Philippa Kaur

Allendorf, F. W. & Lundquist, L. L. Introduction: Population biology, evolution, and control of invasive species. Conserv. Biol. 17, 24–30 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kopf, R. K. et al. Confronting the risks of large-scale invasive species control. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 0172 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Luque, G. M. et al. The 100th of the world’s worst invasive alien species. Biol. Invasions 16, 981–985 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Genovesi, P. Eradications of invasive alien species in Europe: A review. Biol. Invasions 7, 127–133 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Simberloff, D. How much information on population biology is needed to manage introduced species?. Conserv. Biol. 17, 83–92 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Takeshita, F. & Maekawa, T. Paratectonatica tigrina (Gastropoda: Naticidae) adjusts its predation tactics depending on the chosen prey and their shell weight relative to its own. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U. K. 100, 921–926 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wiltse, W. I. Effects of Polinices duplicatus (Gastropoda: Naticidae) on infaunal community structure at Barnstable Harbor, Massachusetts, USA. Mar. Biol. 56, 301–310 (1980).Article 

Google Scholar 
Commito, J. A. Effects of Lunatia heros predation on the population dynamics of Mya arenaria and Macoma balthica in Maine, USA. Mar. Biol. 69, 187–193 (1982).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ansell, A. D. Experimental studies of a benthic predator–prey relationship. I. Feeding, growth, and egg-collar production in long-term cultures of the gastropod drill Polinices alderi (Forbes) feeding on the bivalve Tellina tenuis (da Costa). J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 56, 235–255 (1982).Article 

Google Scholar 
Savazzi, E. & Reyment, R. A. Subaerial hunting behaviour in Natica gualteriana (naticid gastropod). Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 74, 355–364 (1989).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gonor, J. J. Predator–prey reactions between two marine prosobranch gastropods. The Veliger 7, 228–232 (1969).
Google Scholar 
Hughes, R. N. Predatory behaviour of Natica unifasciata feeding intertidally on gastropods. J. Molluscan Stud. 51, 331–335 (1985).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pahari, A. et al. Subaerial naticid gastropod drilling predation by Natica tigrina on the intertidal molluscan community of Chandipur, Eastern Coast of India. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 451, 110–123 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sakai, K. Predation of the moon snail Neverita didyma, on the Manila clam Ruditapes philippinarum, at the culture ground in Mangoku-ura Inlet. Bull. Miyagi Prefect. Fish. Res. Dev. Cent. 16, 109–111 (2000) (in Japanese).
Google Scholar 
Tomiyama, T. et al. Unintentional introduction and the distribution of the nonindigenous moonsnail Euspira fortunei in Matsukawaura Lagoon, Japan. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi 77, 1020–1026 (2011) (in Japanese with English abstract).Article 

Google Scholar 
Okoshi, K. Alien species introduced with imported clams: The clam-eating moon snail Euspira fortunei and other unintentionally introduced species. Japanese J. Benthol. 59, 74–82 (2004) (in Japanese with English abstract).
Google Scholar 
Okoshi, K. & Sato-Okoshi, W. Euspira fortunei: Biology and fisheries science of an invasive species (Kouseishakouseikaku Press, 2011).
Google Scholar 
Tomiyama, T. Lethal and non-lethal effects of an invasive naticid gastropod on the production of a native clam. Biol. Invasions 20, 2005–2014 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sato, S., Chiba, T. & Hasegawa, H. Long-term fluctuations in mollusk populations before and after the appearance of the alien predator Euspira fortunei on the Tona coast, Miyagi Prefecture, northern Japan. Fish. Sci. 78, 589–595 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kinoshita, K., Sasaki, N., Seki, A., Matsumasa, M. & Takehara, A. Distribution of the invasive snail Laguncula pulchella and the effect of its predation on the mollusk populations in the Orikasa River Estuary after the 2011 off the Pacific Coast of Tohoku Earthquake. Japanese J. Benthol. 72, 61–70 (2018) (in Japanese with English abstract).
Google Scholar 
Sato, T., Iwasaki, T., Narita, K. & Matsumoto, I. Occurrence of the moonsnail Euspira fortunei after the earthquake in Matsukawaura Lagoon Japan. Bull. Fukushima Prefect. Fish. Exp. Stn. 79–82 (2016). (in Japanese).Chiba, T. & Sato, S. Size-selective predation and drillhole-site selectivity in Euspira fortunei (Gastropoda: Naticidae): Implications for ecological and palaeoecological studies. J. Molluscan Stud. 78, 205–212 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tanabe, T. Relationship between the shell height of the predatory moon snail Euspira fortunei and drilled hole diameter on the prey shell of manila clam Ruditapes philippinarum. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi 78, 37–42 (2012) (in Japanese with English abstract).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hasegawa, H. & Sato, S. Predatory behaviour of the naticid Euspira fortunei: Why does it drill the left shell valve of Ruditapes philippinarum?. J. Molluscan Stud. 75, 147–151 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kingsley-Smith, P. R., Richardson, C. A. & Seed, R. Size-related and seasonal patterns of egg collar production in Polinices pulchellus (Gastropoda: Naticidae) Risso 1826. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 295, 191–206 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tomiyama, T. Timing and frequency of egg-collar production of the moonsnail Euspira fortunei. Fish. Sci. 79, 905–910 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sakai, K. & Suto, A. Early development and behavior of the moon snail Neverita didyma. Miyagi Prefect. Rep. Fish. Sci. 5, 55–58 (2005) (in Japanese).
Google Scholar 
Cook, N. & Bendell-Young, L. Determining the ecological role of Euspira lewisii: Part I: Feeding ecology. J. Shellfish Res. 29, 223–232 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Peitso, E., Hui, E., Hartwick, B. & Bourne, N. Predation by the naticid gastropod Polinices lewisii (Gould) on littleneck clams Protothaca staminea (Conrad) in British Columbia. Can. J. Zool. 72, 319–325 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
Johannesson, K., Saltin, S. H., Duranovic, I., Havenhand, J. N. & Jonsson, P. R. Indiscriminate males: Mating behaviour of a marine snail compromised by a sexual conflict?. PLoS ONE 5, e12005 (2010).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Vaughn, D., Turnross, O. R. & Carrington, E. Sex-specific temperature dependence of foraging and growth of intertidal snails. Mar. Biol. 161, 75–87 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Watson, P. J., Arnqvist, G. & Stallmann, R. R. Sexual conflict and the energetic costs of mating and mate choice in water striders. Am. Nat. 151, 46–58 (1998).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Schlacher, T. A. & Wooldridge, T. H. Patterns of selective predation by juvenile, benthivorous fish on estuarine macrofauna. Mar. Biol. 125, 241–247 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sudo, H. & Azeta, M. Selective predation on mature male Byblis japonicus (Amphipoda: Gammaridea) by the barface cardinalfish, Apogon semilineatus. Mar. Biol. 114, 211–217 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vadas, R. L., Burrows, M. T. & Hughes, R. N. Foraging strategies of dogwhelks, Nucella lapillus (L.): Interacting effects of age, diet and chemical cues to the threat of predation. Oecologia 100, 439–450 (1994).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Donelan, S. C. & Trussell, G. C. Sex-specific differences in the response of prey to predation risk. Funct. Ecol. 34, 1235–1243 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yoshida, K., Sato, T., Narita, K. & Tomiyama, T. Abundance and body size of the moonsnail Laguncula pulchella in the Misuji River estuary, Seto Inland Sea, Japan: Comparison with a population in northern Japan. Plankt. Benthos Res. 12, 53–60 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sato, T., Ogata, Y., Nemoto, Y. & Shimamura, S. Status review and current concerns of the fishery for the short-neck clam, Ruditapes philippinarum, in Matsukawaura Lagoon, Fukushima Prefecture. Bull. Fukushima Prefect. Fish. Exp. Stn. 14, 57–67 (2007) (in Japanese).
Google Scholar 
Tomiyama, T. & Sato, T. Effects of translocation on the asari clam Ruditapes philippinarum at small spatial scales in Matsukawaura, Japan. Bull. Mar. Sci. 97, 647–664 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chiba, T. & Sato, S. Invasion of Laguncula pulchella (Gastropoda: Naticidae) and predator–prey interactions with bivalves on the Tona coast, Miyagi prefecture, northern Japan. Biol. Invasions 15, 587–598 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Mace, G. M., Norris, K. & Fitter, A. H. Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 19–26 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, 2019).Williams, B. A. et al. A robust goal is needed for species in the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. Conserv. Lett. 14, e12778 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rodrigues, A. S. L. et al. Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity. Nature 428, 640–643 (2004).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Watson, J. E. M., Dudley, N., Segan, D. B. & Hockings, M. The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature 515, 67–73 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
McCarthy, D. P. et al. Financial costs of meeting global biodiversity conservation targets: current spending and unmet needs. Science 338, 946–949 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pe’er, G. et al. Action needed for the EU Common Agricultural Policy to address sustainability challenges. People Nat. 2, 305–316 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
McDonald, R. I. et al. Research gaps in knowledge of the impact of urban growth on biodiversity. Nat. Sustain. 3, 16–24 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rosenzweig, M. L. Reconciliation ecology and the future of species diversity. Oryx 37, 194–205 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dunn, R. R., Gavin, M. C., Sanchez, M. C. & Solomon, J. N. The pigeon paradox: dependence of global conservation on urban nature. Conserv. Biol. 20, 1814–1816 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Callaghan, C. T. et al. How to build a biodiverse city: environmental determinants of bird diversity within and among 1581 cities. Biodivers. Conserv. 30, 217–234 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ives, C. D. et al. Cities are hotspots for threatened species. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 25, 117–126 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Soanes, K. & Lentini, P. E. When cities are the last chance for saving species. Front. Ecol. Environ. 17, 225–231 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Luck, G. W., Davidson, P., Boxall, D. & Smallbone, L. Relations between urban bird and plant communities and human well-being and connection to nature. Conserv. Biol. 25, 816–826 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Maller, C., Mumaw, L. & Cooke, B. in Rewilding (eds Pettorelli, N. et al.) Ch. 9 (Cambridge, Univ. Press, 2019).Jiang, L. & O’Neill, B. C. Global urbanization projections for the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 193–199 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Prévot, A.-C., Cheval, H., Raymond, R. & Cosquer, A. Routine experiences of nature in cities can increase personal commitment toward biodiversity conservation. Biol. Conserv. 226, 1–8 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Berthon, K., Thomas, F. & Bekessy, S. The role of ‘nativeness’ in urban greening to support animal biodiversity. Landsc. Urban Plan. 205, 103959 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
van Heezik, Y., Freeman, C., Davidson, K. & Lewis, B. Uptake and engagement of activities to promote native species in private gardens. Environ. Manag. 66, 42–55 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jorgensen, A. & Keenan, R. Urban Wildscapes (Routledge, 2012).Majewska, A. A. & Altizer, S. Planting gardens to support insect pollinators. Conserv. Biol. 34, 15–25 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tallamy, D. W. Bringing Nature Home: How You Can Sustain Wildlife with Native Plants (Timber Press, 2007).Burghardt, K. T., Tallamy, D. W. & Gregory Shriver, W. Impact of native plants on bird and butterfly biodiversity in suburban landscapes. Conserv. Biol. 23, 219–224 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kraljevic, A. & Mitlacher, G. Barometer on CBD’s Target for International Resource Mobilization (WWF, 2020).Eichenberg, D. et al. Widespread decline in Central European plant diversity across six decades. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 1097–1110 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lughadha, E. N. et al. Extinction risk and threats to plants and fungi. Plants People Planet 2, 389–408 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Metzing, D., Hofbauer, N., Ludwig, G. & Matzke-Hajek, G. Rote Liste Gefährdeter Tiere, Pflanzen und Pilze Deutschlands: Pflanzen/Redaktion: Detlev Metzing, Natalie Hofbauer, Gerhard Ludwig und Günter Matzke-Hajek (Bundesamt für Naturschutz, 2018).Kalusová, V. et al. Naturalization of European plants on other continents: the role of donor habitats. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 13756–13761 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Staude, I. R. et al. Directional turnover towards larger-ranged plants over time and across habitats. Ecol. Lett. 25, 466–482 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Galloway, J. N. et al. The nitrogen cascade. Bioscience 53, 341–356 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lundholm, J. T. & Richardson, P. J. Mini-Review: Habitat analogues for reconciliation ecology in urban and industrial environments. J. Appl. Ecol. 47, 966–975 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ellenberg, H. Gefahrdung wildlebender Pflanzenarten in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Versuch einer okologischen Betrachtung. Forstarchiv 57, 127–133 (1983).
Google Scholar 
Deeb, M. et al. Using constructed soils for green infrastructure—challenges and limitations. Soil 6, 413–434 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
BuGG-Marktreport Gebäudegrün 2020 Dach-, Fassaden-und Innenraumbegrünung Deutschland Neu begrünte Flächen Bestand und Potenziale Kommunale Förderung (BuGG, 2020).Reichard, S. H. & White, P. Horticulture as a pathway of invasive plant introductions in the United States: most invasive plants have been introduced for horticultural use by nurseries, botanical gardens, and individuals. Bioscience 51, 103–113 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
der Lippe, M. & Kowarik, I. Do cities export biodiversity? Traffic as dispersal vector across urban—rural gradients. Divers. Distrib. 14, 18–25 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Razgour, O. et al. Considering adaptive genetic variation in climate change vulnerability assessment reduces species range loss projections. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 10418–10423 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Goddard, M. A., Dougill, A. J. & Benton, T. G. Scaling up from gardens: biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 90–98 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sharrock, S. Plant Conservation Report 2020: A Review of Progress Towards the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation 2011–2020 CBD Technical Series No. 95 (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2020).Ismail, S. A., Pouteau, R., van Kleunen, M., Maurel, N. & Kueffer, C. Horticultural plant use as a so-far neglected pillar of ex situ conservation. Conserv. Lett. 14, e12825 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wüstemann, H., Kalisch, D. & Kolbe, J. Access to urban green space and environmental inequalities in Germany. Landsc. Urban Plan. 164, 124–131 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kleingärten im Wandel—Innovationen für verdichtete Räume (BBSR, 2018).Rudd, H., Vala, J. & Schaefer, V. Importance of backyard habitat in a comprehensive biodiversity conservation strategy: a connectivity analysis of urban green spaces. Restor. Ecol. 10, 368–375 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kowarik, I. & von der Lippe, M. Plant population success across urban ecosystems: a framework to inform biodiversity conservation in cities. J. Appl. Ecol. 55, 2354–2361 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
du Toit, M. J., Shackleton, C. M., Cilliers, S. S. & Davoren, E. in Urban Ecology in the Global South (eds Shackleton, C. M. et al.) 433–461 (Springer, 2021).Sawyer, J. Saving threatened native plant species in cities—from traffic islands to real islands. In Greening the City: Bringing Biodiversity Back Into the Urban Environment: Proc. (ed Dawson, M. I.) 111–117 (Royal New Zealand Institute of Horticulture, 2005).Webb, E. L. A Guide to the Native Ornamental Trees of American Samoa (National Univ. Singapore, 2011).Pan, K. et al. Urban green spaces as potential habitats for introducing a native endangered plant, Calycanthus chinensis. Urban For. Urban Green. 46, 126444 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gardening sales value worldwide from 2015 to 2020, with a forecast up to 2024. Statista statista.com/statistics/1220222/global-gardening-sales-value/ (2021).Warenstromanalyse 2018: Blumen, Zierpflanzen & Gehölze (AMI, 2020).Nature Awareness Study (Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN), 2019).Abbandonato, H., Pedrini, S., Pritchard, H. W., De Vitis, M. & Bonomi, C. Native seed trade of herbaceous species for restoration: a European policy perspective with global implications. Restor. Ecol. 26, 820–826 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hancock, N., Gibson-Roy, P., Driver, M. & Broadhurst, L. The Australian Native Seed Survey Report (Australian Network for Plant Conservation, 2020).Wilkinson, D. M. Is local provenance important in habitat creation? J. Appl. Ecol. 38, 1371–1373 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pedrini, S. & Dixon, K. W. International principles and standards for native seeds in ecological restoration. Restor. Ecol. 28, S286–S303 (2020).
Google Scholar 
De Vitis, M. et al. The European native seed industry: characterization and perspectives in grassland restoration. Sustainability 9, 1682 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Westwood, M., Cavender, N., Meyer, A. & Smith, P. Botanic garden solutions to the plant extinction crisis. Plants People Planet 3, 22–32 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mounce, R., Smith, P. & Brockington, S. Ex situ conservation of plant diversity in the world’s botanic gardens. Nat. Plants 3, 795–802 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pedrini, S. et al. Collection and production of native seeds for ecological restoration. Restor. Ecol. 28, S228–S238 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Groves, R. H. Can Australian native plants be weeds. Plant Prot. Q. 16, 114–117 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Brummitt, R. K., Pando, F., Hollis, S. & Brummitt, N. A. World Geographic Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions 2nd edn (Hunt Institute for Botanical Documentation, 2001).Davis, M. A. et al. Don’t judge species on their origins. Nature 474, 153–154 (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Mumaw, L. & Bekessy, S. Wildlife gardening for collaborative public—private biodiversity conservation. Australas. J. Environ. Manag. 24, 242–260 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mumaw, L. Transforming urban gardeners into land stewards. J. Environ. Psychol. 52, 92–103 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Abeli, T. et al. Ex situ collections and their potential for the restoration of extinct plants. Conserv. Biol. 34, 303–313 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ladouceur, E. et al. Native seed supply and the restoration species pool. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12381 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hyvärinen, M.-T. Rubus humulifolius rescued by narrowest possible margin, conserved ex situ, and reintroduced in the wild. J. Nat. Conserv. 55, 125819 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Holz, H., Segar, J., Valdez, J. & Staude, I. R. Assessing extinction risk across the geographic ranges of plant species in Europe. Plants People Planet https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.10251 (2022).Brodie, J. F. et al. Global policy for assisted colonization of species. Science 372, 456–458 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gann, G. D. et al. International principles and standards for the practice of ecological restoration. Restor. Ecol. 27, S1–S46 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bower, A. D., Clair, J. B. S. & Erickson, V. Generalized provisional seed zones for native plants. Ecol. Appl. 24, 913–919 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Goddard, M. A., Dougill, A. J. & Benton, T. G. Why garden for wildlife? Social and ecological drivers, motivations and barriers for biodiversity management in residential landscapes. Ecol. Econ. 86, 258–273 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ignatieva, M. & Ahrné, K. Biodiverse green infrastructure for the 21st century: from “green desert” of lawns to biophilic cities. J. Archit. Urban. 37, 1–9 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
van Heezik, Y. M., Dickinson, K. J. M. & Freeman, C. Closing the gap: communicating to change gardening practices in support of native biodiversity in urban private gardens. Ecol. Soc. 17, 34 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Shaw, A. E. & Miller, K. K. Preaching to the converted? Designing wildlife gardening programs to engage the unengaged. Appl. Environ. Educ. Commun. 15, 214–224 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mumaw, L. M. & Raymond, C. M. A framework for catalysing the rapid scaling of urban biodiversity stewardship programs. J. Environ. Manag. 292, 112745 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Niemiec, R., Jones, M. S., Lischka, S. & Champine, V. Efficacy-based and normative interventions for facilitating the diffusion of conservation behavior through social networks. Conserv. Biol. 35, 1073–1085 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Haywood, B. K., Parrish, J. K. & Dolliver, J. Place-based and data-rich citizen science as a precursor for conservation action. Conserv. Biol. 30, 476–486 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lerman, S. B., Turner, V. K. & Bang, C. Homeowner associations as a vehicle for promoting native urban biodiversity. Ecol. Soc. 17, 45 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nassauer, J. I. Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landsc. J. 14, 161–170 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cavender, N., Smith, P. & Marfleet, K. BGCI Technical Review: The Role of Botanic Gardens in Urban Greening and Conserving Urban Biodiversity (BGCI, 2019). More

