Ecology

Demographics
We studied the environmental factors for fear of fireworks (n = 9,613), thunder (n = 9,513), novel situations (n = 6,945), and fear of heights and surfaces (n = 2,932). The fear of fireworks sample included 6,732 non-fearful and 2,881 fearful dogs with a mean age of 4.8 years (range 2 months to 18 years).
The fear or thunder sample included 7,809 non-fearful and 1,704 fearful dogs with a mean age of 4.7 years (range 2 months to 17 years). The fear of novel situations sample included 6,062 non-fearful and 883 fearful dogs with a mean age of 4.6 years (range 2 months to 18 years). The fear of surfaces and heights sample included 1,212 non-fearful and 1,720 fearful dogs with a mean age of 5.1 years (range 3 months to 16 years). In all sample sets, 52% of the dogs were females. More detailed descriptive statistics and lists of included breeds and the number of individuals per breed are presented in the Supplementary Table S1.
Factors associated with fear of fireworks
Logistic regression analysis identified several environmental and demographic factors associated with fear of fireworks, including age, socialisation score, neutering, activities/training, breed, owner’s dog experience, and dogs in the family (Table 1).
Table 1 Associations between the demographic and environmental variables with fear of fireworks and fear of thunder of the final models in the logistic regression analyses.
Full size table

We found breed differences in the likelihood of fear of fireworks. The most fearful breeds were Cairn Terrier, mixed breed, and Pembroke Welsh Corgi: the least fearful breeds were Labrador Retriever, German Shepherd Dog, and Miniature Poodle (Fig. 1a). All pairwise breed differences are shown in Supplementary Table S8.
Figure 1

Logistic regression analyses on the effects of breed (a), age (b), socialisation (c), activities/training (d), and dogs in the family (e) for the fear of fireworks. The Y axis shows the predicted probability of belonging to the “high” fear group. Error bars (a, d, e) and grey lines (b, c) indicate the 95% confidence limits. n = 9,613.

Full size image

The probability of fear of fireworks increased with age until 10 years of age and decreased thereafter (χ2 = 146.8, DF = 1, p  More

Populations
Field data were collected from 2016 to 2018 in four different populations of tree swallows breeding in nest-boxes. Populations were located in Chattanooga, Tennessee (TN) (35.1°N, 85.2°W, 206 m elevation, established in 2006, 2018: n = 73), Ithaca, New York (NY) (42.5°N, 76.5°W, 340 m elevation, established in 1986, 2016: n = 42), Burgess Junction, Wyoming (WY) (44.5°N, 107.3°W, 2451 m elevation established in 1995, 2018, n = 77) and in McCarthy, Alaska (AK) (61.4°N, 143.3°W, 445 m elevation, established in 1993, 2016: n = 28, 2017: n = 41). Tree swallows are widely distributed across North America and breed in a variety of environments. These populations were chosen to allow for comparisons among populations breeding in environments with different degrees of environmental predictability and reproductive value. Populations at higher latitude (Alaska) or elevation (Wyoming) are expected to experience cooler and more unpredictable weather conditions and a shorter breeding season starting later in the year (late May). In Tennessee, near the Southern edge of the breeding distribution, tree swallows are expected to experience warmer and more predictable weather conditions and a long breeding season with the first egg usually laid earlier in the season (early to mid-April). In New York, environmental conditions and breeding season length are expected to be intermediate, with the first egg usually laid in early May.
General field methods and stress manipulation
In the four populations, nests were monitored every 1–2 days throughout the breeding season from the initiation of activity at each site to fledging, except for the last week of nestlings’ development (to avoid inducing premature fledging). For every active nest, we recorded clutch initiation date and completion dates, clutch size, hatch date, brood size, and the number of nestlings fledged. Nestling fates were determined by checking boxes 22–24 days after hatching as fledging usually occurs around day 20. We installed radio frequency identification (RFID) units on each box on the fourth day of incubation (see below). Birds were captured at their nest boxes by hand or using a manually activated trap. All birds were captured and sampled on specific days of life history substages, and during a set time of day, to reduce the variation in circulating glucocorticoid hormones resulting from circadian rhythms. Adult females were captured between 0700 and 1000 h in NY, TN and WY and between or 0600 and 0900 h in AK to compensate for the earlier start of activity due to the increased day length compared to the other populations.
Females were initially captured 6 or 7 days after clutch completion (capture number 1). At this capture, we took a first blood sample within 3 min of initial disturbance to measure baseline circulating corticosterone levels. A second blood sample was taken after 30 min of restraint in a cloth bag to measure stress-induced corticosterone levels. Immediately after this sample was taken, females were injected with dexamethasone (dex) (0.5 μl g−1, Dexamethasone Sodium Phosphate, Mylan Institutional LLC), a synthetic glucocorticoid that binds to receptors within the HPA axis, in order to assess negative feedback indepently of the stress-induced corticosterone level29. A final blood sample was taken 30 min after dex injection to measure the degree of down-regulation in circulating corticosterone (a measure of negative feedback). Between samples, we weighed the females, and measured the length of their skull from the back of the head to the bill tip (head-bill) and flattened wing length. Non-banded individuals received USGS leg bands and a celluloid colour band with attached passive integrated transponder (PIT) tag encoding a 10-digit hexadecimal string (Cyntag, Cynthiana, KY). Female age was determined based on plumage coloration and characterized as second year (SY) or after second year (ASY)57.
As part of a separate study, at their first capture, adult females were allocated to one of the experimental groups: control, feather restraint (in which three primaries were reversibly attached to alter flight ability and thereby increasing the cost of foraging), or predator exposure (see29 for details on both experimental treatments). Treatments started after the first capture and lasted for 5–6 days. As these treatments had no effects on HPA axis regulation (Table S1, S2, S3), data from all individuals were included in analyses.
Females were then recaptured 5–6 days later (on incubation day 12 or 13; capture 2), at the end of the experimental treatments (see above). At this capture, we only took a baseline blood sample and weighed the bird before release. Finally, we recaptured females again 6–8 days after eggs hatched (capture 3). We followed the same procedure as in capture 1, taking a baseline, restraint stress-induced, and post-dex blood samples, and again weighed each female.
Twelve days after eggs hatched, each nestling received an USGS leg band, was weighed and had head-bill and flat wing length measured.
All blood samples were collected from the alar vein, in heparinised microhematocrit capillary tubes. Blood samples were then transferred to microcentrifuge tubes, and kept on ice until centrifugation (within 4 h). After separation, the plasma was stored at − 20 °C in the field and then at − 80 °C in the lab until analysis. All methods were approved by Cornell IACUC and conducted with appropriate state and federal permits. We followed the guidelines to the use of wild birds in research of the Onithological Council for the care and use of animals.
Provisioning behaviour
Number of feeding trips for females from nestling ages 1–18 was recorded using radio-frequency identification (RFID) devices (Cellular Tracking Technologies; Rio Grande, NJ, USA)58. RFID units were installed on each active box on day 4 of incubation. Antennae were fastened around each entrance hole so that birds had to pass directly through an antenna to enter or exit the box. We programmed our RFID units to sample for PIT tags every second between 0500 and 2200 h each day as tree swallows are not very active at night. Poll time was set at 500, and cycle time at 1,000. The delay time (minimum period of time between successive tag recordings) was set to 1 s. RFID boards were powered by 12 V 5Ah (PS-1250, PowerSonic, San Diego, CA, USA) batteries that were replaced every five days. At the first capture, each bird was fitted with a PIT tag attached to a colour band. Each PIT tag encoded a unique 10-digit hexadecimal string that was recorded, along with a time stamp, when birds passed through or perched on the antenna (see59 for more details). From the raw RFID records, we determined the number of daily feeding trips for each female through 18 days of age for the brood using an algorithm validated in the New York population59.
Corticosterone assay
Steroids were extracted from plasma samples using a triple ethyl acetate extraction and then corticosterone levels were determined using an enzyme immunoassay kit (DetectX Corticosterone, Arbor Assays: K014-H5) previously validated for tree swallows60. Samples were run in duplicate and all samples from an individual were run on the same plate. In total we ran 47 assays with an average extraction efficiency of 92.8% and a detection limit of 0.47 ng ml−1 (calculated as described in60). The intra-assay variation based on duplicate samples was 8.88% and the inter-assay variation based on plasma pool run across plates was 11.1%.
Data analysis
To characterise the degree of environmental unpredictability at the different field sites we calculated the unpredictability of temperature variables. We obtained historical weather data for each site over as long a yearly range as possible. For New York we obtained data from the North East Climate Center (https://www.nrcc.cornell.edu/) for the Game Farm road weather station (from 1983, located about 7 km from field sites) and from the Western Regional Climate Center (https://wrcc.dri.edu/) for the Prentice Cooper State Forest station in Tennessee (from 2003, located about 16 km from field sites), the May Creek station in Alaska (from 1990 located about 19 km from field sites) and the Burgess station in Wyoming (from 1992, located about 5 km from field sites). From these data, we extracted the average daily temperature, the daytime average daily temperature (between 0600 and 2200) which is the period when the swallows are the most active and the daily maximum temperature, which is known to affect flying insects’ activity and therefore food availability61.
We quantified the unpredictability of these temperatures variables during the breeding season: from April to June in Tennessee and New York and from May to July in Alaska and Wyoming. We calculated unpredictability using a general additive model (GAM) following the methods described in Franch-Gras et al.43. For each site, these variables were divided by their mean to normalise them before analysis43. This model (one for each site) considers the dispersion of the data in the time series around a typical curve of the normalised variable. For each weather variable and site, the typical curve was fitted in a GAM model in relation to the day of the year using the gam function in the mgcv package in R 3.5.3 (R Core Team, 2019). As suggested by Franch-Gras and collaborators43, we fitted the GAMs using cubic splines as smoothing function to not a priori constrain the shape of the curve. The standard deviation of the residuals of the fitted model (SDres) represents an index of unpredictability for each variable43. This index gives an overall measure of unpredictability using the historical records and is not intended to indicate variation in weather in the particular years of study at each site.
All data come from the first nesting attempt of each female. We compared females’ corticosterone levels by fitting a generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) with a gamma distribution that included population, life history substage, sample (baseline, stress-induced and post-dex), female age, treatment and their interactions (2-, 3-, 4- and 5-ways that include sample) as fixed factors, relative clutch initiation date as a covariate, female identity and experimental year as random intercepts, and population as a random slope. We further characterised females’ corticosterone regulation by calculating their glucocorticoid stress response as the difference between stress-induced and baseline corticosterone levels and their negative feedback as the difference between post-dex and stress-induced corticosterone levels. As it is not clear yet which trait is more important for the regulation of the phenotype—the raw hormone level or the response (the derived value)—we ran similar models on stress-induced and post-dex corticosterone values with baseline and stress-induced corticosterone levels as covariate respectively. For negative feedback, we also ran a model on the percentage change in corticosterone between the stress-induced and post-dex sampling periods. In order to directly compare the strength of the relationship between temperature unpredictability or reproductive value and females’ corticosterone regulation, we ran the same models but we replaced the fixed effect of population with either average temperature unpredictability or total breeding season length as a continuous variable. Then we used an information theory approach by comparing models’ Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) scores to determine which model, and thus which of these two variables, better predicts the observed variation in corticosterone regulation. We compared the magnitude of females’ acute stress response and negative feedback strength using GLMMs fit with a normal distribution including population, capture number, female age and their interactions as fixed factors, relative clutch initiation date as a covariate, female identity and experimental year as random intercepts, and population as a random slope. Population was added as a random slope in order to allow changes in HPA axis regulation to be different between populations. Within each population, we determined whether corticosterone level at each time point, and stress response and negative feedback were correlated using Pearson correlations.
We calculated the total breeding season length during the experimental year as the number of days between the first clutch initiation and the last day nestlings fledged at each site. We compared populations using a GLM fitted with a Poisson distribution. We also compared clutch size, brood size, hatching success and fledging success between populations. Population, female age and their interactions were added as fixed factors, and relative clutch initiation day as a covariate. The model for relative clutch initiation date was fitted with a normal distribution, models for clutch size and brood size with a Poisson distribution and models for hatching success and fledging success with a binomial distribution.
We compared the number of daily feeding trips females made using a generalised linear mixed model GLMM fitted with a Poisson distribution. Population, female age, treatment, their interactions and nestling age were added as fixed factors and brood size at each nestling age as a covariate. We also added relative clutch initiation date and brood size as covariates and nest identity as random factor. We used GLMMs to compare nestlings’ body mass with population, female age and their interaction as fixed factors. Female identity was added as a random factor.
GLMs were run using the GENMOD procedure and GLMMs the GLIMMIX procedure in SAS University Edition (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). Distributions for the different models were chosen depending of the type of data. Poisson distribution was used for counting data (nestling provisioning, breeding season length, clutch size, brood size), binomial distribution was used for binary data (0/1: hatching and fledging success), gamma distribution was used for continuous data when all data were superior to 0 (corticosterone levels, stress response, nestlings’ body mass) and Gaussian distribution was used for continuous data that included positive and negative values, after checking for normality of the residuals (negative feedback). Post‐hoc comparisons were performed using Tukey‐Kramer multiple comparison adjustment to obtain corrected p‐values. Probability levels  More

