More stories

  • in

    Pollen-mediated transfer of herbicide resistance between johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) biotypes

    Plant materialsAn ALS-inhibitor-resistant johnsongrass (resistant to nicosulfuron) obtained from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (source credit: Dr. John Lindquist) was used as the pollen source (male parent), and the natural johnsongrass population present in the experimental field at the Texas A&M University Farm, Somerville (Burleson County), Texas (30° 32′ 15.4″ N 96° 25′ 49.2″ W) with no history of ALS-inhibitor resistance was used as the pollen recipient (female parent). Prior to the initiation of the field experiment, the susceptibility to nicosulfuron of the natural johnsongrass population was verified by spraying Accent Q at the labeled field rate of 63 g ai ha−1 [mixed with 0.25% v/v Crop Oil Concentrate (COC)] on 10 randomly selected 1 m2 johnsongrass patches across the field area at 15–30 cm tall seedling stage. For this purpose, a CO2 pressurized backpack sprayer was calibrated to deliver 140 L ha−1 of spray volume at an operating speed of 4.8 kmph. The natural johnsongrass population was determined to be completely susceptible to nicosulfuron.During spring 2018, the seeds of AR johnsongrass were planted in pots (14-cm diameter and 12-cm tall) filled with potting soil mixture (LC1 Potting Mix, Sungro Horticulture Inc., Agawam, MA, USA) at the Norman Borlaug Center for Southern Crop Improvement Greenhouse Research Facility at Texas A&M University. The environmental conditions were set at 26/22 °C day/night temperature regime and a 14-h photoperiod. In each pot, 5 seeds were planted and thinned to one healthy seedling at 1-leaf stage. Seedlings were supplied with sufficient water and nutrients (Miracle-Gro Water Soluble All Purpose Plant Food, Scotts Miracle-Gro Products Inc., 14111 Scottslawn Road, Marysville, OH 43041). A total of 50 seedlings were established in the greenhouse and were maintained until they reached about 10 cm tall, at which point they were sprayed with 2× the field rate of nicosulfuron (63 × 2 = 126 g ai ha−1) (mixed with 0.25% v/v COC). The herbicide was applied using a track-sprayer (Research Track Sprayer, DeVries, Hollandale, MN) fitted with a flat fan nozzle (TeeJet XR110015) that was calibrated to deliver a spray volume of 140 L ha−1 at 276 kPa pressure, and at an operating speed of 4.8 kmph. All treated seedlings that survived the herbicide application at 21 days after treatment (DAT) were then used as the pollen donor in the field gene flow experiment. All plant materials were handled in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. No permissions or licenses were required for collecting the johnsongrass samples from the experimental fields.Dose–response assaysThe degree of resistance/susceptibility to nicosulfuron of the AR and AS johnsongrass biotypes were determined using a classical dose–response experiment. The assay consisted of seven rates (0, 0.0625, 0.125, 0.25, 0.5, 1, and 2×) for the AS population and nine rates (0, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, and 32×) for the AR population [1 × (field recommended rate) = 63 g ai ha−1 of Accent Q]. The experimental units were arranged in a completely randomized design with four replications. Seeds of AR and AS plants were planted in plastic trays (25 × 25 cm) filled with commercial potting-soil mix (LC1 Potting Mix, Sungro Horticulture Inc., Agawam, MA, USA) and maintained at 26/22 °C day/night cycle with a 14-h photoperiod in the greenhouse. Seedlings at 1–2 leaf stage were thinned to 20 seedlings per tray; four replications each of 20 seedlings per dose were considered. The seedlings were watered and fertilized as needed. The assay was conducted twice, thus a total of 160 seedlings were screened for each dose.The established seedlings were sprayed with the appropriate herbicide dose at the 10–15 cm tall seedling stage. The herbicide was applied using a track sprayer calibrated to deliver a spray volume of 140 L ha−1 at 4.8 kmph operating speed. Survival (%) and injury (%) were assessed at 28 DAT. Any plant that failed to grow out of the herbicide impact was considered dead. Plant injury was rated for each plot (i.e. on the 20 seedlings per rep) on a scale of 0–100%, where 0 indicates no visible impact compared to the nontreated control and 100 indicates complete death of all plants in the tray. Immediately after the visual ratings were completed, shoot biomass produced by the 20 plants from each tray was determined by harvesting all the tissues at the soil level and drying them in an oven at 60 °C for 72 h. Seedling mortality data were used for fitting dose–response curves that allowed for determining the lethal dose that caused 100% mortality of the susceptible biotype. This dose was used as a discriminant dose to distinguish between a hybrid (that confers resistance to nicosulfuron as a result of gene flow) and a selfed progeny (susceptible to nicosulfuron) in the field gene flow study.Field experimental location and set-upThe field experiment was conducted across two ENVs in 2018 (summer and fall) and one in 2019 (fall) at the Texas A&M University Farm, Somerville (Burleson County), Texas (30° 32′ 15.4″ N 96° 25′ 49.2″ W). The study site is characterized by silty clay loam soil with an average annual rainfall of 98.2 cm. The field experiment followed the Nelder-wheel design40, i.e. concentric donor-receptor design, a widely used method for gene flow studies, wherein the pollen-donors are surrounded by the pollen-receptors (Fig. 1). In this study, the AR plants (planted in the central block of the wheel) served as the pollen-donors, whereas the AS plants (present in the spokes) served as the pollen-receptors.Figure 1Aerial view of the experimental arrangement that was used to quantify pollen-mediated gene flow from ALS-inhibitor resistant (AR) to -susceptible (AS) johnsongrass at the Texas A&M University Research Farm near College Station, Texas. AR johnsongrass plants were transplanted in the pollen-donor block of 5 m diameter at the center of the field. The surrounding pollen-receptor area was divided into four cardinal (N, E, S, W) and four ordinal (NE, SE, SW, NW) directional blocks where naturally-existing AS johnsongrass plants were used as the pollen-recipients. AS panicles exhibiting flowering synchrony with AR plants were tagged at specific distances (5–50 m, at 5 m increments) along the eight directional arms. A tall-growing biomass sorghum border was established in the perimeter of the experimental site to prevent pollen inflow from outside areas.Full size imageThe center of the wheel was 5 m in diameter, and each spoke was 50 m long starting at the periphery of the central circular block. Thirty AR plants (pollen-donors) were transplanted in four concentric rings of 1, 5, 9, and 15 plants in the 5 m diameter central block, surrounded by the pollen-receptors (i.e. AS plants) (Fig. 1). The AR plants were contained within the central block during the 2 years of the field experiment by harvesting and removing all mature seeds and removing any expanding rhizomatous shoots. Further, field cultivation was completely avoided in the central block throughout the study period. Any newly emerging johnsongrass plants (seedling/rhizomatous) other than the transplanted AR plants in the central block were removed periodically by manual uprooting.The wheel consisted of eight spokes (i.e. directional blocks) arranged in four cardinal (N, E, S, W) and four ordinal (NE, SE, NW, SW) directions (Fig. 1). The plots to quantify gene flow frequency were arranged at 0 (border of the central block), 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, and 50 m distances from the central block in all eight directions (Fig. 1). Each plot measured 3 × 2 m and the area surrounding the plots was shredded prior to the booting stage with a Rhino® RC flail shredder (RHINOAG, INC., Gibson City, IL 60936).A tall-growing biomass sorghum border (6 m wide) was established surrounding the experimental area in all directions to prevent potential inflow of pollen from other Sorghum spp. in the nearby areas. Additionally, prevailing weather conditions, specifically wind direction, wind speed, relative humidity, and air temperature measured at 5-min intervals were obtained from a nearby weather station located within the Texas A&M research farm (http://afs102.tamu.edu/). The field did not require any specific agronomic management in terms of irrigation, fertilization, or pest management.Flowering synchrony, tagging, and seed harvestingAt peak flowering, when  > 50% of the plants in the AR block started anther dehiscence (i.e., pollen shedding), ten AS panicles (five random plants × 2 panicles per plant) that showed flowering synchrony with AR plants and displayed protruded, receptive stigma were tagged using colored ribbons at each distance and direction. At seed maturity, the tagged AS panicles were harvested separately for each distance and direction. Panicles were threshed, seeds were cleaned manually, and stored under room conditions until used in the herbicide resistance screening to facilitate after-ripening and dormancy release.Resistance screeningThe hybrid progeny produced on AS plants as a result of outcrossing with AR plants would be heterozygous for the allele harboring nicosulfuron resistance, and would exhibit survival upon exposure to the herbicide applied at the discriminant dose at which all wild type (AS) plants would die. The discriminant dose was determined using the dose–response study described above. Thus, the frequency of resistant plants in the progeny would represent outcrossing/gene flow (%).To effectively detect the levels of gene flow from AR to AS biotypes especially at low frequencies, the minimum sample size required for resistance screening was determined based on the following formula (Eq. 1)41:$${text{N }} = {text{ ln}}left( {{1} – P} right)/{text{ln}}left( {{1} – p} right),$$
    (1)
    where P is the probability of detecting a resistant progeny in the least frequent class and p is the probability of the least frequent class. Based on this formula, a minimum of 298 to as high as 916 plants were screened for each distance within each direction, allowing for a 1% detection level (p = 0.01) with a 95% (P = 0.95) confidence interval.Approximately one-year old progeny seeds harvested from the AS plants were scarified using a sandpaper for 15–20 s to release dormancy. The seeds for each distance within each direction were planted in four replicates of plastic trays (50 × 25 cm) filled with potting soil mixture (LC1 Potting Mix, Sungro Horticulture Inc., Agawam, MA, USA). The plants were raised at the Norman Borlaug Center for Southern Crop Improvement Greenhouse Research Facility at Texas A&M University. The greenhouse was maintained at 28/24 °C day/night temperature regime and a 14-h photoperiod. About 10–15 cm tall seedlings were sprayed with the discriminant dose of the ALS-inhibitor nicosulfuron (Accent Q, 95 g ai ha−1) using a spray chamber (Research Track Sprayer, DeVries, Hollandale, MN) fitted with a flat fan nozzle (TeeJet XR110015) that was calibrated to deliver a spray volume of 140 L ha−1 at 276 kPa pressure, operating at a speed of 4.8 kmph. At 28 DAT, percent seedling survival was determined based on the number of plants that survived the herbicide application out of the total number of plants sprayed. The number of plants in each tray was counted before spraying.Molecular confirmation of hybridsLeaf tissue samples were collected from thirty random surviving plants (putative resistant) in the herbicide resistance screening study for each of the three field ENVs, thus totaling 90 samples. Genomic DNA was extracted from 100 mg of young leaf tissue using the modified CTAB protocol42. The concentration of DNA was determined using a Nanodrop 1000 UV–Vis spectrophotometer (DeNovix DS-II spectrophotometer, DeNovix Inc., Wilmington, DE 19810, USA). DNA was then diluted to a concentration of 20 ng/µl for PCR assay. The nicosulfuron-resistant johnsongrass from Nebraska used in this study possessed the Trp574Leu mutation39. Hence, single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) primers targeting a unique short-range haplotype of Inzen® sorghum (Val560Ile + Trp574Leu) were performed using the PCR Allele Competitive Extension (PACE) platform to confirm the resistant plants43. The SNP primers and the PACE genotyping master mix were obtained from Integrated DNA Technologies (IDT) Inc. (Coralville, IA) and 3CR Bioscience (Harlow CM20 2BU, United Kingdom), respectively. In addition to the two no-template controls (NTCs), two nicosulfuron-resistant johnsongrass, one wild-type johnsongrass, and one Inzen® sorghum were also used in the PCR.The PCR was performed according to the manufacturer’s protocol (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc., Hercules, CA), with denaturation for 15 min at 94 °C, followed by 10 cycles of denaturation at 94 °C for 20 s, annealing and extension at 65–57 °C for 60 s, 30 cycles of denaturation for 20 s at 94 °C, and annealing and extension for 60 s at 57 °C. Fluorescence of the reaction products were detected using a BMG PHERAStar plate reader that uses the FAM (fluorescein amidite) and HEX (hexachloro-fluorescein) fluorophores.Data analysisFor the dose–response assay, three-parameter sigmoidal curves (Eq. 2) were fit on the seedling mortality data for the AS and AR biotypes (with log of herbicide doses), using SigmaPlot version 14.0 (Systat Software Inc., San Jose, CA).$$y=b/[1+{exp}^{left(-(x-eright)/c)}],$$
    (2)
    where, y is the mortality (%), x is the herbicide dose (g ai ha−1), b is the slope around e, c is the lower limit (theoretical minimum for y normalized to 0%), and e = LD50 (inflection point, mid-point or estimated herbicide dose when y = 50%). Windrose plots that represented wind speed and frequency during the flowering window in each of the eight directions were created using a macro in Microsoft Excel. Progeny seedling survival (%) that represents gene flow (%) was determined using Eq. (3).$${text{PMGF }}left( {text{%}} right){ } = { }left( frac{X}{Y} right)_{{i,j{ }}} times { }100,$$
    (3)
    where, X is the number of plants that survived the herbicide application, Y is the total number of plants sprayed for ith distance in jth direction.To test whether gene flow frequencies varied among the directions, ANOVA was conducted using JMP PRO v.14 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA), based on the average gene flow frequency values in each direction; ENVs were considered as replicates in this analysis. A non-linear regression analysis for gene flow rate, describing an exponential decay function (Eq. 4), was fit using SigmaPlot based on the gene flow frequencies observed at different distances pooled across the directions and ENVs.$$y=y0+left[atimes {exp}^{left(-btimes xright)}right],$$
    (4)
    where, y is the PMGF (%), x is the distance (m) from pollen source, y0 is the lower asymptote (theoretical minimum for y normalized to 0%), a is the inflection point, mid-point or estimated distance when y = 50%, and b is the slope around a.A Pearson correlation analysis was conducted to determine potential association between PMGF [overall PMGF, short-distance PMGF (5 m), and long-distance PMGF (50 m)] and the environmental parameters temperature, relative humidity, and dew point. Further, a correlation analysis was also conducted to understand the association between PMGF frequencies and specific wind parameters such as wind frequency, wind speed, and gust speed. The molecular data were analyzed using KlusterCaller 1.1 software (KBioscience). More

