
Without climate change (baseline scenario), the predicted sub-region SOC in the top soil ranged from less than 30 Mg C ha−1 to more than 80 Mg C ha−1(Fig. 2a). The highest levels of SOC were found in the western part of the region where soil clay content is high (Supplementary Fig. 1). The low levels of SOC found in Michigan and northern Indiana can be attributed to the soils with high sand content. In addition, tillage intensity varies among the counties22, contributing to differences in SOC levels among counties. With climate change, there were losses of SOC in almost all counties if there was no adaptation (Fig. 2b). This was the net result of decreased C inputs and increased decomposition rates (Supplementary Fig. 4). With adaptation, the northern part of the Corn Belt tended to gain SOC (Fig. 2c) due to increased C inputs (Supplementary Fig. 4), while the other areas tended to lose SOC. Compared with no adaptation, the adaptation scenario resulted in higher SOC stocks in all counties of the Corn Belt, which was also found in a modeling study of a site in Michigan9.
Figure 2

Predicted soil organic carbon (SOC) in the top soil (0–20 cm) averaged for the three GCMs in the U.S. Corn Belt, including (a) the baseline scenario and (b) the difference between the no adaptation scenario and baseline, and (c) the difference between the adaptation scenario and baseline. Maps were generated using the R “ggmap” package39 (Version 2.6.1; https://journal.r-project.org/archive/2013-1/kahle-wickham.pdf).

Full size image

Over the period from 2041 to 2070, the average SOC in the Corn Belt reached a new equilibrium state in the baseline scenario with no climate change (Fig. 3). Without adaptation in the climate change scenarios, SOC decreased over time. Rapid loss of C was predicted for the 2041–2050 period with the rate decreasing gradually over the 2051–2070 period. With adaptation, two GCMs (GFDL-CM3 and MRI-CGCM3) predicted similar changes over time as the baseline, while the SOC values for the other GCM (MIROC-ESM) were slightly lower than the baseline.
Figure 3

Area-weighted average soil organic carbon stocks for simulations with and without adaptation for corn/soybean rotations between 2041 and 2070. These projections are based on the same historical data and initial values for SOC pools.

Full size image

These results show that adaptation with the selection of longer-season varieties can lead to a similar SOC level as the baseline and GCM scenarios under a moderate climate change projection (RCP 4.5). Although the predicted climate was very different for the three GCMs, the SOC levels with adaptation were similar and not very different from the baseline with no climate change. In contrast, without adaptation, SOC storage levels were farther apart from each other and the baseline. This indicates a strong resistance to the effects of climate change in agricultural systems in the Corn Belt region if there is the selection for alternative varieties and planting dates that are better adapted to the changing climatic conditions.
We found the variation (CV 2.89%) of the predicted total SOC stock across the GCMs in the adaptation scenarios was much smaller than the variation (CV 5.88%) in the no adaptation scenarios. This corresponds to reduced variation in C input and decomposition factors. Because the increased decomposition rate was compensated by the higher overall C input, the SOC stock maintained similar levels as the baseline without climate change.
Limitations
In this study, we did not evaluate the possibility of new technologies that could be developed in the future and influence production, decomposition and other variables influencing SOC levels, as these changes are difficult to predict. For example, new technologies associated with crop breeding and other genetic improvements, pest control, and other developments could increase C input and result in higher SOC stocks than our predictions. Management practices such as adding cover crops, which increases C input, may also further enhance SOC stocks23. In contrast, large areas of removal of corn stover for biofuel production (not considered in our simulation) could reduce the total SOC stock24. Although most SOC is concentrated in the surface soil, subsoil C has been found to respond to warming climates and affects SOC stocks25. Future research should also address subsoil C dynamics. More