There are 23 international conventions related to protecting the marine environment and biodiversity, with five of these requiring the implementation of marine protected areas27. Targets for the effective protection of marine habitats that conserve nature and secure nature’s contributions to people are increasingly seen as critical in ensuring progress toward meeting treaty commitments. Aichi Target 11 and the Sustainable Development Goals Target 14.5 aim to conserve at least 10% of marine and coastal areas by 2020, reflecting a shift to a more target-driven conservation policy at the international level, although this is hotly debated. Warm-water corals, mangroves, and saltmarshes all have more than 30% of their extent within PCAs, with seagrasses and cold-water corals approaching 30%, which reveals a dedicated effort to their conservation of these critical habitats. However, the protection of the total global ocean area is still at 7.92%, with only 1.18% of ABNJ covered by PCAs, falling short of the 10% of Aichi Target 11 previously set for 202016.Standardized and open source tools and platforms are needed to allow robust monitoring of progress towards international targets. While tools are available to measure advancement in some targets24,25,26, fully replicable workflows that guide the user from data preparation to index calculations have been lacking. The workflow presented here provides one of the first steps to fill this gap. The indexes also give a global context for the conservation of the habitats, highlighting ecological representation and individual jurisdictions’ potential to contribute to future conservation efforts. Combining our indexes with other tools, such as spatial conservation planning, allows policymakers to balance tradeoffs with different priorities, such as climate mitigation and resource extraction (e.g.13).While our indexes do not measure the “equitably managed” component of the Aichi target 11, it is critical that a holistic, human rights-based approach is taken in meeting any targets set and efforts to improve biodiversity outcomes. The consideration of human rights of local communities and indigenous people and inclusion of their voices is absolutely necessary in the decision-making process28.Interpretation and Usefulness of the Workflow and IndexesThe LPHPI and GPHPI are consistent ways of measuring progress in establishing protected areas that have the potential to conserve habitats and biodiversity. Additionally, the completely open access workflow described in Fig. 5 is highly adaptable and can include a wide range of habitats as data become available, or it can be applied to different conservation features like species distributions. The workflow could also be adapted to calculate the amount of key biodiversity areas within PCAs per jurisdiction and globally, or human threats (e.g., pollution or heatwaves) when geospatial data is available. Notably, the workflow can also measure progress towards targets in the draft post-2020 global biodiversity framework (as of August 2020).Fig. 5A flow chart describing the key steps of the indexes calculations. We also connect each step to the R script available at: https://github.com/jkumagai96/Marine_Habitat_protection where a more detailed explanation on how to replicate the workflow is available.Full size imageSpecifically, the workflow and resulting LPHPI dataset can directly monitor the marine components T2.1 and T2.3 of Target 2 of the draft monitoring framework (reproduced in Table 1 for convenience). The workflow can also be easily adapted to calculate the freshwater and terrestrial aspects of Target 2 – component T2.1 and component T2.2. The Protected Area Representativeness Index and Species Protection Index currently proposed for T2.3 do not account for marine regions or species. We provide more data directly on the other indicator mentioned (Proportion of terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecological areas within PCAs) for marine areas in a FAIR workflow. Our workflow and indexes are useful resources that monitor Target 2 of the draft monitoring framework for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. Additionally, the inclusion of ABNJ in the indexes is extremely important given current discussions on a new implementing agreement for the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to protect marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction and thus the whole ocean29.Table 1 Subset of the draft monitoring framework for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework available online (https://www.cbd.int/sbstta/sbstta-24/post2020-monitoring-en.pdf).Full size tableThe GPHPI is a valuable index that reveals the protection status of habitats distributed globally. The index highlights that not all countries have the same amount of habitat, and international effort is needed to conserve biodiversity worldwide, aspects that the LPHPI does not readily show. It is valuable to understand where habitats are covered by protected areas and where further efforts need to be placed. For example, Norway has a relatively low LPHPI (0.168) and simultaneously a relatively high GPHPI (top 11%) because of the total area of mapped habitats within their jurisdiction and their efforts to conserve them. If they can improve their LPHPI to 0.3 (30%), their GPHPI would also increase since they have a large area of habitats. But even with less than 30% of these habitats in PCAs, the protection Norway has established, or other countries have in a similar situation, substantially contributes to the global effort.Jurisdictions have direct control over their LPHPI. Increasing the protected area coverage of their marine and coastal habitats will directly increase the index score. Small countries and territories with a limited area may see large improvements in their LPHPI through a few additional protected areas, while their GPHPI score will not increase much from this effort. For these jurisdictions, international strategies need to be implemented to promote the conservation of marine and coastal habitats. The GPHPI also reveals that each jurisdiction may physically contribute only a small percentage. However, when combined, these could provide the overall coverage of PCAs distributed around the world that is ecologically advisable to promote overall biodiversity.Within the targeted analysis of the global proportion of habitats protected, any jurisdiction that protects more than 30% of its habitat extent can move from a negative to a positive score; thus, it is relative to each jurisdiction. However, the targeted analysis also reflects the absolute contribution of each jurisdiction. In particular, the targeted analysis can be interpreted to reveal jurisdictions that have the highest opportunity to conserve the most habitat, if they can reach the 30% target. Thus, this informs part of goal D of the post-2020 biodiversity framework, which requires understanding where to prioritize effort. The jurisdictions that rank the lowest in the analysis, currently ABNJ, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Nigeria, and Iraq (Fig. 4), represent a great opportunity to further expand PCAs to 30% coverage of marine habitats within their territorial waters and coast, as these would contribute the most added area. The jurisdictions that score highest have the opportunity to monitor and improve the effectiveness of their PCAs to adequately protect these marine habitats and reduce surrounding pressures, especially since they contribute significantly to the total global extent of these habitats.LimitationsOne limitation of our indexes is that they do not distinguish between areas that are readily protected (e.g., due to remoteness) and those that most urgently need protection (e.g., highly threatened biodiverse locations)30,31. Additionally, the analysis presented here is sensitive to the choice of coastal and marine habitats included in the indexes. We selected these six habitats based on the availability of high-quality spatially explicit global data recognized by the scientific community. Each habitat dataset is published in a peer-reviewed journal and available online (https://data.unep-wcmc.org/datasets) within the UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) website and follows their data standards. The data represent the known and mapped distribution of habitats; thus, there are inherent knowledge gaps between the actual extent and available data. For example, it is likely that significant portions of cold-water corals, particularly in the ABNJ, are still unknown. Over time, the workflow will be updated and improved yearly to strengthen data coverage, and if additional high-quality data on habitats emerge, these will be included ensuring the indexes stay up to date and relevant. The original analysis with the same habitats will also be repeated to ensure a consistent time series of the indexes is provided.An important consideration when using these indexes is that habitat extent that spatially aligns with a PCA does not necessarily mean that a particular habitat is protected. For example, some PCAs enforce regulations on the water area (e.g., fishing exclusion), but do not prevent mangrove deforestation. Additionally, because of the buffering of points within the workflow, some of the habitats that are counted as protected may fall near a PCA but not within it. Nevertheless, our analysis assumes that habitats that fall within a PCA will be better conserved than habitats not within a PCA, as the primary purpose of protected areas is conservation. Similarly, we assume that other effective area-based conservation measures provide some conservation benefit and are often sustainably managed by local communities and indigenous peoples who live on them32,33.The LPHPI and GPHPI indexes report detailed information for policymakers, the scientific community, and stakeholders to understand the state of protection for marine and coastal habitats at both global and local levels. Simple metrics like these indexes that the public and politicians understand help communicate the plight of ocean health and efforts to improve it. The workflow, based on open-source programming and datasets, is reproducible and scalable and was developed to allow other scientists and data providers to calculate the indexes for any areas or habitats of interest and repeat and adapt our analysis for any target. The indexes will be updated annually to ensure continued relevance and the provision of a time series to track how the world is advancing towards the goals defined by global policy, such as aspects of the Sustainable Development Goal 14, therefore bringing to the forefront the importance and status of conserving critical marine and coastal habitats. Ultimately, transparency in protection efforts, effectiveness, and representation must be improved so policymakers can grasp the current conditions, possible scenarios, and make informed decisions to meet international policy commitments34. More