  • in

    The effect of climate variability in the efficacy of the entomopathogenic fungus Metarhizium acridum against the desert locust Schistocerca gregaria

    Biological control in IPM systems in Africa. (CABI, 2002). https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851996394.0000Kvakkestad, V., Sundbye, A., Gwynn, R. & Klingen, I. Authorization of microbial plant protection products in the Scandinavian countries: A comparative analysis. Environ. Sci. Policy 106, 115–124 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Barzman, M. et al. Eight principles of integrated pest management. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 35, 1199–1215 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Popp, J., Pető, K. & Nagy, J. Pesticide productivity and food security. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 33, 243–255 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bale, J., van Lenteren, J. & Bigler, F. Biological control and sustainable food production. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 363, 761–776 (2008).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Vacante, V. & Bonsignore, C. P. Natural enemies and pest control. In Handbook of Pest Management in Organic Farming 60–77 (CABI, 2018). https://doi.org/10.1079/9781780644998.0060Eilenberg, J., Hajek, A. & Lomer, C. Suggestions for unifying the terminology in biological control. Biocontrol 46, 387–400 (2001).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Lacey, L. A. et al. Insect pathogens as biological control agents: Back to the future. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 132, 1–41 (2015).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hatting, J. L., Moore, S. D. & Malan, A. P. Microbial control of phytophagous invertebrate pests in South Africa: Current status and future prospects. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 165, 54–66 (2019).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Karimi, S., Askari Seyahooei, M., Izadi, H., Bagheri, A. & Khodaygan, P. Effect of arsenophonus endosymbiont elimination on fitness of the date palm hopper, ommatissus lybicus (Hemiptera: Tropiduchidae). Environ. Entomol. 48, 614–622 (2019).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kumar, K. K. et al. Microbial biopesticides for insect pest management in India: Current status and future prospects. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 165, 74–81 (2019).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Mascarin, G. M. et al. Current status and perspectives of fungal entomopathogens used for microbial control of arthropod pests in Brazil. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 165, 46–53 (2019).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Shapiro-Ilan, D. I., Bruck, D. J. & Lacey, L. A. Principles of epizootiology and microbial control. Insect Pathol. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-384984-7.00003-8 (2012).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hawkins, B. A. & Cornell, H. V. Theoretical Approaches to Biological Control. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511542077 (Cambridge University Press, 2009).Tonnang, H. E. Z., Nedorezov, L. V., Ochanda, H., Owino, J. & Löhr, B. Assessing the impact of biological control of Plutella xylostella through the application of Lotka—Volterra model. Ecol. Model. 220, 60–70 (2009).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hesketh, H., Roy, H. E., Eilenberg, J., Pell, J. K. & Hails, R. S. Challenges in modelling complexity of fungal entomopathogens in semi-natural populations of insects. Biocontrol 55, 55–73 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Fuxa, J. R. & Tanada, Y. Epizootiology of Insect Diseases (Wiley, 1987).
    Google Scholar 
    Lacey, L. A. Manual of Techniques in Insect Pathology. Manual of Techniques in Insect Pathology (Academic, 1997). https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-432555-5.x5000-3.Book 

    Google Scholar 
    Lomer, C. J., Bateman, R. P., Johnson, D. L., Langewald, J. & Thomas, M. Biological control of locusts and grasshoppers. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 46, 667–702 (2001).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Arthurs, S. & Thomas, M. B. Effects of a mycoinsecticide on feeding and fecundity of the brown locust Locustana pardalina. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 10, 321–329 (2000).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Jiang, W. et al. Effects of the entomopathogenic fungus Metarhizium anisopliae on the mortality and immune response of Locusta migratoria. Insects 11, 36 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Thomas, M. B. & Blanford, S. Thermal biology in insect-parasite interactions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18, 344–350 (2003).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Douthwaite, M. B. Development and Commercialization of the Green Muscle Biopesticide 21 (2001).Douthwaite, B., Langewald, J., & Harris, J. Development and commercialization of the Green Muscle biopesticide. (International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, 2002).CABI. Green Muscle providing strength against devastating locusts in the horn of Africa—CABI.org. CABI.org https://www.cabi.org/news-article/green-muscle-providing-strength-against-devastating-locusts-in-the-horn-of-africa/ (2020).Geoff, G. & Steve, W. Biological Control (Springer, 1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-1157-7.Book 