Study animals
Research occurred in the Neotropical lowland rainforest at La Selva Biological Station, Costa Rica (10° 26′ N, 84° 00′ W, 50 m elevation), from June to August 2015. We studied a currently undescribed species of Prionostemma Pocock harvestmen (Opiliones: Sclerosomatidae, referred to as P. sp1. in Refs.35,41,42,43, which roosts during daytime in tree trunks, buttresses, and palm leaves44. At nighttime, they actively forage on the ground and foliage41,42. Harvestmen face a wide diversity of predators, including small mammals, lizards, frogs, spiders, centipedes, and insects45. We collected 135 eight-legged individuals and placed them in clear plastic deli containers (15 × 12 × 10 cm) 24 h before trials. Individuals were fed cucumber, apple, and cat food in captivity every 2 days.
Experimental setup
We recorded harvestmen moving during daytime across a horizontal arena (Supplementary Video S1) in the lab, using the same procedure as Ref.35. To simulate predation attempts, we grabbed individuals by their hind legs and then released them. Hence, we interpreted the animal’s subsequent movements as escape behaviors46. Trials were video recorded with a GoPro HERO4 camera (GoPro, San Mateo, CA, USA) at 120 frames/s. A mirror at 45° perpendicular to the ground on the opposite side of the arena to the camera allowed recording lateral and dorsal views.
The accurate 3D body’s location in the videos was obtained as follows. The focal length, optical center, and radial and tangential lens distortions (i.e. intrinsic camera parameters) for the GoPro camera and lens were obtained using the built-in checkerboard calibration app in MATLAB vR2016a (The Mathworks, Natick, MA, USA). Then, the translation and orientation of the lateral and dorsal views relative to the track (i.e. the extrinsic camera parameters) were estimated using an M-estimator sample consensus algorithm.
Experimental treatments and trials
We induced autotomy by gently grasping the femur of the target leg with forceps as Refs.20,31,33, which immediately resulted in the release of that leg at the coxa-trochanter joint. We measured locomotion for each animal at seven different times: once prior to autotomy, once immediately after, and then 2 h, 6 h, 24 h, and 2 days after autotomy.
The experimental treatments used here varied in the number and type of legs missing (Fig. 1) to reflect the natural occurrence of autotomy. The treatments are named with a number representing the number of legs lost, and a letter representing the type of loss. Treatments were (1) C: intact control individuals with 8 legs. Legs were grabbed with forceps but without inducing autotomy, (2) 1L: missing the right locomotor leg I, (3) 2L: missing both of the locomotor legs I, (4) 2S: missing both sensory legs (legs II), (5) 2A: asymmetrical loss, missing legs I and III from the same side, and (6) 3L: missing three legs (both locomotor legs I and one leg II). Individuals were randomly assigned one treatment (n = 21–24 per treatment). We induced autotomy of hind legs, given that our field survey showed that missing hind legs was 53% more likely than missing rear legs.
Figure 1

Experimental comparisons. Body diagrams in the center column represent Prionostemma sp.1 harvestmen seen in dorsal view. The main prediction for each comparison is described in the right column. Figure was created in Microsoft Power Point version 16.39 (URL: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/microsoft-office).

Full size image

Video analyses
We digitized videos using the custom scripts developed in Mathematica 10.4 (Wolfram Research, Inc., Champaign, IL, USA) described in Ref.35. Briefly, scripts automatically tracked the position of the animal’s body across each view. We then reconstructed its three-dimensional trajectory over time using built-in functions (i.e. estimateFundamentalMatrix and triangulate) and tools developed by Ref.47 for MATLAB. Using the XYZ trajectory of body position, we calculated the kinematics of the animal’s center of mass (CoM). Automatically tracking the movement of each leg was not possible, unfortunately. Harvestmen legs are very thin (Supplementary Video S1), which prevents a good contrast with the background.
We calculated nine performance, postural, or stride variables to describe harvestmen locomotion as in Escalante et al.35. For performance metrics, we used the XYZ positions over time to calculate (1) the average horizontal velocity, hereafter referred to as ‘velocity’, calculated as v_h = (x_final − x_initial)/(t_final − t_initial), where x_initial and x_final are the (x, y) coordinates of the body at the start and end of the trial, respectively. (2) Maximal horizontal acceleration, calculated as a_hmax = max_{t in trial} a_h(t), where a_h(t) is the horizontal component of the acceleration calculated from a quintic smoothing spline fit to 3D position over time. We consider these variables reflect biologically relevant performance. We assumed that harvestmen would aim to sustain fast speed to avoid being captured (velocity), as well as a fast burst of speed to quickly move away from a potential predator (acceleration).
For postural variables, we calculated (3) the three-dimensional sinuosity normalized by time. This unitless measurement is the total path length of the trajectory divided by the linear distance between the endpoints and quantifies the lateral and vertical deviations from a straight path48. We also measured (4) the minimal and (5) the maximal height of the CoM.
For stride kinematics, we visually followed the movement of a focal leg (left leg I). We noted the time when each leg was on the ground (stance phase), and when it was lifted (aerial phase), which together represent one stride. For 2L and 3L treatments we followed the third left leg as the focal leg. We followed three strides to calculate (6) the average duty factor, the proportion of time during each stride that the focal leg was on the ground, (7) average stride frequency, the number of complete strides per second, (8) average stride period, the time to complete one stride, and (9) average stride length, the maximal distance along the x-axis the leg moved during one stride.
To investigate patterns of leg use, we visually followed all legs during three strides and constructed gait diagrams. We did this for five individuals in each experimental treatment, before autotomy, immediately after, as well as 2 days after autotomy. Finally, we visually scored each video based on the type of gait performed. We grouped the type of gaits into “fast gaits” (running and stotting) and “slow gaits” (bobbing and walking). We grouped gaits this way because performance (velocity and acceleration) is similar within gait groups35. Additionally, our focus here was on understanding the consequences of autotomy regardless of gait type.
Body measurements
We measured the length of the left leg IV for each individual to the nearest 0.05 mm using digital calipers. Leg IV length (see Supplementary Table S2) is a good proxy of body size since leg IV was never autotomized, and it correlated with leg I and III lengths (r = 0.39, 0.49, respectively. P  0.42). Hence, these variables were excluded from the final models. None of the nine kinematic variables were normally distributed (Shapiro tests P  More