Siński, E. & Welc-Falęciak, R. Risk of Infections Transmitted by Ticks in Forest Ecosystems of Poland. (Zarządzanie Ochroną Przyrody w Lasach 6, 2012).Kantar Public. Zwierzęta w polskich domach, 2017. http://www.tnsglobal.pl/archiwumraportow/files/2017/05/K.021_Zwierzeta_domowe_O04a-17.pdf.Maia, C. et al. Bacterial and protozoal agents of feline vector-borne diseases in domestic and stray cats from southern Portugal. Parasit. Vectors. 7, 115. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-7-115 (2014).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Maia, C. et al. Bacterial and protozoal agents of canine vector-borne diseases in the blood of domestic and stray dogs from southern Portugal. Parasit. Vectors. 23(8), 138. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-015-0759-8 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Baturo, I.M. Parki narodowe i krajobrazowe, rezerwaty przyrody. (Departament Turystyki, Sportu, Promocji Urzędu Marszłkowskiego Województwa Małopolskiego, 2010).Dulias, R. & Hibszer, A. Województwo śląskie—przyroda, gospodarka, dziedzictwo kulturowe (Wydawnictwo Kubajak, 2004).
Google Scholar 
Siuda, K. Kleszcze Polski Acari Ixodida). Część II. Systematyka i Rozmieszczenie (Polskie Towarzystwo Parazytologiczne, 1993).
Google Scholar 
Nowak-Chmura, M. Fauna kleszczy (Ixodida) Europy Środkowej (Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Pedagogicznego, 2013).
Google Scholar 
Rijpkema, S., Golubić, D., Molkenboer, M., Verbeek-De Kruif, N. & Schellekens, J. Identification of four genomic groups of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato in Ixodes ricinus ticks collected in a Lyme borreliosis endemic region of northern Croatia. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 20, 23–30 (1996).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wójcik-Fatla, A., Szymańska, J., Wdowiak, L., Buczek, A. & Dutkiewicz, J. Coincidence of three pathogens (Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato, Anaplasma phagocytophilum and Babesia microti) in Ixodes ricinus ticks in the Lublin makroregion. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 16(1), 151–158 (2009).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Massung, R. F. et al. Nested PCR assay for detection of granulocytic ehrlichiae. J. Clin. Microbiol. 36(4), 1090–1095 (1998).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Persing, D. H. et al. Detection of Babesia microti by polymerase chain reaction. J. Clin. Microbiol. 30, 2097–2103 (1992).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sroka, J., Szymańska, J. & Wójcik-Fatla, A. The occurence of Toxoplasma gondii and Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato in Ixodes ricinus ticks from east Poland with the use of PCR. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 16(2), 313–319 (2009).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Siuda, K., Nowak, M., Gierczak, M., Wierzbowska, I. & Faber, M. Kleszcze (Acari: Ixodida) pasożytujące na psach i kotach domowych w Polsce. Wiad. Parazytol. 53, 155 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Zajkowska, P. Ticks (Acari:Ixodida) attacking domestic dogs in the Malopolska voivodeship, Poland. In Arthropods: In the contemporary world (eds Buczek, A. & Błaszak, C. Z.) 87–99 (Koliber, 2015).Chapter 

Google Scholar 
Szymański, S. Przypadek masowego rozwoju kleszcza Rhipicephalus sanguineus (Latreile, 1806) w warszawskim mieszkaniu. Wiad. Parazytol. 25, 453–458 (1979).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Król, N., Obiegala, A., Pfeffer, M., Lonc, E. & Kiewra, D. Detection of selected pathogens in ticks collected from cats and dogs in the Wrocław Agglomeration South-West Poland. Parasit. Vectors. 9(1), 351. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-016-1632-0 (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kocoń, A., Nowak-Chmura, M., Kłyś, M. & Siuda, K. Ticks (Acari: Ixodida) attacking domestic cats (Felis catus L.) in southern Poland. In Arthropods in Urban and Suburban Environments (eds Buczek, A. & Błaszak, C.) 51–61 (Koliber, 2017).
Google Scholar 
Roczeń-Karczmarz, M. et al. Comparison of the occurrence of tick-borne diseases in ticks collected from vegetation and animals in the same area. Med. Weter. 74(8), 484–488. https://doi.org/10.21521/mw.6107 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cuber, P., Asman, M., Solarz, K., Szilman, E. & Szilman, P. Pierwsze stwierdzenia obecności wybranych patogenów chorób transmisyjnych w kleszczach Ixodes ricinus (Acari: Ixididae) zebranych w okolicach zbiorników wodnych w Rogoźniku (województwo śląskie) in Stawonogi. Ekologiczne i patologiczne aspekty układu pasożyt – żywiciel (eds. Buczek, C. & Błaszak, Cz.). 155-164 (Akapit, Lublin, 2010).Asman, M. et al. The risk of exposure to Anaplasma phagocytophilum, Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato, Babesia sp. and co-infections in Ixodes ricinus ticks on the territory of Niepołomice Forest (southern Poland). Ann. Parasitol. 59(1), 13–19 (2013).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pawełczyk, O. et al. The PCR detection of Anaplasma phagocytophilum, Babesia microti and Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato in ticks and fleas collected from pets in the Będzin district area (Upper Silesia, Poland) – the preliminary studies in Stawonogi: zagrożenie zdrowia człowieka i zwierząt (eds. Buczek, C. & Błaszak, Cz.). 111–119 (Koliber, Lublin, 2014).Strzelczyk, J. K. et al. Prevalence of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato in Ixodes ricinus ticks collected from southern Poland. Acta Parasitol. 60(4), 666–674. https://doi.org/10.1515/ap-2015-0095 (2015).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Zygner, W. & Wędrychowicz, H. Occurrence of hard ticks in dogs from Warsaw area. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 13(2), 355–359 (2006).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kilar, P. Ticks attacking domestic dogs in the area of the Rymanów district, Subcarpathian province Poland. Wiad. Parazytol. 57(3), 189–1991 (2011).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Claerebout, E. et al. Ticks and associated pathogens collected from dogs and cats in Belgium. Parasit. Vectors. 6, 183. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-6-183 (2013).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Schreiber, C. et al. Pathogens in ticks collected from dogs in Berlin/Brandenburg, Germany. Parasit. Vectors. 7, 535. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-014-0535-1 (2014).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Eichenberger, R. M., Deplazes, P. & Mathis, A. Ticks on dogs and cats: A pet owner-based survey in a rural town in northeastern Switzerland. Ticks Tick-borne Dis. 6, 267–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ttbdis.2015.01.007 (2015).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Michalski, M. M. Skład gatunkowy kleszczy psów (Acari: Ixodida) z terenu aglomeracji miejskiej w cyklu wieloletnim. Med. Weter. 73(11), 698–701 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Geurden, T. et al. Detection of tick-borne pathogens in ticks from dogs and cats in different European countries. Ticks. Tick. Borne. Dis. 9(6), 1431–1436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ttbdis.2018.06.013 (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Namina, A. et al. Tick-borne pathogens in ticks collected from dogs, Latvia, 2011–2016. BMC Vet. Res. 15, 398. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-019-2149-5 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bhide, M., Travnicek, M., Curlik, J. & Stefancikova, A. The importance of dogs in eco-epidemiology of Lyme borreliosis: a review. Vet. Med. Czech 49(4), 135–142 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Burgess, E. C. Experimentally induced infection of cats with Borrelia burgdorferi. Am. J. Vet. Res. 53, 1507–1511 (1992).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Skotarczak, B. & Wodecka, B. Identification of Borrelia burgdorferi genospecies inducing Lyme disease in dogs from western Poland. Acta Vet. Hung. 53(1), 13–21 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Skotarczak, B. et al. Prevalence of DNA and antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato in dogs suspected of borreliosis. Ann. Agric. Environm. Med. 12(2), 199–205 (2005).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Adaszek, Ł, Winiarczyk, S., Kutrzeba, J., Puchalski, A. & Dębiak, P. Przypadki boreliozy u psow na Lubelszczyźnie. Życie Wet. 83, 311–313 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Hovius, K. E. Borreliosis. In Arthropod-borne Infectious Diseases of the Dog and Cat (eds Shaw, S. E. & Day, M. J.) 100–109 (Manson Publishing, 2005).Chapter 