    Google Scholar 
    Fargues, J., Ouedraogo, A., Goettel, M. S. & Lomer, C. J. Effects of temperature, humidity and inoculation method on susceptibility of Schistocerca gregaria to Metarhizium flavoviride. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 7, 345–356 (1997).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Aragón, P., Coca-Abia, M. M., Llorente, V. & Lobo, J. M. Estimation of climatic favourable areas for locust outbreaks in Spain: Integrating species’ presence records and spatial information on outbreaks. J. Appl. Entomol. 137, 610–623 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Arthurs, S. & Thomas, M. B. Effect of dose, pre-mortem host incubation temperature and thermal behaviour on host mortality, mycosis and sporulation of Metarhizium anisopliae var. acridum in Schistocerca gregaria. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 11, 411–420 (2001).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    van der Valk, H. Review of the efficacy of Metarhizium anisopliae var. acridum. FAO—U.N. Publ. (2007).Klass, J. I., Blanford, S. & Thomas, M. B. Development of a model for evaluating the effects of environmental temperature and thermal behaviour on biological control of locusts and grasshoppers using pathogens. Agric. For. Entomol. 9, 189–199 (2007).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Devi, K. U., Sridevi, V., Mohan, C. M. & Padmavathi, J. Effect of high temperature and water stress on in vitro germination and growth in isolates of the entomopathogenic fungus Beauveria bassiana (Bals.) Vuillemin. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 88, 181–189 (2005).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Dimbi, S., Maniania, N. K., Lux, S. A. & Mueke, J. M. Effect of constant temperatures on germination, radial growth and virulence of Metarhizium anisopliae to three species of African tephritid fruit flies. Biocontrol 49, 83–94 (2004).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ekesi, S., Maniania, N. K. & Ampong-Nyarko, K. Effect of temperature on germination, radial growth and virulence of Metarhizium anisopliae and Beauveria bassiana on Megalurothrips sjostedti. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 9, 177–185 (1999).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Thomas, M. B. & Jenkins, N. E. Effects of temperature on growth of Metarhizium flavoviride and virulence to the variegated grasshopper Zonocerus variegatus. Mycol. Res. 101, 1469–1474 (1997).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Klass, J. I., Blanford, S. & Thomas, M. B. Use of a geographic information system to explore spatial variation in pathogen virulence and the implications for biological control of locusts and grasshoppers. Agric. For. Entomol. 9, 201–208 (2007).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Castro, T., Moral, R., Demétrio, C., Delalibera, I. & Klingen, I. Prediction of sporulation and germination by the spider mite pathogenic fungus Neozygites floridana (Neozygitomycetes: Neozygitales: Neozygitaceae) based on temperature, humidity and time. Insects 9, 69 (2018).PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hajek, A. E., Larkin, T. S., Carruthers, R. I. & Soper, R. S. Modelling the dynamics of Entomophaga maimaga (Zygomycetes: Entomophtorales) epizootics in gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantridae) populations. Environ. Entomol. 22, 1172–1187 (1993).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Gul, H. T., Saeed, S. & Khan, F. A. Z. Entomopathogenic fungi as effective insect pest management tactic: A review. Appl. Sci. Bus. Econ. 1, 10–18 (2014).
    Google Scholar 
    Davidson, G. et al. Study of temperature—Growth interactions of entomopathogenic fungi with potential for control of Varroa destructor (Acari: Mesostigmata) using a nonlinear model of poikilotherm development. J. Appl. Microbiol. 94, 816–825 (2003).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hallsworth, J. E. & Magan, N. Water and temperature relations of growth of the entomogenous fungi Beauveria bassiana, Metarhizium anisopliae, and Paecilomyces farinosus. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 74, 261–266 (1999).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Fargues, J. et al. Climatic factors on entomopathogenic hyphomycetes infection of Trialeurodes vaporariorum (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) in Mediterranean glasshouse tomato. Biol. Control 28, 320–331 (2003).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Boulard, T. et al. Effect of greenhouse ventilation on humidity of inside air and in leaf boundary-layer. Agric. For. Meteorol. 125, 225–239 (2004).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Mishra, S., Kumar, P. & Malik, A. Effect of temperature and humidity on pathogenicity of native Beauveria bassiana isolate against Musca domestica L. J. Parasit. Dis. 39, 697–704 (2015).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Klingen, I., Westrum, K. & Meyling, N. V. Effect of Norwegian entomopathogenic fungal isolates against Otiorhynchus sulcatus larvae at low temperatures and persistence in strawberry rhizospheres. Biol. Control 81, 1–7 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Thaochan, N., Benarlee, R., Shekhar Prabhakar, C. & Hu, Q. Impact of temperature and relative humidity on effectiveness of Metarhizium guizhouense PSUM02 against longkong bark eating caterpillar Cossus chloratus Swinhoe under laboratory and field conditions. J. Asia. Pac. Entomol. 23, 285–290 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kryukov, V. et al. Ecological preferences of Metarhizium spp. from Russia and neighboring territories and their activity against Colorado potato beetle larvae. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 149, 1–7 (2017).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Saldarriaga Ausique, J. J., D’Alessandro, C. P., Conceschi, M. R., Mascarin, G. M. & Delalibera Júnior, I. Efficacy of entomopathogenic fungi against adult Diaphorina citri from laboratory to field applications. J. Pest Sci. 2017 903 90, 947–960 (2017).
    Google Scholar 
    Dwyer, G. Density dependence and spatial structure in the dynamics of insect pathogens. Am. Nat. 143, 533–562 (1994).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Dwyer, G., Elkinton, J. & Hajek, A. Spatial scale and the spread of a fungal pathogen of gypsy moth. Am. Nat. 152, 485–494 (1998).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Knudsen, G. R. & Schotzko, D. J. Spatial simulation of epizootics caused by Beauveria bassiana in Russian wheat aphid populations. Biol. Control 16, 318–326 (1999).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Weseloh, R. M. Effect of conidial dispersal of the fungal pathogen Entomophaga maimaiga (Zygomycetes: Entomophthorales) on survival of its gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) host. Biol. Control 29, 138–144 (2004).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Meynard, C. N. et al. Climate-driven geographic distribution of the desert locust during recession periods: Subspecies’ niche differentiation and relative risks under scenarios of climate change. Glob. Chang. Biol. 23, 4739–4749 (2017).ADS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Anderson, R. M. & May, R. M. Infectious diseases of humans: Dynamics and control. Aust. J. Public Health 16, 208–212 (1991).
    Google Scholar 
    Cáceres, C. E. et al. Complex Daphnia interactions with parasites and competitors. Math. Biosci. 258, 148–161 (2014).MathSciNet 
    PubMed 
    MATH 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Briggs, C. J. & Godfray, H. C. J. The dynamics of insect-pathogen interactions stage-structured populations c. J. Am. Nat. 145, 855–887 (1995).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Rapti, Z. & Cáceres, C. E. Effects of intrinsic and extrinsic host mortality on disease spread. Bull. Math. Biol. 78, 235–253 (2016).MathSciNet 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    MATH 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hartemink, N. A., Randolph, S. E., Davis, S. A. & Heesterbeek, J. A. P. The basic reproduction number for complex disease systems: Defining R0 for tick-borne infections. Am. Nat. 171, 743–754 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Arthur, F. H. Toxicity of diatomaceous earth to red flour beetles and confused flour beetles (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae): Effects of temperature and relative humidity. J. Econ. Entomol. 93, 526–532 (2000).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Arthurs, S. & Thomas, M. B. Effects of temperature and relative humidity on sporulation of Metarhizium anisopliae var. acridum in mycosed cadavers of Schistocerca gregaria. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 78, 59–65 (2001).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Whipps, J. M. & Davies, K. G. Success in Biological Control of Plant Pathogens and Nematodes by Microorganisms. In Biological Control: Measures of Success 1st edn, (eds Gurr, G. & Wratten, S.) 429. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4014-0_8 (Springer, Dordrecht, 2000).Gilchrist, M. A., Sulsky, D. L. & Pringle, A. Identifying fitness and optimal life-history strategies for an asexual filamentous fungus. Evolution 60, 970–979 (2006).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Frank, S. A. Spatial processes in host-parasite genetics. In Metapopulation Biology, 1st edn, (eds Hanski, I. A. & Gilpin, M. E.) 325–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012323445-2/50018-3 (Elsevier, 1997).Yan, Y., Wang, Y.-C., Feng, C.-C., Wan, P.-H.M. & Chang, K.T.-T. Potential distributional changes of invasive crop pest species associated with global climate change. Appl. Geogr. 82, 83–92 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Inglis, G. D., Johnson, D. L. & Goettel, M. S. Effects of temperature and thermoregulation on mycosis by Beauveria bassianain grasshoppers. Biol. Control 7, 131–139 (1996).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Lactin, D. J. & Johnson, D. L. Temperature-dependent feeding rates of Melanoplus sanguinipes nymphs (Orthoptera: Acrididae) laboratory trials. Environ. Entomol. 24, 1291–1296 (1995).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    FAO. Biopesticides for locust control | FAO Stories | Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN http://www.fao.org/fao-stories/article/en/c/1267098/ (2021).Kimathi, E. et al. Prediction of breeding regions for the desert locust Schistocerca gregaria in East Africa. Sci. Rep. 10, 11937 (2020).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Cordovez, J. M., Rendon, L. M., Gonzalez, C. & Guhl, F. Using the basic reproduction number to assess the effects of climate change in the risk of Chagas disease transmission in Colombia. Acta Trop. 129, 74–82 (2014).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hartemink, N. A. et al. Mapping the basic reproduction number ( R 0) for vector-borne diseases: A case study on bluetongue virus. EPIDEM 1, 153–161 (2009).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Jamison, A., Tuttle, E., Jensen, R., Bierly, G. & Gonser, R. Spatial ecology, landscapes, and the geography of vector-borne disease: A multi-disciplinary review. Appl. Geogr. 63, 418–426 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Moukam Kakmeni, F. M. et al. Spatial panorama of malaria prevalence in Africa under climate change and interventions scenarios. Int. J. Health Geogr. 17, 2 (2018).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ngarakana-Gwasira, E. T., Bhunu, C. P., Masocha, M. & Mashonjowa, E. Transmission dynamics of schistosomiasis in Zimbabwe: A mathematical and GIS approach. Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 35, 137–147 (2016).ADS 
    MathSciNet 
    MATH 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ogden, N. H. & Radojevic, M. Estimated effects of projected climate change on the basic reproductive number of the Lyme disease vector ixodes scapularis. Environ. Health Perspect. 122, 631–639 (2014).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Parham, P. E. & Michael, E. Modeling the effects of weather and climate change on malaria transmission. Environ. Health Perspect. 118, 620–626 (2010).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Phillips, J. Climate change and surface mining: A review of environment-human interactions & their spatial dynamics. Appl. Geogr. 74, 95–108 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Rogers, D. J. & Randolphz, S. E. The global spread of malaria in a future. Warmer World Sci. 2, 1763–1766 (2000).
    Google Scholar 
    Wu, X. et al. Developing a temperature-driven map of the basic reproductive number of the emerging tick vector of Lyme disease Ixodes scapularis in Canada. J. Theor. Biol. 319, 50–61 (2013).ADS 
    MathSciNet 
    PubMed 
    MATH 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    CABI. Green Muscle providing strength against devastating locusts in the horn of Africa. https://www.cabi.org/news-article/green-muscle-providing-strength-against-devastating-locusts-in-the-horn-of-africa/ (2020).Piou, C. et al. Mapping the spatiotemporal distributions of the Desert Locust in Mauritania and Morocco to improve preventive management. Basic Appl. Ecol. 25, 37–47 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    FAO. FAO Locust Hub. https://locust-hub-hqfao.hub.arcgis.com/ (2021).Karger, D. N. et al. Climatologies at high resolution for the earth’s land surface areas. Sci. Data 4, 170122 (2017).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    DeJesus, E. X. & Kaufman, C. Routh-Hurwitz criterion in the examination of eigenvalues of a system of nonlinear ordinary differential equations. Phys. Rev. A 35, 5288–5290 (1987).ADS 
    MathSciNet 
    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    QGIS Development Team. QGIS Geographic Information System. Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project. http://qgis.osgeo.org. Qgisorg (2014).RCoreTeam. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. The R Foundation for Statistical Computing. (2020).Marino, S., Hogue, I. B., Ray, C. J. & Kirschner, D. E. A methodology for performing global uncertainty and sensitivity analysis in systems biology. J. Theor. Biol. 254, 178–196 (2008).ADS 
    MathSciNet 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    MATH 
    Article 

    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Differences in phenology, daily timing of activity, and associations of temperature utilization with survival in three threatened butterflies