1.
Clutton-Brock, T. H. & Parker, G. A. Sexual coercion in animal societies. Anim. Behav.49, 1345–1365 (1995).
Google Scholar 
2.
Emlen, S. T. & Wrege, P. H. Forced copulations and intra-specific parasitism: two costs of social living in the white-fronted bee-eater. Ethology71, 2–29 (1986).
Google Scholar 

3.
Afton, A. D. Forced copulation as a reproductive strategy of male lesser scaup: a field test of some predictions. Behaviour92, 146–167 (1985).
Google Scholar 

4.
Clutton-brock, T. H., Price, O. F. & Maccoll, A. D. C. Mate retention, harassment, and the evolution of ungulate leks. Behav. Ecol.3, 234–242 (1992).
Google Scholar 

5.
Mitani, J. C. Mating behaviour of male orangutans in the Kutai Game Reserve Indonesia. Anim. Behav.33, 392–402 (1985).
Google Scholar 

6.
Thornhill, R. Rape in Panorpa scorpionflies and a general rape hypothesis. Anim. Behav.28, 52–59 (1980).
Google Scholar 

7.
Arnqvist, G. Multiple mating in a water strider-mutual benefits or intersexual conflicts?. Anim. Behav.38, 749–756 (1989).
Google Scholar 

8.
Georgiev, A. V., Klimczuk, A. C. E., Traficonte, D. M. & Maestripieri, D. When violence pays: a cost-benefit analysis of aggressive behaviour in animals and humans. Evol. Psychol.11, 678–699 (2013).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

9.
Twiss, S. D. Behavioural and energetic determinants of individual mating success in male grey seals (Halichoerus grypus, Fabricius 1791). (University of Glasgow, 1991).

10.
Le Boeuf, B. J. Pinniped mating systems on land, ice and in the water: emphasis on the Phocidae. Behav. Pinnipeds 45–65 (1991).

11.
Miller, E. H., Ponce de Leon, A. & Delong, R. L. Violent interspecific sexual behaviour by male sea lions (Otariidae): evolutionary and phylogenetic implications. Mar. Mammal Sci.12, 468–476 (1996).
Google Scholar 

12.
Fedak, M. A., Wilson, B. & Pomeroy, P. P. Reproductive behaviour. In Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (eds. Perrin, W. F., Würsig, B. & Thewissen, J. G. M.) 943–955 (Academic Press, 2009).

13.
Chilvers, B. L., Robertson, B. C., Wilkinson, I. S., Duignan, P. J. & Gemmell, N. J. Male harassment of female New Zealand sea lions, Phocarctos hookeri: mortality, injury, and harassment avoidance. Can. J. Zool.83, 642–648 (2005).
Google Scholar 

14.
Cassini, M. H. The evolution of reproductive systems in pinnipeds. Behav. Ecol.10, 612–616 (1999).
Google Scholar 

15.
Rohwer, S., Harris, R. B. & Walsh, H. E. Rape and the prevalence of hybrids in broadly sympatric species: A case study using albatrosses. PeerJ2014, (2014).

