Philippa Kaur

1.Vilà, M. et al. Ecological impacts of invasive alien plants: A meta-analysis of their effects on species, communities and ecosystems. Ecol. Lett. 14, 702–708 (2011).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Pyšek, P. et al. A global assessment of invasive plant impacts on resident species, communities and ecosystems: The interaction of impact measures, invading species’ traits and environment. Glob. Chang. Biol. 18, 1725–1737 (2012).ADS 
PubMed Central 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
3.Barney, J. N., Tekiela, D. R., Dollete, E. S. & Tomasek, B. J. What is the “real” impact of invasive plant species?. Front. Ecol. Environ. 11, 322–329 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.O’Loughlin, L. S., Gooden, B., Barney, J. N. & Lindenmayer, D. B. Surrogacy in invasion research and management: Inferring “impact” from “invasiveness”. Front. Ecol. Environ. 17, 464–473 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Crystal-Ornelas, R. & Lockwood, J. L. The ‘known unknowns’ of invasive species impact measurement. Biol. Invasions https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-020-02200-0 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Foster, C. N. et al. How practitioners integrate decision triggers with existing metrics in conservation monitoring. J. Environ. Manage. 230, 94–101 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Hulme, P. E. Weed risk assessment: A way forward or a waste of time?. J. Appl. Ecol. 49, 10–19 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Meyerson, L. A., Simberloff, D., Boardman, L. & Lockwood, J. L. Toward, “rules” for studying biological invasions. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Am. 100, 1689–1699 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Hulme, P. E. et al. Bias and error in understanding plant invasion impacts. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 212–218 (2013).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Bradley, B. A. et al. Disentangling the abundance–impact relationship for invasive species. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 116, 9919–9924 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Panetta, F. D. & Gooden, B. Managing for biodiversity: Impact and action thresholds for invasive plants in natural ecosystems. NeoBiota 34, 53–66 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Gooden, B., French, K., Turner, P. J. & Downey, P. O. Impact threshold for an alien plant invader, Lantana camara L., on native plant communities. Biol. Conserv. 142, 2631–2641 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Bernard-Verdier, M. & Hulme, P. E. Alien plants can be associated with a decrease in local and regional native richness even when at low abundance. J. Ecol. 107, 1343–1354 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Panetta, F. D., O’Loughlin, L. S. & Gooden, B. Identifying thresholds and ceilings in plant community recovery for optimal management of widespread weeds. NeoBiota 42, 1–18 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Sofaer, H. R., Jarnevich, C. S. & Pearse, I. S. The relationship between invader abundance and impact. Ecosphere 9, e02415 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Gooden, B. & French, K. Impacts of alien plant invasion on native plant communities are mediated by functional identity of resident species, not resource availability. Oikos 124, 298–306 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Fried, G. & Panetta, F. D. Comparing an exotic shrub’s impact with that of a native life form analogue: Baccharis halimifolia vs Tamarix gallica in Mediterranean salt marsh communities. J. Veg. Sci. 27, 812–823 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Chabrerie, O., Loinard, J., Perrin, S., Saguez, R. & Decocq, G. Impact of Prunus serotina invasion on understory functional diversity in a European temperate forest. Biol. Invasions 12, 1891–1907 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.O’Loughlin, L. S., Green, P. T. & Morgan, J. W. The rise and fall of Leptospermum laevigatum: Plant community change associated with the invasion and senescence of a range-expanding native species. Appl. Veg. Sci. 18, 323–331 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Case, E. J., Harrison, S. & Cornell, H. V. Do high-impact invaders have the strongest negative effects on abundant and functionally similar resident species?. Funct. Ecol. 30, 1447–1453 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.González-Moreno, P., Diez, J. M., Ibáñez, I., Font, X. & Vilà, M. Plant invasions are context-dependent: Multiscale effects of climate, human activity and habitat. Divers. Distrib. 20, 720–731 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Jauni, M., Gripenberg, S. & Ramula, S. Non-native plant species benefit from disturbance: A meta-analysis. Oikos https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.01416 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Gill, R. A. et al. Niche opportunities for invasive annual plants in dryland ecosystems are controlled by disturbance, trophic interactions, and rainfall. Oecologia 187, 1–11 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Didham, R. K., Tylianakis, J. M., Gemmell, N. J., Rand, T. A. & Ewers, R. M. Interactive effects of habitat modification and species invasion on native species decline. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 489–496 (2007).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Sokol, N. W., Kuebbing, S. E. & Bradford, M. A. Impacts of an invasive plant are fundamentally altered by a co-occurring forest disturbance. Ecology 98, 2133–2144 (2017).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Iacarella, J. C., Mankiewicz, P. S. & Ricciardi, A. Negative competitive effects of invasive plants change with time since invasion. Ecosphere 6, 1–14 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.McAlpine, K. G., Lamoureaux, S. L. & Westbrooke, I. Ecological impacts of ground cover weeds in New Zealand lowland forests. N. Z. J. Ecol. 39, 50–60 (2015).