1.
De Zan, L. R., Bellotti, F., D’Amato, D. & Carpanetoi, G. M. Saproxylic beetles in three relict beech forests of central Italy: analysis of environmental parameters and implications for forest management. For. Ecol. Manag.328, 229–244 (2014).
Google Scholar 
2.
Brockerhoff, E. G., Jones, D. C., Kimberley, M. O., Suckling, D. M. & Donaldson, T. Nationwide survey for invasive wood-boring and bark beetles (Coleoptera) using traps baited with pheromones and kairomones. For. Ecol. Manag.228, 234–240 (2006).
Google Scholar 

3.
Hwayyiz, D. et al. Distribution of darkling beetles (Tenebrionidae) in Malaysia. J. Entomol. Zool Stud.4, 1113–1117 (2016).
Google Scholar 

4.
Reeve, J. D. Complex emergence patterns in a bark beetle predator. Agric. For. Entomol.2, 233–240 (2000).
Google Scholar 

5.
Kolibac, J. Trogossitidae. A review of the beetle family, with a catalogue and keys. Zookeys366, 1–194 (2013).
Google Scholar 

6.
Lawrence, J. & Slipinski, A. Australian Beetles. Volume 1: morphology, classification and keys (CSIRO, Collingwood, 2013).
Google Scholar 

7.
Gathu, R. K., Kirubi, D. T. & Gitonga, D. Composition and abundance of wood-boring beetles of Acacia xanthophloea and their associated natural enemies in Thika, Kenya. J. Asia Pac. Biodivers.11, 248–254 (2018).
Google Scholar 

8.
Raje, K. R., Abdel-Moniem, H. E., Farlee, L., Ferris, V. R. & Holland, J. D. Abundance of pest and benign Cerambycidae both increase with decreasing forest productivity. Agric. For. Entomol.14(2), 165–169 (2012).
Google Scholar 

9.
Evans, H.F., Moraal, L.G., Pajares, J.A. Biology, ecology and economic importance of Buprestidae and Cerambycidae. Bark and wood boring insects in living trees in Europe, a synthesis/Lieutier, F., Day, K.R., Battisti, A., Grégoire, J.C., Evans, H.F., Dordrecht etc. : Kluwer – ISBN 1402022409, 447–474 (2004).