16.
Lipshutz, S. E. Interspecific competition, hybridization, and reproductive isolation in secondary contact: Missing perspectives on males and females. Curr. Zool.64, 75–88 (2018).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

17.
Mesnick, S. L. & Ralls, K. Mating systems. In Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (eds. Perrin, W. F., Würsig, B. & Thewissen, J. G. M.) 712–719 (Academic Press, 2009).

18.
Bruyn, P. J. N., Tosh, C. A. & Bester, M. N. Sexual harassment of a king penguin by an Antarctic fur seal. J. Ethol.26, 295–297 (2008).
Google Scholar 

19.
Mortenson, J. & Follis, M. Northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris) aggression on harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) pups. Mar. Mammal Sci.13, 526–530 (1997).
Google Scholar 

20.
Best, P. B., Meyer, M. A. & Weeks, R. W. Interactions between a male elephant seal Mirounga leonina and Cape fur Seals Arctocephalus pusillus South African. J. Zool.16, 59–66 (1981).
Google Scholar 

21.
Wilson, S. C. Attempted Mating between a Male Grey Seal and Female Harbor Seals. J. Mammal.56, 531–533 (1975).
Google Scholar 

22.
Orbach, D. N., Kelly, D. A., Solano, M. & Brennan, P. L. R. Genital interactions during simulated copulation among marine mammals. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.284, 1–7 (2017).
Google Scholar 

23.
Kovacs, K. M. et al. A harp seal × hooded seal hybrid. Mar. Mammal Sci.13, 460–468 (1997).
Google Scholar 

24.
Berube, M. Hybridism. In Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals 588–59 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-373553-9.00137-1

25.
Savriama, Y. et al. Bracketing phenogenotypic limits of mammalian hybridization. R. Soc. Open Sci.5, (2018).

26.
Bowen, W. D., Ellis, S. L., Iverson, S. J. & Boness, D. J. Maternal and newborn life-history traits during periods of contrasting population trends: implications for explaining the decline of harbour seals (Phoca vitulina), on Sable Island. J. Zool.261, 155–163 (2003).
Google Scholar 

27.
Jones, E. et al. Patterns of space use in sympatric marine colonial predators reveal scales of spatial partitioning. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.534, 235–249 (2015).
ADS  Google Scholar 

28.
Teilmann, J. & Galatius, A. Harbor Seal: Phoca vitulina. In Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (eds. Würsig, B., Thewissen, J. G. M. & Kovacs, K.) 451–455 (Academic Press, 2018).https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-804327-1.00145-x

29.
Hall, A. & Russell, D. J. F. Gray Seal (Halichoerus grypus). In Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (eds. Würsig, B., Thewissen, J. G. M. & Kovacs, K.) 420–422 (Academic Press, 2018).

30.
Skeate, E. R., Perrow, M. R. & Gilroy, J. J. Likely effects of construction of Scroby Sands offshore wind farm on a mixed population of harbour Phoca vitulina and grey Halichoerus grypus seals. Mar. Pollut. Bull.64, 872–881 (2012).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

31.
Cremer, J. et al. EG-Seals grey seal surveys in the Wadden Sea and Helgoland in 2018–2019. (Common Wadden Sea Secretariat (CWSS), 2019).

32.
Reijnders, P. J. H. & Lankester, K. Status of marine mammals in the North Sea. Netherlands J. Sea Res.26, 427–435 (1990).
ADS  Google Scholar 

33.
Galatius, A. et al. Trilateral surveys of Harbour Seals in the Wadden Sea and Helgoland in 2019. (Common Wadden Sea Secretariat (CWSS), 2019).