Google Scholar 
28.MacDougall, A. S. & Turkington, R. Are invasive species drivers or passengers of change in degraded ecosystems?. Ecology 86, 42–55 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Didham, R. K., Tylianakis, J. M., Hutchison, M. A., Ewers, R. M. & Gemmell, N. J. Are invasive species the drivers of ecological change?. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20, 470–474 (2005).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Kettenring, K. M. & Adams, C. R. Lessons learned from invasive plant control experiments: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Appl. Ecol. 48, 970–979 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.D’Antonio, C. & Flory, S. L. Long-term dynamics and impacts of plant invasions. J. Ecol. 105, 1459–1461 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Prober, S. M., Thiele, K. R. & Speijers, J. Competing drivers lead to non-linear native: Exotic relationships in endangered temperate grassy woodlands. Biol. Invasions 18, 3001–3014 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Alvarez, M. E. & Cushman, J. H. Community-level consequences of a plant invasion: Effects on three habitats in Coastal California. Ecol. Appl. 12, 1434 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Standish, R. J., Robertson, A. W. & Williams, P. A. The impact of an invasive weed Tradescantia fluminensis on native forest regeneration. J. Appl. Ecol. 38, 1253–1263 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Zeeman, B. J., McDonnell, M. J., Kendal, D. & Morgan, J. W. Biotic homogenization in an increasingly urbanized temperate grassland ecosystem. J. Veg. Sci. 28, 550–561 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Hejda, M. Do species of invaded communities differ in their vulnerability to being eliminated by the dominant alien plants?. Biol. Invasions 15, 1989–1999 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Hejda, M., Štajerová, K., Pergl, J. & Pyšek, P. Impacts of dominant plant species on trait composition of communities: Comparison between the native and invaded ranges. Ecosphere 10, 20 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Kuebbing, S. E. & Nuñez, M. A. Negative, neutral, and positive interactions among nonnative plants: Patterns, processes, and management implications. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 926–934 (2015).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
39.O’Loughlin, L. S. et al. Invasive shrub re-establishment following management has contrasting effects on biodiversity. Sci. Rep. 9, 4083 (2019).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
40.Grime, J. P. Competitive Exclusion in Herbaceous Vegetation. Nature 242, 344–347 (1973).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Connell, J. H. Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs. Science 199, 1302–1310 (1978).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Barney, J. N., Smith, L. L. & Tekiela, D. R. Weed risk assessments can be useful, but have limitations. Invasions Plant Sci. Manage. 9, 84–85 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Dugdale, T., McLaren, D. & Conran, J. The biology of Australian weeds 65. ‘Tradescantia fluminensis’ Vell. Plant Prot. Q. 30, 116 (2015).
Google Scholar 
44.Fowler, S. V. et al. Tradescantia fluminensis, an exotic weed affecting native forest regeneration in New Zealand: Ecological surveys, safety tests and releases of four biocontrol agents from Brazil. Biol. Control 64, 323–329 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Morin L. Information package to support application to release the white smut-like fungus Kordyana brasiliensis for the biological control of wandering trad (Tradescantia fluminensis) in Australia. (CSIRO, Australia, 2017).46.CABI. Tradescantia fluminensis (wandering Jew). In Invasive Species Compendium (2019).47.Butcher, E. R. & Kelly, D. Physical and anthropogenic factors predict distribution of the invasive weed Tradescantia fluminensis. Austral. Ecol. 36, 621–627 (2011).