10.
Ohsawa, M. Erratum to “Species richness of Cerambycidae in larch plantations and natural broad-leaved forests of the central mountainous region of Japan”. For. Ecol. Manag.189, 375–385 (2004).
Google Scholar 

11.
Kariyanna, B., Mohan, M. & Gupta, R. Biology, ecology and significance of longhorn beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). J. Entomol. Zool. Stud.5, 1207–2121 (2017).
Google Scholar 

12.
Monteys, V. S. & Tutusaus, G. T. A new alien invasive longhorn Beetle, Xylotrechus chinensis (Cerambycidae), is infesting mulberries in Catalonia (Spain). Insects9, e52 (2018).
Google Scholar 

13.
Hanks, L. M. Influence of the larval host plant on reproductive strategies of Cerambycid beetles. Annu. Rev. Entomol.44, 483–505 (1999).
PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

14.
Kaygin, A. T. Endüstriyel Odun Zararlıları [Industrial Wood Borers], Ankara (Science and Biology Publications Series, In Turkish, 2007).
Google Scholar 

15.
Mifsud, D. & Bily, S. Jewel beetles (Coleoptera, Buprestidae) from the Maltese Islands (Central Mediterranean). Central Mediterranean Naturalist3, 181–188 (2002).
Google Scholar 

16.
Canakcioglu, H., & Mol, T. Orman Entomolojisi: Zararlı ve Yararlı Böcekler. Istanbul, ISBN: 9754044872. [Forest Entomology: Harmful and Useful Insects ], Istanbul University Publication. Turkish. (1998)

17.
Hansen, L. S. & Jensen, K. M. V. Upper lethal temperature limits of the common furniture beetle Anobium punctatum (Coleoptera: Anobiidae). Int. Biodeter. Biodegr.37, 225–232 (1996).
Google Scholar 

18.
Kaygın, T. & Sade, E. Species of anobiidae family in Turkey and introduction of some important ones of these species. ZKÜ J. Bartın For. Faculty6(6), 141–152 (2004).
Google Scholar 

19.
Rose, A., Lindquist, O. & Syme, P. Insects of Eastern Spruces, Fir and Hemlock (Canadian Forest Service, Ottawa, ON, 1994).
Google Scholar 

20.
Hulcr, J., Black, A., Prior, K., Chen, C. Y. & Li, H. F. Studies of ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in their native ranges help predict invasion impact. Fla. Entomol.100, 257–261 (2017).
Google Scholar 

21.
Mulercikas, P., Tamutis, V. & Kazlauskaitė, S. Species composition and abundance of click-beetles (Coleoptera, Elateridae) in agrobiocenozes in Southern Lithuania. Pol. J. Environ. Stud.21, 425–433 (2012).
Google Scholar 

22.
Akbulut, S., Keten, A., Baysal, I. & Yuksel, B. The effect of log seasonality on the reproductive potential of Monochamus galloprovincialis Olivier (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) reared in black pine logs under laboratory conditions. Turk J Agric For31, 413–422 (2007).
Google Scholar 

23.
Komut, O., Imamoğlu, S. & Oztürk, A. The effective damage in forestry enterprises selling storage and precautions. III. National Black Sea Forestry Congress, Artvin, Turkey, 20–22 May, 270–278 (2010).

24.
Yalcin, M., Yuksel, B., Akcay, C. & Muhammet, C. Integrated pheromone trap system for collecting pests: insects collecting cages. Kahramanmaras Sutcu Imam Univ. J. Nat. Sci.19, 355–361 (2016).
Google Scholar 

25.
Acatay, A. Zararlı orman böcekleri teşhis anahtarı (The key to identifying harmful forest insects) (Istanbul University, Forest faculty publications. In Turkish, Istanbul, 1961).
Google Scholar 

26.
Freude, H., Harde, K.W. & Lohse, G.A. Die KäferMitteleuropas. Band 10, Goecke and Evers Verlag, Krefeld. German (1981).

27.
Freude, H., Harde, K.W & Lohse, G.A. Die KäferMitteleuropas. Band 11, Goecke and Evers Verlag. Krefeld, German (1983).

28.
Bevan, D. Forest Insects, Forest Commission Handbook.1. A guide to insects feeding on trees in Britain, 153p (1987).

29.
Borror, D. J., Triplehorn, C. A. & Johnson, N. F. An introduction to study of insects 6th edn. (Saunders College Publishing, California, 1989).
Google Scholar 

30.
Cherepanov, A. I. Cerambycidae of Northern Asia (Lieden, Brill, 1991).
Google Scholar 

31.
Bense, U. Longhorn beetles: Illustrated key to the Cerambycidae and Vesperidae of Europe (Margraf Verlag, Weikersheim, 1995).
Google Scholar 

32
Creffield, J. W. Wood-destroying insects: wood borers and termites (CSIRO Publishing, Clayton, 1996).
Google Scholar 

33.
Yu, Y. et al. A new longhorn beetle (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) from the Early Cretaceous Jehol Biota of Western Liaoning in China. Cretac. Res.52, 453–460 (2015).
Google Scholar 

34.
Moretti, M. & Barbalat, S. The effects of wildfires on wood-eating beetles in deciduous forests on the southern slope of the Swiss Alps. For. Ecol. Manag.187, 85–103 (2004).
Google Scholar 

35.
Farrell, B. D. et al. The evolution of agriculture in beetles (Curculionidae: Scolytinae and Platypodinae). Evolution55, 2011–2027 (2001).
PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

36.
Wood, D. L. The role of pheromones, kairomones, and allomones in the host selection and colonization behavior of bark beetles. Annu. Rev. Entomol.27, 411–446 (1982).
CAS  Google Scholar 

37.
Liljebland, E. Monograph of the family Mordellidae Coleoptera) of North America (North of Mexico University of Michigan Press, Michigan, 1945).
Google Scholar 

38.
Slipinski, S.A. Revision of the Australian Cerylonidae (Coleoptera: Cucujoidea). Annales, Zoologici, Polska Akademia Nauk, Instytut Zoologii, (1975).

39.
Nadeaua, P., Majka, C. G. & Moreaua, G. Short-term response of Coleopteran assemblages to thinning-induced differences in dead wood volumes. For. Ecol. Manag.336, 44–51 (2015).
Google Scholar 

40.
Ozdikmen, H. Longhorned beetles of Bolu province in Turkey (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Mun. Ent. Zool.6, 179–422 (2011).
Google Scholar 

41.
Baker, W. L. Eastern Forest Insects (USDA Forest. Service. Misc. Pub, USA, 1972).
Google Scholar 

42
Fettkother, R., Reddy, G. V., Noldt, U. & Dettner, K. Effect of host and larval frass volatiles on behavioural response of the old house borer, Hylotrupes bajulus (L.) (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae), in a wind tunnel bioassay. Chemoecology10, 1–10 (2000).
CAS  Google Scholar 

43.
Mori, K., Ebata, T. & Sakakibara, M. Synthesis of (2s, 3r, 7rs)-stegobinone [2,3-dihydro-2,3,5-trimethyl-6-(1-methyl-2- oxobutyl)-4h-pyran-4-one] and its (2r, 3s, 7rs)-isomer: The pheromone of the drugstore beetle. Tetrahedron37, 709–713 (1981).
CAS  Google Scholar 

44.
Williams, L.H. Changes in wood processing and use have influencedthe likelihood of beetle infestations in seasoned wood. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Report SO-28. (1980).

