More stories

  • in

    Composition and decomposition of rhizoma peanut (Arachis glabrata Benth.) belowground biomass

    Experimental siteAll procedures for the experiment involving animals were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations and they were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) of the University of Florida (protocol #201509019). The experiment was conducted at the University of Florida North Florida Research and Education Center (NFREC) located in Marianna, FL (30° 52ʹ N, 85° 11ʹ W, 35 m asl) during 2018 and 2019.The study site was an existing mixed RP-bahiagrass grazing study where ‘Ecoturf’ RP was strip-planted into ‘Argentine’ bahiagrass on 12 June 2014. Rhizoma peanut strips were approximately 2-m wide, making it possible to harvest RP forage, roots, and rhizomes free of bahiagrass contamination3,4. The RP was collected from a nursery at the University of Florida—NFREC, whereas the bahiagrass seeds were bought from a seed company. All plants were collected, purchased, managed, and the research was conducted in compliance with relevant institutional, the corresponding national, and international guidelines and legislation.Soils at the experimental site were classified as Orangeburg loamy sand (fine-loamy, kaolinitic, thermic Typic Kandiudults24. At the beginning of the study, soil pH was 5.7 and soil OM was 15.4 g kg−1. Additionally, Mehlich-I extractable soil P, K, Mg, and Ca concentrations at the beginning of the experiment were 26, 99, 43, and 224 mg kg−1, respectively. Total annual rainfall and average annual temperature at the experimental site were 1889 and 602 mm, and 19 and 21 °C, for 2018 and 2019, respectively, and their monthly averages are shown in Fig. 5.Figure 5Monthly weather conditions at North Florida Research and Education Center (NFREC) Marianna, FL, during the experimental years.Full size imageTreatments and experimental designTreatments were two defoliation regimes applied to RP, continuously stocking and 56-days interval between clipping harvests. At the continuous stocking, stocking rates were variable to maintain similar herbage allowance among pastures, which was assessed every 14 days as described by Sollenberger et al.25. Two tester Angus crossbred steers (Bos spp.) remained on each pasture throughout the experimental period. Put-and-take cattle were allocated as needed to maintain a target herbage allowance of 1.5 kg DM kg−1 bodyweight3. Treatments were situated adjacent to each other (i.e., paired sites) in monoculture strips of RP within each of three 0.85-ha pastures. Each pasture was considered a block, thus the experiment consisted of three replicates of each treatment in a randomized complete block design. Within each replicate, treatments had three repetitions (pseudo replicates). To prohibit animal access to the non-grazed treatment, three 2 × 2-m exclusion cages were placed on RP strips in each pasture. Rhizoma peanut herbage mass was determined at both the grazed and non-grazed sites three times each year, at days 56, 112, and 168 of the experimental period by using a 0.25-m−2 quadrat. Two quadrats were collected in each repetition by clipping all the biomass within each quadrat at 2-cm stubble height. After each herbage mass sampling, the non-grazed residual dry matter inside the cages was clipped to a 2-cm stubble height using a weed eater and the herbage removed by raking. On average, across sampling dates and years, herbage mass at the grazed and non-grazed sites was 1050 and 1810 kg of organic matter (OM) ha−1, respectively.Long-term and short-term decomposition studiesThere were two types of root-rhizome decomposition trials. The first is referred to as the long-term decomposition study, and the second is the short-term decomposition study. The long-term study had an incubation period of 168 days, with a single in-situ incubation per year starting in May. The short-term study had in-situ incubation periods of 56 days and there were three incubations per year, occurring in May, June, and August. In all cases, only roots and rhizomes attached to the plant were used in both trials.Long-term studyOn 26 Apr. 2018 and on 23 Apr. 2019, right after RP emergence after breaking dormancy, RP roots and rhizomes were collected from an existing mixed RP-bahiagrass grazing study where RP had been planted in strips into bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum Flüggé) in 2014. Rhizoma peanut strips were approximately 2.75-m wide, alternating with similar wide bahiagrass strips. A pure stand of RP had been maintained in the strips during previous years using herbicides3, making it possible to harvest RP roots and rhizomes free of bahiagrass contamination. Roots and rhizomes were collected at 24 different points in each of three blocks of the original experiment. Roots and rhizomes were collected at 20-cm depth using shovels. As defoliation treatments had not being applied at this time of the year, the same material was used to perform the incubation inside and outside the exclusion cages. After harvesting, excess soil was removed by shaking from the root-rhizome mat using a 1.4-cm diameter sieve. Thereafter, the existing aboveground material was clipped, and the roots and rhizomes were then washed over the same sieve to remove the remaining soil. After washing, roots and rhizomes were dried to constant weight in a forced-air drying oven at 55 °C.To perform the decomposition study, approximately 12 g of dry roots and rhizomes were placed in Ankom bags (10 by 20 cm, 50 µm porosity; ANKOM Technology) and sealed17. Roots and rhizomes were aimed to be placed intact into Ankom bags, nonetheless, when they could not fit inside the bags, they were cut in the middle before being placed. On 2 May 2018 and 1 May 2019, the incubation period began. For each treatment, bags were incubated in situ in the field at 10-cm depth in the same blocks from which they were collected. Bags were removed from the field after 0, 3, 7, 14, 28, 56, 112, and 168 days. For each treatment within each block, three bags were incubated for each incubation time. Additionally, empty bags (one bag per treatment per time per block) were placed in the field. After removal of the in-situ bags from the field, samples and empty bags were dried at 55 °C for 72 h, cleaned with a brush, and weighed. Thereafter, samples were ground to pass a 2-mm screen using a Wiley Mill (Model 4, Thomas-Wiley Laboratory Mill, Thomas Scientific) and analyzed for DM and OM. Subsamples of the 2-mm ground samples were ball milled in a Mixer Mill (MM 400, Retsch) at 25 Hz for 9 min. Ball-milled samples were analyzed for C and N by dry combustion using an elemental analyzer (Vario Micro cube, Elementar). Additionally, samples ground at 2-mm were used to determine ADF in aboveground samples26. The N concentration in the ADF was determined using the above protocol to obtain the ADIN.Short-term studiesThe short-term studies were performed following the same procedures as the long-term study, except that the incubation period was only 56 days, and these studies were repeated three times each year. Roots and rhizomes were incubated in situ on 2 May, 27 June, and 23 Aug. 2018 and on 1 May, 26 June, and 21 Aug. 2019, following the same protocol as described above, except that bags were removed from the field after 0, 3, 7, 14, 28, and 56 days of incubation. The incubations occurring in May, June, and August will be referred as early, middle, and late season, respectively.The early-season incubation period uses the data from the first 56 days of the long-term study described above. For the middle- and late-season incubations each year, roots and rhizomes were harvested approximately 7 days days prior to incubation. Approximately six points in each repetition were collected at 20-cm depth using shovels. For the grazed treatment, roots and rhizomes were collected in the grazed area nearby the exclusion cages, whereas for the non-grazed treatment, the material was collected inside the exclusion cages. After removal of the bags from the field, they were processed and analyzed for DM, OM, C, and N following the protocol described above.Statistical analysesLong-term studyRemaining biomass, remaining N, C:N ratio, ADF, and ADIN were analyzed using the PROC GLIMMIX from SAS27, with treatment and days of incubation as fixed effects, and years and blocks as random effects. Days of incubation were considered repeated measures. Means were compared using the PDIFF procedure at the 5% significance level. When treatment or the interaction of treatment × day of incubation were statistically significant in the ANOVA, nonlinear models were tested to fit the data for each variable and treatment. Nonlinear models were selected for a given response based on data distribution and type of response. If only days of incubation was significant, the same model was applied for all treatments.Remaining biomass (OM basis), remaining N, and C:N ratio were explained by the single exponential decay model14,17,28. The equation describing this process is:$$X=B0, {exp}^{-kt},$$
    (1)
    where X is the remaining biomass, remaining N, or C:N ratio at day t, B0 is the disappearance coefficient, and k is the relative decay rate (g g−1 day−1). The model used to describe ADF and ADIN was the two-stage model “linear plateau”15,29. The equation describing this process is:$$begin{gathered} Xt = A + b1 times t, {text{if t }} le {text{ T}}, hfill \ {text{and}},{ } Xt = A + b1 times T, {text{if t }} > {text{ T}}, hfill \ end{gathered}$$
    (2)
    where X is the concentration of ADIN, t is the day of incubation, A is the initial concentration, b1 is the rate of increase in concentration from the beginning of incubation until plateau is reached; and T is the day in which concentration reaches the plateau.Short-term studiesThe single exponential model was applied in the remaining OM and remaining N, for each experimental unit, to obtain individual values for B0 and k. The data for initial N concentration, initial C:N ratio, and B0 and k for remaining OM and remaining N were analyzed using the PROC GLIMMIX from SAS27, with treatment and period as fixed effects, and years and blocks as random effects. Means were compared using the PDIFF procedure at the 5% significance level.Arrive guidelinesThis is study is reported in accordance to ARRIVE guidelines. More

  • in

    Drivers of parasite communities in three sympatric benthic sharks in the Gulf of Naples (central Mediterranean Sea)