Google Scholar 
48.Standish, R. J. et al. Invasion by a perennial herb increases decomposition rate and alters nutrient availability in warm temperate lowland forest remnants. Biol. Invasions. 6, 71–81 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Toft, R. J., Harris, R. J. & Williams, P. A. Impacts of the weed Tradescantia fluminensis on insect communities in fragmented forests in New Zealand. Biol. Conserv. 102, 31–46 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Bureau of Meteorology. Climate Data Online. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/index.shtm (2020).51.Maisey, A. C., Nimmo, D. G. & Bennett, A. F. Habitat selection by the Superb Lyrebird (Menura novaehollandiae), an iconic ecosystem engineer in forests of south-eastern Australia. Austral. Ecol. 44, 503–513 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Incoll, B., Maisey, A. & Adam, J. T. years of forest restoration in the Upwey Corridor, Dandenong Ranges, Victoria. Ecol. Manage. Restor. 19, 189–197 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Gooden, B. & French, K. Non-interactive effects of plant invasion and landscape modification on native communities. Divers. Distrib. 20, 626–639 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Mason, T. J. & French, K. Management regimes for a plant invader differentially impact resident communities. Biol. Conserv. 136, 246–259 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Sullivan, J. J., Timmins, S. M. & Williams, P. A. Movement of exotic plants into coastal native forests from gardens in northern New Zealand. N. Z. J. Ecol. 29, 1–10 (2005).
Google Scholar 
56.R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (2019).57.Zuur, A., Ieno, E., Walker, N., Saveliev, A. & Smith, G. Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R (Springer, 2009).MATH 
Book 

Google Scholar  More

1.Lindner, M. et al. Climate change impacts, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability of European forest ecosystems. For. Ecol. Manag. 259, 698–709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.09.023 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Gamfeldt, L. et al. Higher levels of multiple ecosystem services are found in forests with more tree species. Nat. Commun. 4, 8. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms2328 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Van Meerbeek, K., Jucker, T. & Svenning, J.-C. Unifying the concepts of stability and resilience in ecology. J. Ecol. 109, 3114–3132. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13651 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.FAO and UNEP. The State of the World’s Forests (SOFO). (FAO and UNEP, 2020).5.Forest Europe. State of Europe’s Forests 2015. Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe. www.foresteurope.org. (Forest Europe, 2015).6.Matthews, J. D. Silvicultural Systems (Oxford University Press, 1991).
Google Scholar 
7.Chaudhary, A., Burivalova, Z., Koh, L. P. & Hellweg, S. Impact of forest management on species richness: Global meta-analysis and economic trade-offs. Sci. Rep. 6, 10. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep23954 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Gustafsson, L., Kouki, J. & Sverdrup-Thygeson, A. Tree retention as a conservation measure in clear-cut forests of northern Europe: A review of ecological consequences. Scand. J. For. Res. 25, 295–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2010.497495 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Raymond, P., Bédard, S., Roy, V., Larouche, C. & Tremblay, S. The irregular shelterwood system: Review, classification, and potential application to forests affected by partial disturbances. J. For. 107, 405–413 (2009).
Google Scholar 
10.Csépányi, P. & Csór, A. Economic assessment of European beech and Turkey oak stands with close-to-nature forest management. Acta Silvat. Lignar. Hung. 13, 9–24 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Ebeling, A. et al. Plant Diversity Impacts Decomposition and Herbivory via Changes in Aboveground Arthropods. PLoS ONE 9, 8. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106529 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Chen, B. R. & Wise, D. H. Bottom-up limitation of predaceous arthropods in a detritus-based terrestrial food web. Ecology 80, 761–772. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[0761:Bulopa]2.0.Co;2 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Zuev, A. et al. Different groups of ground-dwelling spiders share similar trophic niches in temperate forests. Ecol. Entomol. 45, 1346–1356. https://doi.org/10.1111/een.12918 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Moulder, B. C. & Reichle, D. E. Significance of Spider Predation in the Energy Dynamics of Forest-Floor Arthropod Communities. Ecol. Monogr. 42, 473–498. https://doi.org/10.2307/1942168 (1972).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Lawrence, K. L. & Wise, D. H. Unexpected indirect effect of spiders on the rate of litter disappearance in a deciduous forest. Pedobiologia 48, 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedobi.2003.11.001 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Oxbrough, A. & Ziesche, T. Spiders in Forest Ecoystems. In Integrative approaches as an opportunity for the conservation of forest biodiversity (eds Kraus, D. & Krumm, F.) 186–193 (European Forest Institute, 2013).