34.
Siebert, U., Wohlsein, P., Lehnert, K. & Baumgärtner, W. Pathological Findings in Harbour Seals (Phoca vitulina): 1996–2005. J. Comp. Pathol.137, 47–58 (2007).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

35.
Härkönen, T. et al. A review of the 1988 and 2002 phocine distemper virus epidemics in European harbour seals. Dis. Aquat. Organ.68, 115–130 (2006).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

36.
Bodewes, R. et al. Avian Influenza A(H10N7) Virus-Associated Mass Deaths among Harbor Seals. Emerg. Infect. Dis.21, 720–722 (2015).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

37.
Hall, A. J., Jepson, P. D., Goodman, S. J. & Härkönen, T. Phocine distemper virus in the North and European Seas—Data and models, nature and nurture. Biol. Conserv.131, 221–229 (2006).
Google Scholar 

38.
Pomeroy, P. P. et al. Morbillivirus neutralising antibodies in Scottish grey seals Halichoerus grypus: assessing the effects of the 1988 and 2002 PDV epizootics. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.287, 241–250 (2005).
ADS  Google Scholar 

39.
van Neer, A. et al. Behavioural and pathological insights into a case of active cannibalism by a grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) on Helgoland Germany. J. Sea Res.148–149, 12–16 (2019).
Google Scholar 

40.
Brownlow, A., Onoufriou, J., Bishop, A., Davison, N. & Thompson, D. Corkscrew Seals: Grey Seal (Halichoerus grypus) infanticide and cannibalism may indicate the cause of spiral lacerations in seals. PLoS ONE11, e0156464 (2016).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

41.
Bishop, A. M., Onoufriou, J., Moss, S., Pomeroy, P. P. & Twiss, S. D. Cannibalism by a male grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) in the North Sea. Aquat. Mamm.42, 137–143 (2016).
Google Scholar 

42.
Bedard, C., Kovacs, K. & Hammill, M. Cannibalism by grey seals, Halichoerus grypus, on Amet Island Nova Scotia. Mar. Mammal Sci.9, 421–424 (1993).
Google Scholar 

43.
van Neer, A., Jensen, L. F. & Siebert, U. Grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) predation on harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) on the island of Helgoland Germany. J. Sea Res.97, 1–4 (2015).
Google Scholar 

44.
Bouveroux, T., Kiszka, J. J., Heithaus, M. R., Jauniaux, T. & Pezeril, S. Direct evidence for gray seal (Halichoerus grypus) predation and scavenging on harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena). Mar. Mammal Sci.30, 1542–1548 (2014).
Google Scholar 

45.
Haelters, J. The Grey Seal (Halichoerus grypus) as a Predator of Harbour Porpoises (Phocoena phocoena)?. Aquat. Mamm.38, 343–353 (2012).
Google Scholar 

46.
Boness, D., Bowen, W. & Francis, J. Implications of DNA fingerprinting for mating systems and reproductive strategies of pinnipeds. (1993).

47.
Lapennas, G. N. & Blake-Reeves, R. Respiratory properties of blood of the gray seal Halichoerus grypus. J. Comp. Physiol. B149, 49–56 (1982).
Google Scholar 

48.
Reijnders, P. J. H., Brasseur, S. M. J. M. & Meesters, E. H. W. G. Earlier pupping in harbour seals Phoca vitulina. Biol. Lett.6, 854–857 (2010).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

49.
Bridwell, R. E., Carius, B. M., Long, B., Oliver, J. J. & Schmitz, G. Sepsis in pregnancy: recognition and resuscitation. West. J. Emerg. Med.20, 822–832 (2019).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

50.
Siebert, U. et al. Bacterial microbiota in harbor seals (Phoca Vitulina) from the North Sea of Schleswig-Holstein, Germany, around the time of morbillivirus and influenza epidemics. J. Wildl. Dis.53, 201–214 (2017).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

51.
Higgins, R. Bacteria and fungi of marine mammals: a review. Can. Vet. J.41, 105–116 (2000).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

52.
Henton, M. M., Zapke, O. & Basson, P. A. Streptococcus phocae infections associated with starvation in Cape fur seals. J. S. Afr. Vet. Assoc.70, 98–99 (2012).
Google Scholar 

53.
Harris, H. S. et al. Lesions and behaviour associated with forced copulation of juvenile Pacific harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardsi) by southern sea otters (Enhydra lutris nereis). Aquat. Mamm.36, 219–229 (2010).
Google Scholar 

54.
Russell, D. G. D., Sladen, W. J. L. & Ainley, D. G. Dr. George Murray Levick (1876–1956): unpublished notes on the sexual habits of the Adélie penguin. Polar Rec. (Gr. Brit).48, 387–393 (2012).
Google Scholar 

