High animal and plant richness in tropical rainforest communities has long intrigued naturalists. It is unknown if similar hyperdiversity patterns are reflected at the microbial scale with unicellular eukaryotes (protists). Here we show, using environmental metabarcoding of soil samples and a phylogeny-aware cleaning step, that protist communities in Neotropical rainforests are hyperdiverse and dominated by the parasitic Apicomplexa, which infect arthropods and other animals. These host-specific parasites potentially contribute to the high animal diversity in the forests by reducing population growth in a density-dependent manner. By contrast, too few operational taxonomic units (OTUs) of Oomycota were found to broadly drive high tropical tree diversity in a host-specific manner under the Janzen-Connell model. Extremely high OTU diversity and high heterogeneity between samples within the same forests suggest that protists, not arthropods, are the most diverse eukaryotes in tropical rainforests. Our data show that protists play a large role in tropical terrestrial ecosystems long viewed as being dominated by macroorganisms.S ince the works of early naturalists such as von Humboldt and Bonpland 1 , we have known that animal and plant communities in tropical rainforests are exceedingly species rich. For example, one hectare can contain more than 400 tree species 2 and one tree can harbour more than 40 ant species 3 . This hyperdiversity of trees has been partially explained by the Janzen-Connell model 4,5 , which hypothesizes that host-specific predators and parasites reduce plant population growth in a density-dependent manner 6,7 . Sampling up in the tree canopies and below on the ground has further led to the view that arthropods are the most diverse eukaryotes in tropical rainforests 8,9 .The focus on eukaryotic macroorganisms in these studies is primarily because they are familiar and readily observable to us. We do not know whether the less familiar and less readily observable protists-microbial eukaryotes that are not animals, plants or fungi 10 -inhabiting these same ecosystems exhibit similar diversity patterns. To evaluate if macroorganismic diversity patterns are reflected at the microbial scale with protists, we conducted an environmental DNA metabarcoding study by sampling soils in 279 locations in a variety of lowland Neotropical forest types in La Selva Biological Station, Costa Rica, Barro Colorado Island, Panama and Tiputini Biodiversity Station, Ecuador. This metabarcoding approach has the power to uncover known and new taxa on a massive scale 11 . By amplifying DNA extracted from the soils with broadly targeted primers for the V4 region of 18S rRNA and sequencing it using the Illumina MiSeq platform, we were able to detect most eukaryotic lineages, and assess the diversity and relative dominance of free-living and parasitic lineages.

Protists include all eukaryotes except plants, fungi and animals. They are an essential, yet often forgotten, component of the soil microbiome. Method developments have now furthered our understanding of the real taxonomic and functional diversity of soil protists. They occupy key roles in microbial foodwebs as consumers of bacteria, fungi and other small eukaryotes. As parasites of plants, animals and even of larger protists, they regulate populations and shape communities. Pathogenic forms play a major role in public health issues as human parasites, or act as agricultural pests. Predatory soil protists release nutrients enhancing plant growth. Soil protists are of key importance for our understanding of eukaryotic evolution and microbial biogeography. Soil protists are also useful in applied research as bioindicators of soil quality, as models in ecotoxicology and as potential biofertilizers and biocontrol agents. In this review, we provide an overview of the enormous morphological, taxonomical and functional diversity of soil protists, and discuss current challenges and opportunities in soil protistology. Research in soil biology would clearly benefit from incorporating more protistology alongside the study of bacteria, fungi and animals.

No abstract

Protists are the most diverse eukaryotes. These microbes are keystone organisms of soil ecosystems and regulate essential processes of soil fertility such as nutrient cycling and plant growth. Despite this, protists have received little scientific attention, especially compared to bacteria, fungi and nematodes in soil studies. Recent methodological advances, particularly in molecular biology techniques, have made the study of soil protists more accessible, and have created a resurgence of interest in soil protistology. This ongoing revolution now enables comprehensive investigations of the structure and functioning of soil protist communities, paving the way to a new era in soil biology. Instead of providing an exhaustive review, we provide a synthesis of research gaps that should be prioritized in future studies of soil protistology to guide this rapidly developing research area. Based on a synthesis of expert opinion we propose 30 key questions covering a broad range of topics including evolution, phylogenetics, functional ecology, macroecology, paleoecology, and methodologies. These questions highlight a diversity of topics that will establish soil protistology as a hub discipline connecting different fundamental and applied fields such as ecology, biogeography, evolution, plant-microbe interactions, agronomy, and conservation biology. We are convinced that soil protistology has the potential to be one of the most exciting frontiers in biology