    Marcogliese, D. J. & Cone, D. K. Food webs: A plea for parasites. Trends Ecol. Evol. 12, 320–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(97)01080-X (1997).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Marcogliese, D. J. Food webs and the transmission of parasites to marine fish. Parasitology 124(7), 83–99. https://doi.org/10.1017/s003118200200149x (2002).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Marcogliese, D. J. Parasites: Small players with crucial roles in the ecological theater. EcoHealth 1, 151–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-004-0028-3 (2004).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Marcogliese, D. J. Parasites of the superorganism: Are they indicators of ecosystem health?. Int. J. Parasitol. 35(7), 705–716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpara.2005.01.015 (2005).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Rasmussen, T. K. & Randhawa, H. S. Host diet influences parasite diversity: A case study looking at tapeworm diversity among sharks. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 605, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps12751 (2018).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Vidal-Martínez, V. M., Pech, D., Sures, B., Purucker, S. T. & Poulin, R. Can parasites really reveal environmental impact?. Trends Parasitol. 26(1), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pt.2009.11.001 (2010).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Derbel, H., Châari, M. & Neifar, L. Digenean species diversity in teleost fishes from the Gulf of Gabes, Tunisia (Western Mediterranean). Parasite 19(2), 129–135. https://doi.org/10.1051/parasite/2012192129 (2012).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Mattiucci, S. et al. Temporal stability of parasite distribution and genetic variability values of Contracaecum osculatum sp. D and C. osculatum sp. E (Nematoda: Anisakidae) from fish of the Ross Sea (Antarctica). Int. J. Parasitol. Parasites Wildl. 4(3), 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijppaw.2015.10.004 (2015).Sures, B., Nachev, M., Selbach, C. & Marcogliese, D. J. Parasite responses to pollution: what we know and where we go in ‘Environmental Parasitology’. Parasit. Vectors 10, 65. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-017-2001-3 (2017).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Santoro, M., Iaccarino, D. & Bellisario, B. Host biological factors and geographic locality influence predictors of parasite communities in sympatric sparid fishes off the southern Italian coast. Sci. Rep. 10(1), 13283. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-69628-1 (2020).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Thomas, F., Poulin, R., de Meeüs, T., Guégan, J. F. & Renaud, F. Parasites and ecosystem engineering: What roles could they play?. Oikos 84, 167–171. https://doi.org/10.2307/3546879 (1999).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Timi, J. T. & Poulin, R. Why ignoring parasites in fish ecology is a mistake. Int. J. Parasitol. 50(10–11), 755–761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpara.2020.04.007 (2020).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Lafferty, et al. Parasites in food webs: The ultimate missing links. Ecol. Lett. 11, 533–546. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01174.x (2008).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Heithaus, M. R., Frid, A., Wirsing, A. J. & Worm, B. Predicting ecological consequences of marine top predator declines. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23(4), 202–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.01.003 (2008).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Stevens, J. D., Bonfil, R., Dulvy, N. K. & Walker, P. A. The effects of fishing on sharks, rays, and chimaeras (chondrichthyans), and the implications for marine ecosystems. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 57(3), 476–494. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmsc.2000.0724 (2000).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Myers, R. A., Baum, J. K., Shepherd, T. D., Powers, S. P. & Peterson, C. H. Cascading effects of the loss of apex predatory sharks from a coastal ocean. Science 315(5820), 1846–1850. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1138657 (2007).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Palm, H. W. Fish parasites as biological indicators in a changing world: can we monitor environmental impact and climate change? In: Progress in Parasitology (ed. Melhorn, H.) 223–250 (Berlin, 2011).Dallarés, S. Twenty thousand parasites under the sea: A multidisciplinary approach to parasite communities of deep-dwelling fishes from the slopes of the Balearic Sea (NW Mediterranean). PhD Thesis. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. (2016).Dallarés, S., Pérez-del-Olmo, A., Montero, F. E. & Carrassón, M. Composition and seasonal dynamics of the parasite communities of Scyliorhinus canicula (L., 1758) and Galeus melastomus Rafinesque. (Elasmobranchii) from the NW Mediterranean Sea in relation to host biology and ecological features. Hydrobiologia 799(275–291). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-017-3226-z (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Dallarés, S., Padrós, F., Cartes, J. E., Solé, M. & Carrassón, M. The parasite community of the sharks Galeus melastomus, Etmopterus spinax and Centroscymnus coelolepis from the NW Mediterranean deep-sea in relation to feeding ecology and health condition of the host and environmental gradients and variables. Deep Sea Res. Part I Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 129, 41–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.2017.09.007 (2017).Ebert, D. A. & Dando, M. Field Guide to Sharks, Rays & Chimaeras of Europe and the Mediterranean. 385 (Princeton University Press, 2021).Santoro, M., Bellisario, B., Crocetta, F., Degli Uberti, B. & Palomba, M. A molecular and ecological study of Grillotia (Cestoda: Trypanorhyncha) larval infection in small to mid-sized benthonic sharks in the Gulf of Naples, Mediterranean Sea. Ecol. Evol. 11(20), 13744–13755. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7933 (2021).Crocetta, F. et al. Bottom-trawl catch composition in a highly polluted coastal area reveals multifaceted native biodiversity and complex communities of fouling organisms on litter discharge. Mar. Environ. Res. 155, 104875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2020.104875 (2020).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Hay Mele, B. et al. Ecological assessment of anthropogenic impact in marine ecosystems: the case of Bagnoli Bay. Mar. Environ. Res. 158, 104953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2020.104953 (2020).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Rizzo, L., Musco, L. & Crocetta, F. Cohabiting with litter: Fish and benthic assemblages in coastal habitats of a heavily urbanized area. Mar. Poll. Bull. 164, 112077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112077 (2021).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Tanduo, V., Osca, D. & Crocetta, F. A bycatch surprise: Scyllarus subarctus Crosnier, 1970 (Decapoda: Achelata: Scyllaridae) in the Mediterranean Sea. J. Crust. Biol. 41(2), ruab010. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcbiol/ruab010 (2021).Follesa, M. C. & Carbonara, P. Atlas of the maturity stages of Mediterranean fishery resources in General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean.Studies and Reviews (ed. FAO) 259 (FAO, 2019).Le Cren, E. D. The length-weight relationship and seasonal cycle in gonad weight and condition in the perch (Perca fuviatilis). J. Anim. Ecol. 20, 201–219 (1951).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Mouine, N., Francour, P., Ktari, M. H. & Chakroun-Marzouk, N. The reproductive biology of Diplodus sargus sargus in the Gulf of Tunis (Central Mediterranean). Sci. Mar. 71(3), 461–469. https://doi.org/10.3989/scimar.2007.71n3461 (2007).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Santoro, M., Palomba, M., Mattiucci, S., Osca, D. & Crocetta, F. New parasite records for the sunfish Mola mola in the Mediterranean Sea and their potential use as biological tags for long-distance host migration. Front. Vet. Sci. 7, 579728. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.579728 (2020).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Kabata, Z. Parasitic Copepoda of British Fishes. 468 (The Ray Society, British Museum, 1979).Bray, R. A. & Moore, A. B. M. The first record of the elasmobranch parasite Diphterostomum betencourti (Monticelli, 1893) (Digenea, Zoogonidae) in the coastal waters of southern England. Acta Parasitol. 45(4), 299–302 (2000).
    Google Scholar 
    Gibson, D. I. Superfamily Azygioidea Lühe, 1909 in Keys to the Trematoda. Vol. 1(eds. Gibson, D. I., Jones, A. & Bray, R. A.) 19–24 (CAB International, 2002).Anderson, R. C., Chabaud, A. G. & Willmott, S. CIH keys to the nematode parasites of vertebrates: Archival volume (eds. Anderson, R. C., Chabaud, A. G. & Willmott, S.) 463 (CAB International, 2009).Palm, H. W. The Trypanorhyncha Diesing, 1863 (IPB-PKSPL Press, 2004).
    Google Scholar 
    Dallarés, S., Pérez-del-Olmo, A., Carrassón, M. & Kuchta, R. Morphological and molecular characterisation of Ditrachybothridium macrocephalum Rees, 1959 (Cestoda: Diphyllidea) from Galeus melastomus Rafinesque in the Western Mediterranean. Syst. Parasitol. 92, 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11230-015-9586-8 (2015).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Zhu, X., Gasser, R. B., Podolska, M. & Chilton, N. B. Characterisation of anisakid nematodes with zoonotic potential by nuclear ribosomal DNA sequences. Int. J. Parasitol. 28(12), 1911–1921. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0020-7519(98)00150-7 (1998).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Van der Auwera, G., Chapelle, S. & De Wachter, R. Structure of the large ribosomal subunit RNA of Phytophthora megasperma, and phylogeny of the oomycetes. FEBS Lett. 338(2), 133–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-5793(94)80350-1 (1994).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Palm, H. W., Waeschenbach, A., Olson, P. D. & Littlewood, D. T. Molecular phylogeny and evolution of the Trypanorhyncha Diesing, 1863 (Platyhelminthes: Cestoda). Mol. Phyl. Evol. 52(2), 351–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2009.01.019 (2009).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kumar, S., Stecher, G., Li, M., Knyaz, C. & Tamura, K. MEGA X: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis across computing platforms. Mol. Biol. Evol. 35, 1547–1549. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msy096 (2018).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Morgulis, A. et al. Database indexing for production MegaBLAST searches. Bioinformatics 24(16), 1757–1764. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btn322 (2008).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Bush, A. O., Lafferty, K. D., Lotz, J. M. & Shostak, A. W. Parasitology meets ecology on its own terms: Margolis et al. revisited. J. Parasitol. 83, 575–583. https://doi.org/10.2307/3284227 (1997).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Euzet, L. & Combes, C. Les problèmes de l’espèces chez les animaux parasites. Bull. Soc. Zool. Fr. 40, 239–285 (1980).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Anderson, M. J. A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral. Ecol. 26(1), 32–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9993.2001.01070.pp.x (2001).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    McArdle, B. H. & Anderson, M. J. Fitting multivariate models to community data: .a comment on distance-based redundancy analysis. Ecology 82(1), 290–297. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2001)082[0290:FMMTCD]2.0.CO;2 (2001).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Locke, S. A., McLaughlin, J. D. & Marcogliese, D. J. Predicting the similarity of parasite communities in freshwater fishes using the phylogeny, ecology and proximity of hosts. Oikos 122(1), 73–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2012.20211.x (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    McArtor, D. B., Lubke, G. H. & Bergeman, C. S. Extending multivariate distance matrix regression with an effect size measure and the asymptotic null distribution of the test statistic. Psychometrika 82, 1052–1077. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-016-9527-8 (2018).MathSciNet 
    Article 
    MATH 

    Google Scholar 
    Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.R-project.org/ (2017).Caira, J. N., Bueno, V. & Jensen, K. Emerging global novelty in phyllobothriidean tapeworms (Cestoda: Phyllobothriidea) from sharks and skates (Elasmobranchii). Zool. J. Linnean Soc. 193, 1336–1363. https://doi.org/10.1093/zoolinnean/zlaa185 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Fanelli, E., Rey, J., Torres, P. & Gil de Sola, L. Feeding habits of blackmouth catshark Galeus melastomus Rafinesque, 1810 and velvet belly lantern shark Etmopterus spinax (Linnaeus, 1758) in the western Mediterranean. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 25(1), 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.2008.01112.x (2009).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Anastasopoulou, A. et al. Diet and feeding strategy of blackmouth catshark Galeus melastomus. J. Fish Biol. 83(6), 1637–1655. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12269 (2013).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    D’Iglio, C. et al. Biological and ecological aspects of the blackmouth catshark (Galeus melastomus Rafinesque, 1810) in the Southern Tyrrhenian Sea. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 9(9), 967. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse9090967 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Saldanha, L., Almeida, A. J., Andrade, F. & Guerreiro, J. Observations on the diet of some slope dwelling fishes of Southern Portugal. Int. Rev. der Gesamten Hydrobiol. 80(2), 217–234. https://doi.org/10.1002/iroh.19950800210 (1995).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Mnasri, N., El Kamel, O., Boumaïza, M., Reynaud, C. & Capapé, C. Food and feeding habits of the small-spotted catshark, Scyliorhinus canicula (Chondrichthyes: Scyliorhinidae) from the northern coast of Tunisia (central Mediterranean). Cah. Biol. Mar. 53(1), 139–150 (2012).
    Google Scholar 
    Šantić, M., Rađa, B. & Pallaoro, A. Feeding habits of small-spotted catshark (Scyliorhinus canicula Linnaeus, 1758) from the eastern central Adriatic Sea. Mar. Biol. Res. 8(10), 1003–1011. https://doi.org/10.1080/17451000.2012.702912 (2012).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Mattiucci, S., Cipriani, P., Levsen, A., Paoletti, M. & Nascetti, G. Molecular epidemiology of Anisakis and Anisakiasis: an ecological and evolutionary road map. Adv. Parasitol. 99, 93–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.apar.2017.12.001 (2018).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Santoro, M. et al. Helminth parasites of the dwarf sperm whale Kogia sima (Cetacea: Kogiidae) from the Mediterranean Sea, with implications on host ecology. Dis. Aquat. Org. 129(3), 175–182. https://doi.org/10.3354/dao03251 (2018).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Cipriani, P. et al. The Mediterranean European hake, Merluccius merluccius: detecting drivers influencing the Anisakis spp. larvae distribution. Fish. Res. 202, 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2017.07.010 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Levsen, A. et al. Anisakis species composition and infection characteristics in Atlantic mackerel, Scomber scombrus, from major European fishing grounds—Reflecting changing fish host distribution and migration pattern. Fish. Res. 202, 112–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2017.07.030 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Palomba, M., Mattiucci, S., Crocetta, F., Osca, D. & Santoro, M. Insights into the role of deep-sea squids of the genus Histioteuthis (Histioteuthidae) in the life cycle of ascaridoid parasites in the Central Mediterranean Sea waters. Sci. Rep. 11, 7135. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-86248-5 (2021).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Palombi, A. Il ciclo biologico di Diphterostomum brusinae Stossich (Trematode digenetico: fam. Zoogonidae Odhner). Considerazioni sui cicli evolutivi delle specie affini e dei trematodi in generale. Pubbl. Stn. Zool. 10, 111–149 (1930).
    Google Scholar 
    Gilardoni, C. et al. Cryptic speciation of the zoogonid digenean Diphterostomum flavum n. sp. demonstrated by morphological and molecular data. Parasite 27(44). https://doi.org/10.1051/parasite/2020040 (2020).Campbell, R. A., Haedrich, R. L. & Munroe, T. A. Parasitism and ecological relationships among deep-sea benthic fishes. Mar. Biol. 57, 301–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00387573 (1980).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Campbell R. A. Parasitism in the deep-sea in Deep-sea Biology, The Sea (ed. Rowe, G. T.) 473–552 (Wiley, 1983).Isbert, W. et al. Metazoan parasite communities and diet of the velvet belly lantern shark Etmopterus spinax (Squaliformes: Etmopteridae): a comparison of two deep-sea ecosystems. J. Fish Biol. 86(2), 687–706. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12591 (2015).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Klimpel, S., Palm, H. W. & Seehagen, A. Metazoan parasites and food composition of juvenile Etmopterus spinax (L., 1758) (Dalatiidae, Squaliformes) from the Norwegian Deep. Parasitol. Res. 89, 245–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00436-002-0741-1 (2003).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Moore, A. B. M. Metazoan parasites of the lesser-spotted dogfish Scyliorhinus canicula and their potential as stock discrimination tools. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK 81(6), 1009–1013. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315401004982 (2001).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Silva, C., Veríssimo, A., Cardoso, P., Cable, J. & Xavier, R. Infection of the lesser spotted dogfish with Proleptus obtusus Dujardin, 1845 (Nematoda: Spirurida) reflects ontogenetic feeding behaviour and seasonal differences in prey availability. Acta Parasit. 62(2), 471–476. https://doi.org/10.1515/ap-2017-0055 (2017).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bakopoulos, V. et al. Parasites of Scyliorhinus canicula (Linnaeus, 1758) in the north-eastern Aegean Sea. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK 98(8), 2133–2143. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315417001552 (2018).MathSciNet 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Moravec, F., Van As, J. G. & Dyková, I. Proleptus obtusus Dujardin, 1845 (Nematoda: Physalopteridae) from the puffadder shyshark Haploblepharus edwardsii (Scyliorhinidae) from off South Africa. Syst. Parasitol. 53, 169–173. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021130825469 (2002).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Morris, T., Avenant-Oldewage, A., Lamberth, S. & Reed, C. Shark parasites as bio-indicators of metals in two South African embayments. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 104(1–2), 221–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.01.027 (2016).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Kennedy, C. R., Bush, A. O. & Aho, J. M. Patterns in helminth communities: why are birds and fish different?. Parasitology 93(1), 205–215. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031182000049945 (1986).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Bush, A. O., Lafferty, K. D., Lotz, J. M. & Shostak, A. W. Parasitology meets ecology on its own terms: Margolis et al. revisited. J. Parasitol. 83(4), 575–583. https://doi.org/10.2307/3284227 (1997).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Poulin, R. Species richness of parasite assemblages: Evolution and patterns. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 28, 341–358 (1997).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Rizzo, E. & Bazzoli, N. Reproduction and embryogenesis in Biology and physiology of freshwater neotropical fish (eds. Baldisserotto, B., Criscuolo Urbinati, E. & Cyrino J. E. P.) 287–313 (Academic Press, 2020).Poulin, R. Variation in the intraspecific relationship between fish length and intensity of parasitic infection: Biological and statistical causes. J. Fish Biol. 56(1), 123–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2000.tb02090.x (2005).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Poulin, R. & Morand, S. Parasite Biodiversity (eds.) 216 Smithsonian Institution Books, 2004.Capapé, C. et al. Production, maturity, reproductive cycle and fecundity of small-spotted catshark, Scyliorhinus canicula (Chondrichthyes: Scyliorhinidae) from the northern coast of Tunisia (Central Mediterranean). J. Ichthyol. 54, 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0032945214010020 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kennedy, C.R Helminth communities in freshwater fish: structured communities or stochastic assemblages? in Parasite Communities: Patterns and Processes (eds. Esch G. W., Bush A. O., Aho J. M.) 156 (Chapman and Hall, 1990).Compagno, L. J. V. Sharks of the world in An annotated and illustrated catalogue of shark species known to date. Part 1 – Hexanchiformes to Lamniformes (ed. FAO) 249 (FAO, 1984).Compagno, L. J. V. Sharks of the world in An annotated and illustrated catalogue of shark species known to date. Part 2 – Carcharhiniformes (ed. FAO) 486 (FAO, 1984). More