45.
Linsley, E. G. Ecology of cerambycidae. Annu Rev Entomol4, 99–138 (1959).
Google Scholar 

46.
Vives, E. Coleoptera, Cerambycidae Fauna Iberica, Museo Nacional de Ciencias naturales. CSIC, Madrid12, 1–715 (2000).
Google Scholar 

47.
Kuzminski, R., Labędzki, A. & Chrzanow, A. Occurrence of Ergates faber (Linnaeus 1761) (Coleoptera, Cerambycıdae) and a proposal for protective measures in managed forests to preserve the species. Acta Scientiarum Polonorum Silvarum Colendarum Ratio et Industria Lignaria13, 15–25 (2014).
Google Scholar 

48.
Cardenas, A. M. & Gallardo, P. The effect of temperature on the preimaginal development of the Jewel beetle, Coraebus florentinus (Coleoptera: Buprestidae). Eur J Entomol109, 21–28 (2012).
Google Scholar 

49.
Cardenas, A. M. & Gallardo, P. The effects of oviposition site on the development of the wood borer Coraebus florentinus (Coleoptera: Buprestidae). Eur J Entomol110, 135–144 (2013).
Google Scholar 

50.
Salle, A., Nageleisen, L. M. & Lieutier, F. Bark and wood boring insects involved in oak declines in Europe: Current knowledge and future prospects in a context of climate change. For. Ecol. Manag.328, 79–93 (2014).
Google Scholar  More

1.
Barrande, J. Système Silurien du Centre de la Bohème, p. 253. (Prague, Paris, 1852–1881).
2.
Hughes, N. C., Kříž, J., Macquaker, J. H. S. & Huff, W. D. The depositional environment and taphonomy of the Homerian Aulacopleura shales fossil assemblage near Loděnice, Czech Republic (Prague Basin, Perunican microcontinent). Bull. Geosci. 89, 219–238 (2014).
Google Scholar 

3.
Hughes, N. C., Hong, P. S., Hou, J. B. & Fusco, G. The development of the Silurian trilobite Aulacopleura koninckii reconstructed by applying Inferred growth and segmentation dynamics: A case study in Paleo-Evo-Devo. Front. Ecol. Evol. 5, 1–12 (2017).
Google Scholar 

4.
Moore, R. C., ed. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology [Part O—Arthropoda 1 (Trilobitomorpha)]. (Geol. Soc. America and Univ. Kansas Press, 1959).

5.
Fortey, R. A. & Owens, R. M. Evolutionary trends in invertebrates. Chapter 5. Trilobites. In Evolutionary Trends (ed. K. J. McNamara) 121–142 (Belhaven Press, London, 1990).

6.
Fusco, G., Hughes, N. C., Webster, M. & Minelli, A. Exploring developmental modes in a fossil arthropod: Growth and trunk segmentation of the trilobite Aulacopleura koninckii. Am. Nat. 163, 167–183 (2003).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

7.
Fusco, G., Hong, P. S. & Hughes, N. C. Axial growth gradients across the postprotaspid ontogeny of the Silurian trilobite Aulacopleura koninckii. Paleobiology 42, 426–438 (2016).
Google Scholar 

8.
Seilacher, A. Begriff und Bedeutung der Fossil-Lagerstätten. [Concept and significance of fossil-Lagerstätten]. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie (1970).

9.
Seilacher, A., Reif, W.-E. & Westphal, F. Sedimentological, ecological and temporal patterns of fossil Lagerstätten. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 311, 5–23 (1985).

10.
Cong, P.-Y., Ma, X.-Y., Hou, X.-G., Edgecombe, G. D. & Strausfeld, N. J. Brain structure resolves the segmental affinity of anomalocaridid appendages. Nature 513, 538–542 (2014).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

11.
Ma, X.-Y., Hou, X.-G., Edgecombe, G. D. & Strausfeld, N. J. Complex brain and optic lobes in an early Cambrian arthropod. Nature 490, 258–261 (2012).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

12.
Tanaka, G. et al. Mineralized rods and conessuggest colour vision in a 300 Myr-old fossil fish. Nat. Commun. 5, 5920 (2014).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

13.
Ma, X.-Y., Edgecombe, G. D., Hou, X.-G., Goral, T. & Strausfeld, N. J. Preservational pathways of corresponding brains of a Cambrian euarthropod. Curr. Biol. 25, 2969–2975 (2015).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

14.
Strausfeld, N. F., Ma, X.-Y. & Edgecombe, G. D. Fossils and the evolution of arthropod brains. Curr. Biol. 26, R989-1000 (2016).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

15.
Tanaka, G., Parker, A. R., Siveter, D. J., Maeda, H. & Furutani, M. An exceptionally well-preserved Eocene dolichopodid fly eye: Function and evolutionary significance. Proc. R. Soc. B 276, 1015–1019 (2009).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

16.
Schoenemann, B. & Clarkson, E. N. Discovery of some 400 million year-old sensory structures in the compound eyes of trilobites. Sci. Rep. 3, 1429 (2013).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

17.
Vannier, J., Schoenemann, B., Gillot, T., Charbonnier, S., & Clarkson, E.N.K. Exceptional preservation of eye structure in arthropod visual predators from the Middle Jurassic. Nat. Comm. 7, 1–9 (2016).

18.
Schoenemann, B., Pärnaste, H. & Clarkson, E. N. K. Structure and function of a compound eye, more than half a billion years old. PNAS 114, 13489–13494 (2017).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

19.
Schoenemann, B., Poschmann, M. & Clarkson, E. N. K. Insights into the 400 million-year-old eyes of giant sea scorpions (Eurypterida) suggest the structure of Palaeozoic compound eyes. Sci. Rep. 9, 1–10 (2019).
ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

20.
Bergström, J. Classification of olenellid trilobites and some Balto-Scandian species. Nor. Geol. Tidsskr. 53, 283–314 (1973).
Google Scholar 

21.
Nilsson, D. E. Optics and evolution of the compound eye. In Facets of Vision (eds. S. G. Stavenga & R. C. Hardie) 30–73 (Springer, Berlin, 1989).

22.
Nilsson, D. E. Eye evolution and its functional basis. Vis. Neurosci. 30, 5–20 (2013).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

23.
Strausfeld, N. J. et al. Arthropod eyes: The early Cambrian fossil record and divergent evolution of visual systems. Arthropod Struct. Dev. 45, 152–172 (2016).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

24.
Nilsson, D. E. Evolutionary links between apposition and superposition optics in crustacean eyes. Nature 302(5911), 818–821 (1983).
ADS  Google Scholar 

25.
Nilsson, D. E., Hallberg, E. & Elofsson, R. The ontogenetic development of refracting superposition eyes in crustaceans: Transformation of optical design. Tissue Cell 18, 509–519 (1986).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

26.
Cronin, T. W., Johnsen, S., Marshall, N. J. & Warrant, E. J. Visual Ecology. (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2014), pp. 405.

27.
Müller J. Zur vergleichenden Physiologie des Gesichtssinnes des Menschen und der Thiere. [Contributions to the comparative physiology of the sense of sight of humans and animals]. (Cnobloch, Leipzig, 1826).

28.
Exner, S. Die Physiologie der facettirten Augen von Krebsen und Insecten: eine Studie. [Physiology of the facetted eyes of crustaceans and insects]. (Franz Deuticke, Berlin, 1891), pp. 232.

29.
Gaten, E. Optics and phylogeny: Is there an insight? The evolution of superposition. Contrib. Zool. 67, 223–235 (1998).
Google Scholar 

30.
Towe, K. M. Trilobite eyes: Calcified lenses in vivo. Science 179, 1007–1009 (1973).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

31.
Lee, M. R., Torney, C. & Owen, A. W. Magnesium-rich intralensar structures in schizochroal trilobite eyes. Palaeontology 50, 1031–1037 (2007).
Google Scholar 

32.
Lee, M. R., Torney, C. & Owen, A. W. Biomineralisation in the Palaeozoic oceans: evidence for simultaneous crystallisation of high and low magnesium calcite by phacopine trilobites. Chem. Geol. 314, 33–44 (2012).
ADS  Google Scholar 

33.
Torney, C., Lee, M. R. & Owen, A. W. An electron backscatter diffraction study of Geesops: a broader view of trilobite vision? Adv. Trilobite Res. 389 (2008).

34.
Torney, C., Lee, M. R. & Owen, A. W. Microstructure and growth of the lenses of schizochroal trilobite eyes. Palaeontology 57, 783–799 (2914).