55.
Le Boeuf, B. J. & Mesnick, S. Sexual behaviour of male northern elephant seals: l Lethal injuries to adult females. Behaviour116, 143–162 (1990).
Google Scholar 

56.
Campagna, C., Le Boeuf, B. J. & Capozzo, H. L. Group raids : a mating strategy of male Southern Sea Lions. Behaviour105, 224–249 (1988).
Google Scholar 

57.
Allen, S. G. Mating behaviour in the Harbor seal. Mar. Mammal Sci.1, 84–87 (1985).
Google Scholar 

58.
Ulrich, R., Philipp, U., Buck, B. C., Distl, O. & Beineke, A. Fatal rectal perforation following boar-to-boar mounting. Vet. Pathol.49, 1024–1027 (2012).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

59.
Davies, R., Rozanski, E., Tseng, F., Jennings, S. & Paul, A. Traumatic uterine rupture in three felids. J. Vet. Emerg. Crit. Care26, 782–786 (2016).
Google Scholar 

60.
Lehnert, K., Raga, J. A. & Siebert, U. Parasites in harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) from the German Wadden Sea between two phocine distemper virus epidemics. Helgol. Mar. Res.61, 239–245 (2007).
ADS  Google Scholar 

61.
Müller, G. et al. Phocine distemper in German Seals, 2002. Emerg. Infect. Dis.10, 723–725 (2004).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

62.
Lehmbecker, A., Rittinghausen, S., Rohn, K., Baumgärtner, W. & Schaudien, D. Nanoparticles and pop-off technique for electron microscopy: a known technique for a new purpose. Toxicol. Pathol.42, 1041–1046 (2014).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

63.
Bretschneider, A., Burns, W. & Ashton, M. ‘Pop-off’ technic. the ultrastructure of paraffinembedded sections. Am. Soc. Clin. Pathol. 450–53 (1981).

64.
Kleeman, S. A ‘pop off’ technique for reprocessing histological sections of the paramyxean Marteilia sydneyi for electron microscopy. Parasitol. Res.88, 439–442 (2002).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

65.
Rossi, G. L., Luginbühl, H. & Probst, D. A method for ultrastructural study of lesions found in conventional histological sections. Virchows Arch. Abteilung A Pathol. Anat.350, 216–224 (1970).
CAS  Google Scholar  More

1.
Vanni, M. J. Nutrient cycling by animals in freshwater ecosystems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst.33, 341–370 (2002).
Google Scholar 
2.
Augustine, D. J. & McNaughton, S. J. Interactive effects of ungulate herbivores, soil fertility, and variable rainfall on ecosystem processes in a semi-arid savanna. Ecosystems9, 1242–1256 (2006).
CAS  Google Scholar 

3.
Allgeier, J. E., Burkepile, D. E. & Layman, C. A. Animal pee in the sea: consumer-mediated nutrient dynamics in the world’s changing oceans. Glob. Change Biol.23, 2166–2178 (2017).
ADS  Google Scholar 

4.
Sitters, J. et al. The stoichiometry of nutrient release by terrestrial herbivores and its ecosystem consequences. Front. Earth Sci.5, 32 (2017).
ADS  Google Scholar 

5.
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 

6.
Evans-White, M. A. & Lamberti, G. A. Stoichiometry of consumer-driven nutrient recycling across nutrient regimes in streams. Ecol. Lett.9, 1186–1197 (2006).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

7.
Allgeier, J. E., Yeager, L. A. & Layman, C. A. Consumers regulate nutrient limitation regimes and primary production in seagrass ecosystems. Ecology94, 521–529 (2013).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

8.
Atkinson, C. L., Vaughn, C. C., Forshay, K. J. & Cooper, J. T. Aggregated filter-feeding consumers alter nutrient limitation: consequences for ecosystem and community dynamics. Ecology94, 1359–1369 (2013).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

9.
Deangelis, D. L. et al. Nutrient dynamics and food-web stability. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst.20, 71–95 (1989).
Google Scholar 

10.
Allgeier, J. E., Wenger, S. J., Schindler, D. E., Rosemond, A. D. & Layman, C. A. Metabolic theory and taxonomic identity predict nutrient cycling in a diverse food web. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.112, 2640–2647 (2015).
Google Scholar 

11.
Vanni, M. J. & McIntyre, P. B. Predicting nutrient excretion of aquatic animals with metabolic ecology and ecological stoichiometry: A global synthesis. Ecology97, 3460–3471 (2016).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