    Scheffers, B. R. et al. The broad footprint of climate change from genes to biomes to people. Science 354, aaf7671 (2016).PubMed 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Pecl, G. T. et al. Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: Impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. Science 355, eaai214 (2017).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Nogués-Bravo, D. et al. Cracking the code of biodiversity responses to past climate change. Trends Ecol. Evol. 33, 765–776 (2018).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Forsman, A., Betzholtz, P.-E. & Franzén, M. Faster poleward range shifts in moths with more variable colour patterns. Sci. Rep. 6, 36265 (2016).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Voelkl, B. et al. Reproducibility of animal research in light of biological variation. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 21, 384–393 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Rödder, D., Schmitt, T., Gros, P., Ulrich, W. & Habel, J. C. Climate change drives mountain butterflies towards the summits. Sci. Rep. 11, 14382 (2021).ADS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Habel, J. C., Teucher, M., Gros, P., Schmitt, T. & Ulrich, W. Land use and climate change affects butterfly diversity across northern Austria. Landscape Ecol. 36, 1741–1754 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hill, J. K. et al. Responses of butterflies to twentieth century climate warming: implications for future ranges. Proc. Biol. Sci. 269, 2163–2171 (2002).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Chen, I. C. et al. Elevation increases in moth assemblages over 42 years on a tropical mountain. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 106, 1479–1483 (2009).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Cohen, J. M., Lajeunesse, M. J. & Rohr, J. R. A global synthesis of animal phenological responses to climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 224–228 (2018).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bell, J. R. et al. Spatial and habitat variation in aphid, butterfly, moth and bird phenologies over the last half century. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 1982–1994 (2019).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hällfors, M. H. et al. Shifts in timing and duration of breeding for 73 boreal bird species over four decades. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 117, 18557–18565 (2020).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Pruett, J. E. & Warner, D. A. Spatial and temporal variation in phenotypes and fitness in response to developmental thermal environments. Funct. Ecol. 35, 2635–2646 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hall, M., Nordahl, O., Larsson, P., Forsman, A. & Tibblin, P. Intra-population variation in reproductive timing covaries with thermal plasticity of offspring performance in perch Perca fluviatilis. J. Animal Ecol 90, 2236–2347 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ehrlich, P. R. & Hanski, I. On the Wings of Checkerspots: A Model System for Population Biology (Oxford University Press, 2004).
    Google Scholar 
    Warren, M. S. et al. The decline of butterflies in Europe: Problems, significance, and possible solutions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 118, e2002551117 (2021).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kristensen, N. P. Lepidoptera: Moths and Butterflies. 1. Evolution, Systematics, and Biogeography. Handbook of Zoology Vol. IV, Part 35 (De Gruyter, 1999).
    Google Scholar 
    Forsman, A. & Wennersten, L. Inter-individual variation promotes ecological success of populations and species: Evidence from experimental and comparative studies. Ecography 39, 630–648 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Zografou, K. et al. Species traits affect phenological responses to climate change in a butterfly community. Sci. Rep. 11, 3283 (2021).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Stevens, C. J. et al. Nitrogen deposition threatens species richness of grasslands across Europe. Environ. Pollut. 158, 2940–2945 (2010).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Heinrich, B. The Thermal Warriors (Harvard University Press, 2013).
    Google Scholar 
    Bladon, A. J. et al. How butterflies keep their cool: Physical and ecological traits influence thermoregulatory ability and population trends. J. Anim. Ecol. 89, 2440–2450 (2020).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Tsai, C.-C. et al. Physical and behavioral adaptations to prevent overheating of the living wings of butterflies. Nat. Commun. 11, 551 (2020).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ahnesjö, J. & Forsman, A. Differential habitat selection by pygmy grasshopper color morphs; interactive effects of temperature and predator avoidance. Evol. Ecol. 20, 235–257 (2006).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ma, C.-S., Ma, G. & Pincebourde, S. Survive a warming climate: Insect responses to extreme high temperatures. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 66, 163–184 (2021).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Forsman, A. Rethinking phenotypic plasticity and its consequences for individuals, populations and species. Heredity 115, 276–284 (2015).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hill, G. M., Kawahara, A. Y., Daniels, J. C., Bateman, C. C. & Scheffers, B. R. Climate change effects on animal ecology: Butterflies and moths as a case study. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 96, 2113–2126 (2021).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Gilbert, A. L. & Miles, D. B. Natural selection on thermal preference, critical thermal maxima and locomotor performance. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 284, 20170536 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Eliasson, C. U., Ryrholm, N., Holmér, M., Gilg, K. & Gärdenfors, U. Nationalnyckeln till Sveriges flora och fauna. Fjärilar: Dagfjärilar. Hesperidae – Nymphalidae. (ArtDatabanken, SLU, 2005).Thomas, J. A. & Wardlaw, J. C. The capacity of a Myrmica ant nest to support a predacious species of Maculinea butterfly. Oecologia 91, 101–109 (1992).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Vilbas, M. et al. Habitat use of the endangered parasitic butterfly Phengaris arion close to its northern distribution limit. Insect Conserv. Divers. 8, 252–260 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Johansson, V., Kindvall, O., Askling, J. & Franzén, M. Extreme weather affects colonization–extinction dynamics and the persistence of a threatened butterfly. J. Appl. Ecol. 57, 1068–1077 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Johansson, V., Kindvall, O., Askling, J. & Franzén, M. Intense grazing of calcareous grasslands has negative consequences for the threatened marsh fritillary butterfly. Biol. Cons. 239, 108280 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical. R version 4.1.1. (2021).Eubank, R. L. & Speckman, P. Curve fitting by polynomial-trigonometric regression. Biometrika 77, 1–9 (1990).MathSciNet 
    MATH 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Allen, J. C. A modified sine wave method for calculating degree days. Environ. Entomol. 5, 388–396 (1976).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Wickham, H. & Wickham, M. H. The ggplot package. Google Scholar. http://ftp.uni-bayreuth.de/math/statlib/R/CRAN/doc/packages/ggplot.pdf, (2007).Lüdecke, D. ggeffects: Tidy data frames of marginal effects from regression models. J. Open Source Softw. 3, 772 (2018).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Forsman, A. Some like it hot: Intra-population variation in behavioral thermoregulation in color-polymorphic pygmy grasshoppers. Evol. Ecol. 14, 25–38 (2000).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Forsman, A., Ringblom, K., Civantos, E. & Ahnesjo, J. Coevolution of color pattern and thermoregulatory behavior in polymorphic pygmy grasshoppers Tetrix undulata. Evolution 56, 349–360 (2002).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ahnesjö, J. & Forsman, A. Correlated evolution of colour pattern and body size in polymorphic pygmy grasshoppers, Tetrix undulata. J. Evol. Biol. 16, 1308–1318 (2003).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Zeuss, D., Brandl, R., Brändle, M., Rahbek, C. & Brunzel, S. Global warming favours light-coloured insects in Europe. Nat. Commun. 5, 3874 (2014).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Heidrich, L. et al. The dark side of Lepidoptera: colour lightness of geometrid moths decreases with increasing latitude. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 27, 407–416 (2018).MathSciNet 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Porter, K. Basking behaviour in larvae of the butterfly Euphydryas aurinia. Oikos 38, 308–312 (1982).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Rolff, J., Johnston, P. R. & Reynolds, S. Complete metamorphosis of insects. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 374, 20190063 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Thomas, J. A., Simcox, D. J. & Clarke, R. T. Successful conservation of a threatened Maculinea butterfly. Science 325, 80–83 (2009).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Nilsson, M. & Forsman, A. Evolution of conspicuous colouration, body size and gregariousness: A comparative analysis of lepidopteran larvae. Evol. Ecol. 17, 51–66 (2003).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Mappes, J., Kokko, H., Ojala, K. & Lindström, L. Seasonal changes in predator community switch the direction of selection for prey defences. Nat. Commun. 5, 5016 (2014).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bale, J. S. et al. Herbivory in global climate change research: direct effects of rising temperature on insect herbivores. Glob. Change Biol. 8, 1–16 (2002).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Otaki, J. M., Hiyama, A., Iwata, M. & Kudo, T. Phenotypic plasticity in the range-margin population of the lycaenid butterfly Zizeeria maha. BMC Evol. Biol. 10, 1–13 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Galarza, J. A. et al. Evaluating responses to temperature during pre-metamorphosis and carry-over effects at post-metamorphosis in the wood tiger moth (Arctia plantaginis). Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 374, 20190295 (2019).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kingsolver, J. G. The well-temperatured biologist: (American Society of Naturalists Presidential Address). Am. Nat. 174, 755–768 (2009).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Lafuente, E. & Beldade, P. Genomics of developmental plasticity in animals. Front. Genet. 10, 720 (2019).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Angilletta, M. J. Jr., Niewiarowski, P. H. & Navas, C. A. The evolution of thermal physiology in ectotherms. J. Therm. Biol 27, 249–268 (2002).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Posledovich, D., Toftegaard, T., Wiklund, C., Ehrlén, J. & Gotthard, K. Phenological synchrony between a butterfly and its host plants: Experimental test of effects of spring temperature. J. Anim. Ecol. 87, 150–161 (2018).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Adams, A. Succisa pratensis Moench. J. Ecol. 43, 709–718 (1955).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Lawton, J. H. & Strong, D. J. Community patterns and competition in folivorous insects. Am. Nat. 118, 317–338 (1981).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Forsman, A. Effects of genotypic and phenotypic variation on establishment are important for conservation, invasion, and infection biology. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111, 302–307 (2014).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Forsman, A., Betzholtz, P.-E. & Franzén, M. Variable coloration is associated with dampened population fluctuations in noctuid moths. Proc. R. Soc. B 282, 1–9 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Betzholtz, P. E., Franzén, M. & Forsman, A. Colour pattern variation can inform about extinction risk in moths. Anim. Conserv. 20, 72–79 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Klemme, I. & Hanski, I. Heritability of and strong single gene (Pgi) effects on life-history traits in the Glanville fritillary butterfly. J. Evol. Biol. 22, 1944–1953 (2009).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Mattila, A. L. Thermal biology of flight in a butterfly: genotype, flight metabolism, and environmental conditions. Ecol. Evol. 5, 5539–5551 (2015).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Russell, B. D. et al. Predicting ecosystem shifts requires new approaches that integrate the effects of climate change across entire systems. Biol. Let. 8, 164–166 (2012).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    van Bergen, E. et al. The effect of summer drought on the predictability of local extinctions in a butterfly metapopulation. Conserv. Biol. 34, 1503–1511 (2020).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Thomas, J. A., Clarke, R. T., Elmes, G. W. & Hochberg, M. E. in Insect Populations in theory and in practice: 19th Symposium of the Royal Entomological Society 10–11 September 1997 at the University of Newcastle (eds J. P. Dempster & I. F. G. McLean) 261–290 (Springer Netherlands, 1998).Nakonieczny, M., Kedziorski, A. & Michalczyk, K. Apollo butterfly (Parnassius apollo L.) in Europe—Its history, decline and perspectives of conservation. Funct. Ecosyst. Communities 1, 56–79 (2007).
    Google Scholar 
    Schweiger, O., Harpke, A., Wiemers, M. & Settele, J. CLIMBER: Climatic niche characteristics of the butterflies in Europe. ZooKeys 367, 65–84 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ashton, S., Gutierrez, D. & Wilson, R. J. Effects of temperature and elevation on habitat use by a rare mountain butterfly: Implications for species responses to climate change. Ecological Entomology 34, 437–446 (2009).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Klockmann, M. & Fischer, K. Effects of temperature and drought on early life stages in three species of butterflies: Mortality of early life stages as a key determinant of vulnerability to climate change?. Ecol. Evol. 7, 10871–10879 (2017).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Crabs retreat from heat

    Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain
    the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in
    Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles
    and JavaScript. More