Google Scholar 
Zygner, W., Jaros, S. & Wędrychowicz, H. Prevalence of Babesia canis, Borrelia afzelii, and Anaplasma phagocytophilum infection in hard ticks removed from dogs in Warsaw (central Poland). Vet. Parasitol. 153, 139–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2008.01.036 (2008).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Welc-Falęciak, R., Rodo, A., Siński, E. & Bajer, A. Babesia canis and other tick-borne infections in dogs in Central Poland. Vet. Parasitol. 166(3–4), 191–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2009.09.038 (2009).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Michalski, M. M., Kubiak, K., Szczotko, M., Chajęcka, M. & Dmitryjuk, M. Molecular Detection of Borrelia burgdorferi Sensu Lato and Anaplasma phagocytophilum in Ticks Collected from Dogs in Urban Areas of North-Eastern Poland. Pathogens. 9(6), 455. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens9060455 (2020).CAS 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Nijhof, A. M. et al. Ticks and associated pathogens collected from domestic animals in the Netherlands. Vector. Borne. Zoonot. Dis. 7, 585–595. https://doi.org/10.1089/vbz.2007.0130 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Adaszek, Ł, Martinez, A. C. & Winiarczyk, S. The factors affecting the distribution of babesiosis in dogs in Poland. Vet. Parasitol. 181, 160–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2011.03.059 (2011).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Adaszek, Ł, Łukaszewska, J., Winiarczyk, S. & Kunkel, M. Pierwszy przypadek babeszjozy u kota w Polsce. Życie Wet. 83(8), 668–670 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Kocoń, A. et al. Molecular detection of tick-borne pathogens in ticks collected from pets in selected mountainous areas of Tatra County (Tatra Mountains, Poland). Sci. Rep. 10, 15865. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-72981-w (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Asman, M. et al. Detection of protozoans Babesia microti and Toxoplasma gondii and their co-existence in ticks (Acari: Ixodida) collected in Tarnogórski district (Upper Silesia, Poland). Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 22(1), 80–83. https://doi.org/10.5604/12321966.1141373 (2015).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Stensvold, C. R. et al. Babesia spp. and other pathogens in ticks recovered from domestic dogs in Denmark. Parasit. Vectors. 8(8), 262. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-015-0843-0 (2015).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Abdullah, S., Helps, C., Tasker, S., Newbury, H. & Wall, R. Prevalence and distribution of Borrelia and Babesia species in ticks feeding on dogs in the UK. Med. Vet. Entomol. 32(1), 14–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/mve.12257 (2018).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bjoersdorff, A., Svendenius, L., Owens, J. H. & Massung, R. F. Feline granulocytic ehrlichiosis– a report of a new clinical entity and characterisation of the infectious agent. J. Small. Anim. Pract. 40(1), 20–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5827.1999.tb03249 (1999).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lappin, M. R. et al. Molecular and serologic evidence of Anaplasma phagocytophilum infection in cats in North America. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 225(6), 893–896. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.2004.225.893 (2004).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Shaw, S. E. et al. Molecular evidence of tick-transmitted infections in dogs and cats in the United Kingdom. Vet. Rec. 157(21), 645–648. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.157.21.645 (2005).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Tarello, W. Microscopic and clinical evidence for Anaplasma (Ehrlichia) phagocytophilum infection in Italian cats. Vet. Rec. 156(24), 772–774. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.156.24.772 (2005).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Schaarschmidt-Kiener, D., Graf, F., von Loewenich, F. D. & Muller, W. Anaplasma phagocytophilum infection in a cat in Switzerland. Schweiz. Arch. Tierheilkd. 151(7), 336–341. https://doi.org/10.1024/0036-7281.151.7.336 (2009).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Heikkila, H. M., Bondarenko, A., Mihalkov, A., Pfister, K. & Spillmann, T. Anaplasma phagocytophilum infection in a domestic cat in Finland. Acta. Vet. Scand. 52(1), 62. https://doi.org/10.1186/1751-0147-52-62 (2010).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hamel, D., Bondarenko, A., Silaghi, C., Nolte, I. & Pfister, K. Seroprevalence and bacteremia of Anaplasma phagocytophilum in cats from Bavaria and Lower Saxony (Germany). Berl. Munch. Tierarztl. Wochenschr. 125(3–4), 163–167 (2012).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Morgenthal, D. et al. Prevalence of haemotropic Mycoplasma spp., Bartonella spp. and Anaplasma phagocytophilum in cats in Berlin/Brandenburg (Northeast Germany). Berl. Munch Tierarztl. Wochenschr. 125(9–10), 418–427 (2012).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Adaszek, Ł, Winiarczyk, S. & Łukaszewska, J. A first case of ehrlichiosis in a horse in Poland. Dtsch. Tierarztl. Wchschr. 116(9), 330–334 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Adaszek, Ł, Policht, K., Gorna, M., Kutrzuba, J. & Winiarczyk, S. Pierwszy w Polsce przypadek anaplazmozy (erlichiozy) granulocytarnej u kota. Życie Wet. 86, 132–135 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Adaszek, Ł, Kotowicz, W., Klimiuk, P., Gorna, M. & Winiarczyk, S. Ostry przebieg anaplazmozy granulocytarnej u psa—przypadek własny. Wet. w Praktyce 9, 59–62 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Adaszek, Ł et al. Three clinical cases of Anaplasma phagocytophilum infection in cats in Poland. J. Feline Med. Surg. 15, 333–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098612X12466552 (2013).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pusterla, N. et al. Seroprevalence of Ehrlichia canis and of canine granulocytic ehrlichia infection in dogs in Switzerland. J. Clin. Microbiol. 36, 3460–3462. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.36.12.3460-3462.1998 (1998).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Egenvall, A. et al. Detection of granulocytic Ehrlichia species DNA by PCR in persistently infected dogs. Vet. Rec. 146(7), 186–190. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.146.7.186 (2000).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Shaw, S. E. et al. Review of exotic infectious dise-ases in small animals entering the United Kingdom from abroad diagnosed by PCR. Vet. Rec. 152(6), 176–177. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.152.6.176 (2003).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Skotarczak, B., Adamska, M. & Supron, M. Blood DNA analysis for Ehrlichia (Anaplasma) phagocytophila and Babesia spp in dogs from Northern Poland. Acta Vet. Brno. 73, 347–351. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.152.6.176 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Adaszek, Ł. Wybrane Aspekty Epidemiologii Babeszjozy, Boreliozy i Erlichiozy Psów (Praca doktorska, 2007).
Google Scholar 
Kybicová, K. et al. Detection of Anaplasma phagocytophilum and Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato in dogs in the Czech Republic. Vec. Born Zoon Dis. 9(6), 655–661. https://doi.org/10.1089/vbz.2008.0127 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Spillover events, in which a pathogen that originates in animals jumps into people, have probably triggered every viral pandemic that’s occurred since the start of the twentieth century1. What’s more, an August 2021 analysis of disease outbreaks over the past four centuries indicates that the yearly probability of pandemics could increase several-fold in the coming decades, largely because of human-induced environmental changes2.Fortunately, for around US$20 billion per year, the likelihood of spillover could be greatly reduced3. This is the amount needed to halve global deforestation in hotspots for emerging infectious diseases; drastically curtail and regulate trade in wildlife; and greatly improve the ability to detect and control infectious diseases in farmed animals.That is a small investment compared with the millions of lives lost and trillions of dollars spent in the COVID-19 pandemic. The cost is also one-twentieth of the statistical value of the lives lost each year to viral diseases that have spilled over from animals since 1918 (see ‘Spillovers: a growing threat’), and less than one-tenth of the economic productivity erased per year1.

Source: Ref. 1

Yet many of the international efforts to better defend the world from future outbreaks, prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic, still fail to prioritize the prevention of spillover. Take, for example, the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response, established by the World Health Organization (WHO). The panel was convened in September 2020, in part to ensure that any future infectious-disease outbreak does not become another pandemic. In its 86-page report released last May, wildlife is mentioned twice; deforestation once.We urge the decision-makers currently developing three landmark international endeavours to make the prevention of spillover central to each.First, the G20 group of the world’s 20 largest economies provisionally agreed last month to create a global fund for pandemics. If realized, this could provide funding at levels that infectious-disease experts have been recommending for decades — around $5 per person per year globally (see go.nature.com/3yjitwx). Second, an agreement to improve global approaches to pandemics is under discussion by the World Health Assembly (WHA), the decision-making body of the WHO. Third, a draft framework for biodiversity conservation — the post-2020 global biodiversity framework — is being negotiated by parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity.Designed in the right way, these three international endeavours could foster a more proactive global approach to infectious diseases. This opportunity — to finally address the factors that drive major disease outbreaks, many of which also contribute to climate change and biodiversity loss — might not present itself again until the world faces another pandemic.Four actions The risk of spillover is greater when there are more opportunities for animals and humans to make contact, for instance in the trade of wildlife, in animal farming or when forests are cleared for mining, farming or roads. It is also more likely to happen under conditions that increase the likelihood of infected animals shedding viruses – when they are housed in cramped conditions, say, or not fed properly.Decades of research from epidemiology, ecology and genetics suggest that an effective global strategy to reduce the risk of spillover should focus on four actions1,3.First, tropical and subtropical forests must be protected. Various studies show that changes in the way land is used, particularly tropical and subtropical forests, might be the largest driver of emerging infectious diseases of zoonotic origin globally4. Wildlife that survives forest clearance or degradation tends to include species that can live alongside people, and that often host pathogens capable of infecting humans5. For example, in Bangladesh, bats that carry Nipah virus — which can kill 40–75% of people infected — now roost in areas of high human population density because their forest habitat has been almost entirely cleared6.Furthermore, the loss of forests is driving climate change. This could in itself aid spillover by pushing animals, such as bats, out of regions that have become inhospitable and into areas where many people live7.Yet forests can be protected even while agricultural productivity is increased — as long as there is enough political will and resources8. This was demonstrated by the 70% reduction in deforestation in the Amazon during 2004–12, largely through better monitoring, law enforcement and the provision of financial incentives to farmers. (Deforestation rates began increasing in 2013 due to changes in environmental legislation, and have risen sharply since 2019 during Jair Bolsonaro’s presidency.)Second, commercial markets and trade of live wild animals that pose a public-health risk must be banned or strictly regulated, both domestically and internationally.Doing this would be consistent with the call made by the WHO and other organizations in 2021 for countries to temporarily suspend the trade in live caught wild mammals, and to close sections of markets selling such animals. Several countries have already acted along these lines. In China, the trade and consumption of most terrestrial wildlife has been banned in response to COVID-19. Similarly, Gabon has prohibited the sale of certain mammal species as food in markets.

A worker in a crowded chicken farm in Anhui province, China.Credit: Jianan Yu/Reuters

Restrictions on urban and peri-urban commercial markets and trade must not infringe on the rights and needs of Indigenous peoples and local communities, who often rely on wildlife for food security, livelihoods and cultural practices. There are already different rules for hunting depending on the community in many countries, including Brazil, Canada and the United States.Third, biosecurity must be improved when dealing with farmed animals. Among other measures, this could be achieved through better veterinary care, enhanced surveillance for animal disease, improvements to feeding and housing animals, and quarantines to limit pathogen spread.Poor health among farmed animals increases their risk of becoming infected with pathogens — and of spreading them. And nearly 80% of livestock pathogens can infect multiple host species, including wildlife and humans9.Fourth, particularly in hotspots for the emergence of infectious diseases, people’s health and economic security should be improved.People in poor health — such as those who have malnutrition or uncontrolled HIV infection — can be more susceptible to zoonotic pathogens. And, particularly in immunosuppressed individuals such as these, pathogens can mutate before being passed on to others10.What’s more, some communities — especially those in rural areas — use natural resources to produce commodities or generate income in a way that brings them into contact with wildlife or wildlife by-products. In Bangladesh, for example, date palm sap, which is consumed as a drink in various forms, is often collected in pots attached to palm trees. These can become contaminated with bodily substances from bats. A 2016 investigation linked this practice to 14 Nipah virus infections in humans that caused 8 deaths11.Providing communities with both education and tools to reduce the risk of harm is crucial. Tools can be something as simple as pot covers to prevent contamination of date palm sap, in the case of the Bangladesh example.In fact, providing educational opportunities alongside health-care services and training in alternative livelihood skills, such as organic agriculture, can help both people and the environment. For instance, the non-governmental organization Health in Harmony in Portland, Oregon, has invested in community-designed interventions in Indonesian Borneo. During 2007–17, these contributed to a 90% reduction in the number of households that were reliant on illegal logging for their main livelihood. This, in turn, reduced local rainforest loss by 70%. Infant mortality also fell by 67% in the programme’s catchment area12.Systems-oriented interventions of this type need to be better understood, and the most effective ones scaled up.Wise investmentSuch strategies to prevent spillover would reduce our dependence on containment measures, such as human disease surveillance, contact tracing, lockdowns, vaccines and therapeutics. These interventions are crucial, but are often expensive and implemented too late — in short, they are insufficient when used alone to deal with emerging infectious diseases.The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the real-world limitations of these reactive measures — particularly in an age of disinformation and rising populism. For example, despite the US federal government spending more than $3.7 trillion on its pandemic response as of the end of March, nearly one million people in the United States — or around one in 330 — have died from COVID-19 (see go.nature.com/39jtdfh and go.nature.com/38urqvc). Globally, between 15 million and 21 million lives are estimated to have been lost during the COVID-19 pandemic beyond what would be expected under non-pandemic conditions (known as excess deaths; see Nature https://doi.org/htd6; 2022). And a 2021 model indicates that, by 2025, $157 billion will have been spent on COVID-19 vaccines alone (see go.nature.com/3jqds76).

