Philippa Kaur

Lerato Shikwambana from the South African National Space Agency and the University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa, and colleagues also from South Africa compared the wildfire emissions of a strong El Niño event in 2015–2016 and a pronounced La Niña event in 2010–2011. They find that both a strong El Niño and La Niña event can increase emissions from wildfires compared with average years, but they affect different regions, with the effect of La Niña reaching farther south than El Niño. Overall, emissions are stronger during the El Niño phase, mainly driven by higher air temperatures. ENSO variability is expected to increase with future warming, which would also make strong El Niño events more likely. Therefore, these findings indicate that the exposure to wildfire air pollution could grow in southern Africa. More

Allsop, K. A. & Miller, J. B. Honey revisited: A reappraisal of honey in pre-industrial diets. Br. J. Nutr. 75, 513–520 (1996).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Dams, M. & Dams, L. Spanish rock art depicting honey gathering during the Mesolithic. Nature 268, 228–230 (1977).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Bradbear, N. Bees and their role in forest livelihoods: A guide to the services provided by bees and the sustainable harvesting, processing and marketing of their products. Non-Wood Forests Products Series, Vol. 19 (FAO, Rome, 2009).
Google Scholar 
Crane, E. The World History of Beekeeping and Honey Hunting (Routledge, 1999).Book 

Google Scholar 
Kritsky, G. Beekeeping from Antiquity through the middle ages. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 62, 249–264 (2017).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Grüter, C. Stingless Bees: Their Behaviour, Ecology and Evolution (Springer International Publishing, 2020).Book 

Google Scholar 
Weaver, N. & Weaver, E. C. Beekeeping with the stingless bee Melipona beecheii, by the Yucatecan Maya. Bee World 62, 7–19 (1981).Article 

Google Scholar 
Quezada-Euán, J. J. G. Stingless Bees of Mexico: The Biology, Management and Conservation of an Ancient Heritage (Springer, 2018).Book 

Google Scholar 
Medellín Morales, S. Meliponicultura Maya: Perspectivas para su sostenibilidad. Reporte de sostenibilidad Maya no. 2; 67 pp. (1991).González-Acereto, J. A. La meliponicultura yucateca en crisis: Una actividad indígena a punto de desaparecer, 1er Seminario Nacional sobre Abejas sin Aguijón. Boca Río Ver México 9–12 (1999).Russell, P. The History of Mexico: From Pre-conquest to Present (Routledge, 2010).
Google Scholar 
Quezada-Euan, J. J., May-Itzá, W. & González-Acereto, J. Meliponiculture in Mexico: Problems and perspective for development. Bee World 82, 160–167 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Freitas, B. M. et al. Diversity, threats and conservation of native bees in the Neotropics. Apidologie 40, 332–346 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Toledo-Hernández, E. et al. The stingless bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Meliponini): A review of the current threats to their survival. Apidologie 53, 8 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Guzman-Novoa, E. et al. The process and outcome of the Africanization of honey bees in Mexico: Lessons and future directions. Front. Ecol. Evol. 8, 404 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fletcher, M. et al. Stingless bee honey, a novel source of trehalulose: A biologically active disaccharide with health benefits. Sci. Rep. 10, 12128 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Rao, P. V., Krishnan, K. T., Salleh, N. & Gan, S. H. Biological and therapeutic effects of honey produced by honey bees and stingless bees: A comparative review. Rev. Bras. Farmacogn. 26, 657–664 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rattanawannee, A. & Duangphakdee, O. Southeast Asian meliponiculture for sustainable livelihood. In Modern Beekeeping – Bases for Sustainable Production (ed. Ranz, R. E. R.) (IntechOpen, 2019).
Google Scholar 
Heard, T. The role of stingless bees in crop pollination. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 44, 183–206 (1999).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Slaa, E. J., Chaves, L. A. S., Malagodi-Braga, K. S. & Hofstede, F. E. Stingless bees in applied pollination: Practice and perspectives. Apidologie 37, 293–315 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kendall, L. K., Stavert, J. R., Gagic, V., Hall, M. & Rader, R. Initial floral visitor identity and foraging time strongly influence blueberry reproductive success. Basic Appl. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2022.02.009 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kiatoko, N. et al. Effective pollination of greenhouse Galia musk melon (Cucumis melo L. var. reticulatus ser.) by afrotropical stingless bee species. J. Apic. Res. https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.2021.2021641 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nkoba, K. et al. African endemic stingless bees as an efficient alternative pollinator to honey bees in greenhouse cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.). J. Apic. Res. https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.2021.2013421 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
FAO, A. Good beekeeping practices for sustainable apiculture. (FAO, IZSLT, Apimondia and CAAS, 2020). doi:https://doi.org/10.4060/cb5353en.Patel, V., Pauli, N., Biggs, E., Barbour, L. & Boruff, B. Why bees are critical for achieving sustainable development. Ambio 50, 49–59 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Fuller, D. Q. et al. Convergent evolution and parallelism in plant domestication revealed by an expanding archaeological record. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111, 6147–6152 (2014).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Purugganan, M. D. An evolutionary genomic tale of two rice species. Nat. Genet. 46, 931–932 (2014).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kleisner, K. & Stella, M. Monsters we met, monsters we made: On the parallel emergence of phenotypic similarity under domestication. Σημειωτκή – Sign Syst. Stud. 37, 454–476 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wilkins, A. S., Wrangham, R. W. & Fitch, W. T. The, “Domestication Syndrome” in mammals: A unified explanation based on neural crest cell behavior and genetics. Genetics 197, 795–808 (2014).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Lecocq, T. Insects: The disregarded domestication histories. In Animal Domestication (ed. Teletchea, F.) (IntechOpen, 2018).
Google Scholar 
Pollan, M. The botany of desire: A plant’s-eye view of the world. Econ. Bot. 57(1), 146–147 (2002).
Google Scholar 
Chuttong, B., Chanbang, Y., Sringarm, K. & Burgett, M. Physicochemical profiles of stingless bee (Apidae: Meliponini) honey from South East Asia (Thailand). Food Chem. 192, 149–155 (2016).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Spivak, M. & Danka, R. G. Perspectives on hygienic behavior in Apis mellifera and other social insects. Apidologie 52, 1–16 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Breed, M. D., Guzmán-Novoa, E. & Hunt, G. J. 3. Defensive behavior of honey bees: Organization, genetics, and comparisons with other bees. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 49, 271–298 (2004).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hunt, G. J. et al. Behavioral genomics of honeybee foraging and nest defense. Naturwissenschaften 94, 247–267 (2007).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Faegri, K. & van der Pijl,. Principles of Pollination Ecology (Pergamon Press, 1979).