12.
Fritschie, K. J. & Olden, J. D. Estimating the effects of non-native species on nutrient recycling using species-specific and general allometric models. Freshw. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.13092 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

13.
Woods, M. C. & Perkins, J. J. E. Absorption and storage of phosphorous by larval Manduca sexta. J. Insect Physiol.48, 555–564 (2002).
PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

14.
Fagan, W. F. & Denno, R. F. Stoichiometry of actual vs. potential predator-prey interactions: Insights into nitrogen limitation for arthropod predators. Ecol. Lett.7, 876–883 (2004).
Google Scholar 

15.
Hendrixson, H. A., Sterner, R. W. & Kay, A. D. Elemental stoichiometry of freshwater fishes in relation to phylogeny, allometry and ecology. J. Fish Biol.70, 121–140 (2007).
Google Scholar 

16.
Kiørboe, T. Zooplankton body composition. Limnol. Oceanogr.58, 1843–1850 (2013).
ADS  Google Scholar 

17.
Lemoine, N. P., Giery, S. T. & Burkepile, D. E. Differing nutritional constraints of consumers across ecosystems. Oecologia174, 1367–1376 (2014).
ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

18.
Gonzalez, A. L. et al. Ecological mechanisms and phylogeny shape invertebrate stoichiometry: A test using detritus-based communities across Central and South America. Funct. Ecol.32, 2448–2463 (2018).
Google Scholar 

19.
Elser, J. J. et al. Nutritional constraints in terrestrial and freshwater food webs. Nature408, 578–580 (2000).
ADS  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

20.
Elser, J. J. et al. Biological stoichiometry from genes to ecosystems. Ecol. Lett.3, 540–550 (2000).
Google Scholar 

21.
Cross, W. F., Benstead, J. P., Rosemond, A. D. & Bruce Wallace, J. Consumer-resource stoichiometry in detritus-based streams. Ecol. Lett.6, 721–732 (2003).
Google Scholar 

22.
Small, G. E. & Pringle, C. M. Deviation from strict homeostasis across multiple trophic levels in an invertebrate consumer assemblage exposed to high chronic phosphorus enrichment in a Neotropical stream. Oecologia162, 581–590 (2009).
ADS  Google Scholar 

23.
Elser, J. J. et al. Growth rate-stoichiometry couplings in diverse biota. Ecol. Lett.6, 936–943 (2003).
Google Scholar 

24.
Hood, J. M. & Sterner, R. W. Carbon and phosphorus linkages in Daphnia growth are determined by growth rate, not species or diet. Funct. Ecol.28, 1156–1165 (2014).
Google Scholar 

25.
Fagan, W. F. et al. Nitrogen in insects: Implications for trophic complexity and species diversification. Am. Nat.160, 784–802 (2002).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

26.
El-Sabaawi, R. W. et al. Widespread intraspecific organismal stoichiometry among populations of the Trinidadian guppy. Funct. Ecol.26, 666–676 (2012).
Google Scholar 

27.
Paseka, R. E. & Grunberg, R. L. Allometric and trait-based patterns in parasite stoichiometry. Oikos128, 102–112 (2019).
CAS  Google Scholar 

28.
Paine, R. T. Food Web Complexity and Species Diversity. Am. Nat.100, 65 (1966).
Google Scholar 

29.
Hooper, D. U. et al. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: A consensus of current knowledge. Ecol. Monogr.75, 3–35 (2005).
Google Scholar 

30.
Peters, R. H. The Ecological Implications of Body Size (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1983).
Google Scholar 

31.
Brown, J. H., Gillooly, J. F., Allen, A. P., Savage, V. M. & West, G. B. Toward a metabolic theory of ecology. Ecology85, 1771–1789 (2004).
Google Scholar 

32.
Davis, J. A. & Boyd, C. E. Concentrations of selected elements and ash in bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) and certain other freshwater fish. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.107, 862–867 (1978).
CAS  Google Scholar 

33.
Gonzalez, A. L., Miguel Farina, J., Kay, A. D., Pinto, R. & Marquet, P. A. Exploring patterns and mechanisms of interspecific and intraspecific variation in body elemental composition of desert consumers. Oikos120, 1247–1255 (2011).
Google Scholar 