  • in

    State of ex situ conservation of landrace groups of 25 major crops

    Crops and their landrace study areasFood crops whose genetic resources are researched and conserved by CGIAR international agricultural research centres or by the CePaCT of the SPC were included in this study. Crop landrace distributions were modelled and conservation analyses conducted within recognized primary and, for some crops, secondary regions of diversity, where these crops were domesticated and/or have been cultivated for very long periods, and where they are, thus, expected to feature high genetic diversity and adaptation to local environmental and cultural factors (Supplementary Tables 1 and 2)9,13. These regions were identified through literature review (Supplementary Information) and confirmed by crop experts.Occurrence dataOur crop landrace group distribution modelling and conservation gap analysis rely on occurrence data, including coordinates of locations where landraces were previously collected for ex situ conservation and reference sightings. For ex situ conservation records, occurrences marked as landraces were retrieved from two major online databases: the Genesys Plant Genetic Resources portal33 and the World Information and Early Warning System on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (WIEWS) of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations34. Occurrences were also obtained directly from individual international genebank information systems: AfricaRice, the International Transit Centre and Musa Germplasm Information System of Bioversity International35, CePaCT, International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), International Potato Center (CIP), International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-arid Tropics (ICRISAT), International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) and International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), as well as from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Genetic Resources Information Network (GRIN)–Global36 and the Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO)37. Occurrences were compiled from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), with ‘living specimen’ records classified as ex situ conservation records and the remaining serving as reference sightings for use in distribution modelling. Reference occurrences were also drawn from published literature (Supplementary Information). Duplicated observations within or between data sources were eliminated, with a preference to utilize the most original data. Coordinates were corrected or removed when latitude and longitude were equal to zero or inverted, located in water bodies or in the wrong country or had poor resolution ( 10 (ref. 60). The predictors and whether they were selected for the modelling of each landrace group are presented in Supplementary Table 4.We generated a random sample of pseudo-absences as background points in areas that (1) were within the same ecological land units61 as the occurrence points, (2) were deemed potentially suitable according to a support vector machine classifier that uses all occurrences and predictor variables and (3) were farther than 5 km from any occurrence62. The number of pseudo-absences generated per crop group was ten times its number of unique occurrences.MaxEnt models were fitted through five-fold (K = 5) cross-validation with 80% training and 20% testing. For each fold, we calculated the area under the receiving operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity and Cohen’s kappa as measures of model performance. To create a single prediction that represents the probability of occurrence for the landrace group, we computed the median across K models. Geographic areas in the form of pixels with probability values above the maximum sum of sensitivity and specificity were treated as the final area of predicted presence13.Ex situ conservation status and gapsThree separate but complementary metrics were developed to compare the geographic and environmental diversity in current ex situ conservation collections to the total geographic and environmental variation across the crop landrace group distribution model and, thus, to identify and quantify ex situ conservation gaps13.A connectivity gap score (SCON) was calculated for each 2.5-arc-minute pixel within the distribution model by drawing a triangle63,64 around each pixel using the three closest genebank accession occurrence locations as vertices and then deriving normalized values for the pixel based on distance to the triangle centroid and vertices13. The SCON of a pixel is high—closer to 1 on a scale of 0–1—when its corresponding triangle is large, when the pixel is close to the centroid of the triangle or when the distance to the vertices is large. A high SCON represents a greater probability of the pixel location being a gap in existing ex situ collections.An accessibility gap score (SACC) was calculated for each 2.5-arc-minute pixel in the distribution model by computing travel time from each pixel to its nearest genebank accession occurrence location based both on distance and the speed of travel, defined by a friction surface13,45. Travel time scores were normalized by dividing pixel values by the longest travel time within the distribution model, with the final score ranging from 0 to 1. A high SACC value for a pixel reflects long travel times from existing genebank collection occurrences and, thus, represents a higher probability of the pixel location being a gap in existing ex situ collections.An environmental gap score (SENV) was calculated for each 2.5-arc-minute pixel in the distribution model by conducting a hierarchical clustering analysis using Ward’s method with all the predictor variables from the distribution modelling. The Mahalanobis distance between each pixel and the environmentally closest genebank accession occurrence location was then computed13. Environmental distance scores were normalized between 0 and 1. A high SENV value for a pixel reflects a large distance to areas with similar environments where landraces have previously been collected for genebank conservation and, thus, represents a higher probability of the pixel location being a gap in existing ex situ collections.Spatial ex situ conservation gaps were determined from the conservation gap scores using a cross-validation procedure to derive a threshold for each score. We created synthetic gaps by removing existing genebank occurrences in five randomly chosen circular areas with a 100 km radius within the distribution model. We then tested whether these artificial gaps could be predicted by our gap analysis, identifying the threshold value of each score that would maximize the prediction of these synthetic gaps. Performance for each of the five gap areas was assessed using AUC, sensitivity and specificity. The average cross-area threshold value was calculated for each score to discern pixels with a high likelihood of finding ex situ conservation gaps and that, thus, were higher priority for further field sampling. These were pixels with combined gap scores above the threshold, assigned a value of 1, as opposed to the relatively well-conserved areas below the threshold, which were assigned a value of 0.The three binary conservation gap scores were then mapped in combination, resulting in pixels across the distribution model with gap values ranging from 0 to 3. Pixels with a value of 0 display no connectivity, accessibility or environmental gaps and are considered well represented ex situ. Pixels with a value of 1 indicate a conservation gap in connectivity, accessibility or the environment; we consider these ‘low-confidence’ gaps. Pixels with a value of 2 indicate gaps in two metrics or ‘medium-confidence’ gaps, and values of 3 indicate gaps across all metrics or ‘high-confidence’ gaps. High-confidence gap areas are displayed on crop-conservation-gap maps (Fig. 2b and Supplementary Information) and conservation hotspot maps across crops (Fig. 4 and Extended Data Figs. 5–8).The representation of crop landrace groups in current ex situ conservation collections was calculated based on the final 1–3 value conservation-gap maps. The complement of the proportion of the modelled distribution considered as a potential conservation gap by any single gap score represents the minimum estimate of current representation; the complement of the proportion considered by all three scores as a gap, which is to say high-confidence gap areas, represents the maximum estimate (Supplementary Tables 1 and 2).While distribution modelling and conservation gap analyses were conducted at the crop landrace group level and results are presented in full in the Supplementary Information, for ease of comparison of results across crops, and to avoid bias towards crops with many landrace groups, we also calculated summary results at the crop level. Crops that had been assessed with geographic differentiations, including maize in Africa and Latin America and yams in the New World and the Old World, were also combined. For spatial results, the pixels in crop landrace group models were summed—that is, constituent landrace group models were combined. The minimum and maximum current conservation representation estimations at the crop level were then calculated based on combined spatial models.GBIF occurrence downloadsThe following occurrence downloads from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF; https://www.gbif.org/, 2017−2021) were used: 10.15468/dl.rrntfr, 10.15468/dl.2f2v4h, 10.15468/dl.2ywlb7, 10.15468/dl.lnfelh, 10.15468/dl.ryrmfj, 10.15468/dl.8adf61, 10.15468/dl.nff5ys, 10.15468/dl.erxs6e, 10.15468/dl.vbfgho, 10.15468/dl.mjjk3x, 10.15468/dl.uppz1n, 10.15468/dl.938bgm, 10.15468/dl.hr87hm, 10.15468/dl.k1va80, 10.15468/dl.coqpu2, 10.15468/dl.lkoo9u, 10.15468/dl.e998mp, 10.15468/dl.vfbmm7, 10.15468/dl.tnp478, 10.15468/dl.6zxsea, 10.15468/dl.0lray8, 10.15468/dl.5sjgsw, 10.15468/dl.wkju6h, 10.15468/dl.7xzfvc, 10.15468/dl.autlf5, 10.15468/dl.fe2amw, 10.15468/dl.2zblvz, 10.15468/dl.ddplkj, 10.15468/dl.jbzejg, 10.15468/dl.ej5bha, 10.15468/dl.905pxd, 10.15468/dl.pim1vs, 10.15468/dl.vdridc, 10.15468/dl.b43gyv, 10.15468/dl.nnw3z7, 10.15468/dl.bnt9jc, 10.15468/dl.f5x2cg, 10.15468/dl.ub7zbg, 10.15468/dl.sggf2v, 10.15468/dl.ath5ve, 10.15468/dl.23k3ug, 10.15468/dl.cym376, 10.15468/dl.53bwzk, 10.15468/dl.fsad7h and 10.15468/dl.fm6p7z.Reporting SummaryFurther information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article. More

  • in

    The effect of reducing per capita water and energy uses on renewable water resources in the water, food and energy nexus

    This work formulates a general framework of the WFE Nexus at the national level, which includes all pertinent interactions between water, food, and energy sources and demands. Figure 1 depicts the feedbacks involving resource availability and consumption. The causal loops of the developed model for national-scale assessment are shown in Fig. 2. The model depicted in Fig. 2 proposes reducing consumption to reduce the water crisis to the extent possible. By reducing water use and pollution the environmental water requirement can be reduced, thus alleviating the water crisis. This paper’s objective is sustainable management by reducing per capita water use (in the residential section) and per capita energy use (in the domestic, public, and commercial section). The WFE nexus is modeled as a dynamic system for demand management applied to the stocks of energy, surface water, and groundwater resources to calculate their input and output rates (flows) at the national level while providing for environmental flow requirements (Fig. 3). The national modeling approach is of the lumped type, meaning that inputs and outputs to the stocks of water and energy represent totals over an entire country (in the case study, Iran); therefore, the models does not consider intra-country regional variations. The units of water resources and energy resources are expressed in cubic meters and MWh, respectively.Figure 1Feedbacks between resources and uses in the WFE nexus taking into account environmental considerations.Full size imageFigure 2The causal loops of the model developed for simulating the WFE nexus.Full size imageFigure 3Flow diagram of the WFE Nexus system.Full size imageBalance of water resourcesThe study of water exchanges in a country is based on the law of conservation of matter. The following sections present calculations pertinent to the annual balance of surface and groundwater resources.Surface water resourcesThe national runoff generated in a country’s high-elevation areas (or high terrain) and low-elevation areas (plains) is quantified with the following equations:$${preheight}_{t}=HeightCotimes {Precipitation}_{t}$$
    (1)

    in which ({preheight}_{t}) = volume of precipitation that falls in high-elevation areas during period t, (HeightCo) = the percentage of total precipitation that falls in high-elevation areas, and ({Precipitation}_{t}) = volume of precipitation during period t.$${preplain}_{t}=PlainCotimes {Precipitation}_{t}$$
    (2)

    in which ({preplain}_{t}) = volume of precipitation that falls in the plains during period t, and (PlainCo) = the percentage of total precipitation that falls in plains (low elevation areas).$${SInflow}_{t}=HeighSInflowCotimes {preheight}_{t}+PlainSInflowCotimes {preplain}_{t}+{OutCSW}_{t}+{Dr}_{t}$$
    (3)

    in which ({SInflow}_{t}) = the total volume of surface flows during period t, (HeighSInflowCo) = the runoff coefficient in high-elevation areas, (PlainSInflowCo) = the runoff coefficient in the plains, ({OutCSW}_{t}) = the difference between the volume of surface inflow and outflow through a country’s border during period t; and ({Dr}_{t}) = the flow of groundwater resources to surface water resources (i.e., baseflow) during period t.It is possible to calculate the water use after calculating the annual surface water originating by precipitation. Some of the water use by the agricultural, industrial, and municipal sectors becomes return flows. Equations (4) through (9) show how to calculate the surface water use and the water return flows to the surface water sources.$${DomWD}_{t}={Population}_{t}times PerCapitaWatertimes 365$$
    (4)

    in which ({DomWD}_{t}) = the volume of water use in the municipal sector during period t, ({Population}_{t}) = the population of the country during period t, and (PerCapitaWater) = per capita drinking water use (cubic meters per person per day).$${IndDomWD}_{t}={DomWD}_{t}+{IndWD}_{t}$$
    (5)

    in which ({IndDomWD}_{t}) = the volume of water use in the municipal and industrial sectors during period t, and ({IndWD}_{t}) = the volume of water use in the industrial sector during period t.The water use by the agricultural sector accounts for the water footprint of agricultural products, which measures their water use per mass of produce, and adjusting the water use by including water losses and agricultural return flows. A separate sub-agent (AGR agent) is introduced to perform the calculations related to the agricultural sector to simplify the dynamic-system model (main model), and the required outputs (BWAgr, GWAgr) of the dynamic system model are called by the agent in the main model (see Figs. 3 and 4). The BWAgr is given by the expression within parentheses in Eq. (6).Figure 4Agricultural subsystem modeled in the AGR agent (shows how to calculate the blue and gray water footprints of agricultural products).Full size image$${AgrWD}_{t}=left(sum_{iin A}{BW}_{i}times {Product}_{i,t}right)times frac{1}{{E}_{Agr}}+OtherAgrWD$$
    (6)

    in which ({AgrWD}_{t}) = the volume of agricultural water use during period t, ({BW}_{i}) = blue water footprint of agricultural product i (cubic meters per ton), ({Product}_{i,t}) = the amount of production of agricultural product i during period t (tons), ({E}_{Agr}) = the overall irrigation efficiency, (OtherAgrWD) = the volume of water consumed by agricultural products not included in the set A of agricultural products (in cubic meters). The set A includes those agricultural products with the largest yields and shares of the national food basket.$${AgrReW}_{t}={AgrWD}_{t}times AgrReCo$$
    (7)

    in which ({AgrReW}_{t}) = the volume of water returned from agricultural water use during the period t, and (AgrReCo) = the coefficient of water returned from agricultural water use.$${IndDomReW}_{t}={IndDomWD}_{t}times IndDomReCo$$
    (8)

    in which ({IndDomReW}_{t}) = the volume of water returned from industrial and municipal water use during period t, and (IndDomReCo) = the coefficient of water returned from industrial and municipal water uses.$${ReSW}_{t}=IndDomReSWCotimes {IndDomReW}_{t}+AgrReSWCotimes {AgrReW}_{t}$$
    (9)

    in which ({ReSW}_{t}) = the volume of water returned from water uses to surface water resources during period t, (IndDomReSWCo) = the percentage of water returned from municipal and industrial water use to surface water resources, and (AgrReSWCo) = the percentage of water returned from agricultural water use to surface water resources.Water is applied to produce energy, and Eqs. (10) through (15) perform the related calculations. The ({WEIF}_{t}) variable in Eq. (14) is necessary to account for the volume of water saved as a result of the energy savings. A PR model is introduced to account for such water savings (see Fig. 3).$${Diff}_{t} ={OutputE}_{t}-{OutputE}_{t}^{P}$$
    (10)