  • in

    Predicting ecological impacts of the invasive brush-clawed shore crab under environmental change

    Simberloff, D. et al. Impacts of biological invasions: What’s what and the way forward. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 58–66 (2013).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Pyšek, P. et al. Scientists’ warning on invasive alien species. Biol. Rev. 95(6), 1511–1534 (2020).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Seebens, H. et al. No saturation in the accumulation of alien species worldwide. Nat. Commun. 8, 14435 (2017).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bailey, S. A. et al. Trends in the detection of aquatic non–indigenous species across global marine, estuarine and freshwater ecosystems: A 50–year perspective. Divers. Distrib. 26, 1780–1797 (2020).MathSciNet 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ricciardi, A. Are modern biological invasions an unprecedented form of global change?. Conserv. Biol. 21, 329–336 (2007).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Meyerson, M. Invasive alien species in an era of globalization. Front. Ecol. Environ. 5, 199–208 (2007).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hulme, P. E. Trade, transport and trouble: Managing invasive species pathways in an era of globalization. J. Appl. Ecol. 46, 10–18 (2009).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bonnamour, A., Gippet, J. M. & Bertelsmeier, C. Insect and plant invasions follow two waves of globalisation. Ecol. Lett. 24(11), 2418–2426 (2021).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Piola, R. F. & Johnston, E. L. Pollution reduces native diversity and increases invader dominance in marine hard-substrate communities. Divers. Distrib. 14, 329–342 (2008).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Rahel, F. J. & Olden, J. D. Assessing the effects of climate change on aquatic invasive species. Conserv. Biol. 22, 521–533 (2008).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kenworthy, J. M., Davoult, D. & Lejeusne, C. Compared stress tolerance to short-term exposure in native and invasive tunicates from the NE Atlantic: When the invader performs better. Mar. Biol. 165(10), 1–11 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Gollasch, S., Galil, B. S., & Cohen, A. N. Bridging divides: Maritime canals as invasion corridors. In Bridging Divides: Maritime Canals as Invasion Corridors (Vol. 83). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5047-3 (2006).Galil, B. S. et al. ‘Double trouble’: The expansion of the Suez Canal and marine bioinvasions in the Mediterranean Sea. Biol. Invasions 17, 973–976 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Jeschke, J. et al. Support for major hypotheses in invasion biology is uneven and declining. NeoBiota 14, 1–20 (2012).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Lowry, E. et al. Biological invasions: A field synopsis, systematic review, and database of the literature. Ecol. Evol. 3, 182–196 (2012).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Brockerhoff, A., & McLay, C. Human-Mediated Spread of Alien Crabs. In In the Wrong Place – Alien Marine Crustaceans: Distribution, Biology and Impacts (pp. 27–106). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0591-3_2 (2011).Hammock, B. G. et al. Low food availability narrows the tolerance of the copepod eurytemora affinis to salinity, but not to temperature. Estuar. Coasts 39, 189–200 (2016).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Rato, L. D., Crespo, D. & Lemos, M. F. L. Mechanisms of bioinvasions by coastal crabs using integrative approaches – A conceptual review. Ecol. Ind. 125, 107578 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Weis, J. S. The role of behavior in the success of invasive crustaceans. Mar. Freshw. Behav. Physiol. 43, 83–98 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hänfling, B., Edwards, F. & Gherardi, F. Invasive alien Crustacea: Dispersal, establishment, impact and control. Biocontrol 56, 573–595 (2011).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kouba, A. et al. Identifying economic costs and knowledge gaps of invasive aquatic crustaceans. Sci. Total Environ. 813, 152325 (2022).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Geburzi, J. C., & McCarthy, M. L. How Do They Do It? – Understanding the Success of Marine Invasive Species. In YOUMARES 8 – Oceans Across Boundaries: Learning from each other (pp. 109–124). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93284-2_8 (2018).Casties, I. & Briski, E. Life history traits of aquatic non-indigenous species: Freshwater vs. marine habitats. Aquat. Invasions 14, 566–581 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Grosholz, E. D. & Ruiz, G. M. Predicting the impact of introduced marine species: Lessons from the multiple invasions of the European green crab Carcinus maenas. Biol. Cons. 78, 59–66 (1996).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Geburzi, J., Graumann, G., Köhnk, S. & Brandis, D. First record of the Asian crab Hemigrapsus takanoi Asakura & Watanabe, 2005 (Decapoda, Brachyura, Varunidae) in the Baltic Sea. BioInvasions Rec. 4, 103–107 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Briski, E., Ghabooli, S., Bailey, S. A. & MacIsaac, H. J. Invasion risk posed by macroinvertebrates transported in ships’ ballast tanks. Biol. Invasions 14, 1843–1850 (2012).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Wasserstraßen-und Schifffahrtsverwaltung des Bundes. Halbjahresbilanz Nord-Ostsee-Kanal 2021. www.wsv.de (2021).Nour, O. M., Stumpp, M., Morón Lugo, S. C., Barboza, F. R. & Pansch, C. Population structure of the recent invader Hemigrapsus takanoi and prey size selection on Baltic Sea mussels. Aquat. Invasions 15, 297–317 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Andersson, A. et al. Projected future climate change and Baltic Sea ecosystem management. Ambio 44(Suppl 3), 345–356 (2015).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    BACC Author Team. Assessment of Climate Change for the Baltic Sea Basin. (2008).BACC Author Team. Second Assessment of Climate Change for the Baltic Sea Basin. (2015).Meier, H. E. M. et al. Modeling the combined impact of changing climate and changing nutrient loads on the Baltic Sea environment in an ensemble of transient simulations for 1961–2099. Clim. Dyn. 39, 2421–2441 (2012).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Meier, H. E. M. et al. Climate change in the baltic sea region: A summary. Earth Syst. Dyn. Discuss. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2021-67 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ricciardi, A. et al. Four priority areas to advance invasion science in the face of rapid environmental change. Environ. Rev. 29, 119–141 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Solomon, M. E. The natural control of animal populations. J. Anim. Ecol. 18, 1–35 (1949).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Holling, C. S. Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism. Can. Entomol. 91, 385–398 (1959).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Dick, J. T. A. et al. Advancing impact prediction and hypothesis testing in invasion ecology using a comparative functional response approach. Biol. Invasions 16, 735–753 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Laverty, C. et al. Assessing the ecological impacts of invasive species based on their functional responses and abundances. Biol. Invasions 19, 1653–1665 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Anton, A. et al. Global ecological impacts of marine exotic species. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 787–800 (2019).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Crystal-Ornelas, R. & Lockwood, J. L. The ‘known unknowns’ of invasive species impact measurement. Biol. Invasions 22, 1513–1525 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Boudreau, S. A. & Worm, B. Ecological role of large benthic decapods in marine ecosystems: A review. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 469, 195–213 (2012).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Dick, J. T. A. et al. Invader relative impact potential: A new metric to understand and predict the ecological impacts of existing, emerging and future invasive alien species. J. Appl. Ecol. 54, 1259–1267 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Cornelius, A., Wagner, K. & Buschbaum, C. Prey preferences, consumption rates and predation effects of Asian shore crabs (Hemigrapsus takanoi) in comparison to native shore crabs (Carcinus maenas) in northwestern Europe. Mar. Biodivers. 51(5), 1–17 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Elner, R. W. The influence of temperature, sex and chela size in the foraging strategy of the shore crab, Carcinus maenas (L.). Mar. Behav. Physiol. 7, 15–24 (1980).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Brose, U. Body-mass constraints on foraging behaviour determine population and food-web dynamics. Funct. Ecol. 24, 28–34 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Cuthbert, R. N. et al. Influence of intra- and interspecific variation in predator-prey body size ratios on trophic interaction strengths. Ecol. Evol. 10, 5946–5962 (2020).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Payne, A. & Kraemer, G. P. Morphometry and claw strength of the non-native asian shore crab, Hemigrapsus sanguineus. Northeast. Nat. 20, 478–492 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sedova, L. G. The effect of temperature on the rate of oxygen consumption in the sea urchin Strongylocentrotus intermedius. Russ. J. Mar. Biol. 26, 51–53 (2000).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Saucedo, P. E., Ocampo, L., Monteforte, M. & Bervera, H. Effect of temperature on oxygen consumption and ammonia excretion in the Calafa mother-of-pearl oyster, Pinctada mazatlanica (Hanley, 1856). Aquaculture 229, 377–387 (2004).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Nie, H. et al. Effects of temperature and salinity on oxygen consumption and ammonia excretion in different colour strains of the Manila clam, Ruditapes philippinarum. Aquac. Res. 48, 2778–2786 (2017).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Nguyen, K. D. T. et al. Upper Temperature limits of tropical marine ectotherms: Global warming implications. PLoS ONE 6, e29340 (2011).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Tattersall, G. J. et al. Coping with thermal challenges: Physiological adaptations to environmental temperatures. In Comprehensive Physiology 2151–2202 (Wiley, Hoboken, 2012).Chapter 