35.
Clarkson, E. N. & Levi-Setti, R. Trilobite eyes and the optics of Des Cartes and Huygens. Nature 254, 663 (1975).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

36.
Clarkson, E. N. K., Horváth, G. & Levi-Setti, R. The eyes of trilobites; the oldest preserved visual system. Arthropod Struct. Dev. 35, 247–259 (2006).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

37.
Legg, D. A., Sutton, M. D. & Edgecombe, G. D. Arthropod fossil data increase congruence of morphological and molecular phylogenies. Nat. Commun. 4, 2485 (2013).
ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

38.
Boudreaux, H. B. Arthropod Phylogeny, with Special Reference to Insects. (Wiley, New York, 1979).

39.
Scholtz, G. & Edgecombe, G. D. The evolution of arthropod heads: reconciling morphological, developmental and palaeontological evidence. Dev. Genes Evol. 216, 395–415 (2006).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

40.
Scholtz, G., Staude, A., & Dunlop, J. A. (2019). Trilobite compound eyes with crystalline cones and rhabdoms show mandibulate affinities. Nat. Commun. 10, 2503 (2019).

41.
Aizenberg, J., Tkachenko, A., Weiner, S., Addadi, L. & Hendler, G. Calcitic microlenses as part of the photoreceptor system in brittlestars. Nature 412, 819 (2001).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

42.
Speiser, D. I., Eernisse, D. J., & Johnsen, S. A chiton uses aragonite lenses to form images. Curr. Biol. 21, 665–670 (2911).

43.
Li, L. et al. Multifunctionality of chiton biomineralized armor with an integrated visual system. Science 350, 952–956 (2015).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

44.
Lindgren, J. et al. Fossil insect eyes shed light on trilobite optics and the arthropod pigment screen. Nature 573, 122–125 (2019).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

45.
Snyder, A. W. The acuity of compound eyes: Physical limitations and design. J. Comp. Physiol. A 116, 161–182 (1977).
Google Scholar 

46.
Snyder, A. W. Physics of vision in compound eyes. In Comparative physiology and evolution of vision in invertebrates (ed. H. J. Autrum) 225–313 (Springer, Berlin, 1979).

47.
Nilsson, D. E. & Odselius, R. A new mechanism for light-dark adaptation in the Artemia compound eye (Anostraca, Crustacea). J. Comp. Physiol. A 143, 389–399 (1981).
Google Scholar 

48.
Young, S. & Downing, A. C. The receptive fields of Daphnia ommatidia. J. Exp. Biol. 64, 185–202 (1976).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

49.
Sandeman, D. C. Regionalization in the eye of the crab Leptograpsus variegatus: Eye movements evoked by a target moving in different parts of the visual field. J. comp. Physiol. 123, 299–306 (1978).
Google Scholar 

50.
Zeil, J. & Hemmi, J. M. The visual ecology of fiddler crabs. J. Comp. Physiol. A 192, 1–25 (2006).
ADS  Google Scholar 

51.
Doughtie, D. G. & Rao, K. R. Ultrastructure of the eyes of the grass shrimp, Palaemonetes pugio. Cell Tissue Res. 238, 271–288 (1984).
Google Scholar 

52.
Welsh, B. L. The role of grass shrimp, Palaemonetes pugio, in a tidal marsh ecosystem. Ecology 56, 513–530 (1975).
Google Scholar 

53.
Ball, E. E., Kao, L. C., Stone, R. C. & Land, M. F. Eye structure and optics in the pelagic shrimp Acetes sibogae (Decapoda, Natantia, Sergestidae) in relation to light-dark adaptation and natural history. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 313, 251–270 (1986).

54.
Hanamura, Y. Occurrence of Acetes sibogae Hansen (Crustacea: Decapoda: Sergestidae) in Western Australia, with notes on the northern Australian population. Rec. West Aus. Mus. 19, 465–468 (1999).
Google Scholar 

55.
Schaffmeister, B. E., Hiddink, J. G. & Wolff, W. J. Habitat use of shrimps in the intertidal and shallow subtidal seagrass beds of the tropical Banc d’Arguin, Mauritania. J. Sea Res. 55, 230–243 (2006).
ADS  Google Scholar 

56.
Vogt, K. Ray path and reflection mechanisms in crayfish eyes. Z. Naturforsch. C 32, 466–468 (1977).
Google Scholar 

57.
Vogt, K. Die Spiegeloptik des Flusskrebsauges. [Mirror optics of crayfish]. J. Comp. Physiol. 135, 1–19 (1980).

58.
Land, M. E. Crustacea, in Photoreception and vision in invertebrates (ed. Ali, M. A.), 401–438, (Plenum, London, 1984).

59.
Meyer-Rochow, V. B. The crustacean eye: Dark/light adaptation, polarization sensitivity, flicker fusion frequency, and photoreceptor damage. Zool. Sci. 18, 1175–1198 (2001).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

60.
Land, M. F. The eyes of hyperiid amphipods: Relations of optical structure to depth. J. Comp. Physiol. A. 164, 751–762 (1989).
Google Scholar 

61.
Nilsson, D. E. & Nilsson, H. L. A crustacean compound eye adapted for low light intensities (Isopoda). J. Comp. Physiol. 143, 503–510 (1981).
Google Scholar 

62.
Fahrenbach, W. H. The morphology of the eyes of Limulus II. Ommatidia of the compound eye. Z. Zellforsch. 93, 451–483 (1969).

63.
Paulus H. F. The compound eyes of apterygote insects. In The Compound Eye and Vision of Insects. (ed. G. A. Horridge) 3–20 (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1975).

64.
Horridge, G. A. & Barnard, P. B. T. Movement of palisade in locust retinula cells when illuminated. J. Cell Sci. 3, 131–136 (1965).
Google Scholar 

65.
Snyder A.W. Optical properties of invertebrate physiology. In The Compound Eye and Vision of Insects. (ed. G. A. Horridge) 154–179 (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1975).

66.
Lindgren, J. et al. Molecular preservation of the pigment melanin in fossil melanosomes. Nat. Commun. 3, 824 (2012).
ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

67.
Vinther, J., Briggs, D. E. G., Prum, R. O. & Saranathan, V. The colour of fossil feathers. Biol. Lett. 4, 522–525 (2008).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

68.
Li, Q. et al. Plumage color patterns of an extinct dinosaur. Science 327, 1369–1372 (2010).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

69.
Vinther, J. A guide to the field of palaeo colour: Melanin and other pigments can fossilize: Reconstructing colour patterns from ancient organisms can give new insights to ecology and behavior. BioEssays 37, 643–656 (2015).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

70.
Lindgren, J. et al. Interpreting melanin-based coloration through deep time: A critical review. Proc. R. Soc. B. 282(1813), 20150614 (2015).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

71.
Kirschfeld, K. The visual system of Musca: Studies on optics, structure and function. In Information Processing in the Visual Systems of Anthropods (ed. Wehner R.) 61–74 (Springer, Berlin, 1972).

72.
Kirschfeld, K. & Franceschini, N. Optische Eigenschaften der Ommatidien im Komplexauge von Musca. [Optical properties of the ommatidia in the compound eyes of Musca]. Kybernetik 5, 47–52 (1968).

73.
Stavenga, D. G. The neural superposition eye and its optical demands. J. Comp. Physiol. 102, 297–304 (1975).
Google Scholar 

74.
McIntyre, P. & Caveney, S. Graded-index optics are matched to optical geometry in the superposition eyes of scarab beetles. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 311, 237–269 (1985).

75.
Nilsson, D. E. & Ro, A. I. Did neural pooling for night vision lead to the evolution of neural superposition eyes?. J. Comp. Physiol. A 175, 289–302 (1994).
Google Scholar 

76.
van Straelen, V. Description de crustaceés décapodes macroures nouveaux des terrains secondaires. Ann. Soc. roy. Zool. Belg. 53, 84–93 (1923).
Google Scholar 

77.
Land, M. F. & Nilsson, D.-E. Animal Eyes. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012).

78.
Menzi, U. Visual adaptation in nocturnal and diurnal ants. J. Comp. Physiol. A 160, 11–21 (1987).
Google Scholar 

79.
Greiner, B. Visual adaptations in the night active wasp Apoica pallens. J. Comp. Neurol. 495, 255–262 (2006).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

80.
Greiner, B., Ribi, W. A. & Warrant, E. J. Retinal and optical adaptations for nocturnal vision in the halictid bee Megalopta genalis. Cell Tissue Res. 316, 377–390 (2004).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

81.
Meyer-Rochow, V. B. & Walsh, S. The eyes of mesopelagic crustaceans: I. Gennadas sp. (Penaeidae). Cell Tissue Res. 184, 87–101 (1977).