A farmer in Myanmar gathers sap from a palm tree to make wine. Contamination of the collection pots with excretions from bats can spread diseases to humans.Credit: Wolfgang Kaehler/LightRocket via Getty

Preventing spillover also protects people, domesticated animals and wildlife in the places that can least afford harm — making it more equitable than containment. For example, almost 18 months since COVID-19 vaccines first became publicly available, only 21% of the total population of Africa has received at least one dose. In the United States and Canada, the figure is nearly 80% (see go.nature.com/3vrdpfo). Meanwhile, Pfizer’s total drug sales rose from $43 billion in 2020 to $72 billion in 2021, largely because of the company’s COVID-19 vaccine, the best-selling drug of 202113.Lastly, unlike containment measures, actions to prevent spillover also help to stop spillback, in which zoonotic pathogens move back from humans to animals and then jump again into people. Selection pressures can differ across species, making such jumps a potential source of new variants that can evade existing immunity. Some researchers have suggested that spillback was possibly responsible for the emergence of the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 (see Nature 602, 26–28; 2022).Seize the dayOver the past year, the administration of US President Joe Biden and two international panels (one established in 2020 by the WHO and the other in 2021 by the G20) have released guidance on how to improve approaches to pandemics. All recommendations released so far acknowledge spillover as the predominant cause of emerging infectious diseases. None adequately discusses how that risk might be mitigated. Likewise, a PubMed search for the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 yields thousands of papers, yet only a handful of studies investigate coronavirus dynamics in bats, from which SARS-CoV-2 is likely to have originated14.Spillover prevention is probably being overlooked for several reasons. Upstream animal and environmental sources of pathogens might be being neglected by biomedical researchers and their funders because they are part of complex systems — research into which does not tend to lead to tangible, profitable outputs. Also, most people working in public health and biomedical sciences have limited training in ecology, wildlife biology, conservation and anthropology.There is growing recognition of the importance of cross-sectoral collaboration, including soaring advocacy for the ‘One Health’ approach — an integrated view of health that recognizes links between the environment, animals and humans. But, in general, this has yet to translate into action to prevent pandemics.Another challenge is that it can take decades to realize the benefits of preventing spillover, instead of weeks or months for containment measures. Benefits can be harder to quantify for spillover prevention, no matter how much time passes, because, if measures are successful, no outbreak occurs. Prevention also runs counter to individual, societal and political tendencies to wait for a catastrophe before taking action.The global pandemic fund, the WHA pandemic agreement and the post-2020 global biodiversity framework all present fresh chances to shift this mindset and put in place a coordinated global effort to reduce the risk of spillover alongside crucial pandemic preparedness efforts.Global fund for pandemicsFirst and foremost, a global fund for pandemics will be key to ensuring that the wealth of evidence on spillover prevention is translated into action. Funding for spillover prevention should not be folded into existing conservation funds, nor draw on any other existing funding streams.Investments must be targeted to those regions and practices where the risk of spillover is greatest, from southeast Asia and Central Africa to the Amazon Basin and beyond. Actions to prevent spillover in these areas, particularly by reducing deforestation, would also help to mitigate climate change and reduce loss of biodiversity. But conservation is itself drastically underfunded. As an example, natural solutions (such as conservation, restoration and improved management of forests, wetlands and grasslands) represent more than one-third of the climate mitigation needed by 2030 to stabilize warming to well below 2 °C15. Yet these approaches receive less than 2% of global funds for climate mitigation16. (Energy systems receive more than half.)In short, the decision-makers backing the global fund for pandemics must not assume that existing funds are dealing with the threat of spillover — they are not. The loss of primary tropical forest was 12% higher in 2020 than in 2019, despite the economic downturn triggered by COVID-19. This underscores the continuing threat to forests.Funding must be sustained for decades to ensure that efforts to reduce the risk of spillover are in place long enough to yield results.WHA pandemic agreementIn 2020, the president of the European Council, Charles Michel, called for a treaty to enable a more coordinated global response to major epidemics and pandemics. Last year, more than 20 world leaders began echoing this call, and the WHA launched the negotiation of an agreement (potentially, a treaty or other international instrument) to “strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response” at the end of 2021.Such a multilateral agreement could help to ensure more-equitable international action around the transfer of scientific knowledge, medical supplies, vaccines and therapeutics. It could also address some of the constraints currently imposed on the WHO, and define more clearly the conditions under which governments must notify others of a potential disease threat. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the shortcomings of the International Health Regulations on many of these fronts17. (This legal framework defines countries’ rights and obligations in the handling of public-health events and emergencies that could cross borders.)We urge negotiators to ensure that the four actions to prevent spillover outlined here are prioritized in the WHA pandemic agreement. For instance, it could require countries to create national action plans for pandemics that include reducing deforestation and closing or strictly regulating live wildlife markets. A reporting mechanism should also be developed to evaluate progress in implementing the agreement. This could build on experience from existing schemes, such as the WHO Joint External Evaluation process (used to assess countries’ capacities to handle public-health risks) and the verification regime of the Chemical Weapons Convention.Commitments to expand pathogen surveillance at interfaces between humans, domesticated animals and wildlife — from US mink farms and Asian wet markets to areas of high deforestation in South America — should also be wrapped into the WHA agreement. Surveillance will not prevent spillover, but it could enable earlier detection and better control of zoonotic outbreaks, and provide a better understanding of the conditions that cause them. Disease surveillance would improve simply through investing in clinical care for both people and animals in emerging infectious-disease hotspots.Convention on Biological DiversityWe are in the midst of the sixth mass extinction, and activities that drive the loss of biodiversity, such as deforestation, also contribute to the emergence of infectious disease. Meanwhile, epidemics and pandemics resulting from the exploitation of nature can lead to further conservation setbacks — because of economic damage from lost tourism and staff shortages affecting management of protected areas, among other factors18. Also, pathogens that infect people can be transmitted to other animals and decimate those populations. For instance, an Ebola outbreak in the Republic of Congo in 2002–03 is thought to have killed 5,000 gorillas19.Yet the global biodiversity framework currently being negotiated by the Convention on Biological Diversity fails to explicitly address the negative feedback cycle between environmental degradation, wildlife exploitation and the emergence of pathogens. The first draft made no mention of pandemics. Text about spillover prevention was proposed in March, but it has yet to be agreed on.Again, this omission stems largely from the siloing of disciplines and expertise. Just as the specialists relied on for the WHA pandemic agreement tend to be those in the health sector, those informing the Convention on Biological Diversity tend to be specialists in environmental science and conservation.The global biodiversity framework, scheduled to be agreed at the Conference of the Parties later this year, must strongly reflect the environment–health connection. This means explicitly including spillover prevention in any text relating to the exploitation of wildlife and nature’s contributions to people. Failing to connect these dots weakens the ability of the convention to achieve its own objectives around conservation and the sustainable use of resources.Preventive health careA reactive response to catastrophe need not be the norm. In many countries, preventive health care for chronic diseases is widely embraced because of its obvious health and economic benefits. For instance, dozens of colorectal cancer deaths are averted for every 1,000 people screened using colonoscopies or other methods20. A preventive approach does not detract from the importance of treating diseases when they occur.With all the stressors now being placed on the biosphere — and the negative implications this has for human health — leaders urgently need to apply this way of thinking to pandemics. More

Carvalho, A. M. & Barata, A. M. The consumption of wild edible plants. In Wild plants, mushrooms and nuts: functional food properties and applications (eds Isabel, C. F. R. et al.) (John Wiley & Sons, New York City, 2017).
Google Scholar 
Diazgranados, M. et al. World checklist of useful plant species. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. (Richmond, UK, 2020).
Google Scholar 
Ulian, T. et al. Unlocking plant resources to support food security and promote sustainable agriculture. Plants People Planet 12(5), 421–445 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shaheen, S., Ahmad, M., Haroon, N. Edible wild plants: a solution to overcome food insecurity. In: Edible Wild Plants: An alternative approach to food security (eds Shaheen, S., et al.) 41–57. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63037-3_2 (2017).Chapter 

Google Scholar 
Food and Agriculture Organization. World programme for the census of agriculture 2020, Vol. 1. FAO, (Rome, Italy, 2015).
Google Scholar 
Wolff, F. Legal factors driving agrobiodiversity loss. Environ. Law Netw. Int. 1, 1–11 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Padulosi, S., Heywood, V., Hunter, D. & Jarvis, A. Underutilized species and climate change: current status and outlook. In Crop Adaptation to Climate Change (eds Shyam, S. Y. et al.) 507–517 (Blackwell Publishers, 2011).Chapter 

Google Scholar 
Kalamandeen, M., Gloor, E. & Mitchard, E. Pervasive raise of small-scale deforestation in Amazonia. Sci. Rep. 8(1600), 1–10 (2018).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kor, L., Homewood, K., Dawson, T. P. & Diazgranados, M. Sustainability of wild plant use in the Andean community of South America. Ambio 50, 1681–1697 (2021).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Nogueira, S. & Nogueira-Filho, S. Wildlife farming: an alternative to unsustainable hunting and deforestation in neotropical forests?. Biodivers. Consrv. 20, 1385–1397 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pilgrim, S. E., Cullen, L. C., Smith, D. J. & Pretty, J. Ecological knowledge is lost in wealthier communities and countries. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42(4), 1004–1009 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sánchez-Cuervo, A. M. & Mitchell-Aide, T. Consequences of the armed conflict forced human displacement, and land abandonment on forest cover change in Colombia: a multi-scaled analysis. Ecosystems 16, 1052–1070 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rodriguez-Eraso, N., Armenteras-Pascual, D. & Retana-Alumbreros, J. Land use and land cover change in the Colombian Andes: dynamics and future scenarios. J. Land Use Sci. 8(2), 154–174 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Food and Agriculture Organization. in The State of the World’s biodiversity for food and agriculture. FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Assessments (eds Bélanger, J., Pilling, D.). (FAO, Rome, Italy, 2019).Borelli, T. et al. Local solutions for sustainable food systems: the contribution of orphan crops and wild edible species. Agronomy 10(2), 231–256 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Padulosi, S., Thompson, J. & Rudebjer, P. Fighting poverty, hunger and malnutrition with neglected and underutilized species (NUS): needs, challenges and the way forward (Bioversity International, 2013).
Google Scholar 
Hunter, D. et al. The potential of neglected and underutilized species for improving diets and nutrition. Planta 250, 709–729 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Brehmy, J. M., Maxted, N., Martin-Louçao, M. A. & Frod-Lloyd, B. V. New approaches for establishing conservation priorities for socio-economically important plant species. Biodivers. Conserv. 19(9), 2715–2740 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
N’Danikou, S., Achigan-Dako, E. G. & Wong, J. L. G. Eliciting local values of wild edible plants in Southern Benin to identify priority species for conservation. Econ. Bot. 65, 381–395 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dulloo, M. E. et al. Conserving agricultural biodiversity for use in sustainable food systems. (2017).de Oliveira Beltrame, D. M. et al. Brazilian underutilised species to promote dietary diversity, local food procurement, and biodiversity conservation: a food composition gap analysis. Lancet Planet. Health. 2, S22. (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Raven, P. H. et al. The distribution of biodiversity richness in the tropics. Sci. Adv. 6(37), 1–5 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Renjifo, L. M., Amaya-Villareal, A. M. & Butchart, S. H. M. Tracking extinction risk trends and patterns in a mega-diverse country: a red list index for birds in Colombia. PLoSONE 15(1), 1–19 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Clerici, N., Salazar, C., Pardo-Díaz, C., Jiggins, C. D. & Linares, M. Peace in Colombia is a critical moment for neotropical connectivity and conservation: save the northern Andes-Amazon biodiversity bridge. Conserv. Lett. 12, 1–7 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hurtado-Bermudez, L. J., Vélez-Torres, I. & Méndez, F. No land for food: prevalence of food insecurity in ethnic communities enclosed by sugarcane monocrop in Colombia. Int. J. Public Health 65, 1087–1096 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Boron, V., Payan, E., McMillan, D. & Tzanopulos, J. Achieving sustainable development in rural areas in Colombia: future scenarios for biodiversity conservation under land use change. Land Use Policy 59, 27–37 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Grau, H. R. & Aide, M. Globalization and land-use transitions in Latin America. Ecol. Soc. 13(2), 1–16 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rivas Abadía, X., Pazos, S. C., Castillo, S. K. & Pachón, H. Indigenous foods of the indigenous and Afro-descendant communities of Colombia (International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Cali, 2010) ((In Spanish, English summary)).
Google Scholar 
López Diago, D. & García, N. Wild edible fruits of Colombia: diversity and use prospects. Biota Colomb. 22(2), 16–55 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pieroni, A., Pawera, L. & Shah, G. M. Gastronomic ethnobiology. In Introduction to Ethnobiology (eds Albuquerque, U. P. & Alves, R. N.) 53–62 (Springer, 2016).Chapter 