    Google Scholar 
    Barrios-O’Neill, D., Dick, J. T., Emmerson, M. C., Ricciardi, A. & MacIsaac, H. J. Predator-free space, functional responses and biological invasions. Funct. Ecol. 29(3), 377–384 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Tattersall, G. J. et al. Coping with Thermal Challenges: Physiological Adaptations to Environmental Temperatures Vol. 2 (Wiley, Hoboken, 2012).
    Google Scholar 
    Bollache, L., Dick, J., Farnsworth, K. & Montgomery, I. Comparison of the functional responses of invasive and native amphipods. Biol. Lett. 4, 166–169 (2008).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Dick, J. T. A. et al. Ecological impacts of an invasive predator explained and predicted by comparative functional responses. Biol. Invasions 15, 837–846 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Cuthbert, R. N., Dickey, J. W. E., Coughlan, N. E., Joyce, P. W. S. & Dick, J. T. A. The functional response ratio (FRR): Advancing comparative metrics for predicting the ecological impacts of invasive alien species. Biol. Invasions 21, 2543–2547 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Englund, G., Ohlund, G., Hein, C. L. & Diehl, S. Temperature dependence of the functional response. Ecol Lett 14, 914–921 (2011).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Jeschke, J. M., Kopp, M. & Tollrian, R. Predator functional responses: Discriminating between handling and digesting prey. Ecol. Monogr. 72(1), 95–112 (2002).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Dell, A. I., Pawar, S. & van Savage, M. Systematic variation in the temperature dependence of physiological and ecological traits. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A 108, 10591–10596 (2011).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    South, J., Welsh, D., Anton, A., Sigwart, J. D. & Dick, J. T. A. Increasing temperature decreases the predatory effect of the intertidal shanny Lipophrys pholis on an amphipod prey. J. Fish Biol. 92, 150–164 (2018).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Pörtner, H.-O. & Knust, R. Climate change affects marine fishes through the oxygen limitation of thermal tolerance. Science 315, 95–97 (2007).ADS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Dickey, J. W. E. et al. Breathing space: Deoxygenation of aquatic environments can drive differential ecological impacts across biological invasion stages. Biol. Invasions 23, 2831–2847 (2021).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Watanabe, S., Wilder, M. N., Strüssmann, C. A. & Shinji, J. Short-term responses of the adults of the common Japanese intertidal crab, Hemigrapsus takanoi (Decapoda: Brachyura: Grapsoidea) at different salinities: Osmoregulation, oxygen consumption, and ammonia excretion. J. Crustac. Biol. 29, 269–272 (2009).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Wasserman, R. J. et al. Using functional responses to quantify interaction effects among predators. Funct. Ecol. 30, 1988–1998 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Murdoch, W. W. Switching in general predators: Experiments on predator specificity and stability of prey populations. Ecol. Monogr. 39, 335–354 (1969).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Gonzalez, A., Lambert, A. & Ricciardi, A. When does ecosystem engineering cause invasion and species replacement?. Oikos 117, 1247–1257 (2008).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    King, J. R. & Tschinkel, W. R. Experimental evidence that human impacts drive fire ant invasions and ecological change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A 105, 20339–20343 (2008).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Asakura, A. & Watanabe, S. Hemigrapsus takanoi, new species, a sibling species of the common Japanese Intertidal Crab H. penicillatus (Decapoda: Brachyura: Grapsoidea). J. Crustac. Biol. 25, 279–292 (2005).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (2021).Hartig, F. DHARMa: Residual Diagnostics for Hierarchical (Multi-Level/Mixed) Regression Models. R package version 0.4.3, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=DHARMa (2021).Crawley, M. J. The R Book (Wiley, Hoboken, 2007).MATH 
    Book 

    Google Scholar 
    Fox, J. & Weisberg, S. An R Companion to Applied Regression (Sage, Thousand Oaks, 2019).
    Google Scholar 
    Lenth, R. v. emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. R package version 1.6.2-1, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans (2021).Pritchard, D. frair: Tools for Functional Response Analysis. R package version 0.5.100, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=frair (2017).Juliano, S.A., Nonlinear Curve Fitting: Predation and Functional Response Curves. In: Cheiner, S.M. and Gurven, J., Eds., Design and Analysis of Ecological Experiments, 2nd Edition, Chapman and Hall, London, 178–196. (2001)Rogers, D. Random search and insect population models. J. Anim. Ecol. 41, 369 (1972).Article 

    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Genetic structure of American bullfrog populations in Brazil

    Clavero, M. & García-Berthou, E. Invasive species are a leading cause of animal extinctions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20(3), 5451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.01.003 (2005).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Duenas, M. A., Hemming, D. J., Roberts, A. & Diaz-Soltero, H. The threat of invasive species to IUCN-listed critically endangered species: a systematic review. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. p. e01476 (2021).Diagne, C. et al. InvaCost, a public database of the economic costs of biological invasions worldwide. Sci. Data 7(1), 1–12 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Cuthbert, R. N. et al. Global economic costs of aquatic invasive alien species. Sci. Total Environ. 775, 145238 (2021).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Diagne, C. et al. High and rising economic costs of biological invasions worldwide. Nature 592(7855), 571–576 (2021).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Gregory, R. & Long, G. Using structured decision making to help implement a precautionary approach to endangered species management. Risk Anal. 29(4), 518–532. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01182.x (2009).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Berroneau, M., Detaint, M. & Coi, C. Bilan du programme de mise en place d’une stratégie d’éradication de la grenouille taureau Lithobates catesbeianus (Shaw 1802) en Aquitaine (2003–2007) et perspectives. Bull. Soc. Herpétol. France 127, 35–45 (2008).
    Google Scholar 
    Orchard, S. A. Removal of the American bullfrog, Rana (Lithobates) catesbeiana, from a pond and a lake on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada. Island invasives: eradication and management. IUCN (Gland, Switzerland), 1–542 (2011).Robertson, B. C. & Gemmell, N. J. Defining eradication units to control invasive pests. J. Appl. Ecol. 41(6), 1042–1048 (2004).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Shaw, G. General Zoology or Systematic Natural History Vol. 3, 106–108 (Society for the study of Amphibians and Reptiles, 1802).
    Google Scholar 
    Howard, R. D. Sexual dimorphism in bullfrogs. Ecology 62(2), 303–310 (1981).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kaefer, Í. L., Boelter, R. A. & Cechin, S. Z. Reproductive biology of the invasive bullfrog Lithobates catesbeianus in southern Brazil. In Annales Zoologici Fennici 435–444 (2007).Bissattini, A. M. & Vignoli, L. Let’s eat out, there’s crayfish for dinner: American bullfrog niche shifts inside and outside native ranges and the effect of introduced crayfish. Biol. Invasions 19(9), 2633–2646 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Boelter, R. A. & Cechin, S. Z. Impacto da dieta de rã-touro (Lithobates catesbeianus – Anura, Ranidae) sobre a fauna nativa: estudo de caso na região de Agudo – RS – Brasil 1. Nat. Conserv. 5(2), 45–53 (2007).
    Google Scholar 
    Govindarajulu, P., Price, W. S. & Anholt, B. R. Introduced bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) in western Canada: has their ecology diverged?. J. Herpetol. 40(2), 249–261 (2006).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    McCoy, C. J. Diet of bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) in Central Oklahoma farm ponds. In Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Sciences 44–45 (1967).Teixeira, E., Silva, D., Pinto, O., Filho, R. & Feio, R. N. Predation of native anurans by invasive bullfrogs in Southeastern Brazil: spatial variation and effect of microhabitat use by prey. S. Am. J. Herpetol. 6(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.2994/057.006.0101 (2011).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Wu, Z., Li, Y., Wang, Y. & Adams, M. J. Diet of introduced Bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana): predation on and diet overlap with native frogs on Daishan Island China. J. Herpetol. 39(4), 668–675 (2005).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Howard, R. D. The influence of male-defended oviposition sites on early embryo mortality in bullfrogs. Ecol. Soc. Am. 59(4), 789–798 (1978).
    Google Scholar 
    Van Wilgen, N. J., Gillespie, M. S., Richardson, D. M. & Measey, J. A taxonomically and geographically constrained information base limits non-native reptile and amphibian risk assessment: a systematic review. PeerJ 6, 5850 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sales, L., Rebouças, R. & Toledo, L. F. Native range climate is insufficient to predict anuran invasive potential. Biol. Invasions 23, 2635–2647 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kumschick, S. et al. How repeatable is the Environmental Impact Classification of Alien Taxa (EICAT)? Comparing independent global impact assessments of amphibians. Ecol. Evol. 7(8), 2661–2670 (2017).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kupferberg, S. J. Bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) invasion of a California river: the role of larval competition. Ecology 78(6), 1736–1751 (1997).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Toledo, L. F., Ribeiro, R. S. & Haddad, C. F. Anurans as prey: an exploratory analysis and size relationships between predators and their prey. J. Zool. 271(2), 170–177 (2007).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Daszak, P. et al. Experimental evidence that the bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) is a potential carrier of chytridiomycosis, an emerging fungal disease of amphibians. Herpetol. J. 14, 201–208 (2004).
    Google Scholar 
    Gervasi, S. S. et al. Experimental evidence for American bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus) susceptibility to chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis). EcoHealth 10(2), 166–171 (2013).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Urbina, J., Bredeweg, E. M., Garcia, T. S. & Blaustein, A. R. Host–pathogen dynamics among the invasive American bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus) and chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis). Hydrobiologia 817(1), 267–277 (2018).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Schloegel, L. M. et al. The North American bullfrog as a reservoir for the spread of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in Brazil. Anim. Conserv. 13, 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2009.00307.x (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ohanlon, S. J. et al. Recent Asian origin of chytrid fungi causing global amphibian declines. Science 360(6389), 621–627 (2018).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Adams, A. J. et al. Extreme drought, host density, sex, and bullfrogs influence fungal pathogen infection in a declining lotic amphibian. Ecosphere 8(3), 01740 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Santos, R. C. et al. High prevalence and low intensity of infection by Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in rainforest bullfrog populations in southern Brazil. Herpetol. Conserv. Biol. 15(1), 118–130 (2020).
    Google Scholar 
    Ribeiro, L. P. et al. Bullfrog farms release virulent zoospores of the frog-killing fungus into the natural environment. Sci. Rep. 9, 13422 (2019).ADS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Both, C. & Grant, T. Biological invasions and the acoustic niche: the effect of bullfrog calls on the acoustic signals of white-banded tree frogs. Biol. Let. 8(5), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2012.0412 (2012).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Medeiros, C. I., Both, C., Grant, T. & Hartz, S. M. Invasion of the acoustic niche: variable responses by native species to invasive American bullfrog calls. Biol. Invasions 19(2), 675–690 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ferrante, L., Kaefer, I. L. & Baccaro, F. B. Aliens in the backyard: Did the American bullfrog conquer the habitat of native frogs in the semi-deciduous Atlantic Forest?. Herpetol. J. 30, 93–98 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    da Silva Silveira, S. & Guimarães, M. The enemy within: consequences of the invasive bullfrog on native anuran populations. Biol. Invasions 23(2), 373–378 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kraus, F. Impacts from invasive reptiles and amphibians. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 46, 75–97 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ribeiro, L. P. & Toledo, L. F. An overview of the Brazilian frog farming. Aquaculture 548, 737623 (2022).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Cunha, E. R. & Delariva, R. L. Introdução da rã-touro, Lithobates catesbeianus (SHAW, 1802): uma revisão. Saúde e Biologia 4(2), 34–46 (2009).
    Google Scholar 
    Ferreira, C. M., Pimenta, A. G. C. & Neto, J. S. P. Introdução à ranicultura. Boletim Técnico Do Instituto de Pesca 33, 15 (2002).
    Google Scholar 
    Fontanello, D. & Ferreira, C. M. Histórico da ranicultura nacional. Instituto de Pesca de São Paulo (2007).Both, C. et al. Widespread occurrence of the American bullfrog, Lithobates catesbeianus (Shaw, 1802) (Anura: Ranidae), in Brazil. S. Am. J. Herpetol. 6(2), 127–135 (2011).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bai, C., Ke, Z., Consuegra, S., Liu, X. & Yiming, L. The role of founder effects on the genetic structure of the invasive bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianaus) in China. Biol. Invasions 14, 1785–1796. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-012-0189-x (2012).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Liu, X. & Li, Y. Aquaculture enclosures relate to the establishment of feral populations of introduced species. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0006199 (2009).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Santos-pereira, M. & Rocha, C. F. D. Invasive bullfrog Lithobates catesbeianus (Anura: Ranidae) in the Paraná state, Southern Brazil : a summary of the species spread. Revista Brasileira De Zoociências 16, 141–147 (2015).
    Google Scholar 
    Moreira, C. R., Henriques, M. B. & Ferreira, C. M. Frog farms as proposed in agribusiness aquaculture: economic viability based in feed conversion. Pesca Inst. Bull. 39(4), 389–399 (2018).
    Google Scholar 
    Ficetola, G. F., Thuiller, W. & Miaud, C. Prediction and validation of the potential global distribution of a problematic alien invasive species – The American bullfrog. Divers. Distrib. 13(4), 476–485. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2007.00377.x (2007).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Funk, W. C., Garcia, T. S., Cortina, G. A. & Hill, R. H. Population genetics of introduced bullfrogs, Rana (Lithobates) catesbeianus, in the Willamette Valley, Oregon, USA. Biol. Invasions 13, 651–658. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-010-9855-z (2011).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Rollins, L. A., Woolnough, A. P., Wilton, A. N., Sinclair, R. & Sherwin, W. B. Invasive species can’t cover their tracks: using microsatellites to assist management of starling (Sturnus vulgaris) populations in Western Australia. Mol. Ecol. 18, 1560–1573. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04132.x (2009).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Schwartz, M. K., Luikart, G. & Waples, R. S. Genetic monitoring as a promising tool for conservation and management. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22(1), 25–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2006.08.009 (2007).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Ficetola, G. F., Bonin, A. & Miaud, C. Population genetics reveals origin and number of founders in a biological invasion. Mol. Ecol. 17, 773–782. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03622.x (2008).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Kamath, P. L., Sepulveda, A. J. & Layhee, M. Genetic reconstruction of a bullfrog invasion to elucidate vectors of introduction and secondary spread. Ecol. Evol. 6(15), 5221–5233. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2278 (2016).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Du Sert, N. P. et al. Reporting animal research: explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0. PLoS Biol. 18(7), e3000411 (2020).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Austin, J. D. Genetic evidence for female-biased dispersal in the bullfrog, Rana catesbeiana (Ranidae). Mol. Ecol. 12(11), 3165–3172. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294X.2003.01948.x (2003).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Van Oosterhout, C., Hutchinson, W. F., Wills, D. P. M. & Shipley, P. MICRO-CHECKER: Software for identifying and correcting genotyping errors in microsatellite data. Mol. Ecol. Notes 4(3), 535–538. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2004.00684.x (2004).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Jombart, T., Devillard, S. & Balloux, F. Discriminant analysis of principal components: a new method for the analysis of genetically structured populations. BMC Genet. 11(1), 94. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2156-11-94 (2010).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Jombart, T. Adegenet: A R package for the multivariate analysis of genetic markers. Bioinformatics 24(11), 1403–1405. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btn129 (2008).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Jost, L. GST and its relatives do not measure differentiation. Mol. Ecol. 17(18), 4015–4026. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2008.03887.x (2008).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Winter, D. J. MMOD: An R library for the calculation of population differentiation statistics. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 12(6), 1158–1160. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2012.03174.x (2012).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Gerlach, G. Calculations of population differentiation based on GST and D: forget GST but not all of statistics!. Mol. Ecol. 19(18), 3845–3852 (2010).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hochberg, Y. & Benjamini, Y. More powerful procedures for multiple statistical significance testing. Stat. Med. 9, 811–818 (1990).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hauser, S., Wakeland, K. & Leberg, P. Inconsistent use of multiple comparison corrections in studies of population genetic structure: Are some type I errors more tolerable than others?. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 19(1), 144–148 (2019).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Team R Core. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing URL. Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from https://www.r-project.org/. (2017).Dyer, R. J. gstudio: Analyses and functions related to the spatial analysis of genetic marker data. R Package Version (2014).Rousset, F. GENEPOP’007: A complete re-implementation of the GENEPOP software for Windows and Linux. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 8(1), 103–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01931.x (2008).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Pritchard, J. K., Stephens, M. & Donnelly, P. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155(2), 945–959 (2000).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Earl, D. A., vonHoldt, B. & M.,. STRUCTURE HARVESTER: a website and program for visualizing STRUCTURE output and implementing the Evanno method. Conserv. Genet. Resour. 4(2), 359–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12686-011-9548-7 (2012).Article 