82.
Meyer-Rochow, V. B. The eyes of mesopelagic crustaceans. Cell Tissue Res. 186, 337–349 (1978).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  More

1.
Rubatzky, V.E., C.F. Quiros, and P.W. Simon, Carrots and related vegetable Umbelliferae. 1999: CABI publishing.
2.
Ahmad, T. et al. Phytochemicals in Daucus carota and their health benefits. Foods8(9), 424 (2019).
PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

3.
Wells, H. F., Bond, J. K. & Thornsbury, S. Vegetables and pulses outlook. Change2015, 16 (2016).
Google Scholar 

4.
Carlson, A., Investigating retail price premiums for organic foods. Amber Waves, May, US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC, 2016

5.
Westerveld, S. M., McKeown, A. W. & McDonald, M. R. Seasonal nitrogen partitioning and nitrogen uptake of carrots as affected by nitrogen application in a mineral and an organic soil. HortScience41(5), 1332–1338 (2006).
CAS  Google Scholar 

6.
Thorup-Kristensen, K. Root growth and nitrogen uptake of carrot, early cabbage, onion and lettuce following a range of green manures. Soil Use Manag.22(1), 29–38 (2006).
Google Scholar 

7.
Dugdale, L. et al. Disease response of carrot and carrot somaclones to Alternaria dauci. Plant. Pathol.49(1), 57–67 (2000).
CAS  Google Scholar 

8.
Parsons, J. et al. Meloidogyne incognita nematode resistance QTL in carrot. Mol. Breed.35(5), 114 (2015).
Google Scholar 

9.
Louarn, S. et al. Proteomic changes and endophytic micromycota during storage of organically and conventionally grown carrots. Postharvest Biol. Technol.76, 26–33 (2013).
CAS  Google Scholar 

10.
Strobel, G. The emergence of endophytic microbes and their biological promise. J. Fungi4(2), 57 (2018).
Google Scholar 

11.
Mandyam, K. & Jumpponen, A. Seeking the elusive function of the root-colonising dark septate endophytic fungi. Stud. Mycol.53, 173–189 (2005).
Google Scholar 

12.
Johnston-Monje, D. & Raizada, M. N. Conservation and diversity of seed associated endophytes in Zea across boundaries of evolution, ethnography and ecology. PLoS ONE6(6), e20396 (2011).
ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

13.
Newsham, K. K. A meta-analysis of plant responses to dark septate root endophytes. New Phytol.190(3), 783–793 (2011).
PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

14.
Hardoim, P. R. et al. The hidden world within plants: ecological and evolutionary considerations for defining functioning of microbial endophytes. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev.79(3), 293–320 (2015).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

15.
Lugtenberg, B. J., Caradus, J. R. & Johnson, L. J. Fungal endophytes for sustainable crop production. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol.92, 12 (2016).
Google Scholar 

16.
Kusari, S., Hertweck, C. & Spiteller, M. Chemical ecology of endophytic fungi: Origins of secondary metabolites. Chem. Biol.19(7), 792–798 (2012).
PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

17.
Huang, Y.-H. Comparison of rhizosphere and endophytic microbial communities of Chinese leek through high-throughput 16S rRNA gene Illumina sequencing. J. Integr. Agric.17(2), 359–367 (2018).
CAS  Google Scholar 

18.
Rodríguez, P. et al. Are endophytic microorganisms involved in the stereoselective reduction of ketones by Daucus carota root?. J. Mol. Catal. B Enzym.49(1–4), 8–11 (2007).
Google Scholar 

19.
Rodriguez, R. et al. Fungal endophytes: diversity and functional roles. New Phytol.182(2), 314–330 (2009).
PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

20.
Gómez-Lama Cabanás, C. et al. The biocontrol endophytic bacterium Pseudomonas fluorescens PICF7 induces systemic defense responses in aerial tissues upon colonization of olive roots. Front. Microbiol.5, 427 (2014).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

21.
Busby, P. E., Ridout, M. & Newcombe, G. Fungal endophytes: Modifiers of plant disease. Plant Mol. Biol.90(6), 645–655 (2016).
PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

22.
Brader, G. et al. Ecology and genomic insights into plant-pathogenic and plant-nonpathogenic endophytes. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol.55, 61–83 (2017).
PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

23.
Schouten, A. Mechanisms involved in nematode control by endophytic fungi. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol.54, 121–142 (2016).
PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

24.
Latz, M. A. et al. Endophytic fungi as biocontrol agents: elucidating mechanisms in disease suppression. Plant Ecol. Divers.11(5–6), 555–567 (2018).
Google Scholar 

25.
Rabiey, M., et al., Endophytes vs tree pathogens and pests: can they be used as biological control agents to improve tree health? Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2019: p. 1–19.

26.
Cook, R. J. Advances in plant health management in the twentieth century. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol.38(1), 95–116 (2000).
PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

27.
Hallmann, J. et al. Bacterial endophytes in agricultural crops. Can. J. Microbiol.43(10), 895–914 (1997).
CAS  Google Scholar 

28.
Busby, P. E., Ridout, M. & Newcombe, G. Fungal endophytes: modifiers of plant disease. Plant Mol. Biol.90(6), 645–655 (2016).
PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

29.
Card, S. et al. Deciphering endophyte behaviour: the link between endophyte biology and efficacious biological control agents. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol.92, 8 (2016).
Google Scholar 

30.
Card, S. D. et al. Beneficial endophytic microorganisms of Brassica–A review. Biol. Control90, 102–112 (2015).
Google Scholar 

31.
May, G., Here come the commensals. Am. J. Bot. 2016. 103.

32.
Hoagland, L. et al. Foodborne pathogens in horticultural production systems: Ecology and mitigation. Sci. Hortic.236, 192–206 (2018).
Google Scholar 

33.
Knief, C. et al. Metaproteogenomic analysis of microbial communities in the phyllosphere and rhizosphere of rice. ISME J.6(7), 1378 (2012).
PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

34.
Liu, H. et al. Inner plant values: Diversity, colonization and benefits from endophytic bacteria. Front. Microbiol.8, 2552 (2017).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

35.
Gottel, N. R. et al. Distinct microbial communities within the endosphere and rhizosphere of Populus deltoides roots across contrasting soil types. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.77(17), 5934–5944 (2011).
PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

36.
Lundberg, D. S. et al. Defining the core Arabidopsis thaliana root microbiome. Nature488(7409), 86 (2012).
ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

37.
Philippot, L. et al. Going back to the roots: the microbial ecology of the rhizosphere. Nat. Rev. Microbiol.11(11), 789–799 (2013).
PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

38.
Oono, R. et al. Genetic variation in horizontally transmitted fungal endophytes of pine needles reveals population structure in cryptic species. Am. J. Bot.101(8), 1362–1374 (2014).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

39.
Abdelrazek, S., Carrot Endophytes: Diversity, Ecology and Function. 2019, Purdue University Graduate School.

40.
Hoagland, L. et al. Key traits and promising germplasm for an organic participatory tomato breeding program in the US midwest. HortScience50(9), 1301–1308 (2015).
Google Scholar 

41.
Yao, H. & Wu, F. Soil microbial community structure in cucumber rhizosphere of different resistance cultivars to fusarium wilt. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol.72(3), 456–463 (2010).
PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

42.
Kwak, Y.-S. et al. Saccharomyces cerevisiae genome-wide mutant screen for sensitivity to 2, 4-diacetylphloroglucinol, an antibiotic produced by Pseudomonas fluorescens. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.77(5), 1770–1776 (2011).
PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

43.
Upreti, R. & Thomas, P. Root-associated bacterial endophytes from Ralstonia solanacearum resistant and susceptible tomato cultivars and their pathogen antagonistic effects. Front. Microbiol.6, 255 (2015).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