Google Scholar 
Nicolson, S. W. & Thornburg, R. W. Nectar chemistry. In Nectaries and Nectar (eds Nicolson, S. W. et al.) (Springer Netherlands, 2007).Chapter 

Google Scholar 
Abrahamczyk, S. et al. Pollinator adaptation and the evolution of floral nectar sugar composition. J. Evol. Biol. 30, 112–127 (2017).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Parachnowitsch, A. L., Manson, J. S. & Sletvold, N. Evolutionary ecology of nectar. Ann. Bot. 123, 247–261 (2019).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Rasmussen, C. & Cameron, S. A. Global stingless bee phylogeny supports ancient divergence, vicariance, and long distance dispersal. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 99, 206–232 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bantle, J. P. Dietary fructose and metabolic syndrome and diabetes. J. Nutr. 139, 1263S-1268S (2009).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Erejuwa, O. O., Sulaiman, S. A. & Wahab, M. S. A. fructose might contribute to the hypoglycemic effect of honey. Molecules 17, 1900–1915 (2012).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kwakman, P. H. S. & Zaat, S. A. J. Antibacterial components of honey. IUBMB Life 64, 48–55 (2012).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Viuda-Martos, M., Ruiz-Navajas, Y., Fernández-López, J. & Pérez-Álvarez, J. A. Functional properties of honey, propolis, and royal jelly. J. Food Sci. 73, R117–R124 (2008).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Machado De-Melo, A. A., de Almeida-Muradian, L. B., Sancho, M. T. & Pascual-Maté, A. Composition and properties of Apis mellifera honey: A review. J. Apic. Res. 57, 5–37 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nordin, A., Sainik, N. Q. A. V., Chowdhury, S. R., Saim, A. B. & Idrus, R. B. H. Physicochemical properties of stingless bee honey from around the globe: A comprehensive review. J. Food Compos. Anal. 73, 91–102 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Viteri, R., Zacconi, F., Montenegro, G. & Giordano, A. Bioactive compounds in Apis mellifera monofloral honeys. J. Food Sci. 86, 1552–1582 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bueno, F. G. B. et al. Stingless bee floral visitation in the global tropics and subtropics. BioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.04.26.440550 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Rasmussen, C. & Cameron, S. A. A molecular phylogeny of the Old World stingless bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Meliponini) and the non-monophyly of the large genus Trigona. Syst. Entomol. 32, 26–39 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mokaya, H. O., Nkoba, K., Ndunda, R. M. & Vereecken, N. J. Characterization of honeys produced by sympatric species of Afrotropical stingless bees (Hymenoptera, Meliponini). Food Chem. 366, 130597 (2022).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Souza, E. C. A., Menezes, C. & Flach, A. Stingless bee honey (Hymenoptera, Apidae, Meliponini): A review of quality control, chemical profile, and biological potential. Apidologie 52, 113–132 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ohmenhaeuser, M., Monakhova, Y. B., Kuballa, T. & Lachenmeier, D. W. Qualitative and quantitative control of honeys using NMR spectroscopy and chemometrics. ISRN Anal. Chem. 2013, 1–9 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mazzoni, V., Bradesi, P., Tomi, F. & Casanova, J. Direct qualitative and quantitative analysis of carbohydrate mixtures using 13C NMR spectroscopy: Application to honey. Magn. Reson. Chem. 35, S81–S90 (1997).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Consonni, R. & Cagliani, L. R. Geographical characterization of polyfloral and acacia honeys by nuclear magnetic resonance and chemometrics. J. Agric. Food Chem. 56, 6873–6880 (2008).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Schievano, E., Peggion, E. & Mammi, S. H1 nuclear magnetic resonance spectra of chloroform extracts of honey for chemometric determination of its botanical origin. J. Agric. Food Chem. 58, 57–65 (2010).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
RStudio Team. RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R. Rstudio, PBC, Boston, MA. URL http://www.rstudio.com (2020).R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/ (2021).Oksanen J., et al. Vegan: Community ecology package. McGlinn lab URL https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan (2020).Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (Springer, New York, 2016).Book 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Yu, G. Using ggtree to visualize data on tree-like structures. Curr. Protoc. Bioinforma. 69, e96. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpbi.96 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cáceres, M. D. & Legendre, P. Associations between species and groups of sites: Indices and statistical inference. Ecology 90, 3566–3574 (2009).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar  More

Surface energy fluxes and componentsIn our study, we focused on the circumpolar land north of 60° latitude, and specifically on the extent of the circumpolar Arctic vegetation map (CAVM20, Supplementary Fig. 1–3). We obtained half-hourly and hourly in situ observations of energy fluxes and meteorological variables from the monitoring networks FLUXNET28 (fluxnet.org; FLUXNET2015 dataset), AmeriFlux29 (ameriflux.lbl.gov), AON31,32 (aon.iab.uaf.edu), ICOS (icos-cp.eu), GEM35,36 (g-e-m.dk), GC-Net33,34 (cires1.colorado.edu/steffen/gcnet) and PROMICE30; (promice.dk; Supplementary Table 3). We did not include observations from the Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN; bsrn.awi.de) and Global Energy Balance Archive (GEBA; geba.ethz.ch) because they typically lack information on non-radiative energy fluxes. Finally, we did not include observations from the European Flux Database Cluster (EFDC, europe-fluxdata.eu) because these data are largely located outside the domain of the CAVM20.We aggregated surface energy fluxes and components (Supplementary Table 1) to daily resolution as follows: (i) we extracted only directly measured data and excluded gap-filled data by filtering according to quality information; (ii) we performed a basic outlier filtering (excluding shortwave and longwave radiation flux values >1400 Wm−2 and in case of incoming/outgoing radiation More

The success of biological control agents — organisms used to reduce the success of other, usually non-native invasive species — is complicated by ongoing climate change. Chosen for their host-specificity and introduced into new locations, biological agents can succumb to both direct and indirect climate-related stressors, compromising their biology and activity against target organisms. Adding to this is the fact that environmental stressors often occur in concert, making it hard to predict the efficacy of biological control programs. More

Jolles, J. W., King, A. J. & Killen, S. S. The Role of Individual Heterogeneity in Collective Animal Behaviour. Trends Ecol. Evol. 35, 278–291 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lang, S. D. J. & Farine, D. R. A multidimensional framework for studying social predation strategies. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1230–1239 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kissui, B. M. & Packer, C. Top–down population regulation of a top predator: lions in the Ngorongoro Crater. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 271, 1867–1874 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Atwood, T. C. & Gese, E. M. Coyotes and recolonizing wolves: social rank mediates risk-conditional behaviour at ungulate carcasses. Anim. Behav. 75, 753–762 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pitman, R. L. & Durban, J. W. Cooperative hunting behavior, prey selectivity and prey handling by pack ice killer whales (Orcinus orca), type B, in Antarctic Peninsula waters. Mar. Mammal. Sci. 28, 16–36 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Machovsky-Capuska, G. E. & Raubenheimer, D. The nutritional ecology of marine apex predators. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 12, 361–387 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hubel, T. Y. et al. Energy cost and return for hunting in African wild dogs and cheetahs. Nat. Commun. 7, 1–13 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hubel, T. Y. et al. Additive opportunistic capture explains group hunting benefits in African wild dogs. Nat. Commun. 7, 1–11 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schaller, G. B. The Serengeti Lion.,(University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL.). (1972).Packer, C., Pusey, A. E. & Eberly, L. E. Egalitarianism in female African lions. Science 293, 690–693 (2001).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Tilson, R. L. & Hamilton, W. J. III Social dominance and feeding patterns of spotted hyaenas. Anim. Behav. 32, 715–724 (1984).Article 

Google Scholar 
Frank, L. G. Social organization of the spotted hyaena Crocuta crocuta. II. Dominance and reproduction. Anim. Behav. 34, 1510–1527 (1986).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mech, L. D. & Boitani, L. Wolves: behavior, ecology, and conservation. (University of Chicago Press, 2007).Frame, L. H., Malcolm, J. R., Frame, G. W. & Van Lawick, H. Social Organization of African Wild Dog on the Serengeti Plains. Z. Tierpsychol. 50, 225–249 (1979).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bertram, B. C. R. Social factors influencing reproduction in wild lions. J. Zool. 177, 463–482 (1975).Article 

Google Scholar 
Packer, C. & Pusey, A. Asymmetric contests in social mammals: respect, manipulation and age-specific aspects. Evol. essays honour John Maynard Smith 173–186 (1985).Domenici, P., Batty, R. S., Similä, T. & Ogam, E. Killer whales (Orcinus orca) feeding on schooling herring (Clupea harengus) using underwater tail-slaps: Kinematic analyses of field observations. J. Exp. Biol. 203, 283–294 (2000).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Benoit-Bird, K. J. & Au, W. W. L. Cooperative prey herding by the pelagic dolphin, Stenella longirostris. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 125, 125–137 (2009).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gazda, S. K. Driver-barrier feeding behavior in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus): New insights from a longitudinal study. Mar. Mammal. Sci. 32, 1152–1160 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Herbert-Read, J. E. et al. Proto-Cooperation: Group hunting sailfish improve hunting success by alternating attacks on grouping prey. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 283, 1–14 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Rieucau, G., Holmin, A. J., Castillo, J. C., Couzin, I. D. & Handegard, N. O. School level structural and dynamic adjustments to risk promote information transfer and collective evasion in herring. Anim. Behav. 117, 69–78 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rieucau, G., Fernö, A., Ioannou, C. C. & Handegard, N. O. Towards of a firmer explanation of large shoal formation, maintenance and collective reactions in marine fish. Rev. Fish. Biol. Fish. 25, 21–37 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ford, J. K. B. & Ellis, G. M. Transients: mammal-hunting killer whales of British Columbia, Washington, and southeastern Alaska. (UBC Press, 1999).Bailey, I., Myatt, J. P. & Wilson, A. M. Group hunting within the Carnivora: Physiological, cognitive and environmental influences on strategy and cooperation. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 67, 1–17 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Packer, C., Scheel, D. & Pusey, A. E. Why Lions Form Groups: Food is Not Enough. Am. Nat. 136, 1–19 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