On February 4, 2008, Admiral Paul Sullivan, Commander of the Naval Sea Systems Command, sent out a letter entitled: Ship Design and Analysis Tool Goals. The purpose of the widely distributed memorandum was to state the requirements and high‐level capability goals for NAVSEA design synthesis and analysis tools. In this memo, Admiral Sullivan expressed the need for evolving models and analysis tools to be compatible with, among other things, set‐based design (SBD). Admiral Sullivan's memo was a major step toward improving ship design programs with new, more powerful analytical support tools but many have asked, “What is Set‐Based Design and how does it relate to Naval Ship Design?” SBD is a complex design method that requires a shift in how one thinks about and manages design. The SBD paradigm can replace point‐based design construction with design discovery; it allows more of the design effort to proceed concurrently and defers detailed specifications until trade‐offs are more fully understood. This paper describes the principles of SBD citing improvements SBD in design practice that have set the stage for SBD, and relating these principles to current Navy ship design issues.

No abstract

The community composition of any group of organisms should theoretically be determined by a combination of assembly processes including resource partitioning, competition, environmental filtering, and phylogenetic legacy. Environmental DNA studies have revealed a huge diversity of protists in all environments, raising questions about the ecological significance of such diversity and the degree to which they obey to the same rules as macroscopic organisms. The fast-growing cultivable protist species on which hypotheses are usually experimentally tested represent only a minority of the protist diversity. Addressing these questions for the lesser known majority can only be inferred through observational studies. We conducted an environmental DNA survey of the genus Nebela, a group of closely related testate (shelled) amoeba species, in different habitats within Sphagnum-dominated peatlands. Identification based on the mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase 1 gene, allowed species-level resolution as well as phylogenetic reconstruction. Community composition varied strongly across habitats and associated environmental gradients. Species showed little overlap in their realized niche, suggesting resource partitioning, and a strong influence of environmental filtering driving community composition. Furthermore, phylogenetic clustering was observed in the most nitrogen-poor samples, supporting phylogenetic inheritance of adaptations in the group of N. guttata. This study showed that the studied free-living unicellular eukaryotes follow to community assembly rules similar to those known to determine plant and animal communities; the same may be true for much of the huge functional and taxonomic diversity of protists.

Aim Trends in spatial patterns of diversity in macroscopic organisms can be well predicted from correlative models, using topo‐climatic variables for plants and animals allowing inference over large scales. By contrast, diversity in soil microorganisms is generally considered as mostly driven by edaphic variables and, therefore, difficult to extrapolate on a large spatial scale based on predictive models. Here, we compared the power of topo‐climatic versus edaphic variables for predicting the diversity of various soil protist groups at the regional scale. Location Swiss western Alps. Taxa Full protist community and nine clades belonging respectively to three functional groups: parasites (Apicomplexa, Peronosporomycetes and Phytomyxea), phagotrophs (Sarcomonadea, Tubulinea and Spirotrichea) and phototrophs (Chlorophyta, Trebouxiophyceae and Diatomeae). Methods We extracted soil DNA from 178 sites along a wide range of elevations with a random‐stratified sampling design. We defined protist Operational Taxonomic Units assemblages by metabarcoding of the V4 region of the rRNA small subunit gene. We assessed and modelled the diversity (Shannon index) patterns of all above‐mentioned taxonomic groups based on topo‐climatic (topography, slope southness, slope steepness and average summer temperature) and edaphic (soil temperature, relative humidity, pH, electroconductivity, phosphorus percentage, carbon/nitrogen, loss on ignition and shale percentage) variables in Generalized Additive Models (GAM). Results The respective significance of topo‐climatic and edaphic variables varied among taxonomic and—to a certain extent—functional groups: while many variables explained significantly the diversity of the three phototrophs this was less the case for the three parasites. Topo‐climatic variables had a better predictive power than edaphic variables, yet predictive power varied among taxonomic groups. Main conclusions Topo‐climatic variables (particularly slope steepness and summer temperature if we consider their significance in the GAMs) were, on average, better predictors of protist diversity at the landscape scale than edaphic variables. However, the predictive power of these variables on diversity differed considerably among taxonomic groups; such relationships may be due to direct and/or indirect (e.g. biotic) influences (like with parasitic taxa, where low predictive power is most likely explained by the absence of information on the hosts’ distribution). Future prospects include using such spatial models to predict hotspots of diversity and disease outbreaks.