44.
Martin, R. et al. Unexpected diversity of basidiomycetous endophytes in sapwood and leaves of Hevea. Mycologia107(2), 284–297 (2015).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

45.
Bulgarelli, D. et al. Revealing structure and assembly cues for Arabidopsis root-inhabiting bacterial microbiota. Nature488(7409), 91 (2012).
ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

46.
da Silva, D. A. F. et al. Endophytic microbial community in two transgenic maize genotypes and in their near-isogenic non-transgenic maize genotype. BMC Microbiol.14(1), 332 (2014).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

47.
Correa-Galeote, D., Bedmar, E. J. & Arone, G. J. Maize endophytic bacterial diversity as affected by soil cultivation history. Front. Microbiol.9, 484 (2018).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

48.
Abdelrazek, S. et al. Crop management system and carrot genotype affect endophyte composition and Alternaria dauci suppression. PLoS ONE15(6), e0233783 (2020).
PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

49.
Horsfall, J. G. An improved grading system for measuring plant diseases. Phytopathology35, 655 (1945).
Google Scholar 

50.
Brown, J.R., Recommended chemical soil test procedures for the North Central Region. 1998: Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Missouri-Columbia

51.
Green, V. S., Stott, D. E. & Diack, M. Assay for fluorescein diacetate hydrolytic activity: Optimization for soil samples. Soil Biol. Biochem.38(4), 693–701 (2006).
CAS  Google Scholar 

52.
Weil, R. R. et al. Estimating active carbon for soil quality assessment: A simplified method for laboratory and field use. Am. J. Alternat. Agric.18(1), 3–17 (2003).
Google Scholar 

53.
Buyer, J. S. & Sasser, M. High throughput phospholipid fatty acid analysis of soils. Appl. Soil. Ecol.61, 127–130 (2012).
Google Scholar 

54.
Institute, S., JMP: Statistics and Graphics Guide. 2000: Sas Inst.

55.
Surette, M. A. et al. Bacterial endophytes in processing carrots (Daucus carota L. var. sativus): Their localization, population density, biodiversity and their effects on plant growth. Plant Soil253(2), 381–390 (2003).
CAS  Google Scholar 

56.
Corry, J.E., G.D. Curtis, and R.M. Baird, Handbook of culture media for food and water microbiology. 2011: Royal Society of Chemistry.

57.
Reasoner, D. J. & Geldreich, E. A new medium for the enumeration and subculture of bacteria from potable water. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.49(1), 1–7 (1985).
PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

58.
Gardes, M. & Bruns, T. D. ITS primers with enhanced specificity for basidiomycetes-application to the identification of mycorrhizae and rusts. Mol. Ecol.2(2), 113–118 (1993).
PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

59.
White, T. J. et al. Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics. PCR Protoc18(1), 315–322 (1990).
Google Scholar 

60.
Caporaso, J. G. et al. QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat. Methods7(5), 335 (2010).
PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

61.
Edgar, R. C. Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics26(19), 2460–2461 (2010).
PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

62.
Tikhonov, M., Leach, R. W. & Wingreen, N. S. Interpreting 16S metagenomic data without clustering to achieve sub-OTU resolution. ISME J9(1), 68–80 (2015).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

63.
Faith, D. P. Conservation evaluation and phylogenetic diversity. Biol. Cons.61(1), 1–10 (1992).
MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

64.
Chao, A., Nonparametric estimation of the number of classes in a population. Scandinavian Journal of statistics, 265–270 (1984).

65.
Faith, D. P. & Baker, A. M. Phylogenetic diversity (PD) and biodiversity conservation: Some bioinformatics challenges. Evol. Bioinform.2, 117693430600200000 (2006).
Google Scholar 

66.
Vázquez-Baeza, Y. et al. EMPeror: A tool for visualizing high-throughput microbial community data. Gigascience2(1), 16 (2013).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

67.
Anderson, M. J. A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecol.26(1), 32–46 (2001).
Google Scholar 

68.
Roberts, D.W. and M.D.W. Roberts, Package ‘labdsv’. Ordination and Multivariate, 2016.

69.
Hill, M., R. Bunce, and M. Shaw, Indicator species analysis, a divisive polythetic method of classification, and its application to a survey of native pinewoods in Scotland. The Journal of Ecology, 597–613 (1975).

70.
Du Toit, L. et al. First report of bacterial blight of carrot in Indiana caused by Xanthomonas hortorum pv. carotae. Plant Dis.98(5), 685–685 (2014).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

71.
Arnold, A. E. & Herre, E. A. Canopy cover and leaf age affect colonization by tropical fungal endophytes: Ecological pattern and process in Theobroma cacao (Malvaceae). Mycologia95(3), 388–398 (2003).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

72.
Gazis, R. & Chaverri, P. Diversity of fungal endophytes in leaves and stems of wild rubber trees (Hevea brasiliensis) in Peru. Fungal Ecol.3(3), 240–254 (2010).
Google Scholar 

73.
Rivera-Orduña, F. N. et al. Diversity of endophytic fungi of Taxus globosa (Mexican yew). Fungal Divers.47(1), 65–74 (2011).
Google Scholar 

74.
Vieira, M. L. et al. Diversity and antimicrobial activities of the fungal endophyte community associated with the traditional Brazilian medicinal plant Solanum cernuum Vell. (Solanaceae). Can. J. Microbiol.58(1), 54–66 (2011).
MathSciNet  PubMed  Google Scholar 

75.
Singh, D. K. et al. Diversity of endophytic mycobiota of tropical tree Tectona grandis Linn. f.: Spatiotemporal and tissue type effects. Sci. Rep.7, 2 (2017).
ADS  Google Scholar 

76.
Arnold, A. E. et al. Fungal endophytes limit pathogen damage in a tropical tree. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.100(26), 15649–15654 (2003).
ADS  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

77.
Pel, M. J. & Pieterse, C. M. Microbial recognition and evasion of host immunity. J. Exp. Bot.64(5), 1237–1248 (2013).
PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

78.
Arnold, A. et al. Hyperdiverse fungal endophytes and endolichenic fungi elucidate the evolution of major ecological modes in the Ascomycota. Syst. Biol.58, 283–297 (2009).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

79.
Li, H.-Y. et al. Endophytes and their role in phytoremediation. Fungal Divers.54(1), 11–18 (2012).
Google Scholar 

80.
Wang, F. et al. Arbuscular mycorrhizae alleviate negative effects of zinc oxide nanoparticle and zinc accumulation in maize plants–a soil microcosm experiment. Chemosphere147, 88–97 (2016).
ADS  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

81.
Nilsson, R. H. et al. The ITS region as a target for characterization of fungal communities using emerging sequencing technologies. FEMS Microbiol. Lett.296(1), 97–101 (2009).
PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

82.
Motooka, D. et al. Fungal ITS1 deep-sequencing strategies to reconstruct the composition of a 26-species community and evaluation of the gut mycobiota of healthy Japanese individuals. Front. Microbiol.8, 238 (2017).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

83.
Dumas-Gaudot, E. et al. A technical trick for studying proteomics in parallel to transcriptomics in symbiotic root-fungus interactions. Proteomics4(2), 451–453 (2004).
PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

84.
Kõljalg, U. et al. Towards a unified paradigm for sequence-based identification of fungi. Mol. Ecol.22(21), 5271–5277 (2013).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

85.
Lemanceau, P. et al. Let the core microbiota be functional. Trends Plant Sci.22(7), 583–595 (2017).
PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

86.
Shade, A. & Handelsman, J. Beyond the Venn diagram: The hunt for a core microbiome. Environ. Microbiol.14(1), 4–12 (2012).
PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

87.
Pancher, M., et al., Fungal endophytic communities in grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.) respond to crop management. Applied and environmental microbiology, 2012: p. AEM. 07655–11.