Creel, S. & Creel, N. M. The African wild dog: behavior, ecology, and conservation. (Princeton University Press, 2002).Carbone, C. et al. Feeding success of African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) in the Serengeti: The effects of group size and kleptoparasitism. J. Zool. 266, 153–161 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chakrabarti, S. & Jhala, Y. V. Selfish partners: Resource partitioning in male coalitions of Asiatic lions. Behav. Ecol. 28, 1532–1539 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Amorós, M., Gil-Sánchez, J. M., López-Pastor, B., de las, N. & Moleón, M. Hyaenas and lions: how the largest African carnivores interact at carcasses. Oikos 129, 1820–1832 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wilmers, C. C. & Stahler, D. R. Constraints on active-consumption rates in gray wolves, coyotes, and grizzly bears. Can. J. Zool. 80, 1256–1261 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schmidt, P. A. & Mech, L. D. Wolf pack size and food acquisition. Am. Nat. 150, 513–517 (1997).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Major, P. F. Predator-prey interactions in two schooling fishes, Caranx ignobilis and Stolephorus purpureus. Anim. Behav. 26, 760–777 (1978).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thiebault, A., Semeria, M., Lett, C. & Tremblay, Y. How to capture fish in a school? Effect of successive predator attacks on seabird feeding success. J. Anim. Ecol. 85, 157–167 (2016).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Handegard, N. O. et al. The dynamics of coordinated group hunting and collective information transfer among schooling prey. Curr. Biol. 22, 1213–1217 (2012).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
King, A. J., Fehlmann, G., Biro, D., Ward, A. J. & Fürtbauer, I. Re-wilding Collective Behaviour: An Ecological Perspective. Trends Ecol. Evol. 33, 347–357 (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hansen, M. J. et al. Linking hunting weaponry to attack strategies in sailfish and striped marlin. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 287, 20192228 (2020).Rieucau, G. et al. Using unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) surveys and image analysis in the study of large surface-associated marine species: a case study on reef sharks Carcharhinus melanopterus shoaling behaviour. J. Fish. Biol. 93, 119–127 (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Krause, J. The relationship between foraging and shoal position in a mixed shoal of roach (Rutilus rutilus) and chub (Leuciscus cephalus): a field study. Oecologia 93, 356–359 (1993).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
DeBlois, E. M. & Rose, G. A. Cross-shoal variability in the feeding habits of migrating Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua). Oecologia 108, 192–196 (1996).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hansen, M. J., Schaerf, T. M. & Ward, A. J. W. The influence of nutritional state on individual and group movement behaviour in shoals of crimson-spotted rainbowfish (Melanotaenia duboulayi). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 69, 1713–1722 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hansen, M. J., Schaerf, T. M., Krause, J. & Ward, A. J. W. Crimson spotted rainbowfish (Melanotaenia duboulayi) change their spatial position according to nutritional requirement. PLoS One 11, 1–17 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
McLean, S., Persson, A., Norin, T. & Killen, S. S. Metabolic costs of feeding predictively alter the spatial distribution of individuals in fish schools. Curr. Biol. 28, 1144–1149 (2018).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Domenici, P. et al. How sailfish use their bills to capture schooling prey. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 281, 20140444 (2014).Kurvers, R. H. J. M. et al. The Evolution of Lateralization in Group Hunting Sailfish. Curr. Biol. 27, 521–526 (2017).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ward, A. & Webster, M. Sociality: The behaviour of group-living animals. (Springer, 2016).Wiley, D. et al. Underwater components of humpback whale bubble-net feeding behaviour Published by: Brill Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23034261 REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: You may need to log in to JSTOR to access th. 148, 575–602 (2017).D’Vincent, C. G., Nilson, R. M. & Hanna, R. E. Vocalization and coordinated feeding behavior of the humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae in Southeastern Alaska, USA. Sci. Rep. Whale Res. Inst. Tokyo 36, 41–47 (1985).
Google Scholar 
Jurasz, C. M. & Jurasz, V. P. Feeding modes of the humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae, in southeast Alaska. Sci. Rep. Whales Res. Inst. 31, 69–83 (1979).
Google Scholar 
Similä, T. & Ugarte, F. Surface and underwater observations of cooperatively feeding killer whales in northern Norway. Can. J. Zool. 71, 1494–1499 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
Clua, É. & Grosvalet, F. Mixed-species feeding aggregation of dolphins, large tunas and seabirds in the Azores. Aquat. Living Resour. 14, 11–18 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Uchiyama, J. H. & Kazama, T. K. Updated weight-on-length relationships for pelagic fishes caught in the central North Pacific Ocean and bottomfishes from the northwestern Hawaiian Islands. (2003).Ponce-Díaz, G., Ortega-García, S. & González-Ramírez, P. G. Analysis of sizes and weight-length relation of the striped marlin, Tetrapturus sudax (Philippi, 1887) in Baja California Sur, Mexico. Cienc. Mar. 17, 69–82 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
Abitı́a-Cárdenas, L. A., Muhlia-Melo, A., Cruz-Escalona, V. & Galván-Magaña, F. Trophic dynamics and seasonal energetics of striped marlin Tetrapturus audax in the southern Gulf of California, Mexico. Fish. Res. 57, 287–295 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. (2021). R: A Language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/Hansen, Matthew Mechanisms prey Div. a Mar. group-Hunt. Predat., Dryad, Dataset https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.b2rbnzshx (2022).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Study speciesTo increase our ability to generalize the results, we conducted two multispecies experiments34. The experiments were designed independently, but, as they used similar treatments, we analyzed them jointly to further increase generalizability. For the experiment in China, we selected eight species that are either native or non-native in China (Supplementary Table 1). For the experiment in Germany, we selected 16 species that are either native or non-native in Germany (Supplementary Table 1). All 24 species, representing seven families, are herbaceous, mainly occur in grasslands, and are common in the respective regions. To control for phylogenetic non-independence of species, we selected at least one non-native and one native species in each of the seven families. All non-native species are fully established (i.e. naturalized sensu Richardson et al.35) in the country where the respective experiment was conducted, and, as they are common, most of them could be considered invasive36,37. We classified the species as naturalized non-native or native to China or Germany based on the following databases: (1) “The Checklist of the Alien Invasive Plants in China”38, (2) the Flora of China (www.efloras.org), and (3) BiolFlor (www.ufz.de/biolflor). Seeds or stem fragments of the study species were obtained from local botanical gardens, local commercial seed companies, or from wild populations (Supplementary Table 1).The experiment in ChinaFrom 21 May to 27 June 2020, we planted or sowed the eight study species into plastic trays filled with potting soil (Pindstrup Plus, Pindstrup Mosebrug A/S, Denmark). We sowed the species at different times (Supplementary Table 1) because they were known to require different times until germination. Three species were grown from stem fragments because they mainly rely on clonal propagation, and the others were propagated from seeds (Supplementary Table 1).On 13 July 2020, we transplanted the cuttings or seedlings into 2.5-L circular plastic pots filled with a mixture of sand and vermiculite (1:1 v/v). Three competition treatments were imposed: (1) competition-free, in which plants were grown alone; (2) intraspecific competition, in which two individuals of the same species were grown together; (3) interspecific competition, in which two individuals, each from a different species were grown together. We grew all eight species without competition, in intraspecific competition, and in all 28 possible pairs of interspecific competition. For the competition-free and intraspecific-competition treatments, we replicated each species seven times (i.e. we had seven technical replicates). For the interspecific-competition treatment, for which we had many pairs of species (i.e. biological replicates), we replicated each pair two times.The experiment took place in a greenhouse at the Northeast Institute of Geography and Agroecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (Changchun, China). The greenhouse had a transparent plastic film on the top, which reduced the ambient light intensity by 12%. It was open on the sides so that insects and other organisms could enter. To vary nutrient availability, we applied to each pot either 5 g (low-nutrient treatment) or 10 g (high-nutrient treatment) of a slow-release fertilizer (Osmocote® Exact Standard, Everris International B.V., Geldermalsen, The Netherlands; 15% N + 9% P2O5 + 12% K2O + 2% MgO + trace elements). To vary