Google Scholar 
Castañeda, R. R. Frutas silvestres de Colombia. Instituto Colombiano de Cultura Hispánica. (1991).Medina, C. I., Martínez, E. & López, C. A. Phenological scale for the mortiño or agraz (Vaccinium meridionale Swartz) in the high Colombian Andean area. Revista Facultad Nacional de Agronomía Medellín 72(3), 8897–8908 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Asprilla-Perea, J. & Díaz-Puente, J. M. Traditional use of wild edible food in rural territories within tropical forest zones: a case study from the northwestern Colombia. New Trends Issues Proc. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 5(1), 162–181 (2018).
Google Scholar 
López Estupiñán, L. Potatoes and land in Boyacá: ethnobotanical and ethnohistorical research of one of the main products of Colombian food. Boletín de Antropología Universidad de Antioquia 30(50), 170–190 (2015) ((In Spanish)).
Google Scholar 
Marín Santamaría, C.M. Potential for food use for human consumption of wild fruits in Encenillo Biological Reserve, Guasca, Cundinamarca. Thesis in Biological Sciences. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana. Bogotá, Colombia. (2010) (In Spanish).Molina Samacá, J. R. Ancestral Food Plant Heritage: Construction of the Baseline in the Province of Sumapaz. Master thesis in Agricultural Sciences. University of Cundinamarca, Colombia (2019) (In Spanish).Pasquini, M. W., Sánchez-Ospina, C. & Mendoza, J. S. Traditional food plant knowledge and use in three afro-descendant communities in the Colombian Caribbean Coast: Part II drivers of change. Econ. Bot. 72(3), 295–310 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Villa Villegas, M. Análisis del conocimiento asociado al uso de la flora alimenticia y medicinal en la comunidad de San Francisco, Acandí (Chocó. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, 2020).
Google Scholar 
Cook, E. M. F. Economic botany data collection standard (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, 1995).
Google Scholar 
Diazgranados, M. & Kor, L. Notes on the biogeographic distribution of the useful plants of Colombia. In: Catalogue of useful plants of Colombia (eds Negrão, R. et al.) 147–161. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Kew Publishing, London (in press).Diazgranados, M. et al. Annotated checklist of useful plants of Colombia. In: Catalogue of useful plants of Colombia (eds Negrão, R. et al.) 165–473. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Kew Publishing, London (in press).R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. Available at: https://www.R-project.org/. (2021)POWO. Plants of the World Online. Facilitated by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Retrieved on 14 April, 2021, from: http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/ (2021).Missouri Botanical Gardens. Tropicos.org. Retrieved on 10 April 2021, https://tropicos.org (2021)Wickham, H. The split-apply-combine strategy for data analysis. J. Stat. Softw. 40(1), 1–29 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wickham, H., Francois, R. Dplyr: A Grammar of Data Manipulation. R Package Version 0.4.3 (2021).GBIF Sectretaria. GBIF backbone taxonomy. Retrieved on 22 April 2021, from: https://www.gbif.org/ (2021)Food and Agriculture Organization. The second report on the State of The World’s plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. (FAO, Rome, Italy, 2015).Bystriakova, N. et al. Colombia’s bioregions as a source of useful plants. PLoS One 16(8), 1–19 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Olson, D. M. et al. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: A new map of life on earth a new global map of terrestrial ecoregions provides an innovative tool for conserving biodiversity. BioScience 51(11), 933–938 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chamberlain, S., Oldoni, D., Barve, V., Desmet, P., Geffert, L., Mcglinn, D., Ram, K. Rgbif: interface to the global “Biodiversity” information facility API. R Package Version 3.6.0. (2021)Ondo, I. et al. ShinyCCleaner: an interactive app for cleaning species occurrence records. Unpublished (2021).Bivand, R., Keitt, T., Rowlingson, B., Pebesma, E., Summer, M., Hijmans, R., Baston, D., Rouault, E., et al. Rgdal: bindings for the “Geospatial” data abstraction library. R Package Version 1.5-23. Retrieved from: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/rgdal/index.html (2021)Hijmans, R. J., van Etten, J. Raster: geographic analysis and modeling with raster data. R package version 2.0-12. Available at: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=raster (2012)Bivand, R.S., Pebesma, E., Gomez-Rubio, V. Applied spatial data analysis with R, Second edition. Springer, NY. Available at: https://asdar-book.org/ (2013)Brown, J. L., Bennett, J. & French, C. M. SDMtoolbox: the next generation python-based GIS toolkit for landscape genetic, biogeographic and species distribution model analyses. PeerJ 5, e4095 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
DANE. Indigenous population of Colombia. In: Results of the national population and housing census 2018 (eds DANE). (Bogotá, Colombia, 2019) (In Spanish).Minority Rights Home Minorities and indigenous peoples in Colombia. Retrieved on 20 October, 2021, from: Colombia – World Directory of Minorities & Indigenous Peoples (minorityrights.org) (2021).Maffi, L. & Woodley, E. Biocultural diversity conservation: a global sourcebook 304 (Routledge, 2012).Book 

Google Scholar 
van Zonnevelda, M. et al. Human diets drive range expansion of megafauna-dispersed fruit species. PNAS 115(13), 3326–3331 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Diazgranados, M., Mendoza, J. E., Peñuela, M., Ramírez, W. Comida, identidad, paisaje… ¿articulación o antagonismo? Universitas Humanistica pp. 119–127. ISSN-0120-4807 (1997).Rojas, T.M., Cortés, C., Pizano, M.N., Ulian, T., Diazgranados, M. Evaluación del estado de los desarrollos bioeconómicos colombianos en plantas y hongos. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew and Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt (2020).Departamento Administrativo de la Función Pública. Decree 690 of 2021, Article 10. Bogotá, Colombia (2021).Ahoyo, C. C. et al. A quantitative ethnobotanical approach toward biodiversity conservation of useful woody species in Wari-Maro forest reserve (Benin, West Africa). Environ. Dev. Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-017-9990-0 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Suwardi, A. B., Navia, Z. I., Harmawan, T. & Syamsuardi, E. Ethnobotany and conservation of indigenous edible fruit plants in South Aceh, Indonesia. Biodiversitas 12(5), 1850–1860 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Pei, S., Alan, H. & Wang, Y. Vital roles for ethnobotany in conservation and sustainable development. Plant Divers. 42(6), 399 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bernal, M. H. Y. & Correa, Q. J. E. Erythrina edulis. In Promising plant species from countries of the Convenio Andrés Bello Vol. 8 (eds Bernal, M. H. Y. & Correa, Q. J. E.) 231–278 (Editora Guadalupe Ltda, Bogotá, 1992) ((In Spanish)).
Google Scholar 
Bernal, M.H.Y., Correa, Q.J.E. Food plants of Colombia. in Promising plant species from the Andrés Bello Convention countries (andean countries). First edition. (eds Bernal M.H.Y., Correa, Q.J.E.) Editora Guadalupe Ltda. Bogotá, D.C., Colombia. Volume I, p. 547; Volume II, 462; Volume III, 485; Volume IV, 489; Volume V, 569; Volume VI, 507; Volume VII, p. 684; Volume VIII, p. 547; Volume IX, p. 482; Volume X, 549; Volume XI, p. 516 and Volume XII, p. 621 (1989–1998) (In Spanish).Bernal, M.H.Y., Farfán, M.M. Guide for the cultivation and use of the “chachafruto” or “balú” (Erythrina edulis Triana ex Micheli). Bogotá: Editoria Guadalupe Ltda. 50 p. (1996) (In Spanish).Bernal, M.H.Y., Jiménez, L.C. The “Creole bean” Canavalia ensiformis (Linnaeus) De Candolle (Fabaceae-Faboideae). Bogotá: Editoria Guadalupe Ltda. 533 p. (1990) (In Spanish).Jiménez, B.L.C., Bernal, M.H.Y. The “inchi” Caryodendron orinocense Karsten (Euphorbiaceae). Bogotá: Editora Guadalupe Ltda. p. 429 (1992) (In Spanish).Melgarejo, L.M., Hernández, M.S., Barrera, J.A., Carrillo, M. Offers and potential of a germplasm bank of the genus Theobroma for the enrichment of Amazonian systems. Instituto de Investigaciones Científicas Sinchi. Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Bogotá, Colombia. p. 225 (2006) (In Spanish).Bernal, R., Galeano, G., Rodríguez, A., Sarmiento, H., Gutiérrez, M. Nombres Comunes de las Plantas de Colombia. Retrieved 15 June, 2021, from: http://www.biovirtual.unal.edu.co/nombrescomunes/ (2017)Food Plants International. Retrieved on 14 March 2021 at Articles & Books – Food Plants International (2021).Lorenzi, H., Bacher, L., Lacerda, M. & Sartori, S. Brazilian fruits and cultivated exotics (Instituto Plantarum De Estudos Da Flora LTDA, Nova Odessa, 2000).
Google Scholar 
Martín, F.W., Campbell, C.W., Ruberté, R.M. Perennial Edible Fruits of the Tropics: An Inventory. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. (1987)Marrugo, S. L. Como Pepa’e Guama: Lo que no sabías acerca de la vida de los guamos (Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, Richmond, 2019).
Google Scholar 
Leon, J. Central American and West Indian Species of Inga (Leguminosae). Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 53(3), 265–359 (1966).Article 