    in which ({Diff}_{t})= the difference between the energy used in the main model during period t and the energy used in period t in the PR model, ({OutputE}_{t}) = the sum of energy uses during period t in the main model (the method of calculating ({OutputE}_{t}) is described in detail in “Energy uses”), and ({OutputE}_{t}^{P}) = the sum of energy uses during period t in the PR model. Equations (11) and (12) account for the case when energy use exceeds energy production under current conditions, in which case energy exports are reduced. This prevents additional energy production to meet excess demand, and, consequently, there would not be increases in water use.$${Diff}_{t} le 0,,,{if,,func}_{t}=0$$
    (11)
    $${Diff}_{t} >0,,,{ if,,func}_{t}={Diff}_{t}$$
    (12)

    in which ({ iffunc}_{t}) = the amount of energy saved during period t.Equation (13) calculates the water required to produce energy:$${{TotalWE}_{t}=Coal}_{t}times ENwateruseC+{Gas}_{t}times ENwateruseG+{OilPetroleumP}_{t }times ENwateruseO+{Nuclear}_{t}times ENwateruseN+{Elec}_{t}times ENwateruseE$$
    (13)

    in which ({TotalWE}_{t}) = the volume of water required to produce the energy demand during period t,({Elec}_{t}) = the amount of electricity production during period t (MWh), and (ENwateruseE) = the water required per unit of energy generated by electricity (cubic meters per MWh), all other terms were previously defined.Equation (14) calculates the water savings:$${WEIF}_{t}=sum_{t=1}^{T}frac{{TotalWE}_{t}}{{OutputE}_{t}^{0}}times {if,,func}_{t}$$
    (14)

    in which ({WEIF}_{t})= the volume of water saved as a result of the energy saved during period t, T = the number of periods of simulation (T = 5 years).Part of the water used to produce energy from coal, oil, petroleum products, and nuclear fuel is accounted for in the industrial sector water use. For this reason, the volume of water to produce energy calculated with Eq. (15) is reduced by that part of water already accounted for in the industrial water use to avoid double accounting.$${WE}_{t}={Coal}_{t}times ENwateruseC+{Gas}_{t}times ENwateruseG+{OilPetroleumP}_{t }times ENwateruseO+{Nuclear}_{t}times ENwateruseN-INDEtimes {IndWD}_{t}-{WEIF}_{t}$$
    (15)

    in which ({WE}_{t}) = the volume of water required to produce different types of energy (except those included in the industrial sector) during period t, ({Coal}_{t}) = the energy produced with coal during period t (MWh), (ENwateruseC) = the water required per unit of energy produced with coal (cubic meters per MWh),({Gas}_{t}) = the amount of energy produced with natural gas during period t (MWh), (ENwateruseG) = the water required per unit of energy produced with natural gas (cubic meters per MWh), ({OilPetroleumP}_{t}) = the amount of energy produced with crude oil and other petroleum products during period t (MWh), (ENwateruseO) = the water required per unit of energy produced with crude oil and petroleum products (cubic meters per MWh),({Nuclear}_{t}) = the amount of nuclear energy produced during period t (MWh), (ENwateruseN) = the water required per unit of nuclear energy produced (cubic meters per MWh), and (INDE) = the percentage of industrial water use already accounted for in Eq. (5) (which pertains to water used in the coke coal, oil refineries, and nuclear fuel industries).Part of the discharge of springs enters the surface water sources, and this enters the calculation of the input to the surface water-resources stock in Eq. (16):$${InputSW}_{t}= SInflow+{ReSW}_{t}{+ Fountain}_{t}$$
    (16)

    in which ({InputSW}_{t}) = the volume of inflow water to surface water sources during period t, and ({Fountain}_{t}) = discharge of springs to surface water sources during period t, other terms previously defined.The output of the surface water resources includes water use and the infiltration of surface water into groundwater, the latter calculated with Eq. (17):$${SInflowInf}_{t}={SInflow}_{t}times SInflowInfCo$$
    (17)

    in which ({SInflowInf}_{t}) = the infiltration volume of surface water during period t, and (SInflowInfCo) = the infiltration coefficient of surface water.The output of the surface water resources stock is calculated using Eq. (18):$${OutputSW}_{t}={AgrSWDCo}_{t}times {AgrWD}_{t}+{IndSWDCo}_{t}times {IndWD}_{t}+{DomSWDCo}_{t}times {DomWD}_{t}+{mathrm{ WE}}_{t}+{SInflowInf}_{t}-{EvSwSea}_{t}$$
    (18)

    in which ({OutputSW}_{t}) = the output volume of surface water during period t, ({AgrSWDCo}_{t}) = the percentage of gross agricultural water use from surface water resources during period t, ({IndSWDCo}_{t}) = the percentage of industrial water use from surface water resources during period t, ({DomSWDCo}_{t})= the percentage of gross drinking water consumption from surface water sources during period t, and ({EvSwSea}_{t}) = the total volume of evaporation from surface water plus the discharge of surface water to the sea during period t.The balance of surface water resources is calculated based on Eq. (19):$$SWaterleft(tright)=underset{{t}_{0}}{overset{t}{int }}left[{InputSW}_{t}left(Sright)-{OutputSW}_{t}(S)right]dt+SWater(0)$$
    (19)

    in which (SWaterleft(tright)) = the stock of surface water resources at time t, (SWater(0)) denotes the stock of surface water at the initial time (t = 0).Groundwater resourcesGroundwater resources gain water from deep infiltration of precipitation in the plains and elevated areas from (1) inflows from outside of the study area, (2) infiltration from surface flows and return waters. Groundwater output factors also include the discharge of groundwater resources (wells, springs, and aqueducts), groundwater flow that moves outside the study area and evaporation. Infiltration of precipitation in the plains and in high terrain into groundwater resources is calculated with Eq. (20):$${Inf}_{t}=PrePInfCotimes {preplain}_{t}+PreHInfCotimes {preheight}_{t}$$
    (20)

    in which ({Inf}_{t}) = the volume of water entering groundwater sources through infiltration of precipitation during period t, (PrePInfCo) = the infiltration coefficient of precipitation in the plains, and (PreHInfCo) = the infiltration coefficient of rainfall in high terrain.Equation (21) calculates the volume of return water that accrues to groundwater resources:$${ReGW}_{t}=IndDomReGWCotimes {IndDomReW}_{t}+AgrReGWCotimes {AgrReW}_{t}$$
    (21)

    in which ({ReGW}_{t}) = the volume of water returned from water use that accrues to groundwater resources during period t, (IndDomReGWCo) = the percentage of water returned from municipal and industrial water use accruing to groundwater resources, and (AgrReGWCo) = the percentage of water returned from agricultural water use accruing to groundwater resources.The volume of groundwater input is calculated with Eq. (22):$${InputGW}_{t}={Inf}_{t}+{ReGW}_{t}+{SInflowInf}_{t}+{OutCGw }_{t}$$
    (22)

    in which ({InputGW}_{t}) = the volume of groundwater input during period t, and ({OutCGw }_{t}) = the difference between the volume of groundwater leaving and that entering the country during period t.The volume of groundwater output is calculated with Eq. (23):$${OutputGW}_{t}={AgrGWDCo}_{t}times {AgrWD}_{t}+IndGWDCotimes {IndWD}_{t}+DomGWDCotimes {DomWD}_{t}+{EvGwDr}_{t}$$
    (23)

    in which ({OutputGW}_{t}) = the volume of groundwater output during period t, ({AgrGWDCo}_{t}) = the percentage of gross agricultural water use from groundwater resources during period t, IndGWDCo = the percentage of industrial water use from groundwater resources during period t, DomGWDCo = the percentage of municipal water use from groundwater resources during period t, and ({EvGwDr }_{t}) = the total volume of evaporation from groundwater plus the drainage of groundwater resources to surface water resources at time t.Equation (24) calculates the annual balance of groundwater resources:$$GWaterleft(tright)=underset{{t}_{0}}{overset{t}{int }}left[{InputGW}_{t}left(Sright)-{OutputGW}_{t}left(Sright)right]dt+GWater(0)$$
    (24)

    in which GWater(t) = the groundwater resources stock at time t, (GWater(0)) denotes the stock of groundwater at the initial time (t = 0).Energy usesEnergy uses are calculated with Eqs. (25)–(27). The total national energy use includes the agricultural, industrial, transportation, and exports sectors’ energy demands. The energy uses by these sectors do not change during the implementation of the policy, and, consequently do not change the WFE Nexus in that period; therefore, they are not included in the calculations.$${WDTP}_{t}={DomWD}_{t}times {CEIntensity}_{t}$$
    (25)

    in which ({WDTP}_{t}) = the energy used in the extraction, transmission, distribution, and treatment of water in the water and wastewater system during period t, and ({CEIntensity}_{t}) = the energy intensity in the extraction, transmission, distribution, and treatment of water in water and wastewater systems during the period t (MWh per cubic meter).$${ResComPubED}_{t}=ResComPubPerCapitatimes {Population}_{t}$$
    (26)

    in which ({ResComPubED}_{t}) = the energy use by the domestic, commercial, and public sectors during period t, and (ResComPubPerCapita) = the per capita energy consumption by the domestic, commercial, and public sectors (MWh per person per year).$${OutputE}_{t}={ResComPubED}_{t}+{WDTP}_{t}$$
    (27)
    Environmental water needsThe gray water footprint is defined as the volume of freshwater that is required to assimilate the load of pollutants based on natural background concentrations and existing ambient water quality standards. The estimation of the gray water footprint associated with discharges from agricultural production is based on the load of nitrogen fertilizers, which are pervasive in agriculture. The gray water footprint in terms of nitrogen concentration has been estimated by Mekonnen and Hoekstra24,25, as written in Eq. (28):$${GW}_{t}^{Agr}=sum_{iin A}{GW}_{i}times {Product}_{i,t}$$
    (28)

    in which ({GW}_{t}^{Agr})= the volume of gray water in the agricultural sector during period t, and ({GW}_{i}) = the volume of gray water associated with the production of one ton of agricultural product i (cubic meters per ton)(.)There are no accurate estimates of the concentrations of pollutants per unit of industrial production, or of the concentration of pollutants in municipal wastewater. Therefore, the conservative dilution factor (DF), which is equal to 1 for untreated returned water from the municipal and industrial sectors, is applied in this work. Equation (29) is a simplified equation of the gray water footprint26. The fraction appearing on the right-hand side of Eq. (29) is equal to the DF.$${GW}_{t}^{IndDom}= frac{{C}_{eff}-{C}_{nat}}{{C}_{max}-{C}_{nat}}times {IndDomReW}_{t}times IndDomReUT$$
    (29)

    in which ({GW}_{t}^{IndDom}) = the gray water footprint of the municipal and industrial sectors during period t, ({C}_{eff}) = the nitrogen concentration in return water (mg/L), ({C}_{nat}) = the natural concentrations of contaminant in surface water (mg/L), ({C}_{max}) = the maximum allowable concentration contaminant in surface water (mg/L), and (IndDomReUT) = the percentage of untreated returned water from the municipal and industrial sectors.The total gray water footprint is obtained by summing the footprints associated with the municipal/industrial and agricultural sectors:$${TotalGW}_{mathrm{t}}={GW}_{t}^{IndDom}+{GW}_{t}^{Agr}$$
    (30)