light availability, we used two cages (size: 9 m × 4.05 m × 1.8 m). One of them was covered with two layers of black netting material, which reduced the light intensity by 71% (low light-intensity treatment, where the light intensity was on average 233.5 μmol m−2 s−1, measured on a sunny day). The other was left uncovered (high light-intensity treatment, where the light intensity was on average 826.7 μmol m−2 s−1).The experiment included a total of 672 pots ([8 no-competition × 7 replicates + 8 intraspecific-competition × 7 replicates + 28 interspecific-competition × 2 replicates]×2 nutrient treatments × 2 light treatments). The pots were randomly assigned to positions and were randomized once on 15 August within each block (i.e. the low or high light-intensity treatment). The initial height of each plant was measured on 15 July 2020, two days after the transplanting. We watered the plants daily to avoid water limitations. On 1 September 2020, we harvested the aboveground biomass of all plants. The biomass was dried at 65°C for 72 h to constant weight and then weighed to the nearest mg.The experiment in GermanyOn 15 June 2020, we sowed seeds of the 16 species into plastic trays filled with potting soil (Topferde, Einheitserde Co). On 6 July 2020, we transplanted the seedlings into 1.5-L pots filled with a mixture of potting soil and sand (1:1 v/v). Like the experiment in China, we imposed three competition treatments: competition-free, intraspecific competition, and interspecific competition. However, in this experiment, which had two times more species than the experiment in China, we only included 24 randomly chosen species pairs for the interspecific-competition treatment, and all of these pairs consisted of one naturalized non-native and one native species. For the competition-free treatment, we replicated each species two times (i.e. we had two technical replicates). For the competition treatments, we did not use technical replicates for any of the species combinations for logistic reasons. However, as we had a large number of species pairs in the inter-specific competition treatment, we had many biological replicates.The experiment took place outdoors in the Botanical Garden of the University of Konstanz (Konstanz, Germany). To vary nutrient availability, we applied to each pot once a week either 100 ml of a low-concentration liquid fertilizer (low-nutrient treatment; 0.5‰ Universol ® Blue oxide fertilizer, 18% N + 11% P + 18% K + 2.5% MgO + trace elements) or 100 ml of a high-concentration of the same liquid fertilizer (high-nutrient treatment; 1‰). In total, pots in the low- and high-nutrient treatment received 0.4 and 0.8 g fertilizer, respectively. To vary light availability, we used eight metal wire cages (size: 2 m × 2 m × 2 m). Four of the cages were covered with one layer of white and one layer of green netting material, which reduced the ambient light intensity by 84% (low light-intensity treatment; where the light intensity was on average 219.0 μmol m−2 s−1, measured on a sunny day). The remaining four cages were covered only with one layer of the white netting material, which served as a positive control for the effect of netting and reduced light intensity by 53% (high light-intensity treatment; where the light intensity was on average 678.4 μmol m−2 s−1). In other words, the low light-intensity treatment received 34% (66% reduction) of the light intensity in the high light-intensity treatment.The experiment included a total of 320 pots ([16 no-competition × 2 replicates + 16 intraspecific-competition + 32 interspecific-competition]×2 nutrient treatments × 2 light treatments). The eight cages were randomly assigned to fixed positions in the botanical garden. The pots were randomly assigned to the eight cages (40 pots in each cage) and were re-randomized once within and across cages of the same light treatment on 3 August 2020. Besides the weekly fertilization, we watered the plants two or three times a week to avoid water limitations. On 7 and 8 September 2020, we harvested the aboveground biomass of all plants. The biomass was dried at 70 °C for 96 h to constant weight and then weighed to the nearest 0.1 mg.Statistical analysesAll analyses were performed using R version 3.6.139. To test whether resource availability affected competitive outcomes between native and non-native species, we applied linear mixed-effects models to analyze the biomass of the plants in the two experiments jointly and separately, using the nlme package40. For the model used to analyze the two experiments jointly, we excluded interspecific competition between two non-natives and interspecific competition between two natives from the experiment in China, because non-native-non-native and native-non-native combinations were not included in the experiment in Germany. When we analyzed each experiment separately, the results were overall similar to the results of the joint analysis. Therefore, we focus in the manuscript on the joint analysis and present the results of the separate analyses in Supplementary Note 2.Because plant mortality was low and mainly happened after transplanting, we excluded pots in which plants had died. The final dataset contained 1180 individuals from 871 pots. In the model, we included the aboveground biomass of individuals as the response variable. We included the origin of the species (non-native or native), competition treatment (see below for details), nutrient treatment, light treatment and their interactions as fixed effects; study site (China or Germany), and identity and family of the species as random effects. In addition, we allowed each species to respond differently to the nutrient and light treatments (i.e. we included random slopes). To account for pseudoreplication41, we also included pots as random effects and cages (ten cages, eight from Germany and two from China) as random block effects. In the competition treatment, we had three levels: (1) no competition, (2) intraspecific competition, and (3) interspecific competition between native and non-native species. To split them into two contrasts, we created two variables42 testings (1) the effect of the presence of competitors, and (2) the difference between intra- and interspecific competition (see Supplementary Note 3 for details). To improve the normality of the residuals, we natural-log-transformed aboveground biomass. To improve the homoscedasticity of the residuals, we allowed the species and competition treatment to have different variances by using the varComb and varIdent functions43. Significances of the fixed effects were assessed with likelihood-ratio tests (type II) with the car package44.To determine the ‘competitive outcome’, i.e. which species will exclude or dominate over the other species at the endpoint for the community45,46, one should ideally conduct a long-term study. Alternatively, one could vary the density of each species, which mimics the dynamics of species populations across time (see refs. 47,48 for examples). However, applying this space-for-time-substitution method would have largely increased the size of the experiment, especially when combined with the light and nutrient treatments. Still, by growing plants alone, in intraspecific competition and in interspecific competition, our experiments meet the minimal requirement for measuring competitive outcome, at least in terms of short-term biomass production46,49.In the linear mixed-effects model of individual biomass, a significant effect of origin would indicate that native and naturalized non-native species differed in their biomass production, across all competition and resource-availability (light and nutrients) treatments. This would tell us the competitive outcome between non-natives and natives across different resource availabilities. For example, an overall higher level of biomass production of non-native species would indicate that non-natives would dominate when competing with natives. A significant interaction between a resource-availability treatment and the origin of the species would indicate that resource availability affects the biomass production of native and non-native species differently, averaged across all competition treatments. In other words, it would indicate that resource availability affects the competitive outcome between natives and non-natives. A significant interaction between a resource-availability treatment and the competition treatment would indicate that resource availabilities modify the effect of competition (e.g. no competition vs. competition). Other studies frequently have inferred competitive outcomes from the effect of competition by calculating the relative interaction intensity50. However, while the competitive outcome and effect of competition are often related, they are not equivalent45. This is because the competitive outcome is both determined by the effect of competition and intrinsic growth rate48,49. For example, a plant species that strongly suppress other species but has a low intrinsic growth rate still cannot dominate the community.Reporting summaryFurther information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article. More

Ceballos, G. & Ehrlich, P. R. Mammal population losses and the extinction crisis. Science 296, 904–907 (2002).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Morrison, J. C., Sechrest, W., Dinerstein, E., Wilcove, D. S. & Lamoreux, J. F. Persistence of large mammal faunas as indicators of global human impacts. J. Mammal. 88, 1363–1380 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Ripple, W. J. et al. Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. Science 343, 1241484 (2014).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Finnegan, S. P. et al. Reserve size, dispersal and population viability in wide ranging carnivores: the case of jaguars in Emas National Park, Brazil. Anim. Conserv. 24, 3–14 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Wang, T. et al. Amur tigers and leopards returning to China: direct evidence and a landscape conservation plan. Landsc. Ecol. 31, 491–503 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Gilbert, M. et al. Distemper, extinction, and vaccination of the Amur tiger. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 117, 31954–31962 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Smith, K. F., Acevedo-Whitehouse, K. & Pedersen, A. B. The role of infectious diseases in biological conservation. Anim. Conserv. 12, 1–12 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Wolf, C. & Ripple, W. J. Range contractions of the world’s large carnivores. R. Soc. Open Sci. 4, 170052 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Courchamp, F. et al. Inverse density dependence and the Allee effect. Trends Ecol. Evol. 14, 405–410 (1999).