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

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

    Google Scholar 
    Moritz, C., Schneider, C. J. & Wake, D. B. Evolutionary relationships within the Ensatina eschscholtzii complex confirm the ring species interpretation. Syst. Biol. 41(3), 273–291 (1992).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Goebel, A. M., Donnelly, J. M. & Atz, M. E. PCR primers and amplification methods for 12S ribosomal DNA, the control region, cytochrome oxidase I, and cytochromebin bufonids and other frogs, and an overview of PCR primers which have amplified DNA in amphibians successfully. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 11(1), 163–199 (1999).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kearse, M. et al. Geneious Basic: an integrated and extendable desktop software platform for the organization and analysis of sequence data. Bioinformatics 28(12), 1647–1649 (2012).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Katoh, K. & Standley, D. M. MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: improvements in performance and usability. Mol. Biol. Evol. 30(4), 772–780 (2013).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Labonne, J. et al. From the bare minimum: genetics and selection in populations founded by only a few parents. Evol. Ecol. Res. 17(1), 21–34 (2016).
    Google Scholar 
    Chapuis, M. P. & Estoup, A. Microsatellite null alleles and estimation of population differentiation. Mol. Biol. Evol. 24(3), 621–631 (2006).PubMed 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Carlsson, J. Effects of microsatellite null alleles on assignment testing. J. Hered. 99(6), 616–623 (2008).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Consuegra, S., Phillips, N., Gajardo, G. & Leaniz, C. G. Winning the invasion roulette: escapes from fish farms increase admixture and facilitate establishment of non-native rainbow trout. Evol. Appl. 4, 660–671. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-4571.2011.00189.x (2011).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Peacock, M. M., Beard, K. H., O’Neill, E. M., Kirchoff, V. S. & Peters, M. B. Strong founder effects and low genetic diversity in introduced populations of Coqui frogs. Mol. Ecol. 18(17), 3603–3615. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04308.x (2009).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Austin, J. D., Lougheed, S. C. & Boag, P. T. Discordant temporal and geographic patterns in maternal lineages of eastern north American frogs, Rana catesbeiana (Ranidae) and Pseudacris crucifer (Hylidae). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 32, 799–816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2004.03.006 (2004).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Selechnik, D. et al. Increased adaptive variation despite reduced overall genetic diversity in a rapidly adapting invader. Front. Genet. 10, 1221 (2019).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Monthly spatial dynamics of the Bay of Biscay hake-sole-Norway lobster fishery: an ISIS-Fish database

    We took as a starting point the hake – sole – Norway lobster Bay of Biscay ISIS-Fish database used for COSELMAR project16,20 (see http://isis-fish.org/download.html section “Bay of Biscay scenario dataset”, Database V0 in Fig. 1). This database was built using 2010 data, and was not calibrated, as it was designed for a geo-foresight study. Since our aim was to describe the system over a decade and simulate realistic dynamics close to available observations to assess management measures, we needed to update the parametrisation and calibrate the database. We took 2010–2012 as the calibration period, and 2013–2020 as the simulation period (grey arrow Fig. 1). The database has a monthly temporal resolution (constrained by the ISIS-Fish framework) and the spatial scale was set to match ICES statistical rectangles (0.5° latitude by 1° longitude rectangles, defined by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) https://www.ices.dk/data/maps/Pages/ICES-statistical-rectangles.aspx), consistent with available knowledge and data.In this section, we firstly describe all the data sources used to update and calibrate the database. Then, for each main component of an ISIS-Fish database – i.e. populations, exploitation and management – we describe this paper’s database parameters and assumptions. We finally describe the calibration procedure (inspired by previous work21,22), of which some results are shown in the Technical Validation section. We summarized this workflow in Fig. 1.Data sourcesData sources, estimates, and literature (including grey literature) were needed to update and calibrate the model. They are marked in Fig. 1 with salmon (data sources and estimates) and mustard (literature) blocks:

    SACROIS23: French landings and effort logbook declarations for 2010 were made available at the log-event*commercial category*ICES statistical rectangle*population scale. It was used to design exploitation features of the database, as well as populations spatial structure.

    LANGOLF survey: 2006–2010 LANGOLF surveys observations for 2006–2010 were made available for Norway lobster. They were used to work on Norway lobster abundance per length class and sex.

    Intercatch: catch observations for 2010–2020 in the Bay of Biscay for hake, at the quarter-métier group scale, and catch observations per class for sole on 2010–2012, and 2010 Norway lobster catch observations per sex and length class24, used to describe the inter-annual effort dynamics, to calibrate and validate the model.

    Estimates of hake abundance per size class in 2010, and hake quarterly estimates of recruitment on 2010–2012 from a northern hake spatial stock assessment model21, used to inform hake biology assumptions (named Other 1 in Fig. 1).

    ICES WGBIE24 2010 estimates of abundance per class (sole and Norway lobster), to inform their abundance at the initial time step; 2010–2012 yearly fishing mortality estimates per age class (sole) to calibrate the database (named Other 2 in Fig. 1).

    Other population, exploitation and management assumptions were informed with scientific literature25 and grey literature26,27 (Literature block in Fig. 1).

    Management assumptions were informed with legal texts2,4,28,29,30,31,32,33,34 and reported quota values in working group reports24.

    About populationsThis section describes for each species the assumptions and parameters values, except for accessibility, which has been calibrated, as described in section Calibration procedure. For all assumptions and values, more details are provided in Supplementary Information’s section 2.2.HakeThe stock size structure was defined with 1 cm size bins for [1;40[cm individuals, 2 cm for [40;100[cm individuals, and 10 cm for [100;130+] cm individuals35. Areas of presence were defined based on 2010 SACROIS French landings data per commercial category and statistical rectangle23, leading to the definition of a presence, a recruitment, an interim recruitment and a spawning area25 (see Supplementary Information’s section 2.2 and Figure S1). These areas allow for the description of intra-Bay of Biscay migrations related to spawning and recruitment processes: mature individuals aggregate at the beginning of the year on the shelf break to spawn, and then disperse on the shelf36,37,38,39,40 (at the beginning of April and July in the model). Also, from age 1 (around 20 cm), individuals in recruitment zone spread in interim recruitment zone, to model a diffusion towards areas neighbouring the nursery area, at the beginning of each time step (see Supplementary Information’s section 2.2 and Table S11). Maturity-at-size and weight-at-length relationships were the same functions as used by ICES working group35,41. Natural mortality was fixed at 0.5, basing on preliminar runs, instead of the commonly used 0.442. Recruitment values were defined prior to the simulation for 2010–2020 using available estimates on the 2010–2015 time series21,27. Deterministic estimates from these sources were allocated to the recruitment area in the Bay of Biscay and the beginning of each month in January-September on the whole time series, of which values are provided in the Supplementary Information’s section 2.2 and Table S3. Growth is modelled through monthly growth increments5,25. However, given the different widths of size bins in the implemented size structure, a correction was provided to values in the transition matrix to eliminate artifacts when growing to a size bin wider than the size bin of origin, as detailed in Supplementary Information’s section 2.2. Abundance at the initial step in each zone was estimated from Bay of Biscay abundance estimates for 201021. Mature individuals over 20 cm were allocated to the spawning area, all individuals strictly shorter than 20 cm were allocated to the recruitment area (as they were assumed to be less than 1 year old), and remaining individuals were allocated to the interim recruitment area. None were allocated to the presence area, in which individuals will go later in the time series, after disaggregating from the spawning area25 (Table S13).SoleThe stock is age structured, with 7 classes going from ages 2 to 7+43 (Table S2). No seasonal variations were implemented. Only a single presence zone was defined (see Supplementary Information’s section 2.2 and Figure S1), as in preliminary runs defining more presence areas for sole did not yield more knowledge in this study. We implemented ICES working group values for natural mortality, weight-at-age (Table S1) and maturity-at-age43. Recruitment occurs at the beginning of each year, individuals being recruited at age 2 (ages 0–1 were not modelled; Table S4). We implemented ICES working group estimates27 for abundance at initial time step (Table S14).Norway lobsterThe stock has a sex-size structure, with 1 mixed recruitment class at 0 cm; 33 length classes for males at 2 carapace length mm intervals, from [10;12[to [72;74[carapace length mm; 23 length classes for females at 2 carapace length mm intervals, from [10;12[to [52;54[carapace length mm. A single presence area was defined: the Great Mudbank21 (see Supplementary Information’s section 2.2 and Figure S1). Several seasonal processes occur for this stock, impacting recruitment, accessibility and growth: 1/ January, begins with the annual recruitment. Females are inside their burrows, less accessible; 2/ February-March females are inside their burrows, less accessible; 3/ April: Spring moulting, females are more accessible; 4–5/ May-August females are more accessible; 6/ September, females are inside their burrows, less accessible; 7/ October: Autumn moulting only for immature females and all males, females are inside their burrows, less accessible; 8/ November-December, females are inside their burrows, less accessible44. We implemented ICES working group values for natural mortality, weight-at-class and maturity-at-class45,46,47. Growth occurs twice a year, when moulting in April and October, and is modelled with growth increments. Recruitment occurs at the beginning of each year, modelled with a Beverton-Holt relationship26, and was assumed to have the same spatial distribution as spawning stock biomass. Abundance at initial step was derived from LANGOLF survey observations and ICES WGBIE estimates25,26 (Table S16).About exploitationThe fishing exploitation structure (fleets, strategies, métiers and gears) were derived following a classification method on SACROIS 2010 landings and effort data13,23 from French fleets, and taken from a TECTAC project (https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/Q5RS-2002-01291) database for Spanish trawlers. More details on their definition are provided in Supplementary Information’s section 2.3, Tables S5–S9 and S20–S21 and Figure S3. Spanish longliners and gillnetters fleets exploitation was described based on catch (observations from Intercatch48) rather than effort.Hake selectivity and discarding functions (one for each gear) were taken from estimates of a spatial hake stock assessment model21. Parameters values and formulæ are provided in Supplementary Information’s section 2.3 and Tables S6-S7. On top of this, inter-annual fleet dynamics factors were included in equation (21) of ISIS-Fish documentation8 in order to account for observed catch temporal variations. These factors are therefore multiplicative parameters of the target factor of each species for each métier. They are computed using observed catch27 and differ according to the period and targeted species:

    over 2010–2016, it is a ratio of observed catch in weight per year over catch observations for 2010: for hake, one per métier *season*year (left(frac{ObservedCatc{h}_{metier,season,year}}{ObservedCatc{h}_{metier,season,2010}}right)), for sole, one per métier *year (left(frac{ObservedCatc{h}_{metier,year}}{ObservedCatc{h}_{metier,2010}}right)), and for Norway lobster, one per year (identical for each métier catching Norway lobster) (left(frac{ObservedCatc{h}_{year}}{ObservedCatc{h}_{2010}}right));

    over 2017–2020: at the time of writing these assumptions, more recent data was not available, and ratios were deduced from trends on 2014–2016. A linear model was fitted on ratios deduced earlier on 2014–2016. If a significant trend was identified (hake: whitefish trawlers quarters 2 and 4, longliners and gillnetters seasons 2–3; sole and Norway lobster: all métiers), the slope was used to deduce 2017–2020 ratios (the slope was halved for hake whitefish trawlers and sole and Norway lobster values to avoid unrealistic high values of effort). Otherwise, 2016 ratios were used.

    All values are provided in Supplementary Information’s section A.2 Tables S22–S24, and the final values of target factors are derived from the Calibration procedure.About managementWe implemented a set of management rules close to what is currently implemented in the Bay of Biscay.All stocks are managed by TALs (Total Allowable Landings) until 2015 and then by TACs (Total Allowable Catch), except for Norway lobster, managed by TALs on the whole time series, not being under the landings obligation. To favour a better parametrisation, allowing for more reliable dynamics on the following years of the time series, no TALs were implemented during the calibration period (2010–2012; Fig. 1). These regulations were implemented from 2013 using historically TALs and TACs values24.Landings of the three stocks are also constrained by a Minimum Conservation Reference Size regulation that was implemented for all stocks using values currently enforced in the studied fishery28. Likewise, from 2016, the Landings Obligation was implemented, with de minimis exemptions for hake and sole, depending on the year and the gear used to fish them2,31,32,33,34. See Supplementary Information’s sections 2.4 and A.3, Figure S2 and Table S10 for further details on these restrictions.In response to the above management rules, a fishers’ behaviour algorithm has been developed to describe fishermen adaptation. Some métiers may be forbidden, depending on some conditions – the catch quota has been reached, the landings obligation is enforced – but also some values – the proportion of discarded catch, and also catch on previous years. Therefore fishermen change métiers within their strategy métiers set through a re-allocation of fishing effort to the latter set. This re-allocation aims to avoid quota overshooting. Further details about this algorithm are provided in the Supplementary Information’s sections 2.4 and A.3 and Figure S2.Calibration procedureThe model has been calibrated using two parameters (population accessibility and fishing target factor) involved in the catchability process (equation (21) in ISIS-Fish documentation8). The objective of the calibration is to reproduce the dynamics of catch over 2010–2012 at the species*métiers group scale, for each year or quarter depending on available data’s granularity. Calibration is sequentially performed: accessibility parameters for each population were estimated first followed by the target factors. The estimation of each parameter set (parameter type * population) combination was separated, and values were estimated jointly within each parameter set. To account for the specificity of each population model dynamics (global age-based for sole, spatial and size-based for hake, spatial, sex and size-based for Norway lobster), an objective function is defined for each population to calibrate their accessibility. More details on objective functions and procedures are provided in Supplementary Information’s section 2.5, as well as estimated values in Tables S17–S19.Hake accessibilityThe calibration for hake accessibility is based on a procedure developed for a former version of the database25. One parameter was estimated per quarter, all values being equal across length classes. The model outputs were fitted to hake catch observations in weight in the Bay of Biscay in 2010–2012 per length class.Sole accessibilityOne parameter was estimated per age class. The model outputs were fitted to WGBIE fishing mortality per age class for sole27 in 2010–2012.Norway lobster accessibilityOne parameter was calibrated per sex and length class. The model outputs were fitted to catch in numbers per length class and sex in 2010 per quarter provided by WGBIE.About target factorsTarget factors drive how the effort is distributed between populations, métiers and season*year combinations. They were split in 3 components: a fixed component derived from the SACROIS effort dataset analysis (Tables S25–S27), another fixed component driving inter-annual variations of fishing effort (Tables S22–S24), derived from catch observations, and finally an estimated component (Tables S28–S30), allowing to tune the model’s dynamics to observed catch. This section focuses on the estimation of the latter.Hake target factors20 parameters were defined, for each combination of the 5 groups of métiers (longliners, gillnetters, whitefish trawler (coastal), whitefish trawler (not coastal), Norway lobster trawler, see definition Table S8) and 4 quarters. We fitted the model’s outputs to the same data and with the same objective function as for hake’s accessibilities estimation.Sole target factors1 estimated component per group of métiers (gillnetters, Norway lobster trawlers and whitefish trawlers) and quarter. We fitted the model’s outputs to sole catch in weight on 2010–2012 for each métier and quarter.Norway lobster target factors1 estimated component per group of métiers (Norway lobster trawlers and whitefish trawlers). We fitted the model’s outputs to monthly Norway lobster landings data per length and sex class for 2010.Base simulationThe base simulation ran from January 2010 to December 2020 inclusive, with a monthly time step, using the database and parameters values described in this document. Several outputs of interest may be explored after a run: catch (discards and landings), as done in several figures in this paper, but also biomass (total biomass or mature biomass), fishing mortality values, or effort, all at a fine spatio-temporal scale. More

  • in

    Dispersal and oviposition patterns of Lycorma delicatula (Hemiptera: Fulgoridae) during the oviposition period in Ailanthus altissima (Simaroubaceae)

    Fluorescent markingDispersal of SLF adults was tracked using a fluorescent marking system (FMS), which has been demonstrated to be applicable for multiple insect species including SLF nymphs21,22,24. To mark the SLF, either red, yellow, or blue fluorescent paint (#1166R, #1166Y, #1166B, BioQuip Products, USA) was diluted with distilled water (1:4). The mixture was then gently sprayed three times (ca. 20 mg each time) on each SLF individual using a mist sprayer from a distance of 30–50 cm (SI 2). Throughout the field survey, a handheld ultraviolet (UV) laser (PX 600 mW, class IIIB purple laser, 405 nm, Big Lasers, USA) was used to detect fluorescent-marked SLF individuals25.Effect of fluorescent marking on SLFPrior to field survey, the potential effects of fluorescent marking on the survivorship and flight behavior of SLF adults (sex ratio 1:1) were evaluated. SLF adults were collected using sweeping nets (BioQuip Products, USA) from Gyeonggi-do, South Korea (37°47′85.95″ N, 127°11′64.58″E) in September 2020. Two hours after fluorescent marking of SLF, both fluorescent-marked and unmarked SLF were subjected to survivorship and flight behavior assessment.Survivorship of insects was measured on two A. altissima trees (ca. 2 m in height) located in Gachon University, South Korea (37°45′38.50″N, 127°13′37.75″E). Two fluorescent-marked and two unmarked insects were placed in a cylindrical mesh cage [25 × 30 cm (radius × height)] enclosing a tree branch; a total of 20 groups were tested (n = 40). Then, survivorship of SLF was determined once every two days until no individuals were alive. Survivorship was compared between fluorescent-marked and unmarked SLF using Kaplan-Meir survivorship analysis (JMP 12, SAS Institute Inc., USA).The effects of fluorescent marking on flight behavior were evaluated in an open space (986 m2) in Gachon University, South Korea (37°45′08.37″N, 127°12′79.69″E) at 26 ± 1 °C and a relative humidity of 30 ± 5%. To induce flight of SLF adults, a wooden square rod [3 × 3 × 100 cm (width × length × height)] was established upright at the center of the arena. The SLF adult was placed individually 10 cm away from the top on the wooden square rod. To minimize any unnecessary stimuli from experimenter, SLF flight was induced by following the same sequence: once the insect climbed up the rod and oriented itself staying still to a random direction, then an experimenter carefully positioned at the back of the insect and gently pecked the forewings using tweezers to initiate its flight33,34. Pecking was intended to mimic predatory behavior of birds. Once the insect jumped away, an operator followed the individual until it landed on the ground (n = 30). The experiment was conducted for 2 h between 13:00–15:00 and marked and unmarked SLF were randomly tested during the evaluation. The number of pecks to initiate the flight, flight duration, and flight distance of SLF were compared using t-test (JMP 12, SAS Institute Inc., USA).Field study sitesDispersal patterns of SLF adults in A. altissima patches and their oviposition patterns were investigated in multiple A. altissima patches located along two streams in Gyeonggi-do, South Korea: Tan stream in Seongnam-si (37°48′01.80″N, 127°11′56.03″E) and Gyeongan stream in Gwangju-si (37°41′54.21″N, 127°27′12.37″E). Both Tan and Gyeongan streams run along suburban residential areas in their respective cities, with pedestrian lanes built along the streams. We selected seven A. altissima patches as study patches when more than 10 SLF adults were found per patch (Fig. 3). In the study patch, all SLF individuals or ca. up to 30 adults were florescent-marked. In addition, when the number of SLF adults was less than 10 from an A. altissima patch, those patches were designated as neighboring patches (Fig. 3). Dispersal and oviposition of SLF adults were monitored from both study and neighboring patches during the study.In Tan stream, four study patches (patches A–D) and one neighboring patch, which were distributed over ca. 1760 m, were selected (Fig. 3a). Areas around the patches were generally covered with grass and shrubs, and the areas were occasionally managed by local administration. Deciduous trees were regularly planted along the pedestrian lanes. There were a total of four, four, 61, and 47 A. altissima trees in patches A to D, respectively (Table 2). Compared with Tan stream, A. altissima patches were located closely to each other in Gyeongan stream: three study patches (patches E–G) and three neighboring patches were spread over only ca. 90 m (Fig. 3b). Vegetation surrounding A. altissima patches consisted of grasses and small shrubs as well as deciduous trees planted along the border of residential area nearby. There were a total of 69, nine, and 53 A. altissima trees in patches E to G, respectively (Table 2). Unlike Tan stream, 45% of A. altissima trees had trunks having cut off by local administration in Gyeongan stream (Table 2; Fig. 5).Dispersal pattern of SLF on A. altissima
    Three fluorescent paint colors were used to mark SLF individuals in the study patches (Fig. 3; SI 2). Insects that took off during marking were captured and excluded from the experiment. Among the selected study patches, SLF adults were generally distributed throughout each patch, while SLF adults were observed only from one out of 61 A. altissima trees in patch C. As a result, in Tan stream, 15 (color of paint used to fluorescent-marking; red), 31 (yellow), 11 (blue), and 32 (red) adults were marked from patches A to D, respectively, whereas in Gyeongan stream, 30 (red), 30 (blue), and 33 (yellow) adults were marked from patches E to G, respectively. Starting from September 14th, 2020 in Tan stream and September 18th in Gyeongan stream, fluorescent-marked SLF adults on A. altissima trees in both study and neighboring patches were counted with a UV laser twice a week (Fig. 3). Survey continued until no individuals were observed from the study patches.Oviposition pattern of SLF on A. altissima
    Oviposition pattern of SLF was surveyed on all A. altissima trees in the study patches in December in both streams (Table 2). For the survey, SLF egg masses were categorized into three types as follows: egg mass with waxy layer, egg mass without waxy layer, and scattered eggs (SI 3). Eggs that were not covered with waxy layer and did not form aggregates were categorized as scattered (SI 3). In the field, A. altissima trees were visually inspected to identify SLF egg mass, and the number of egg masses and their distances from the ground were recorded. In addition, the number of eggs per egg mass was recorded for egg masses located  5 generally indicates collinearity35,36. VIF between height and DRC was 1.56, and therefore the two variables were included together in the GLMM model.Policy statementExperiments involving Ailanthus altissima were conducted in compliance with relevant institutional, national, and international guidelines and legislation. More