34.
Ramírez, A. et al. Functional differences in the allometry of the water, carbon and nitrogen content of gelatinous organisms. J. Plankton Res.37, 989–1000 (2015).
Google Scholar 

35.
Sterner, R. W. & George, N. B. Carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus stoichiometry of cyprinid fishes. Ecology81, 127–140 (2000).
Google Scholar 

36.
Sterner, R. W. & Elser, J. J. Ecological Stoichiometry: The Biology of Elements from Molecules to the Biosphere (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2002).
Google Scholar 

37.
El-Sabaawi, R. W. et al. Intraspecific variability modulates interspecific variability in animal organismal stoichiometry. Ecol. Evol.4, 1505–1515 (2014).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

38.
Frost, P. C. et al. Threshold elemental ratios of carbon and phosphorus in aquatic consumers. Ecol. Lett.9, 774–779 (2006).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

39.
Sterner, R. W. Modelling interactions of food quality and quantity in homeostatic consumers. Freshw. Biol.38, 473–481 (1997).
Google Scholar 

40.
Frost, P. C., Evans-White, M. A., Finkel, Z. V., Jensen, T. C. & Matzek, V. Are you what you eat? Physiological constraints on organismal stoichiometry in an elementally imbalanced world. Oikos109, 18–28 (2004).
Google Scholar 

41.
Newman, M. J. H., Paredes, G. A., Sala, E. & Jackson, J. B. C. Structure of Caribbean coral reef communities across a large gradient of fish biomass. Ecol. Lett.9, 1216–1227 (2006).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

42.
Munro, J. L. Caribbean coral reef fisheries resources. 2, (1983).

43.
Layman, C. A. What can stable isotope ratios reveal about mangroves as fish habitat?. Bull. Mar. Sci.80, 513–527 (2007).
Google Scholar 

44.
Layman, C. A. & Allgeier, J. E. Characterizing trophic ecology of generalist consumers: A case study on the invasive Lionfish Pterois volitans in the Bahamas. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.448, 131–144 (2012).
ADS  Google Scholar 

45.
Layman, C. A. et al. Applying stable isotopes to examine food-web structure: an overview of analytical tools. Biol. Rev.87, 545–562 (2012).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

46.
Post, D. M. Using stable isotopes to estimate trophic position: Models, methods, and assumptions. Ecology83, 703–718 (2002).
Google Scholar 

47.
Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach (Springer, Berlin, 2002).
Google Scholar 

48.
Gelman, A. & Hill, J. Data Analysis Using Regression (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007).
Google Scholar 

49.
R Core Development Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing (2012).

50.
Nakagawa, S. & Schielzeth, H. A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods Ecol. Evol.4, 133–142 (2013).
Google Scholar 

51.
Bates, D. M. lme4: Mixed-effects Modeling with R (Springer, Berlin, 2010).
Google Scholar 

52.
Allgeier, J. E., Layman, C. A., Mumby, P. J. & Rosemond, A. D. Consistent nutrient storage and supply mediated by diverse fish communities in coral reef ecosystems. Glob. Change Biol.20, 2459–2472 (2014).
ADS  Google Scholar 

53.
Small, G. E., Pringle, C. M., Pyron, M. & Duff, J. H. Role of the fish Astyanax aeneus (Characidae) as a keystone nutrient recycler in low-nutrient Neotropical streams. Ecology92, 386–397 (2011).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

54.
Vanni, M. J., Flecker, A. S., Hood, J. M. & Headworth, J. L. Stoichiometry of nutrient recycling by vertebrates in a tropical stream: Linking species identity and ecosystem processes. Ecol. Lett.5, 285–293 (2002).
Google Scholar 

55.
Hood, J. M., Vanni, M. J. & Flecker, A. S. Nutrient recycling by two phosphorus-rich grazing catfish: The potential for phosphorus-limitation of fish growth. Oecologia146, 247–257 (2005).
ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

56.
El-Sabaawi, R. W., Warbanski, M. L., Rudman, S. M., Hovel, R. & Matthews, B. Investment in boney defensive traits alters organismal stoichiometry and excretion in fish. Oecologia181, 1209–1220 (2016).
ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

57.
Wiesenborn, W. D. Phosphorus contents in desert riparian spiders and insects vary among taxa and between flight capabilities. Flor. Entomol.96, 424–432 (2013).
Google Scholar  More