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wittmann, M. J., Stuis, H. & Metzler, D. Genetic Allee effects and their interaction with ecological Allee effects. J. Anim. Ecol. 87, 11–23 (2018).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Estes, J. A. et al. Trophic Downgrading of Planet Earth. Science 333, 301–306 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Stein, A. B. et al. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Panthera pardus. IUCN Red List Threat. Species (2020).Vitkalova, A. V. et al. Transboundary cooperation improves endangered species monitoring and conservation actions: A case study of the global population of Amur leopards. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12574 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Wang, T. et al. A science-based approach to guide Amur leopard recovery in China. Biol. Conserv. 210, 47–55 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Lewis, J. et al. Assessing the health risks of reintroduction: The example of the Amur leopard, Panthera pardus orientalis. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 67, 1177–1188 (2020).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Terio, K. A. & Craft, M. E. Canine distemper virus (CDV) in another big cat: should CDV be renamed carnivore distemper virus? mBio 4, e00702–e00713 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Adhikari, R. B., Shrestha, M., Puri, G., Regmi, G. R. & Ghimire, T. R. Canine Distemper Virus (CDV): an emerging threat to Nepal’s wildlife. Appl. Sci. Technol. Ann. 1, 149–154 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Roelke-Parker, M. E. et al. A canine distemper virus epidemic in Serengeti lions (Panthera leo). Nature 379, 441–445 (1996).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Mulia, B. H. et al. Exposure of Wild Sumatran Tiger (Panthera tigris sumatrae) to Canine Distemper Virus. J. Wildl. Dis. 57, 464–466 (2021).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gordon, C. H. et al. Canine distemper in endangered Ethiopian wolves. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 824–832 (2015) https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2105.141920.Timm, S. F. et al. A suspected canine distemper epidemic as the cause of a catastrophic decline in Santa Catalina Island foxes (Urocyon littoralis catalinae). J. Wildl. Dis. 45, 333–343 (2009).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Sulikhan, N. S. et al. Canine distemper virus in a wild Far Eastern leopard (Panthera pardus orientalis). J. Wildl. Dis. 54, 170–174 (2018).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gilbert, M. et al. Canine distemper virus as a threat to wild tigers in Russia and across their range. Integr. Zool. 10, 329–343 (2015).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Almberg, E. S., Cross, P. C. & Smith, D. W. Persistence of canine distemper virus in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem’s carnivore community. Ecol. Appl. 20, 2058–2074 (2010).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Cleaveland, S. et al. The conservation relevance of epidemiological research into carnivore viral diseases in the Serengeti. Conserv. Biol. 21, 612–622 (2007).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Haydon, D. T. et al. Low-coverage vaccination strategies for the conservation of endangered species. Nature 443, 692–695 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hebblewhite, M., Miquelle, D. G., Murzin, A. A., Aramilev, V. V. & Pikunov, D. G. Predicting potential habitat and population size for reintroduction of the Far Eastern leopards in the Russian Far East. Biol. Conserv. 144, 2403–2413 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Jiang, G. et al. New hope for the survival of the Amur leopard in China. Sci. Rep. 5, 15475 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Licht, D. S., Moen, R. A. & Romanski, M. Modeling viability of a potential Canada lynx reintroduction to Isle Royale national park. Nat. Areas J. 37, 170–177 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Menges, E. S. Population viability analysis for an endangered plant. Conserv. Biol. 4, 52–62 (1990).
Google Scholar 
Beissinger, S. R. & McCullough, D. R. Population viability analysis. J. Wildl. Manag. 67, 481–506 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Aresu, M. et al. Assessing the effects of different management scenarios on the conservation of small island vulture populations. Bird. Conserv. Int. 31, 111–128 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Benson, J. F. et al. Extinction vortex dynamics of top predators isolated by urbanization. Ecol. Appl. 29, e01868 (2019).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Franklin, A. D., Lacy, R. C., Bauman, K. L., Traylor-Holzer, K. & Powell, D. M. Incorporating drivers of reproductive success improves population viability analysis. Anim. Conserv. 24, 386–400 (2021).
Google Scholar 
McCallum, H. Models for managing wildlife disease. Parasitology 143, 805–820 (2016).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bradshaw, C. J. A. et al. Novel coupling of individual-based epidemiological and demographic models predicts realistic dynamics of tuberculosis in alien buffalo. J. Appl. Ecol. 49, 268–277 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Shoemaker, K. T. et al. Effects of prey metapopulation structure on the viability of black-footed ferrets in plague-impacted landscapes: a metamodelling approach. J. Appl. Ecol. 51, 735–745 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Shaffer, M. L. Minimum population sizes for species conservation. BioScience 31, 131–134 (1981).
Google Scholar 
Seimon, T. A. et al. Canine distemper virus: an emerging disease in wild endangered Amur tigers (Panthera tigris altaica). mBio 4, e00410–e00413 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wang, T. et al. An introduction to Long-term Tiger-Leopard Observation Network based on camera traps in Northeast China. Biodivers. Sci. 28, 1059 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Gilbert, M. et al. Estimating the potential impact of canine distemper virus on the Amur tiger population (Panthera tigris altaica) in Russia. PLOS ONE 9, e110811 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Fahrig, L. How much habitat is enough? Biol. Conserv. 100, 65–74 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Thatte, P., Joshi, A., Vaidyanathan, S., Landguth, E. & Ramakrishnan, U. Maintaining tiger connectivity and minimizing extinction into the next century: Insights from landscape genetics and spatially-explicit simulations. Biol. Conserv. 218, 181–191 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Hostetler, J. A., Onorato, D. P., Jansen, D. & Oli, M. K. A cat’s tale: the impact of genetic restoration on Florida panther population dynamics and persistence. J. Anim. Ecol. 82, 608–620 (2013).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Johnson, W. E. et al. Genetic restoration of the Florida panther. Science 329, 1641–1645 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Sankar, K. et al. Monitoring of reintroduced tigers in Sariska Tiger Reserve, Western India: preliminary findings on home range, prey selection and food habits. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 3, 301–318 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Kelly, P., Stack, D. & Harley, J. A review of the proposed reintroduction program for the Far Eastern leopard (Panthera pardus orientalis) and the role of conservation organizations, veterinarians, and zoos. Top. Companion Anim. Med. 28, 163–166 (2013).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hayward, M. W. & Somers, M. J. Reintroduction of top-order predators: using science to restore one of the drivers of biodiversity. in Reintroduction of Top-Order Predators 1–9 (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2009). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444312034.ch1.Pujol, B., Zhou, S.-R., Sanchez Vilas, J. & Pannell, J. R. Reduced inbreeding depression after species range expansion. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 106, 15379–15383 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
He, C., Du, J., Zhu, D. & Zhang, L. Population viability analysis of small population: a case study for Asian elephant in China. Integr. Zool. 15, 350–362 (2020).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Sugimoto, T., Aramilev, V. V., Nagata, J. & McCullough, D. R. Winter food habits of sympatric carnivores, Amur tigers and Far Eastern leopards, in the Russian Far East. Mamm. Biol. 81, 214–218 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Athreya, V., Odden, M., Linnell, J. D. C., Krishnaswamy, J. & Karanth, K. U. A cat among the dogs: leopard Panthera pardus diet in a human-dominated landscape in western Maharashtra, India. Oryx 50, 156–162 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Steinmetz, R., Seuaturien, N., Intanajitjuy, P., Inrueang, P. & Prempree, K. The effects of prey depletion on dietary niches of sympatric apex predators in Southeast Asia. Integr. Zool. 16, 19–32 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Appel, M. J. G. et al. Canine distemper epizootic in lions, tigers, and leopards in North America. J. Vet. Diagn. Invest. 6, 277–288 (1994).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Coltman, D. W., Pilkington, J. G., Smith, J. A. & Pemberton, J. M. Parasite-mediated selection against inbred Soay sheep in a free-living, island population. Evolution 53, 1259–1267 (1999).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Fox, C. W. & Reed, D. H. Inbreeding depression increases with environmental stress: an experimental study and meta-analysis. Evolution 65, 246–258 (2011).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Feng, L. et al. Collaboration brings hope for the last Amur leopards. Cat. N. 65, 20 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Lacy, R. C., Pollak, J. P., Miller, P. S., Hungerford, L. & Bright, P. Outbreak. Version 2.10. (2020).Lacy, R. C. & Pollak, J. P. Vortex: A stochastic simulation of the extinction process. Version 10.4. (2021).Pollak, J. P. & Lacy, R. C. Metamodel manager. Version 1.0.6. (2020).Pacioni, C., Sullivan, S., Lees, C. M., Miller, P. S. & Lacy, R. C. Outbreak user’s manual. Version 1.1. (2020).Roscoe, D. E. Epizootiology of canine-distemper in new-jersey raccoons. J. Wildl. Dis. 29, 390–395 (1993).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Odden, M. & Wegge, P. Spacing and activity patterns of leopards Panthera pardus in the Royal Bardia National Park, Nepal. Wildl. Biol. 11, 145–152 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Stander, P. E., Haden, P. J., Kaqece, I. & Ghau, I. The ecology of asociality in Namibian leopards. J. Zool. 242, 343–364 (1997).