  • in

    Plant tissue characteristics of Miscanthus x giganteus

    Geospatial dataSampling locations were established, flagged, and recorded in June 2016, using a Trimble Geo7X global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver using the Trimble® VRS Now real-time kinematic (RTK) correction. Location accuracies were verified to within ±2 cm. Points were imported into a geodatabase using Esri ArcMap (Advanced license, Version 10.5) and projected using the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM), Zone 17 North projection, with the 1983 North American datum (NAD83). Field investigators navigated to the flagged locations by visually locating them in the field or by using recreational grade GNSS receivers with the locations stored as waypoints.Plant tissue sampling and preparationMiscanthus x giganteus grows in clumps of bamboo-like canes. A single cane was cut at soil level from each of the five sample collection points in each circular plot, individually labelled, and brought to the lab for processing (Fig. 2). Each stem was measured from the cut at the base to the last leaf node, and the length was recorded. Green, fully expanded leaves were cut from each stem and leaves and stems from each plant were placed in separate paper bags and dried at 60 °C. The dry leaf and stem tissues were ground to pass a 1 mm screen (Wiley Mill Model 4, Thomas Scientific, Swedesboro, New Jersey, USA). Subsamples of the ground material were analyzed for total carbon (C) and nitrogen (N), acid-digested for the analysis of total macro- and micronutrients, and water-extracted for spectroscopic analysis and the characterization of the water extractable organic matter (WEOM) (Fig. 2).Fig. 2Images of field samples, and diagram of plant tissue processing. Center panel – flow chart outlining the procedures for plant tissue processing, the kinds of analyses performed, and the type of data generated. Upper left inset panel – ground level picture of Miscanthus x giganteus circular plots. Upper right inset panel – some plant samples on the day of collection.Full size imageTotal carbon and nitrogenDried and ground leaf and stem material (~4–6 mg) was analyzed for total C and N content by combustion (Vario EL III, Elementar Americas Inc., Mt. Laurel, New Jersey, USA). The instrument was calibrated using an aspartic acid standard (36.08% C ± 0.52% and 10.53% N ± 0.18%). Validation by inclusion of two aspartic acid samples as checks in each autosampler carousel (80 wells) resulted in a net positive bias of 1.44 and 1.68% for C and N, respectively. The mean C and N concentrations and standard deviations for the sample set are presented in Table 1.Table 1 Giant miscanthus composition including leaf (L) and stem (S) dry weight, length, and carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) concentrations (n = 165). Values are reported as means ± standard deviations.Full size tableMacro- and micronutrientsPlant tissue samples were analyzed for a suite of macro- and micronutrients including aluminum (Al), arsenic (As), boron (B), calcium (Ca), cadmium (Cd), cobalt (Co), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), iron (Fe), potassium (K), magnesium (Mg), manganese (Mn), molybdenum (Mo), sodium (Na), nickel (Ni), phosphorus (P), lead (Pb), sulfur (S), selenium (Se), silicon (Si), titanium (Ti), vanadium (V), and zinc (Zn) using Inductively Coupled Plasma with Optical Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-OES). Samples (0.5 g) were digested using 10 mL of trace metal grade nitric acid (HNO3) in a microwave digestion system (Mars 6, CEM, Matthews, North Carolina, USA). During the digestion procedure (CEM Mars 6 Plant Material Method), the oven temperature was increased from room temperature to 200 °C in 15 minutes and held at 200 °C for 10 minutes. The pressure limit of the digestion vessels was set to 800 psi although it was not monitored during individual runs. Sample digestates were transferred quantitatively to centrifuge tubes, diluted to 50 mL with 2% HNO3 (prepared with lab grade deionized water), and centrifuged at 2500 rpm for 10 min (Sorvall ST8 centrifuge, Thermo Fisher Scientific, San Jose, California, USA). The digestates were decanted into clean centrifuge tubes and analyzed using an iCAP 7400 ICP-OES Duo equipped with a Charge Injection Device detector (Thermo Fisher Scientific, San Jose, California, USA). An aliquot of digested sample was aspirated from the centrifuge tube using a CETAC ASX-520 autosampler (Teledyne CETAC Technologies, Omaha, Nebraska, USA) and passed through a concentric tube nebulizer. The resulting aerosol was then swept through the plasma using argon as the carrier gas with a flow rate of 0.5 L/min and a nebulizer gas flow rate of 0.7 L/min. Macro- and micronutrients were quantified by monitoring the emission wavelengths (Em λ) reported in Table 2.Table 2 Macro- and micronutrients measured, and emission wavelengths (Em λ) used to quantify them in the miscanthus leaves (L) and stems (S), the total number and percentage detected (n = 150 for leaves and 162 for stems), the mean detected concentration ± standard deviation, and the mean method detection limit (MDL) ± standard deviation.Full size tableCharacterization of the water extractable organic matter (WEOM)The WEOM of the giant miscanthus leaves and stems was isolated by extracting the plant material with deionized water at room temperature6. The water extractions were performed by mixing ~0.2 g of dry, ground leaves and stems with 100 mL of deionized water in 125 mL pre-washed brown Nalgene bottles. All brown Nalgene bottles used for these extractions were pre-washed by soaking them for 24 hours in a 10% hydrochloric acid solution followed by 24 hours in a 10% sodium hydroxide solution, and a thorough rinse with deionized water. The bottles containing the extraction solution were shaken on an orbital shaker at 180 rpm for 24 hours. The extract was vacuum filtered using 0.45 µm glass fibre filters (GF/F, Whatman) into pre-washed 60 mL brown Nalgene bottles. The filtered water extracts containing the WEOM were stored in the dark in a refrigerator (4 °C) until analysis by UV-Visible and fluorescence spectroscopy. Samples were visually inspected just prior to analysis to ensure no colloids or precipitates had formed during storage. Samples that had become visually cloudy were re-filtered.On the day of analysis, the water extracts were removed from the refrigerator and allowed to warm up to room temperature. Chemical characteristics of the WEOM were assessed through the analysis of optical properties on an Aqualog spectrofluorometer (Horiba Scientific, New Jersey, USA) equipped with a 150 W continuous output Xenon arc lamp. Excitation-emission matrix (EEM) scans were acquired in a 1 cm quartz cuvette with excitation wavelengths (Ex λ) scanned using a double-grating monochrometer from 240 to 621 nm at 3 nm intervals. Emission wavelengths (Em λ) were scanned from 246 to 693 nm at 2 nm intervals and emission spectra were collected using a Charge Coupled Device (CCD) detector. All fluorescence spectra were acquired in sample over reference ratio mode to account for potential fluctuations and wavelength dependency of the excitation lamp output. Samples were corrected for the inner filter effect7 and each sample EEM underwent spectral subtraction with a deionized water blank to remove the effects due to Raman scattering. Rayleigh masking was applied to remove the signal intensities for both the first and second order Rayleigh lines. Instrument bias related to wavelength-dependent efficiencies of the specific instrument’s optical components (gratings, mirrors, etc.) was automatically corrected by the Aqualog software after each spectral acquisition. The fluorescence intensities were normalized to the area under the water Raman peak collected on each day of analysis and are expressed in Raman-normalized intensity units (RU). All sample EEM processing was performed with the Aqualog software (version 4.0.0.86).The optical data obtained from the EEM scans were used to calculate several indices representative of WEOM chemical composition (Table 3) including the absorbance at 254 nm (Abs254), the ratio of the absorbance at 254 to 365 nm (Abs254:365), the ratio of the absorbance at 280 to 465 nm (Abs280:465), the spectral slope ratio (SR), the fluorescence index (FI), the humification index (HIX), the biological index (BIX), and the freshness index (β:α). The SR was calculated as the ratio of two spectral slope regions of the absorbance spectra (275–295 and 350–400 nm)8. The FI was calculated as the ratio of the emission intensities at Em λ 470 and 520 nm, at an Ex λ of 370 nm9. The HIX was calculated by dividing the emission intensity in the 435–480 nm region by the sum of emission intensities in the 300–345 and 435–480 nm regions, at an Ex λ of 255 nm10. The BIX was calculated as the ratio of emission intensities at 380 and 430 nm, at an Ex λ of 310 nm11. The freshness index β:α was calculated as the emission intensity at 380 nm divided by the maximum emission intensity between 420 and 432 nm, at an Ex λ of 310 nm12. To further characterize the giant miscanthus WEOM, the fluorescence intensity at specific excitation-emission pairs was also identified. The fluorescence peaks identified here have previously been reported for surface water samples and water extracts13 and include peak A (Ex λ 260, Em λ 450), peak C (Ex λ 340, Em λ 440), peak M (Ex λ 300, Em λ 390), peak B (Ex λ 275, Em λ 310), and peak T (Ex λ 275, Em λ 340). A brief description of these optical indices is provided in Table 3.Table 3 Description of the optical indices calculated from the excitation-emission matrix (EEM) fluorescence scans and used to analyze the WEOM composition of giant miscanthus leaves and stems.Full size table More

  • in

    Behavioural and neural responses of crabs show evidence for selective attention in predator avoidance