Google Scholar 
Blombery, A. & Rodd, T. Palms of the world (Angus and Robertson, 1992).
Google Scholar 
Wickens, G. E. Edible nuts: non-wood forest products, handbook 5 (FAO, 1995).
Google Scholar 
Chízmar, C. Plantas comestibles de Centroamérica. Santo Domingo de Heredia, Costa Rica: Editorial INBio. p. 358 (2009)Rodríguez, L. M. G. Growth and fruit production study of Bactris guineesis (güiscoyol) in Agroforestry Systems as development potential in the Chorotega Region (Universidad Técnica Nacional Investigación y transferencia, 2019).
Google Scholar 
Bax, V. & Francesconi, W. Conservation gaps and priorities in the Tropical Andes biodiversity hotspot: Implications for the expansion of protected areas. J. Environ. Manage. 232, 387–396 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Noh, J. K. et al. Warning about conservation status of forest ecosystems in tropical Andes: National assessment based on IUCN criteria. PLoS One 15(8), e0237877 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Brooks, M. T. et al. Habitat loss and extinction in the hotspots of biodiversity. Biodivers. Conserv. 16(4), 909–923 (2002).
Google Scholar 
Ocampo, J. Diversidad y distribución de las Passifloraceae en el departamento del Huila en Colombia. Acta biologica Colombiana 18(3), 511–516 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Durán-Izquierdo, M. & Olivero-Verbel, J. Vulnerability assessment of Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta Colombia World’s most irreplaceable nature reserve. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 28, e01592 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cabrera Gaviria, L.D., Gil Pereira, L.F. Comparative analysis of the loss of natural coverage in the protected areas Nukak and Puinawai and their effects on the ecosystems present in the period between the years 2000–2020. Thesis in Environmental and Sanitary Engineering. Universidad de La Salle, Bogotá. Available at: https://ciencia.lasalle.edu.co/ing_ambiental_sanitaria/1943 (2021) (In Spanish).Castillo, H. M. N. A story of the indigenous struggle against mining: the creation of the Yaigojé-Apaporis National Natural Park in the Colombian Amazon (Universidade Federal De Minas Gerais, 2018) ((In Portuguese)).
Google Scholar 
Walsh, J. & Sanchez, G. The spreading of illicit crops in Colombia (Instituto de Estudios para el Desarrollo y la Paz, Bogotá, 2008).
Google Scholar 
MAPS, OPS, ICBF. Encuesta Nacional de la Situacion Nutricional-ENSIN. Retrieved on 12 October, 2-21, from: http://www.ensin.gov.co/Documents/Documento-metodologico-ENSIN-2015.pdf (2015)Correa-García, E., Vélez-Correa, J., Zapata-Caldas, E., Vélez-Torres, I. & Figueroa-Casas, A. Territorial transformations produced by the sugarcane agroindustry in the ethnic communities of López Adentro and El Tiple, Colombia. Land Use Policy 76, 847–860 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hurtado, D. & Vélez-Torres, I. Toxic dispossession: on the social impacts of the aerial use of glyphosate by the sugarcane agroindustry in Colombia. Crit. Criminol. 28, 557–576 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vélez-Torres, I., Varela-Corredor, D., Rátiva-Gaona, S., Salcedo-Fidalgo, A. Agroindustry and extractivism in the Alto Cauca: impact on the livelihood systems of Afro-descendent Farmers and Resistance (1950–2011). CS, 12: 157–188. (2013) (In Spanish, English summary).Fernández Lucero, M. Protocol for the use of Guáimaro (Brosimum alicastrum Sw.) seeds in Montes de María and Serranía del Perijá, Colombian Caribbean. Bogotá: Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt (2021) (In Spanish).Santillán-Fernández, A. et al. Brosimum alicastrum Swartz as an alternative for the productive reconversion of agrosilvopastoral areas in Campeche. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Forestales 11(61), 51–69 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Subiria-Cueto, R. et al. Brosimum alicastrum Sw. (Ramón): an alternative to improve the nutritional properties and functional potential of the wheat flour tortilla. Foods 8(12), 613 (2019).CAS 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Quiñones-Hoyos, C., Rengifo-Fernández, A., Bernal-Galeano, S., Peña, R., Fernández, M., Tatiana Rojas, M., Diazgranados, M. A look at useful plants and fungi in three biodiverse areas of Colombia. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew and Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt. Bogotá, Colombia (2021) (In Spanish)Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Discovering the Guáimaro trails: promote a market for native species. Retrieved on 18 February 2022 from https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/f540b764fc6c47db886b38515560852f (2022)Gottesch, B. et al. Extinction risk of Mesoamerican crop wild relatives. Plants People Planet 3, 775–795 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
French, B. Food plants international database of edible plants of the world, a free resource for all. Acta Hort. 1241, 1–6 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Meyers, N., Mittermeier, R., Mittermeier, C. G. & Kent, J. Biodiversity hotspot for conservation priority. Nature 403(6772), 853–858 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Godfray, H. C. J. et al. Science 327, 812–818 (2010).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pimm, S. L. et al. Science 344, 1246752 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Chung, M. G. & Liu, J. Nat. Food https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-022-00499-7 (2022).Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., Da Fonseca, G. A. & Kent, J. Nature 403, 853–858 (2000).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
A complex prairie ecosystem. National Park Service https://www.nps.gov/tapr/learn/nature/a-complex-prairie-ecosystem.htm (2022)Davalos, L. M. et al. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 1219–1227 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Vijay, V., Pimm, S. L., Jenkins, C. N. & Smith, S. J. PLoS ONE 11, e0159668 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu, J. et al. Ecol. Soc. 18, 26 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu, J. Consumption patterns and biodiversity. The Royal Society https://go.nature.com/3M19vup (2020).Xu, Z. et al. Nat. Sustain. 3, 964–971 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dou, Y., da Silva, R. F. B., Yang, H. & Liu, J. J. Geogr. Sci. 28, 1715–1732 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Cockroach strainsAll cockroaches were maintained on rodent diet (Purina 5001, PMI Nutrition International, St. Louis, MO) and distilled water at 27 °C, ~40% RH, and a 12:12 h L:D cycle. The WT colony (Orlando Normal) was collected in Florida in 1947 and has served as a standard insecticide-susceptible strain. The GA colony (T-164) was collected in 1989, also in Florida, and shown to be aversive to glucose; continued artificial selection with glucose-containing toxic bait fixed the homozygous GA trait in this population (approximately 150 generations as of 2020).Generating recombinant lines and life history dataTo homogenize the genetic backgrounds of the WT and GA strains, two recombinant colonies were initiated in 2013 by crossing 10 pairs of WT♂ × GA♀ and 10 pairs of GA♂ × WT♀ (Fig. 3a). At the F8 generation (free bulk mating without selection), 400 cockroaches were tested in two-choice feeding assays (see below) that assessed their initial response to tastants, as described in previous studies11,26. The cockroaches were separated into glucose-accepting and glucose-rejecting groups by the rapid Acceptance-Rejection assay (described in Feeding Bioassays). These colonies were bred for three more generations, and 200 cockroaches from each group were assayed in the F11 generation and backcrossed to obtain homozygous glucose-accepting (aa) and glucose-averse (AA) lines. Similar results were obtained in both directions of the cross, confirming previous findings of no sex linkage of the GA trait27. These two lines were defined as WT_aa (homozygotes, glucose-accepting) and GA_AA (homozygotes, glucose-averse). To obtain heterozygous GA cockroaches, GA_Aa, a single intercross group was generated from crosses of 10 pairs of WT_aa♂ × GA_AA♀ and 10 pairs of GA_AA♂ × WT_aa♀.The GA trait follows Mendelian inheritance. Therefore, we used backcrosses, guided by two-choice feeding assays and feeding responses in Acceptance-rejection assays, to determine the homozygosity of WT and GA cockroaches. The cross of WT♂ × WT♀ produced homozygous F1 cockroaches showing maximal glucose-acceptance. The cross of GA♂ × GA♀ produced homozygous F1 cockroaches showing maximal glucose-aversion. The cross of WT × GA produced F1 heterozygotes with intermediate glucose-aversion. When the F1 heterozygotes were backcrossed with WT cockroaches, they produced F2 cockroaches with a 1:1 ratio of WT and GA phenotypes.The two-choice feeding assay assessed whether cockroaches accepted or rejected glucose (binary: yes-no). Insects were held for 24 h without water, or starved without food and water. Either 10 adults or 2 day-old first instar siblings (30–40) were placed in a Petri dish (either 90 mm or 60 mm diameter × 15 mm height). Each Petri dish contained two agar discs: one disc contained 1% agar and 1 mmol l−1 red food dye (Allura Red AC), and the second disc contained 1% agar, 0.5 mmol l−1 blue food dye (Erioglaucine disodium salt) and either 1000 mmol l−1 or 3000 mmol l−1 glucose. The assay duration was 2 h during the dark phase of the insects’ L:D cycle. After each assay, the color of the abdomen of each cockroach was visually inspected under a microscope to infer the genotype.We assessed whether the recombinant colonies had different traits from the parental WT and GA lines. We paired single newly eclosed females (day 0) with single 10–12 days-old males of the same line in a Petri dish (90 mm diameter, 15 mm height) with fresh distilled water in a 1.5 ml microcentrifuge tube and a pellet of rodent food, and monitored when they mated. When females formed egg cases, each gravid female was placed individually in a container (95 × 95 × 80 mm) with food and water until the eggs hatched. After removing the female, her offspring were monitored until adult emergence. We recorded the time to egg hatch, first appearance of each nymphal stage, first appearance of adults and the end of adult emergence. The first instar nymphs and adults in each cohort were counted to obtain measures of survivorship. Although there were significant differences in some of these parameters across all four strains, we found no significant differences between the two recombinant lines, except mating success, which was significantly lower in GA_AA♀ than WT_aa♀ (Supplementary Table 11).Mating bioassaysAll mating sequences were recorded using an infra-red-sensitive camera (Polestar II EQ610, Everfocus Electronics, New Taipei City, Taiwan) coupled to a data acquisition board and analyzed by searchable and frame-by-frame capable software (NV3000, AverMedia Information) at 27 °C, ~40% RH and a 12:12 h L:D cycle. For behavioral analysis, tested pairs were classified into two groups: mated (successful courtship) and not-mated (failed courtship). Four distinct behavioral events (Fig. 1c, Contact, Wing raising, Nuptial feeding, and Copulation) were analyzed using seven behavioral parameters as shown in Supplementary Table 2.We extracted behavioral data from successful courtship sequences, defined as courtship that led to Copulation. For failed courtship sequences, we extracted the behavioral data from the first courtship of both mated and not-mated groups, because most pairs in both groups failed to copulate in their first encounter, and there were no significant differences in behavioral parameters between the two groups.To assay female choice, we conducted two-choice mating assays (Fig. 1a). A single focal WT♀ or GA♀ and two males, one WT and one GA, were placed in a Petri dish (90 mm diameter, 15 mm height) with fresh distilled water in a 1.5 ml microcentrifuge tube and a pellet of rodent food (n = 25 WT♀ and 27 GA♀). To assay male choice, a single focal WT♂ or GA♂ was given a choice of two females, one WT♀ and one GA♀ (n = 27 WT♂ and 18 GA♂). Experiments were started using 0 day-old sexually unreceptive females and 10–12 days-old sexually mature males. Newly emerged (0 day-old) females were used to avoid the disruption of introducing a sexually mature female into the bioassay. B. germanica females become sexually receptive at 5–7 days of age, so the mating behavior of the focal insect was video-recorded for several days until they mated. Fertility of mated females was evaluated by the number of offspring produced. We assessed the gustatory phenotype of nymphs (either WT-type or GA-type) to determine which of the two adult cockroaches mated with the focal insect. Each gravid female was maintained individually in a container (95 × 95 × 80 mm) with food and water until the eggs hatched. Two day-old first instar nymphs were starved for one day without water and food, and then they were tested in Two-choice feeding assays using 1000 mmol l−1 glucose-containing agar with 0.5 mmol l−1 blue food dye vs. plain sugar-free agar with 1 mmol l−1 red food dye. If all the nymphs chose the glucose-containing agar, their parents were considered WT♂ and WT♀. When all the nymphs showed glucose-aversion, they were raised to the adult stage. Newly emerged adults were backcrossed with WT cockroaches, and their offspring were tested in the Two-choice assay. When