Google Scholar 
Huisman, J., Kruuk, L. E. B., Ellis, P. A., Clutton-Brock, T. & Pemberton, J. M. Inbreeding depression across the lifespan in a wild mammal population. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 113, 3585–3590 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Morton, N. E., Crow, J. F. & Muller, H. J. An estimate of the mutational damage in man from data on consanguineous marriages. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 42, 855–863 (1956).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Balme, G. A., Slotow, R. & Hunter, L. T. B. Edge effects and the impact of non-protected areas in carnivore conservation: leopards in the Phinda–Mkhuze Complex, South Africa. Anim. Conserv. 13, 315–323 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Kumbhojkar, S., Yosef, R., Mehta, A. & Rakholia, S. A camera-trap home-range analysis of the Indian leopard (Panthera pardus fusca) in Jaipur, India. Animals 10, 1600 (2020).PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Rozhnov, V. V. et al. Home range structure and space use of a female Amur leopard, Panthera pardus orientalis (Carnivora, Felidae). Biol. Bull. 42, 821–830 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Ralls, K., Ballou, J. D. & Templeton, A. Estimates of lethal equivalents and the cost of inbreeding in mammals. Conserv. Biol. 2, 185–193 (1988).
Google Scholar 
Hammersley, J. M. & Handscomb, D. C. General principles of the Monte Carlo method. in Monte Carlo Methods (eds. Hammersley, J. M. & Handscomb, D. C.) 50–75 (Springer Netherlands, 1964). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-5819-7_5.Kenney, J. S., Allendorf, F. W., McDougal, C. & Smith, J. L. D. How much gene flow is needed to avoid inbreeding depression in wild tiger populations? Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 281, 20133337 (2014).
Google Scholar 
O’Grady, J. J. et al. Realistic levels of inbreeding depression strongly affect extinction risk in wild populations. Biol. Conserv. 133, 42–51 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Miller, P. S., Lacy, R. C., Medina-Miranda, R., López-Ortiz, R. & Díaz-Soltero, H. Confronting the invasive species crisis with metamodel analysis: An explicit, two-species demographic assessment of an endangered bird and its brood parasite in Puerto Rico. Biol. Conserv. 196, 124–132 (2016).
Google Scholar  More

Experimental spidersExperimental spiders were maintained as previously reported37. Briefly, spiders were the F1 to F4 offspring of mated females collected from hallways of the Burnaby campus of Simon Fraser University (Burnaby, BC, CA). Upon hatching, juvenile spiders were housed individually in petri dishes (100 mm × 20 mm) and provisioned with the vinegar flies Drosophila melanogaster. Subadult spiders were fed with larvae of the mealworm beetle Tenebrio molitor. Each adult female spider was kept in a separate translucent 300-mL plastic cup (Western Family, CA) maintained at 22 °C under a reversed light cycle (12:12 h). Adult males and females were fed with black blow flies, Phormia regina. All spiders had access to water in cotton wicks. Water and food were provided once per week. Laboratory experiments were run during a reversed scotophase (0900 to 1700).Identification of contact pheromone components: Preparation of web extracts (summer 2017; spring and summer 2018)Each of the 100 spiders was allowed to build her web for three days on a wooden triangular prism scaffold (30 cm × 25 cm × 22 cm)44 of bamboo skewers (GoodCook, CA, USA) (Fig. 1b). After the spiders were removed from the scaffold, their webs were reeled up with a glass rod (10 cm × 0.5 cm) and deposited in a 1.5-mL glass vial. Per web, 50 µL of methanol (99.9% HPLC grade, Fisher Chemical, ON, Canada) were added and the silk was extracted for 24 h at room temperature. Prior to analysis, the silk was removed and the sample was concentrated under a steady nitrogen stream to the desired concentration.Identification of contact pheromone components: analyses of web extracts by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS)Aliquots (2 µL) of pooled and concentrated web extract (100 webs in 400 µL of solvent) were analysed by GC–MS, using a Varian Saturn Ion trap 2000 (Varian Inc., now Agilent Technologies Inc., Santa Clara, CA 95051, USA) and an Agilent 7890B GC coupled to a 5977 A MSD, both fitted with a DB-5 GC-MS column (30 m × 0.25 mm ID, film thickness 0.25 µm). The injector port was set to 250 °C, the MS source to 230 °C, and the MS quadrupole to 150 °C. Helium was used as a carrier gas at a flow rate of 35 cm s−1, with the following temperature programme: 50 °C held for 5 min, 10 °C min−1 to 280 °C (held for 10 min). Compounds were identified by comparing their mass spectra and retention indices (relative to aliphatic alkanes67) with those of authentic standards that were purchased or synthesised in our laboratory (Supplementary Table 1).Identification of contact pheromone components: high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) of web extractsWeb extract of virgin adult female S. grossa was fractionated by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), using a Waters HPLC system (Waters Corporation, Milford, MA, USA; 600 Controller, 2487 Dual Absorbance Detector, Delta 600 pump) fitted with a Synergy Hydro Reverse Phase C18 column (250 mm × 4.6 mm, 4 µ; Phenomenex, Torrance, CA, USA). The column was eluted with a 1-mL/min flow of a solvent gradient, starting with 80% water (HPLC grade, EMD Millipore Corp., Burlington, MA, USA) and 20% acetonitrile (99.9% HPLC grade, Fisher Chemical, Ottawa, CA) and ending with acetonitrile after 10 min. A 60-web-equivalent extract was injected and 20 1-min fractions were collected. Each HPLC fraction (containing 20 web-equivalents) was tested in T-rod bioassays (Fig. 1c) for the presence of contact pheromone components. All eight fractions that elicited courtship responses by males (Supplementary Fig. 1) were analysed by HPLC-tandem MS/MS.Identification of contact pheromone components: HPLC-tandem MS/MS of bioactive HPLC fractionsThe bioactive HPLC fractions were analysed on a Bruker maXis Impact Quadrupole Time-of-Flight HPLC/MS System. The system consists of an Agilent 1200 HPLC fitted with a spursil C18 column (30 mm × 3.0 mm, 3 µ; Dikma Technologies, Foothill Ranch, CA, USA) and a Bruker maXis Impact Ultra-High Resolution tandem TOF (UHR-Qq-TOF) mass spectrometer. The LC-MS conditions were as follows: The mass spectrometer was set to positive electrospray ionisation (+ESI) with a gas temperature of 200 °C and a gas flow of 9 L/min. The nebuliser was set to 4 bar and the capillary voltage to 4200 V. The column was eluted with a 0.4-mL/min flow of a solvent gradient, starting with 80% water and 20% acetonitrile and ending with 100% acetonitrile after 4 min. The solvent contained 0.1% formic acid to improve peak shape.Identification of contact pheromone components: 1H NMR analyses of a bioactive fractionIn HPLC-MS analyses, a single bioactive fraction (9–10 min) appeared to contain only a single compound. This fraction was then further investigated using 1H NMR spectroscopy. The 1H NMR spectrum was recorded on a Bruker Advance 600 equipped with a QNP (600 MHz) using CDCl3. Signal positions (δ) are given in parts per million from tetramethylsilane (δ 0) and were measured relative to the signal of the solvent (1H NMR: CDCl3: δ 7.26).Identification of contact pheromone components: syntheses of candidate pheromone componentsThe syntheses of candidate pheromone components and synthetic intermediates are reported in the SI.Identification of contact pheromone components: T-rod bioassays (general procedures)The T-rod apparatus37 (Fig. 1c) consisted of a horizontal beam (25 cm × 0.4 cm) and a vertical beam (30 cm × 0.4 cm) held together by labelling tape (3 cm × 1.9 cm, Fisher Scientific, Ottawa, ON, CA). A piece of filter paper (2 cm2) was attached to each distal end of the horizontal beam. For each bioassay, an aliquot of web extract (in methanol), or a blend of synthetic candidate pheromone components, was applied to the randomly assigned treatment filter paper, whereas methanol was applied to the control filter paper. The solvent was allowed to