    Faisal, A. A., Selen, L. P. J. & Wolpert, D. M. Noise in the nervous system. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 9, 292–303 (2008).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Tsetsos, K. et al. Economic irrationality is optimal during noisy decision making. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113, 3102–3107 (2016).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bushnell, P. J. Behavioral approaches to the assessment of attention in animals. Psychopharmacology 138, 231–259 (1998).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Katsuki, F. & Constantinidis, C. Bottom-up and top-down attention: Different processes and overlapping neural systems. Neuroscientist 20, 509–521 (2014).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Moore, T. & Zirnsak, M. Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 68, 47–72 (2017).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ferguson, K. I. & Stiling, P. Non-additive effects of multiple natural enemies on aphid populations. Oecologia 108, 375–379 (1996).ADS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sih, A., Englund, G. & Wooster, D. Emergent impacts of multiple predators on prey. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13, 350–355 (1998).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Soluk, D. A. & Collins, N. C. Synergistic interactions between fish and stoneflies: Facilitation and interference among stream predators. Oikos. 52, 94–100 (1988).
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Cooper, W. E., Pérez-Mellado, V. & Hawlena, D. Number, speeds, and approach paths of predators affect escape behavior by the Balearic lizard, Podarcis lilfordi. J. Herpetol. 41, 197–204 (2007).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Relyea, R. A. How prey respond to combined predators: A review and an empirical test. Ecology 84, 1827–1839 (2003).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Krupa, J. J. & Sih, A. Fishing spiders, green sunfish, and a stream-dwelling water strider: Male–female conflict and prey responses to single versus multiple predator environments. Oecologia 117, 258–265 (1998).ADS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Nityananda, V. Attention-like processes in insects. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 283, 20161986 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Amo, L., López, P. & Martín, J. in Annales Zoologici Fennici, 671–679 (JSTOR).Bagheri, Z. M., Donohue, C. G. & Hemmi, J. M. Evidence of predictive selective attention in fiddler crabs during escape in the natural environment. J. Exp. Biol. 223, 234963 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Geist, C., Liao, J., Libby, S. & Blumstein, D. T. Does intruder group size and orientation affect flight initiation distance in birds?. Anim. Biodivers. Conserv. 28, 69–73 (2005).
    Google Scholar 
    McIntosh, A. R. & Peckarsky, B. L. Criteria determining behavioural responses to multiple predators by a stream mayfly. Oikos. 554–564 (1999).Hemmi, J. M. & Tomsic, D. The neuroethology of escape in crabs: From sensory ecology to neurons and back. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 22, 194–200 (2012).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

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

    Google Scholar 
    Nalbach, H.-O., Nalbach, G. & Forzin, L. Visual control of eye-stalk orientation in crabs: Vertical optokinetics, visual fixation of the horizon, and eye design. J. Comp. Physiol. A. 165, 577–587 (1989).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Zeil, J. & Al-Mutairi, M. The variation of resolution and of ommatidial dimensions in the compound eyes of the fiddler crab Uca lactea annulipes (Ocypodidae, Brachyura, Decapoda). J. Exp. Biol. 199, 1569–1577 (1996).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Howard, J. & Snyder, A. W. Transduction as a limitation on compound eye function and design. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Series B Biol. Sci. 217, 287–307 (1983).ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    Land, M. F. Visual acuity in insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 42, 147–177 (1997).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Land, M. F. & Nilsson, D.-E. Animal Eyes (OUP, 2012).Book 

    Google Scholar 
    Bagheri, Z. M. et al. A new method for mapping spatial resolution in compound eyes suggests two visual streaks in fiddler crabs. J. Exp. Biol. 223, 210195 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Smolka, J. & Hemmi, J. M. Topography of vision and behaviour. J. Exp. Biol. 212, 3522–3532 (2009).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Land, M. & Layne, J. The visual control of behaviour in fiddler crabs. J. Comp. Physiol. A. 177, 91–103 (1995).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Layne, J., Land, M. & Zeil, J. Fiddler crabs use the visual horizon to distinguish predators from conspecifics: A review of the evidence. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK. 77, 43–54 (1997).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hemmi, J. M. Predator avoidance in fiddler crabs: 1. Escape decisions in relation to the risk of predation. Animal Behav. 69, 603–614 (2005).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Layne, J. E. Retinal location is the key to identifying predators in fiddler crabs (Uca pugilator). J. Exp. Biol. 201, 2253–2261 (1998).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Nalbach, H.-O. Frontiers in Crustacean Neurobiology 165–172 (Springer, 1990).Book 

    Google Scholar 
    Smolka, J., Zeil, J. & Hemmi, J. M. Natural visual cues eliciting predator avoidance in fiddler crabs. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 278, 3584–3592 (2011).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hemmi, J. M. Predator avoidance in fiddler crabs: 2. The visual cues. Animal Behav. 69, 615–625 (2005).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hemmi, J. M. & Pfeil, A. A multi-stage anti-predator response increases information on predation risk. J. Exp. Biol. 213, 1484–1489 (2010).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Smolka, J., Raderschall, C. A. & Hemmi, J. M. Flicker is part of a multi-cue response criterion in fiddler crab predator avoidance. J. Exp. Biol. 216, 1219–1224 (2013).PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    How, M. J., Pignatelli, V., Temple, S. E., Marshall, N. J. & Hemmi, J. M. High e-vector acuity in the polarisation vision system of the fiddler crab Uca vomeris. J. Exp. Biol. 215, 2128–2134 (2012).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Paulk, A. C. et al. Selective attention in the honeybee optic lobes precedes behavioral choices. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111, 5006–5011 (2014).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Tang, S. & Juusola, M. Intrinsic activity in the fly brain gates visual information during behavioral choices. Nat. Precedings. 1–1 (2010).Bagheri, Z. M., Cazzolato, B. S., Grainger, S., O’Carroll, D. C. & Wiederman, S. D. An autonomous robot inspired by insect neurophysiology pursues moving features in natural environments. J. Neural Eng. 14, 046030 (2017).ADS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Chancán, M., Hernandez-Nunez, L., Narendra, A., Barron, A. B. & Milford, M. A hybrid compact neural architecture for visual place recognition. IEEE Robot. Automat. Lett. 5, 993–1000 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Colonnier, F., Ramirez-Martinez, S., Viollet, S. & Ruffier, F. A bio-inspired sighted robot chases like a hoverfly. Bioinspir. Biomim. 14, 036002 (2019).ADS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Medan, V., Oliva, D. & Tomsic, D. Characterization of lobula giant neurons responsive to visual stimuli that elicit escape behaviors in the crab Chasmagnathus. J. Neurophysiol. 98, 2414–2428 (2007).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Oliva, D. & Tomsic, D. Computation of object approach by a system of visual motion-sensitive neurons in the crab Neohelice. J. Neurophysiol. 112, 1477–1490 (2014).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Oliva, D. & Tomsic, D. Object approach computation by a giant neuron and its relationship with the speed of escape in the crab Neohelice. J. Exp. Biol. 219, 3339–3352 (2016).PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Sztarker, J., Strausfeld, N. J. & Tomsic, D. Organization of optic lobes that support motion detection in a semiterrestrial crab. J. Comparat. Neurol. 493, 396–411 (2005).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Medan, V., De Astrada, M. B., Scarano, F. & Tomsic, D. A network of visual motion-sensitive neurons for computing object position in an arthropod. J. Neurosci. 35, 6654–6666 (2015).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Tomsic, D. & Sztarker, J. in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Neuroscience (2019).Sztarker, J. & Tomsic, D. Neuronal correlates of the visually elicited escape response of the crab Chasmagnathus upon seasonal variations, stimuli changes and perceptual alterations. J. Comp. Physiol. A. 194, 587–596 (2008).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Tomsic, D., de Astrada, M. B. & Sztarker, J. Identification of individual neurons reflecting short-and long-term visual memory in an arthropodo. J. Neurosci. 23, 8539–8546 (2003).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Layne, J. E., Barnes, W. J. P. & Duncan, L. M. J. Mechanisms of homing in the fiddler crab Uca rapax 1. Spatial and temporal characteristics of a system of small-scale navigation. J. Exp. Biol. 206, 4413–4423 (2003).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Dahmen, H., Wahl, V. L., Pfeffer, S. E., Mallot, H. A. & Wittlinger, M. Naturalistic path integration of Cataglyphis desert ants on an air-cushioned lightweight spherical treadmill. J. Exp. Biol. 220, 634–644 (2017).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hemmi, J. M. & Merkle, T. High stimulus specificity characterizes anti-predator habituation under natural conditions. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 276, 4381–4388 (2009).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Scarano, F. & Tomsic, D. Escape response of the crab Neohelice to computer generated looming and translational visual danger stimuli. J. Physiol.-Paris 108, 141–147 (2014).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ryan, T. P. & Morgan, J. P. Modern experimental design. J. Stat. Theory Practice 1, 501–506 (2007).MATH 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hemmi, J. M. & Zeil, J. Burrow surveillance in fiddler crabs I. Description of behaviour. J. Exp. Biol. 206, 3935–3950 (2003).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. (2014).emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. v. R package version 1.5.2-1. (2020).Cremers, J. Bpnreg: Bayesian projected normal regression models for circular data. R Package Version 1, 3 (2018).
    Google Scholar 
    Cremers, J. & Klugkist, I. One direction? A tutorial for circular data analysis using R with examples in cognitive psychology. Front. Psychol. 2040 (2018).Oliva, D., Medan, V. & Tomsic, D. Escape behavior and neuronal responses to looming stimuli in the crab Chasmagnathus granulatus (Decapoda: Grapsidae). J. Exp. Biol. 210, 865–880 (2007).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Gabbiani, F., Krapp, H. G. & Laurent, G. Computation of object approach by a wide-field, motion-sensitive neuron. J. Neurosci. 19, 1122–1141 (1999).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Simultaneous Inference in General Parametric Models. v. R package version v1.4-10 (2019).Avargues-Weber, A., Deisig, N. & Giurfa, M. Visual cognition in social insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 56, 423–443 (2011).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Avarguès-Weber, A. & Giurfa, M. Conceptual learning by miniature brains. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 280, 20131907 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    De Bivort, B. L. & Van Swinderen, B. Evidence for selective attention in the insect brain. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 15, 9–15 (2016).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Klapoetke, N. C. et al. Ultra-selective looming detection from radial motion opponency. Nature 551, 237–241 (2017).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Von Reyn, C. R. et al. A spike-timing mechanism for action selection. Nat. Neurosci. 17, 962–970 (2014).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Fotowat, H. & Gabbiani, F. Collision detection as a model for sensory-motor integration. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 34, 1–19 (2011).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Strausfeld, N. J. & Olea-Rowe, B. Convergent evolution of optic lobe neuropil in Pancrustacea. Arthropod. Struct. Dev. 61, 101040 (2021).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Tomsic, D. Visual motion processing subserving behavior in crabs. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 41, 113–121 (2016).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Giribet, G. & Edgecombe, G. D. The phylogeny and evolutionary history of arthropods. Curr. Biol. 29, R592–R602 (2019).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Christian, E. V. Sprung der Collembolen. Zoologische Jahrbucher. Abteilung fur Systematik, Okologie und Geographie der Tiere (1979).Brackenbury, J. Regulation of swimming in the Culex pipiens (Diptera, Culicidae) pupa: Kinematics and locomotory trajectories. J. Exp. Biol. 202, 2521–2529 (1999).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Domenici, P. & Blake, R. W. Escape trajectories in angelfish (Pterophyllum eimekei). J. Exp. Biol. 177, 253–272 (1993).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kimura, H. & Kawabata, Y. Effect of initial body orientation on escape probability of prey fish escaping from predators. Biol. Open. 7, bio023812 (2018).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Martín, J. & López, P. The escape response of juvenile Psammodromus algirus lizards. J. Comp. Psychol. 110, 187 (1996).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Lancer, B. H., Evans, B. J. E., Fabian, J. M., O’Carroll, D. C. & Wiederman, S. D. A target-detecting visual neuron in the dragonfly locks on to selectively attended targets. J. Neurosci. 39, 8497–8509 (2019).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Nityananda, V. & Pattrick, J. G. Bumblebee visual search for multiple learned target types. J. Exp. Biol. 216, 4154–4160 (2013).PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Pollack, G. S. Selective attention in an insect auditory neuron. J. Neurosci. 8, 2635–2639 (1988).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Rossel, S. Binocular vision in insects: How mantids solve the correspondence problem. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 93, 13229–13232 (1996).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Wiederman, S. D. & O’Carroll, D. C. Selective attention in an insect visual neuron. Curr. Biol. 23, 156–161 (2013).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Jackson, R. R. & Cross, F. R. Spider cognition. Adv. Insect Physiol. 41, 115–174 (2011).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Jackson, R. R. & Li, D. One-encounter search-image formation by araneophagic spiders. Anim. Cogn. 7, 247–254 (2004).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Guest, B. B. & Gray, J. R. Responses of a looming-sensitive neuron to compound and paired object approaches. J. Neurophysiol. 95, 1428–1441 (2006).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Eliassen, S., Jørgensen, C., Mangel, M. & Giske, J. Quantifying the adaptive value of learning in foraging behavior. Am. Nat. 174, 478–489 (2009).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Eliassen, S., Andersen, B. S., Jørgensen, C. & Giske, J. From sensing to emergent adaptations: Modelling the proximate architecture for decision-making. Ecol. Model. 326, 90–100 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Gigerenzer, G. Why heuristics work. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 3, 20–29 (2008).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar  More