88.
Xia, Y. et al. Characterization of culturable bacterial endophytes and their capacity to promote plant growth from plants grown using organic or conventional practices. Front. Plant Sci.6, 490 (2015).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

89.
Reeve, J. et al. Organic farming, soil health, and food quality: considering possible links. In Advances in Agronomy 319–367 (Elsevier, Amserdam, 2016).
Google Scholar 

90.
Hoagland, L. et al. Orchard floor management effects on nitrogen fertility and soil biological activity in a newly established organic apple orchard. Biol. Fertil. Soils45(1), 11 (2008).
Google Scholar 

91.
Rudisill, M. A. et al. Sustaining soil quality in intensively managed high tunnel vegetable production systems: A role for green manures and chicken litter. HortScience50(3), 461–468 (2015).
Google Scholar 

92.
Seghers, D. et al. Impact of agricultural practices on the Zea mays L. endophytic community. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.70(3), 1475–1482 (2004).
PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

93.
Chen, S. & Reese, C. D. Parasitism of the nematode Heterodera glycines by the fungus Hirsutella rhossiliensis as influenced by crop sequence. J. Nematol.31(4), 437 (1999).
PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

94.
D’Amico, M., Frisullo, S. & Cirulli, M. Endophytic fungi occurring in fennel, lettuce, chicory, and celery—commercial crops in southern Italy. Mycol. Res.112(1), 100–107 (2008).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

95.
González-Teuber, M., Vilo, C. & Bascuñán-Godoy, L. Molecular characterization of endophytic fungi associated with the roots of Chenopodium quinoa inhabiting the Atacama Desert, Chile. Genom. Data11, 109–112 (2017).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

96.
Riches, M.R.M.J.V.K., Muck Vegetable Cultivar Trial& Research Report2016. 2016.

97.
Liu, B. et al. Effect of organic, sustainable, and conventional management strategies in grower fields on soil physical, chemical, and biological factors and the incidence of Southern blight. Appl. Soil. Ecol.37(3), 202–214 (2007).
Google Scholar 

98.
van Bruggen, A. H. et al. Soil health indicators and Fusarium wilt suppression in organically and conventionally managed greenhouse soils. Appl. Soil. Ecol.86, 192–201 (2015).
Google Scholar 

99.
Cai, X. et al. Long-term organic farming manipulated rhizospheric microbiome and Bacillus antagonism against Pepper blight (Phytophthora capsici). Front. Microbiol.10, 342 (2019).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

100.
Liu, H. et al. Dark septate endophytes colonizing the roots of ‘non-mycorrhizal’plants in a mine tailing pond and in a relatively undisturbed environment, Southwest China. J. Plant Interact.12(1), 264–271 (2017).
CAS  Google Scholar 

101.
Bonito, G. et al. Plant host and soil origin influence fungal and bacterial assemblages in the roots of woody plants. Mol. Ecol.23(13), 3356–3370 (2014).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

102.
Chen, Y. H., Gols, R. & Benrey, B. Crop domestication and its impact on naturally selected trophic interactions. Annu. Rev. Entomol.60, 35–58 (2015).
PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

103.
Williamson, V.M., P.A. Roberts, and R. Perry, 13. Mechanisms and genetics of resistance. Root-knot nematodes, 2009. 301.

104.
Davis, R. M. Carrot diseases and their management. In Diseases of Fruits and Vegetables 397–439 (Springer, Berlin, 2004).
Google Scholar 

105.
Farrokhi-Nejad, R., Cromey, M. G. & Moosawi-Jorf, S. A. Determination of the anastomosis grouping and virulence of Rhizoctonia spp. associated with potato tubers grown in Lincoln, New Zealand. Pak. J. Biol. Sci.10(21), 3786–3793 (2007).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

106.
Durán-López, M. et al. The micorryzal fungi Ceratobasidium sp. and Sebacina vermifera promote seed germination and seedling development of the terrestrial orchid Epidendrum secundum Jacq. South Afr. J. Bot.125, 54–61 (2019).
Google Scholar 

107.
Mosquera-Espinosa, A. T. et al. The double life of Ceratobasidium: orchid mycorrhizal fungi and their potential for biocontrol of Rhizoctonia solani sheath blight of rice. Mycologia105(1), 141–150 (2013).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

108.
Vanhove, W., Vanhoudt, N. & Van Damme, P. Biocontrol of vascular streak dieback (Ceratobasidium theobromae) on cacao (Theobroma cacao) through induced systemic resistance and direct antagonism. Biocontrol Sci. Tech.26(4), 492–503 (2016).
Google Scholar 

109.
Taufik, M., et al. Evaluating the ability of endophyte fungus to tontrol VSD diseases in cocoa seeding. in IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 2019. IOP Publishing.

110.
du Toit, L. & Derie, M. First report of Cladosporium leaf spot of spinach caused by Cladosporium variabile in the winter spinach production region of California and Arizona. Plant Dis.96(7), 1071–1071 (2012).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

111.
Hamayun, M. et al. Gibberellin production by pure cultures of a new strain of Aspergillus fumigatus. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol.25(10), 1785–1792 (2009).
CAS  Google Scholar 

112.
Nesha, R. & Siddiqui, Z. A. Effects of Paecilomyces lilacinus and Aspergillus niger alone and in combination on the growth, chlorophyll contents and soft rot disease complex of carrot. Sci. Hortic.218, 258–264 (2017).
Google Scholar 

113.
Wang, F. et al. Antimicrobial potentials of endophytic fungi residing in Quercus variabilis and brefeldin A obtained from Cladosporium sp. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol.23(1), 79–83 (2007).
Google Scholar 

114.
Li, X.-J. et al. Metabolites from Aspergillus fumigatus, an endophytic fungus associated with Melia azedarach, and their antifungal, antifeedant, and toxic activities. J. Agric. Food Chem60(13), 3424–3431 (2012).
PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

115.
de Vries, R. P., de Lange, E. S. & Stalpers, J. A. Control and possible applications of a novel carrot-spoilage basidiomycete, Fibulorhizoctoniaápsychrophila. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek93(4), 407–413 (2008).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

116.
Iturralde Martinez, J. F. et al. Multiplex end-point PCR for the detection of three species of ophiosphaerella causing spring dead spot of bermudagrass. Plant Dis.103(8), 2010–2014 (2019).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

117.
Gao, L., et al., Three new species of Cyphellophora (Chaetothyriales) associated with sooty blotch and flyspeck. PLoS One, 2015. 10(9).

118.
Spagnoletti, F. et al. Dark septate endophytes present different potential to solubilize calcium, iron and aluminum phosphates. Appl. Soil. Ecol.111, 25–32 (2017).
Google Scholar 

119.
Vayssier-Taussat, M. et al. Shifting the paradigm from pathogens to pathobiome: New concepts in the light of meta-omics. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol.4, 29 (2014).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

120.
Lee, K., Pan, J. J. & May, G. Endophytic Fusarium verticillioides reduces disease severity caused by Ustilago maydis on maize. FEMS Microbiol. Lett.299(1), 31–37 (2009).
PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

121.
Aimé, S. et al. The endophytic strain Fusarium oxysporum Fo47: a good candidate for priming the defense responses in tomato roots. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact.26(8), 918–926 (2013).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

122.
CaféFilho, A., Reifschneider, F. & Tateishi, N. T. Pathogenicity of Colletotrichum gloeosporioides to carrot. Int. J. Pest Manag.32(4), 274–276 (1986).
Google Scholar 

123.
Redman, R. S. et al. Biochemical analysis of plant protection afforded by a nonpathogenic endophytic mutant of Colletotrichum magna. Plant Physiol.119(2), 795–804 (1999).
PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

124.
Lu, H. et al. New bioactive metabolites produced by Colletotrichum sp., an endophytic fungus in Artemisia annua. Plant Sci.151(1), 67–73 (2000).
CAS  Google Scholar 

125.
Hiruma, K. et al. Root endophyte Colletotrichum tofieldiae confers plant fitness benefits that are phosphate status dependent. Cell165(2), 464–474 (2016).
PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar  More