    in which ({TotalGW}_{mathrm{t}}) = the volume of gray water from all sectors during period t.This work considers qualitative and quantitative environmental water needs. Equation (31) is used to calculate the total environmental water need. The Tennant method for calculating the riverine environmental flow requirement (or instream flow) stipulates that, based on the conditions of each basin, between 10 to 30% of the average long-term flow of rivers represents the environmental flow requirement27. The sum of these requirements across all the basins equals the environmental requirement of the entire region or country. Yet, by providing 10 to 30% of the average long-term flow of rivers the riverine ecosystem barely emerges from critical conditions, and is far from optimal ecologic functioning. The total environmental water need is equal to the sum of the environmental flow requirement plus the volume of water needed to dilute the contaminants entering the surface water sources:$${ENV}_{t}={TotalGW}_{t}+Tennant$$
    (31)

    in which ({ENV}_{t}) = the environmental flow requirement during period t, and Tennant = the environmental flow requirement calculated by the Tennant (1976) method.The policy evaluation indexThe available renewable water is calculated with Eq. (32):$${IN}_{t}={OutCGW }_{t}+ {SInflow }_{t}+{ Inf}_{t}-{EvGwDr}_{t}$$
    (32)

    in which ({IN}_{t})= the renewable water available before the application of environmental constraints during period t.The volume of manageable water is calculated with Eq. (33):$$REWleft(tright)=underset{{t}_{0}}{overset{t}{int }}left[INleft(tright)-ENVleft(tright)right]dt$$
    (33)

    in which REW (t) = the (cumulative) manageable and exploitable renewable water in the period t-t0.Equation (34) calculates the total water withdrawals by the agricultural, industrial, municipal, and energy production sectors:$${WDW}_{t}={OutputSW }_{t}+ {OutputGW}_{t}- {cheshmeh}_{t}$$
    (34)

    in which ({WDW}_{t}) = the sum of the withdrawals by the agricultural, industrial, municipal, and energy production sectors during period t.The cumulative water withdrawals are calculated with Eq. (35):$$withdleft(tright)=underset{{t}_{0}}{overset{t}{int }}WDWleft(tright)dt$$
    (35)

    in which (withdleft(tright)) = the sum of the withdrawals by the agricultural, industrial, municipal and energy production sectors in the horizon t-t0.Equation (36) calculates the water stress index:$${index}_{{t}_{f}}^{MRW}=frac{withd({t}_{f})}{REWleft({t}_{f}right)}times 100$$
    (36)

    in which ({index}_{{t}_{f}}^{MRW}) = the renewable water stress index at the end of the study period, and ({t}_{f}) = the period marking the end of the study horizon.Once the water and energy model is developed it must be calibrated with observational data prior to its use in predictions, as shown below. More

  • in

    Phylotype diversity within soil fungal functional groups drives ecosystem stability

    Singh, B. K., Bardgett, R. D., Smith, P. & Reay, D. S. Microorganisms and climate change: terrestrial feedbacks and mitigation options. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 8, 779–790 (2010).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Fierer, N. Embracing the unknown: disentangling the complexities of the soil microbiome. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 15, 579–590 (2017).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Guerra, C. A. et al. Tracking, targeting, and conserving soil biodiversity. Science 371, 239–241 (2021).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Fanin, N. et al. Consistent effects of biodiversity loss on multifunctionality across contrasting ecosystems. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 269–278 (2018).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Delgado-Baquerizo, M. et al. Multiple elements of soil biodiversity drive ecosystem functions across biomes. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 210–220 (2020).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Chen, W. et al. Fertility-related interplay between fungal guilds underlies plant richness-productivity relationships in natural grasslands. New Phytol. 226, 1129–1143 (2020).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Semchenko, M. et al. Fungal diversity regulates plant–soil feedbacks in temperate grassland. Sci. Adv. 4, eaau4578 (2018).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kohli, M. et al. Stability of grassland production is robust to changes in the consumer food web. Ecol. Lett. 22, 707–716 (2019).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Liang, M. et al. Soil microbes drive phylogenetic diversity–productivity relationships in a subtropical forest. Sci. Adv. 5, eaax5088 (2019).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Tilman, D., Reich, P. B. & Knops, J. M. H. Biodiversity and ecosystem stability in a decade-long grassland experiment. Nature 441, 629–632 (2006).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Yang, G. W., Wagg, C., Veresoglou, S. D., Hempel, S. & Rillig, M. C. How soil biota drive ecosystem stability. Trends Plant Sci. 23, 1057–1067 (2018).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    de Vries, F. T., Griffiths, R. I., Knight, C. G., Nicolitch, O. & Williams, A. Harnessing rhizosphere microbiomes for drought-resilient crop production. Science 368, 270–274 (2020).PubMed 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Pörtner, H.O. et al. Scientific outcome of the IPBES-IPCC co-sponsored workshop on biodiversity and climate change (IPBES, 2021).Gessner, M. O. et al. Diversity meets decomposition. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 372–380 (2010).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bardgett, R. D. & van der Putten, W. H. Belowground biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Nature 515, 505–511 (2014).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Anthony, M. A. et al. Forest tree growth is linked to mycorrhizal fungal composition and function across Europe. ISME J. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-021-01159-7 (2022).Jia, Y. Y., van der Heijden, M. G. A., Wagg, C., Feng, G. & Walder, F. Symbiotic soil fungi enhance resistance and resilience of an experimental grassland to drought and nitrogen deposition. J. Ecol. 109, 3171–3181 (2020).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Delgado-Baquerizo, M. et al. The proportion of soil-borne pathogens increases with warming at the global scale. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 550–554 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Tedersoo, L., Bahram, M. & Zobel, M. How do mycorrhizal associations drive plant population and community biology? Science 367, eaba1223 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Guo, X. et al. Climate warming leads to divergent succession of grassland microbial communities. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 813–818 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Põlme, S. et al. FungalTraits: a user-friendly traits database of fungi and fungus-like stramenopiles. Fungal Divers. 105, 1–16 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Egidi, E. et al. A few Ascomycota taxa dominate soil fungal communities worldwide. Nat. Commun. 10, 2369 (2019).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Tedersoo, L. et al. Global diversity and geography of soil fungi. Science 346, 1078–1088 (2014).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Delgado-Baquerizo, M. et al. The influence of soil age on ecosystem structure and function across biomes. Nat. Commun. 11, 4721 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Isbell, F. et al. Biodiversity increases the resistance of ecosystem productivity to climate extremes. Nature 526, 574–577 (2015).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Steidinger, B. S. et al. Climatic controls of decomposition drive the global biogeography of forest-tree symbioses. Nature 569, 404–408 (2019).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Wagg, C. et al. Diversity and asynchrony in soil microbial communities stabilizes ecosystem functioning. Elife 10, 3207 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Yang, G. W., Wagg, C., Veresoglou, S. D., Hempel, S. & Rillig, M. C. Plant and soil biodiversity have non-substitutable stabilizing effects on biomass production. Ecol. Lett. 24, 1582–1593 (2021).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Chen, L. T. et al. Above- and belowground biodiversity jointly drive ecosystem stability in natural alpine grasslands on the Tibetan Plateau. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.13307 (2021).Garcia-Palacios, P., Gross, N., Gaitan, J. & Maestre, F. T. Climate mediates the biodiversity-ecosystem stability relationship globally. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 8400–8405 (2018).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Valencia, E. et al. Synchrony matters more than species richness in plant community stability at a global scale. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 24345–24351 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Craven, D. et al. Multiple facets of biodiversity drive the diversity-stability relationship. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1579–1587 (2018).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Naeem, S. & Li, S. B. Biodiversity enhances ecosystem reliability. Nature 390, 507–509 (1997).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hautier, Y. et al. Eutrophication weakens stabilizing effects of diversity in natural grasslands. Nature 508, 521–525 (2014).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Jousset, A., Schmid, B., Scheu, S. & Eisenhauer, N. Genotypic richness and dissimilarity opposingly affect ecosystem performance. Ecol. Lett. 14, 537–624 (2011).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Jiang, L., Pu, Z. & Nemergut, D. R. On the importance of the negative selection effect for the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Oikos 117, 488–493 (2008).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ratzke, C., Barrere, J. & Gore, J. Strength of species interactions determines biodiversity and stability in microbial communities. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 376–383 (2020).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Lekberg, Y. et al. Nitrogen and phosphorus fertilization consistently favor pathogenic over mutualistic fungi in grassland soils. Nat. Commun. 12, 3484 (2021).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bastida, F. et al. Soil microbial diversity–biomass relationships are driven by soil carbon content across global biomes. ISME J. 15, 2081–2091 (2021).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Paruelo, J., Epstein, H. E., Lauenroth, W. K. & Burke, I. C. ANPP estimates from NDVI for the central grassland region of the United States. Ecology 78, 953–958 (1997).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Jobbágy, E. G., Sala, O. E. & Paruelo, J. M. Patterns and controls of primary production in the Patagonian steppe: a remote sensing approach. Ecology 83, 307–319 (2002).
    Google Scholar 
    Oehri, J., Schmid, B., Schaepman-Strub, G. & Niklaus, P. A. Biodiversity promotes primary productivity and growing season lengthening at the landscape scale. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 10160–10165 (2017).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bastos, A., Running, S. W., Gouveia, C. & Trigo, R. M. The global NPP dependence on ENSO: La Niña and the extraordinary year of 2011. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 118, 1247–1255 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Orwin, K. H. & Wardle, D. A. New indices for quantifying the resistance and resilience of soil biota to exogenous disturbances. Soil Biol. Biochem. 36, 1907–1912 (2004).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Frankenberg, C. et al. Prospects for chlorophyll fluorescence remote sensing from the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2. Remote Sens. Environ. 147, 1–12 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sun, Y. et al. Overview of solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence (SIF) from the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2: retrieval, cross-mission comparison, and global monitoring for GPP. Remote Sens. Environ. 209, 808–823 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Zhang, Y., Joiner, J., Alemohammad, S. H., Zhou, S. & Gentine, P. A global spatially contiguous solar-induced fluorescence (CSIF) dataset using neural networks. Biogeosciences 15, 5779–5800 (2018).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Running, S. W. et al. A continuous satellite-derived measure of global terrestrial primary production. Bioscience 54, 547–560 (2004).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Beguería, S. et al. Standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index (SPEI) revisited: parameter fitting, evapotranspiration models, tools, datasets and drought monitoring. Int. J. Climatol. 34, 3001–3023 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Chen, C. et al. China and India lead in greening of the world through land-use management. Nat. Sustain. 2, 122–129 (2019).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Luo, H. et al. Contrasting responses of planted and natural forests to drought intensity in Yunnan, China. Remote Sens. 8, 635 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Harris, I., Jones, P. D., Osborn, T. J. & Lister, D. H. Updated high-resolution grids of monthly climatic observations—the CRU TS3. 10 Dataset. Int. J. Climatol. 34, 623–642 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Allen, R. G. et al. Crop Evapotranspiration: Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements (FAO, 1998); https://www.fao.org/3/x0490e/x0490e00.htmOksanen, J. et al. Vegan: Community Ecology Package (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2013).Legendre, P. et al. Studying beta diversity: ecological variation partitioning by multiple regression and canonical analysis. J. Plant Ecol. 1, 3–8 (2008).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Grömping, U. Relative importance for linear regression in R: the package relaimpo. J. Stat. Softw. 17, 1–27 (2006).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Lefcheck., J. S. piecewiseSEM: piecewise structural equation modelling in R for ecology, evolution, and systematics. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 573–579.Bates, D. et al. lme4: linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. J. Stat. Soft. 67, 1–48 (2014).
    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Animal-vehicle collisions during the COVID-19 lockdown in early 2020 in the Krakow metropolitan region, Poland