evaporate for 1 min before the onset of a 15-min bioassay. A randomly selected naïve male spider was placed at the base of the vertical beam and the time he spent courting on each filter paper was recorded. In response to the presence of female-produced or synthetic pheromone on a filter paper, the male engaged in courtship, pulling silk with his hindlegs from his spinnerets and adding it to the paper. Sensing contact pheromone, the male essentially behaves as if he were courting on the web of a female. On a web, the male engages in web reduction prior to copulation, a behaviour that entails cutting sections of the female’s web with his chelicerae and wrapping the dismantled web bundle with his own silk pulled from his spinnerets41,56. Each T-rod apparatus was used only once. Replicates of experiments as part of specific research objectives were run in parallel to eliminate day effects on the responses of spiders. The sample size for each experiment was set to 20 unless otherwise stated.Identification of contact pheromone components: T-rod bioassays (specific experiments) (fall 2017; spring and summer 2018)Experiment 1 (fall 2017) tested a synthetic blend of volatile compounds 5–11 unique to mature S. grossa females (Fig. 1c and Supplementary Table 1) vs a solvent control. Parallel experiment 2 tested one web equivalent of virgin female web extract, followed by testing each of the 20 HPLC fractions in six replicates for the occurrence of courtship (spring 2018).Parallel experiments 3–6 (summer 2018) tested web extract at one female web equivalent (1 FWE) (Exp. 3), a ternary blend of the candidate contact pheromone components 12, 16 and 17 (Fig. 2d, Exp. 4), the same ternary blend (12, 16 and 17) in combination with the volatile compounds 5–11 (Exp. 5), and 5–11 on their own (Exp. 6).Parallel dose-response experiments 7–11 (summer 2018) tested the ternary blend of 12, 16 and 17 at five FWEs: 0.001 (Exp. 7); 0.01 (Exp. 8); 0.1 (Exp. 9); 1.0 (Exp. 10); and 10 (Exp. 11).Parallel experiments 12–15 tested the ternary blend, and all possible binary blends, of 12, 16 and 17. Parallel experiments 16–18 tested 12 and 16 in binary combination (Exp. 16) and singly (Exps. 17, 18).Origin of contact pheromone components (fall 2020)To trace the origin of contact pheromone component 12 (and coeluting 16), cold-euthanized female spiders were dissected in saline solution55 (25 mL of water and 25 mL of methanol, 160 mM NaCl, 7.5 mM KCl, 1 mM MgCl2, 4 mM NaHCO3, 4 mM CaCl2, 20 mM glucose, pH 7.4). Samples were homogenised (Kimble Pellet Pestle Motor, Kimble Kontes, USA) in methanol for 1 min, kept 24 h at room temperature for pheromone extraction, and then centrifuged (12,500 rpm, 3 °C for 20 min; Hermle Z 360 K refrigerated centrifuge; B. Hermle AG, Wehingen, DE) to obtain the supernatant for HPLC-MS analyses (see above) for the presence of 12 and 16. Three sequential sets of dissections aimed to determine (1) the pheromone-containing body tagma, (2) the pheromone-containing tissues or glands in that tagma and (3) the specific gland or tissue producing 12 & 16.To identify the pheromone-containing tagma, 11 spiders were severed at the pedicel, generating two tagmata: the cephalothorax with four pairs of legs and the abdomen. Each tagma was then extracted separately in 100 µL of methanol. Eight of 11 abdomen samples contained 12 and 16, whereas only one of 11 thorax samples contained 12 and 16 (Exp. 19), albeit at only trace amounts. With 12 and 16 being present in the abdomen, 20 additional abdomens were dissected68 to obtain separate samples of (i) haemolymph (25 µL), (ii) ventral cuticle (~0.5 cm2 near the pedicel, (iii) the ovaries, (iv) all silk glands combined, and (v) the gut (with anus, cloaca and Malpighian tubules). The remaining spider tissues (vi) were pooled as one sample, and 20 µL of the dissection buffer solution (vii) was obtained to detect potential pheromone bleeding. To each tissue sample, 50 µL of methanol were added. Only silk gland samples contained 12 and 16 (Exp. 20). Having established that only silk gland samples contained 12 and 16, the silk glands of 30 additional spiders were excised in the following order: (i) major ampullate gland, (ii) minor ampullate gland, (iii) anterior aggregate gland, (iv) posterior aggregate gland, (v) tubuliform, (vi) aciniform and flagelliform glands combined and (vii) pyriform gland. The glands from three spiders were combined in each sample and extracted in 30 µL methanol. Seven of ten posterior aggregate gland samples contained 12 and 16, with other silk gland samples not containing 12 and 16 or in only trace amounts (Exp. 21).Transition of contact pheromone components to mate attractant pheromone components: evidence for hydrolysis of contact pheromone components (12, 16 and 17) (spring 2021)To test for the hydrolysis of the contact pheromone components 12, 16 and 17, we compared their breakdown ratio (18/(12 + 16 + 17 + 18) on independent webs aged 0 days and 14 days (Exp. 24). Each of 140 spiders was allowed to spin a web on bamboo scaffolds for three days. Then, the spiders were removed and webs—by random assignment—were extracted immediately (0-day-old webs) or after 14 days of aging (14-day-old webs). On each web, the amount of contact pheromone components 12, 16 and 17, and of amide 18 as a breakdown product, was quantified using HPLC–MS, with 12 and 18 at 25 and 50 ng/µL as external standards.Transition of contact pheromone components to mate attractant pheromone components: Y-tube olfactometer bioassays (general procedures)The attraction of male spiders to web extracts and to candidate mate attractant pheromone components was tested in Y-tube olfactometers56 (Fig. 4a) lined with bamboo sticks to provide grip for the bioassay spider. Test stimuli were presented in translucent oven bags (30 cm × 31 cm; Toppits, Mengen, DE) secured to the orifice of side-arms. Test stimuli consisted of a triangular bamboo prism scaffold (each side 8.5 cm long) bearing a spider’s web, or bearing artificial webbing30 (40 ± 2 mg; Bling Star, CN) that was treated with web extract or synthetic chemicals in methanol (100 µL) as the treatment stimulus or with methanol (100 µL) as the control stimulus. For each experimental replicate, a male spider was introduced into a glass holding tube and allowed 2 min to acclimatise. Then, the holding tube was attached via a glass joint to the Y-tube olfactometer and an air pump was connected to the holding tube, drawing air at 100 mL/min through the olfactometer. Air entered the olfactometer through a glass tube secured to the oven bags’ second opening. A male that entered the olfactometer within the 5-min bioassay period was classed a responder and his first choice of oven bag (the oven bag he reached first) was recorded. Whenever a set of 30 replicates was completed by the same observer, using 30 separate Y-tubes, the Y-tubes were cleaned with hot water and soap (Sparkleen, Thermo Fisher Scientific, MA, United States) and dried in an oven at 100 °C for 3 h, whereas the bamboo sticks and the oven bags were discarded.Transition of contact pheromone components to mate attractant pheromone components: Y-tube olfactometer bioassays (specific experiments) (summer 2018)In experiments 22, 23 and 25–27, males were offered a choice between a solvent control stimulus and a treatment stimulus. The treatment stimulus consisted of (i) virgin female web-extract (1 web-equivalent) (Exp. 22, N = 24), (ii) the volatile compounds 5–11 unique to sexually mature females (Fig. 1d) (Exp. 23, N = 24), (iii) all breakdown products of the contact pheromone components 12, 16 and 17, consisting of the amide N-4-methylvaleroyl-l-serine (18) and the corresponding carboxylic acids 19, 20 and 21 (Exp. 25, N = 30), (iv) a blend of the acids 19, 20 and 21 (Exp. 26, N = 30) and (v) the amide 18 as a single compound (Exp. 27, N = 30). Compounds were tested at quantities as determined in virgin female web extract (50 webs in 150 μL of dichloromethane), following silyl-ester derivatization69 of acids in the extract, with valeric acid (200 ng; ≥99%, Sigma Aldrich, St. Louis, USA) added as an internal standard. Per web equivalent, there were 103 ng of 19, 3 ng of 20 and 54 ng of 21. The amide 18 was