the parents were both GA, 100% of the offspring exhibited glucose-aversion. When the parents were WT and GA, the offspring showed a 1:1 ratio of glucose-accepting and glucose-aversive behavior. Mate choice, mating success ratio and the number of offspring were analyzed statistically.We conducted no-choice mating assay using the WT and GA strains (Fig. 1b, d). A female and a male were placed in a Petri dish with fresh water and a piece of rodent food and video-recorded for 24 h. The females were 5–7 days-old and males were 10–12 days-old. Four treatment pairs were tested: WT♂ × WT♀ (n = 20, 18 and 14 pairs for 5, 6 and 7 day-old females, respectively); GA♂ × GA♀ (n = 23, 22 and 35 pairs); GA♂ × WT♀ (n = 21, 14 and 17 pairs); and WT♂ × GA♀ (n = 33, 19 and 15 pairs).To confirm that gustatory stimuli guide nuptial feeding, we artificially augmented the male nuptial secretion and assessed whether the duration of nuptial feeding and mating success of GA♀ were affected (Fig. 2c). Before starting the mating assay with 5 day-old GA♀, 10–12 days-old WT♂ were separated into three groups: A control group did not receive any augmentation; A water control group received distilled water with 1 mmol l−1 blue dye (+Blue); A fructose group received 3000 mmol l−1 fructose solution with blue dye (+Blue+Fru). Approximately 50 nl of the test solution was placed into the tergal gland reservoirs using a glass microcapillary. No-choice mating assays were carried out for 24 h. n = 20–25 pairs for each treatment.We evaluated the association of short nuptial feeding (Fig. 1c) and the GA trait we conducted no-choice mating assays using females from the recombinant lines (Fig. 3c). Before starting each mating assay with 4 day-old females from the WT, GA and recombinant lines (WT_aa, GA_AA and GA_Aa), the EC50 for glucose was obtained by the instantaneous Acceptance-Rejection assay using 0, 10, 30, 100, 300, 1000 and 3000 mmol l−1 glucose (WT♀ and WT_aa♀, non-starved; GA♀, GA_AA♀ and GA_Aa♀, 1-day starved). After the Acceptance-Rejection assay, GA_Aa♀ were separated into two groups according to their sensitivity for rejecting glucose; the GA_Aa_high sensitivity group rejected glucose at 100 and 300 mmol l−1, whereas the GA_Aa_low sensitivity group rejected glucose at 1000 and 3000 mmol l−1. We paired these females with 10–12 days-old WT♂ (n = 15 WT_aa♀, n = 20 GA_AA♀, n = 20 GA_Aa_high♀ and n = 17 GA_Aa_low♀).Feeding bioassayWe conducted two feeding assays: Acceptance-Rejection assay and Consumption assay. The Acceptance-Rejection assay assessed the instantaneous initial responses (binary: yes-no) of cockroaches to tastants, as previously described7,22,27. Briefly, acceptance means that the cockroach started drinking. Rejection means that the cockroach never initiated drinking. The percentage of positive responders was defined as the Number of insects accepting tastants/Total number of insects tested. The effective concentration (EC50) for each tastant was obtained from dose-response curves using this assay. The Consumption assay was previously described27. Briefly, we quantified the amount of test solution females ingested after they started drinking. Females were observed until they stopped drinking, and we considered this a single feeding bout.We used the Acceptance-Rejection assay and Consumption assay, respectively, to assess the sensitivity of 5 day-old WT♀ and GA♀ for accepting and consuming the WT♂ nuptial secretion (Fig. 2a, b). The secretion was diluted with HPLC-grade water to 0.001, 0.01, 0.03, 0.1, 0.3 and 1 male-equivalents/µl (n = 20 non-starved females each). The amount of nuptial secretion consumed was tested at 0.1 male-equivalents/µl in the Consumption assay (n = 10 each).The Acceptance-Rejection assay was used to calculate the effective concentration (EC50) of glucose for females in the WT, GA and recombinant lines (Fig. 3a, b). A glucose concentration series of 0.1, 1, 10, 100 and 1000 mmol l−1 was tested with one-day starved 4-day old females (n = 65 GA_Aa♀, n = 50 GA_AA♀ and n = 50 GA♀) and non-starved females (n = 50 WT_aa♀ and n = 16 WT♀).The effects of female saliva on feeding responses of 5 day-old WT♀ and GA♀ were tested using the Acceptance-Rejection assay (Fig. 4a). Freshly collected saliva of WT♀ and GA♀ was immediately used in experiments. Assays were prepared as follows: 3 µl of 200 mmol l−1 maltose or maltotriose were mixed with 3 µl of either HPLC-grade water or saliva of WT♀ or GA♀. The final concentration of each sugar was 100 mmol l−1 in a total volume of 6 µl. This concentration represented approximately the acceptance EC70 for WT♀ and GA♀27. Nuptial secretion (1 µl representing 10 male-equivalents) was mixed with 1 µl of either HPLC-grade water or saliva from WT♀ or GA♀, and 8 µl of HPLC-grade water was added to the mix. The final concentration of the nuptial secretion was 1 male-equivalent/µl in a total volume of 10 µl. This concentration also represented approximately the acceptance EC70 for WT♀ and GA♀ (Fig. 2a). The mix of saliva and either sugar or nuptial secretion was incubated for 300 s at 25 °C. Additionally, we tested the effect of only saliva in the Acceptance-Rejection assay. Either 1-day starved or non-starved females were tested with water only and then a 1:1 mixture of saliva and water. Saliva alone did not affect acceptance or rejection of stimuli. n = 20–33 females from each strain.To evaluate whether salivary enzymes are involved in the hydrolysis of oligosaccharides, the contribution of salivary glucosidases was tested using the glucosidase inhibitor acarbose in the Acceptance-Rejection assay (Fig. 4b), as previously described27. We first confirmed that the range of 0–125 mmol l−1 acarbose in HPLC-grade water did not disrupt the acceptance and rejection of tastants. Test solutions were prepared as follows: 2 µl of either HPLC-grade water or saliva of GA♀ was mixed with 1 µl of either 250 µmol l−1 of acarbose or HPLC-grade water, then the mixture was added to 1 µl of 400 mmol l−1 of either maltose or maltotriose solution. The total volume was 4 µl, with the final concentration of sugar being 100 mmol l−1. For assays with nuptial secretion, 1 µl of either HPLC-grade water or saliva from 5 day-old GA♀ was mixed with 0.5 µl of either 250 µmol l−1 of acarbose or HPLC-grade water. This mixture was added to 0.5 µl of 10 male-equivalents of nuptial secretion (i.e., 20 male-equivalents/µl). HPLC-grade water was added for a total volume of 10 µl and a final concentration of 1 male-equivalent/µl. The mix of saliva and either sugars or nuptial secretion was incubated for 5 min at 25 °C. All test solutions contained blue food dye. Test subjects were 5 day-old GA♀ and 20–25 females were tested in each assay.Nuptial secretion and saliva collectionsThe nuptial secretion of WT♂ was collected by the following method: Five 10–12 days-old males were placed in a container (95 × 95 × 80 mm) with 5 day-old GA♀. After the males displayed wing-raising courtship behavior toward the females, individual males were immediately decapitated and the nuptial secretion in their tergal gland reservoirs was drawn into a calibrated borosilicate glass capillary (76 × 1.5 mm) under the microscope. The nuptial secretions from 30 males were pooled in a capillary and stored at −20 °C until use. Saliva from 5 day-old WT♀ and GA♀ was collected by the following method: individual females were briefly anesthetized with carbon dioxide under the microscope and the side of the thorax was gently squeezed. A droplet of saliva that accumulated on the mouthparts was then collected into a microcapillary (10 µl, Kimble Glass). Fresh saliva was immediately used in experiments.GC-MS procedures for analysis of sugarsStandards of D-( + )-glucose (Sigma-Aldrich), D-( + )-maltose (Fisher Scientific) and maltotriose (Sigma-Aldrich) were diluted in HPLC-grade water (Fisher Scientific) at 10, 50, 100, 500 and 1000 ng/µl to generate calibration curves. Samples were vortexed for 20 s and a 10 μl aliquot of each sample was transferred to a Pyrex reaction vial containing a 10 μl solution of 5 ng/μl sorbitol (≥98%) in HPLC-grade water as internal standard and dried under a gentle flow of N2 for 20 min.Samples containing degradation products from nuptial secretions were prepared by adding 15 μl of HPLC-water to each sample in a 1.5 ml Eppendorf tube, vortexed for 30 s and centrifuged at 8000 rpm (5223 RCF) for 5 min to separate lipids from the water layer. The water phase was transferred to a reaction vial using a glass capillary. This procedure was repeated with the remaining lipid layer and the water layers were combined in the same reaction vial containing 10 μl of a solution of 5 ng/μl sorbitol and dried under N2 for 20 min.For derivatization of sugars and samples, each reaction vial received 12 μl of anhydrous pyridine under a constant N2 flow, then vortexed and incubated at 90 °C for 5 min. Three μl of N-methyl-N-(trimethylsilyl)trifluoroacetamide (MSTFA; Sigma-Aldrich) was added to each reaction vial and centrifuged at 1000 rpm (118 RCF) for 2 min. Vials were incubated in a heat block at 90 °C for 1.5 hr and vortexed every 10 min for the first 30 min of incubation.The total volume of sample was ~10 μl, and 1 μl was injected into the GC-MS (6890 GC coupled to a 5975 MS, Agilent Technologies, Palo Alto, CA). The inlet was operated in splitless mode (17.5 psi) at 290 °C. The GC was equipped with a DB-5 column (30 m, 0.25 mm, 0.25 μm, Agilent), and helium was used as the carrier gas at an average velocity of 50 cm/s. The oven temperature program started at 80 °C for 1 min, increased at 10 °C/min to 180 °C, then increased at 5 °C/min to 300 °C, and held for 10 min. The transfer line was set at 250 °C for 24 min, ramped at 5 °C/min to 300 °C and held until the end of program. The ion source operated at 70 eV and 230 °C, while the MS quadrupole was maintained at 200 °C. The MSD was operated in scan mode, starting after 9 min (solvent delay time) with a mass range of 33–650 AMU.For GC-MS data analysis, the sorbitol peak area was obtained from the extracted ion chromatograms with m/z = 205, the sorbitol base peak. The area of peaks of glucose, maltose and maltotriose were obtained from the extracted ion chromatograms using m/z = 204, the base peak of the three sugars. The most abundant peaks of each sugar were selected for quantification36, and these peaks did not coelute with other peaks. Then, the peak areas of the three sugars were divided by the area of the respective sorbitol peak in each sample to normalize the data and to correct technical variability during sample processing. This procedure was performed to obtain the calibration curves and quantification of sugars in our experiments.The results of sugar analysis using GC-MS are reported in Supplementary Figs. 1–4.Analysis of nuptial secretionsWe focused the GC-MS analysis on glucose, maltose and maltotriose in WT♂ nuptial secretion (Fig. 4c). To quantify the time-course of saliva-catalyzed hydrolysis of WT♂ nuptial secretion to glucose, 1 µl of GA♀ saliva was mixed with 1 µl of 10 male-equivalents/µl. We incubated the mixtures for 0, 5, 10 and 300 s at 25 °C, and added 4 µl of methanol to stop the enzyme activity (n = 5 each treatment). Each sample contained the nuptial secretions of 5 males to obtain enough detectable amount of sugars. For the statistical analysis, the amounts of sugars were divided by 5 to obtain the amount of sugars in 1 male (1 male-equivalent). These amounts were also used for generating Fig. 4c and Supplementary Table 9. In calculations of the concentration of the three sugars (mmol l−1), the mass and volume of the nuptial secretion were measured using 70–130 male-equivalents of undiluted secretion of each strain (n = 3). The mass and volume of the nuptial secretion/male, including both lipid and aqueous layers, were approximately 30–50 µg and 40–50 nl. Because it was difficult to separate the lipid layer from the water layer at this small scale, we roughly estimated that the tergal reservoirs of the four cockroach lines had 30 nl of aqueous layer that contained sugars.To quantify the time-course of saliva-catalyzed hydrolysis of maltose and maltotriose to glucose, 1 µl of GA♀ saliva was mixed with 1 µl of 200 mmol l−1 of either maltose or maltotriose (Fig. 4d, e). Incubation time points were 0, 5, 10 and 300 s at 25 °C and methanol was used to stop the enzyme activity. Controls without saliva were also prepared using HPLC-grade water instead of saliva and 300 s incubations. n = 5 for each treatment.PhotomicroscopyThe photographs of the tergal glands and mouthparts (Fig. 5) were obtained using an Olympus Digital camera attached to an Olympus CX41 microscope (Olympus America, Center Valley, PA).Statistics and reproducibilityThe sample size and number of replicates for each experiment are noted in the respective section describing the experimental details. In summary, the samples sizes were: Mating bioassays, n = 18–80; Feeding assays, n = 16–65; Sugar analysis, n = 5; Life history parameters, n  > 14. All statistical analyses were conducted in R Statistical Software (v4.1.0; R Core Team 2021) and JMP Pro 15.2 software (SAS Institute Inc., Carey, NC). For bioassay data and sugar analysis data, we calculated the means and standard errors, and we used the Chi-square test with Holm’s method for post hoc comparisons, t-test, and ANOVA followed by Tukey’s HSD test (all α = 0.05), as noted in each section describing the experimental details, results, and in Supplementary Tables 1–11.Reporting summaryFurther information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article. More