    Soulsbury, C. D. & White, P. C. L. Human–wildlife interactions in urban areas: A review of conflicts, benefits and opportunities. Wildl. Res. 42, 541 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Tucker, M. A. et al. Moving in the Anthropocene: Global reductions in terrestrial mammalian movements. Science 359, 466–469 (2018).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Wilson, M. W. et al. Ecological impacts of human-induced animal behaviour change. Ecol. Lett. 23, 1522–1536 (2020).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Silva-Rodríguez, E. A., Gálvez, N., Swan, G. J. F., Cusack, J. J. & Moreira-Arce, D. Urban wildlife in times of COVID-19: What can we infer from novel carnivore records in urban areas?. Sci. Total Environ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142713 (2020).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Joshi, Y. V. & Musalem, A. Lockdowns lose one third of their impact on mobility in a month. Sci Rep 11, 22658 (2021).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Chung, P.-C. & Chan, T.-C. Impact of physical distancing policy on reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2 globally: Perspective from government’s response and residents’ compliance. PLoS ONE 16, e0255873 (2021).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Corlett, R. T. et al. Impacts of the coronavirus pandemic on biodiversity conservation. Biol. Conserv. 246, 108571 (2020).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Connellan, I. The ‘anthropause’ during COVID-19. Cosmos Magazine https://cosmosmagazine.com/nature/animals/the-anthropause-during-covid-19/ (2020).Rutz, C. et al. COVID-19 lockdown allows researchers to quantify the effects of human activity on wildlife. Nat. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-1237-z (2020).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Derryberry, E. P., Phillips, J. N., Derryberry, G. E., Blum, M. J. & Luther, D. Singing in a silent spring: Birds respond to a half-century soundscape reversion during the COVID-19 shutdown. Science 370, 575–579 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Gordo, O., Brotons, L., Herrando, S. & Gargallo, G. Rapid behavioural response of urban birds to COVID-19 lockdown. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 288, 20202513 (2021).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Gaynor, K. M. et al. Anticipating the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on wildlife. Front. Ecol. Environ. 18, 542–543 (2020).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Humphrey, C. Under cover of COVID-19, loggers plunder Cambodian wildlife sanctuary. Mongabay Environmental News https://news.mongabay.com/2020/08/under-cover-of-covid-19-loggers-plunder-cambodian-wildlife-sanctuary/ (2020).Bates, A. E., Primack, R. B., Moraga, P. & Duarte, C. M. COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdown as a “Global Human Confinement Experiment” to investigate biodiversity conservation. Biol. Cons. 248, 108665 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Nickel, B. A., Suraci, J. P., Allen, M. L. & Wilmers, C. C. Human presence and human footprint have non-equivalent effects on wildlife spatiotemporal habitat use. Biol. Cons. 241, 108383 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Zellmer, A. J. et al. What can we learn from wildlife sightings during the COVID-19 global shutdown?. Ecosphere 11, e03215 (2020).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Jägerbrand, A. K., Antonson, H. & Ahlström, C. Speed reduction effects over distance of animal-vehicle collision countermeasures – a driving simulator study. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 10, 40 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Abra, F. D. et al. Pay or prevent? Human safety, costs to society and legal perspectives on animal-vehicle collisions in São Paulo state. Brazil. PLoS One 14, e0215152 (2019).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Canal, D., Martín, B., de Lucas, M. & Ferrer, M. Dogs are the main species involved in animal-vehicle collisions in southern Spain: Daily, seasonal and spatial analyses of collisions. PLoS One 13, e0203693 (2018).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Visintin, C., van der Ree, R. & McCarthy, M. A. Consistent patterns of vehicle collision risk for six mammal species. J. Environ. Manage. 201, 397–406 (2017).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kreling, S. E. S., Gaynor, K. M. & Coon, C. A. C. Roadkill distribution at the wildland-urban interface. J. Wildl. Manag. 83, 1427–1436 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bíl, M. et al. COVID-19 related travel restrictions prevented numerous wildlife deaths on roads: A comparative analysis of results from 11 countries. Biol. Cons. 256, 109076 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Langbein, J., Putman, R. & Pokorny, B. Traffic collisions involving deer and other ungulates in Europe and available measures for mitigation. Ungulate management in Europe: problems and practices 215–259 (2010).Filonchyk, M., Hurynovich, V. & Yan, H. Impact of Covid-19 lockdown on air quality in the Poland, Eastern Europe. Environ. Res. 198, 110454 (2021).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Porębska, A. et al. Lockdown in a disneyfied city: Kraków Old Town and the first wave of the Covid-19 pandemic. Urban Des Int 26, 315–331 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Tarkowski, M., Puzdrakiewicz, K., Jaczewska, J. & Połom, M. COVID-19 lockdown in Poland – changes in regional and local mobility patterns based on Google Maps data. Prace Komisji Geografii Komunikacji PTG 2020, 46–55 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Dean, W. R. J., Seymour, C. L., Joseph, G. S. & Foord, S. H. A review of the impacts of roads on wildlife in semi-arid regions. Diversity 11, 81 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Saint-Andrieux, C., Calenge, C. & Bonenfant, C. Comparison of environmental, biological and anthropogenic causes of wildlife–vehicle collisions among three large herbivore species. Popul. Ecol. 62, 64–79 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Grosman, P. D., Jaeger, J. A. G., Biron, P. M., Dussault, C. & Ouellet, J.-P. Trade-off between road avoidance and attraction by roadside salt pools in moose: An agent-based model to assess measures for reducing moose-vehicle collisions. Ecol. Model. 222, 1423–1435 (2011).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Barbosa, P., Schumaker, N. H., Brandon, K. R., Bager, A. & Grilo, C. Simulating the consequences of roads for wildlife population dynamics. Landsc. Urban Plan. 193, 103672 (2020).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Silva, C., Simões, M. P., Mira, A. & Santos, S. M. Factors influencing predator roadkills: The availability of prey in road verges. J Environ Manage 247, 644–650 (2019).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sullivan, J. M. Trends and characteristics of animal-vehicle collisions in the United States. J. Safety Res. 42, 9–16 (2011).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Morelle, К, Lehaire, F. & Lejeune, P. Spatio-temporal patterns of wildlife-vehicle collisions in a region with a high-density road network. Nature Conservation 5, 53–73 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bartonička, T., Andrášik, R., Duľa, M., Sedoník, J. & Bíl, M. Identification of local factors causing clustering of animal-vehicle collisions. J. Wildl. Manag. 82, 940–947 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Saxena, A., Chatterjee, N., Rajvanshi, A. & Habib, B. Integrating large mammal behaviour and traffic flow to determine traversability of roads with heterogeneous traffic on a Central Indian Highway. Sci Rep 10, 18888 (2020).ADS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Basak, S. M. et al. Human-wildlife conflicts in Krakow City, Southern Poland. Animals 10, 1014 (2020).PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Gil-Fernández, M., Harcourt, R., Newsome, T., Towerton, A. & Carthey, A. Adaptations of the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) to urban environments in Sydney, Australia. J. Urban Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1093/jue/juaa009 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Podgórski, T. et al. Spatiotemporal behavioral plasticity of wild boar (Sus scrofa) under contrasting conditions of human pressure: primeval forest and metropolitan area. J Mammal 94, 109–119 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Steiner, W., Schöll, E. M., Leisch, F. & Hackländer, K. Temporal patterns of roe deer traffic accidents: Effects of season, daytime and lunar phase. PLoS ONE 16, e0249082 (2021).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Cagnacci, F. et al. Partial migration in roe deer: migratory and resident tactics are end points of a behavioural gradient determined by ecological factors. Oikos 120, 1790–1802 (2011).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kämmerle, J.-L. et al. Temporal patterns in road crossing behaviour in roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) at sites with wildlife warning reflectors. PLoS One 12, e0184761 (2017).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Romanowski, J. Vistula river valley as the ecological corridor for mammals. Pol. J. Ecol. 55, 805–819 (2007).
    Google Scholar 
    Abraham, J. O. & Mumma, M. A. Elevated wildlife-vehicle collision rates during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sci Rep 11, 20391 (2021).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Gunson, K. E., Mountrakis, G. & Quackenbush, L. J. Spatial wildlife-vehicle collision models: A review of current work and its application to transportation mitigation projects. J. Environ. Manage. 92, 1074–1082 (2011).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Leblond, M., Dussault, C. & Ouellet, J.-P. Avoidance of roads by large herbivores and its relation to disturbance intensity. J. Zool. 289, 32–40 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bissonette, J. A. & Kassar, C. A. Locations of deer–vehicle collisions are unrelated to traffic volume or posted speed limit. Human-Wildlife Conflicts 2, 122–130 (2008).
    Google Scholar 
    Steiner, W., Leisch, F. & Hackländer, K. A review on the temporal pattern of deer–vehicle accidents: Impact of seasonal, diurnal and lunar effects in cervids. Accid. Anal. Prev. 66, 168–181 (2014).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kušta, T., Keken, Z., Ježek, M., Holá, M. & Šmíd, P. The effect of traffic intensity and animal activity on probability of ungulate-vehicle collisions in the Czech Republic. Saf. Sci. 91, 105–113 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Shilling, F. et al. A Reprieve from US wildlife mortality on roads during the COVID-19 pandemic. Biol. Cons. 256, 109013 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Yasin, Y. J., Grivna, M. & Abu-Zidan, F. M. Global impact of COVID-19 pandemic on road traffic collisions. World J Emerg Surg 16, 51 (2021).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Seiler, A. & Helldin, J. O. Mortality in wildlife due to transportation. In The Ecology of Transportation: Managing Mobility for the Environment (eds Davenport, J. & Davenport, J. L.) (Springer, 2006).
    Google Scholar 
    Smits, R., Bohatkiewicz, J., Bohatkiewicz, J. & Hałucha, M. A Geospatial Multi-scale Level Analysis of the Distribution of Animal-Vehicle Collisions on Polish Highways and National Roads. In Vision Zero for Sustainable Road Safety in Baltic Sea Region (eds Varhelyi, A. et al.) (Springer International Publishing, 2020).
    Google Scholar 
    Sozański, B. et al. Psychological responses and associated factors during the initial stage of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) epidemic among the adult population in Poland – a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health 21, 1929 (2021).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Sidor, A. & Rzymski, P. Dietary choices and habits during COVID-19 lockdown: Experience from Poland. Nutrients 12, E1657 (2020).PubMed 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Vingilis, E. et al. Coronavirus disease 2019: What could be the effects on Road safety?. Accid. Anal. Prev. 144, 105687 (2020).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kioko, J. et al. Driver knowledge and attitudes on animal vehicle collisions in Northern Tanzania. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 8, 352–366 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Stokstad, E. Pandemic lockdown stirs up ecological research. Science 369, 893–893 (2020).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Dandy, N. Behaviour, lockdown and the natural world. Environ. Values 29, 253–259 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Baścik, M. & Degórska, B. Środowisko przyrodnicze Krakowa. Zasoby – Ochrona – Kształtowanie. vol. 2 (2015).Borcard, D., Gillet, F. & Legendre, P. Numerical Ecology with R (Springer, 2011).MATH 
    Book 

    Google Scholar 
    R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna (Austria): R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org/ (2020).Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (Springer-Verlag, 2016).MATH 
    Book 

    Google Scholar 
    Oksanen, J. et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package (2019).Hervé, M. RVAideMemoire: Testing and Plotting Procedures for Biostatistics (2020).Hancock, J. M. Jaccard Distance (Jaccard Index, Jaccard Similarity Coefficient). in Dictionary of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology (American Cancer Society, 2014). https://doi.org/10.1002/9780471650126.dob0956 More