present at 200 ng per web equivalent, as determined using N-3-methylbutnaoyl-l-serine methyl ester as an external standard.Transition of contact pheromone components to mate attractant pheromone components: hallway of buildings experiment (fall 2018)As the ternary blend of the carboxylic acids 19, 20 and 21 attracted male spiders in Y-tube olfactometers (see Results), we aimed to confirm their functional role as mate attractant pheromone components also in ‘field’ settings (Exp. 28). To this end, we set up ten replicates of paired traps in building hallways on the Burnaby campus of Simon Fraser University. Adhesive-coated traps (Bell Laboratories Inc., Madison, WI, USA) were spaced 0.5 m within pairs and 20 m between pairs. By random assignment, one trap in each pair was baited with the carboxylic acids 19, 20 and 21 formulated in 200 µL of mineral oil (Anachemia, Montreal, CA; 2.8 mg of 19, 0.112 mg of 20 and 1.52 mg of 21), whereas the control trap received mineral oil only. Test stimuli were disseminated from a 400-μL microcentrifuge tube (Evergreen Scientific, Ranco Dominguez, CA, USA) with a hole in its lid punctured by a No. 3 insect pin (Hamilton Bell, Montvale, NJ, USA). Every week for 4 months (September to December 2018), traps were checked, lures were replaced, and the position of the treatment and the control trap within each trap pair was re-randomised.Communication function of amide breakdown product 18 (fall 2018)As the amide 18 did not attract males in Y-tube olfactometer experiments (see Results), we tested its alternate potential function as a contact pheromone component which, if active, would induce courtship by males. Using the T-rod apparatus (Fig. 1c), we treated one piece of filter paper with a solvent control and the other with a blend comprising both the contact pheromone components 12, 16 and 17 and the amide 18 (Exp. 29), a blend of 12, 16 and 17 (Exp. 30), and 18 alone (Exp. 31).Mechanisms underlying the transition of contact pheromone components to mate attractant pheromone components: relationship between web pH and breakdown rates of contact pheromone components (summer 2020)We allowed each of the 70 spiders to spin two webs, using one web to quantify the amide breakdown product (18) of the contact pheromone components (see above), and the other web to determine its pH according to the slurry method57 (Exp. 32). To this end, we first measured the pH of 50 µL water (HPLC grade, EMD Millipore Corp., Burlington, MA, USA) and then of a web with the water functioning as a conductor for the pH metre (LAQUAtwin pH 22 (Horiba, Kyoto, JP). Between web measurements, the pH metre was rinsed with water and regularly re-calibrated using a pH 7 and a pH 4 buffer (Horiba, Kyoto, JP).Mechanisms underlying the transition of contact pheromone components to mate attractant pheromone components: testing for pH-dependent saponification of contact pheromone components (12, 16 and 17) (summer 2021)To test whether pH alone catalyses saponification of the ester bond of contact pheromone components (12, 16 and 17), synthetic 12 was added to a 40% aqueous pH 7 buffer solution (Exp. 34), a pH 4 buffer solution (Exp. 34), and to acetonitrile (Exp. 35) as a polar aprotic solvent control (N = 12; 100 ng/µL each). pH-Dependent breakdown of 12 over time was assessed by analysing (HPLC-MS) diluted aqueous aliquots (2.5 ng/µl) of each sample at day 0 and after 14 days of storage at room temperature.Mechanisms underlying the transition of contact pheromone components to mate attractant pheromone components: testing for the presence of a carboxylesterhydrolase (CEH) (summer 2021)To test for the presence of a carboxylesterhydrolase (CEH), for each of three replicates we extracted (i) five webs of adult virgin female L. hesperus (positive control, known to have a CEH45), (ii) 20 webs of subadult S. grossa (deemed to have not yet produced a CEH) and (iii) ten webs of adult virgin female S. grossa, accounting for the different amounts of silk produced by these three groups of spiders. For each replicate, webs were extracted in 200 µL 0.05 M Sørensen buffer58 and analysed by Bioinformatics Solutions (Waterloo, ON, CA). After web samples were incubated for 20 min at 60 °C in 2× sample volumes of 10% SDS (lauryl sulfate; protein-denaturing anionic detergent), they were sonicated for 20 min. Then, the supernatant was withdrawn, reduced with dithiothreitol (DTT), and alkylated with iodoacetamide (IAA). Alkylated samples were treated further with a protein solvent (S-Trap kit; Protifi, Farmingdale, NY, USA). Briefly, samples were acidified by phosphoric acid to pH ≤1. Then 6× of sample volume S-trap buffer was mixed in. The mixture was loaded by centrifugation onto an S-Trap Micro Spin Column and washed 3× with S-trap buffer. Using the serine protease trypsin, protein digestions were carried out at 47 °C for 1 h in 50 mM triethylamonium bicarbonate (TEAB) buffer within the S-Trap Micro Spin column. Digestion products were eluted sequentially with 40 µL 50 mM TEAB and 0.2% formic acid. Eluates were dried and re-suspended in 0.1% formic acid.Eluates were analysed by HPLC-MS/MS in positive ion mode on a Thermo Scientific Orbitrap Fusion Lumos Tribrid mass spectrometer (Thermo Fisher, San Jose, CA, USA), equipped with a nanospray ionisation source and a Thermo Fisher Ultimate 3000 RSLCnano HPLC System (Thermo Fisher). Peptide mixtures were loaded onto a PEPMAP100 C18 trap column (75 µm × 20 mm, 5 µm particle size; Thermo Fisher) at a constant flow of 30 μL/min and 60 °C isothermal. Peptides were eluted at a rate of 0.2 μL/min and separated using a Reprosil C18 analytical column (75 μm × 15 mm, 1.9 μm particle size; PepSep, DK) with a 60-min solvent gradient: 0–45 min: 4–35% acetonitrile + 0.1% formic acid; 45–55 min: 90% acetonitrile + 0.1% formic acid; 55–60 min: 4% acetonitrile + 0.1% formic acid.MS data were acquired in data-dependent mode with a cycle time of 3 s. MS1 scan data were acquired with the Orbitrap mass analyser, using a mass range of 400–1600 m/z, with the resolution set to 120,000. The automatic gain control (AGC) was set to 4e5, with a maximum ion injection time of 50 ms, and the radio frequency (RF) lens was set to 30%. Isolations for MS2 scans were run using a quadrupole mass analyser, with an isolation window of 0.7. MS2 scan data were acquired with the Orbitrap mass analyser at a resolution of 15,000 m/z, with a maximum ion injection time of 22 ms, and the AGC target set to 5e4. Higher energy collisional dissociation (HCD; fixed normalised collision energy: 30%) was used for generating MS2 spectra, with the number of microscans set to 1.Statistics and reproducibilityData (Supplementary Table 2) were analysed statistically using R70. Data of experiments 1–18 and 29–31 (testing courtship by male spiders in response to contact pheromone components) were analysed with a Wilcoxon test or Kruskal–Wallis two-tailed rank-sum test with Benjamini–Hochberg correction to adjust for multiple comparison. Data of experiments 19–21 (revealing the presence of contact pheromone components in the abdomen, silk glands, and posterior aggregate silk gland) were analysed with two-tailed, rather than one-tailed, Wilcoxon test or Kruskal–Wallis rank tests because we had no strong assumption as to whether or not pheromone would be present in any of these potential pheromone sources. The p values were adjusted for multiple comparison using the Benjamini–Hochberg method. Y-tube olfactometer data of experiments 22, 23 and 25–27, as well as the hallway experiment 28 (revealing attraction of male spiders to volatile pheromone components) were analysed using an one-tailed71 binomial test, anticipating attraction of spiders to volatile mate attractant pheromone components rather than to solvent control stimuli. Data of experiment 32 (revealing a correlation between web pH and breakdown of web-borne contact pheromone components) were analysed using generalised linear models. Data of experiments 33–35 (showing pH-dependent breakdown of synthetic contact pheromone) were compared using a two-tailed Kruskal–Wallis test with Benjamini–Hochberg correction.Reporting summaryFurther information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article. More