Google Scholar 
17.Clarke, R. D. & Grant, P. R. An experimental study of the role of spiders as predators in a forest litter community. Part 1. Ecology 49, 1152–1154. https://doi.org/10.2307/1934499 (1968).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Wermelinger, B. et al. Impact of windthrow and salvage-logging on taxonomic and functional diversity of forest arthropods. For. Ecol. Manag. 391, 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.01.033 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Gallé, R., Szabó, A., Császár, P. & Torma, A. Spider assemblage structure and functional diversity patterns of natural forest steppes and exotic forest plantations. For. Ecol. Manag. 411, 234–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2018.01.040 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Buddle, C. M., Langor, D. W., Pohl, G. R. & Spence, J. R. Arthropod responses to harvesting and wildfire: Implications for emulation of natural disturbance in forest management. Biol. Cons. 128, 346–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.10.002 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Oxbrough, A. G., Gittings, T., O’Halloran, J., Giller, P. S. & Smith, G. F. Structural indicators of spider communities across the forest plantation cycle. For. Ecol. Manag. 212, 171–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.03.040 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Ingle, K. et al. Winter-active spider fauna is affected by plantation forest type. Env. Entomol. 49, 601–606. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvaa025 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Munevar, A., Rubio, G. D. & Zurita, G. A. Changes in spider diversity through the growth cycle of pine plantations in the semi-deciduous Atlantic forest: The role of prey availability and abiotic conditions. For. Ecol. Manag. 424, 536–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2018.03.025 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Matveinen-Huju, K. & Koivula, M. Effects of alternative harvesting methods on boreal forest spider assemblages. Can. J. For. Res. 38, 782–794. https://doi.org/10.1139/x07-169 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Buddle, C. M. & Shorthouse, D. P. Effects of experimental harvesting on spider (Araneae) assemblages in boreal deciduous forests. Can. Entomol. 140, 437–452 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Kovács, B., Tinya, F., Németh, C. & Ódor, P. Unfolding the effects of different forestry treatments on microclimate in oak forests: results of a 4-yr experiment. Ecol. Appl. 30, e02043. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2043 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
27.Kovács, B. et al. The Short-Term Effects of Experimental Forestry Treatments on Site Conditions in an Oak-Hornbeam Forest. Forests 9, 406 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Pommerening, A. & Murphy, S. T. A review of the history, definitions and methods of continuous cover forestry with special attention to afforestation and restocking. Forestry 77, 27–44. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/77.1.27 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Tinya, F. et al. Initial understory response to experimental silvicultural treatments in a temperate oak-dominated forest. Eur. J. For. Res. 138, 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-018-1154-8 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Tinya, F. et al. Initial regeneration success of tree species after different forestry treatments in a sessile oak-hornbeam forest. For. Ecol. Manag. 459, 117810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2019.117810 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Boros, G., Kovács, B. & Ódor, P. Green tree retention enhances negative short-term effects of clear-cutting on enchytraeid assemblages in a temperate forest. Appl. Soil Ecol. 136, 106–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2018.12.018 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Elek, Z. et al. Taxon-specific responses to different forestry treatments in a temperate forest. Sci. Rep. 8, 16990. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-35159-z (2018).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
33.Connell, J. H. Intermediate-disturbance hypothesis. Science 204, 1345–1345 (1979).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Chen, K. C. & Tso, I. M. Spider diversity on Orchid Island, Taiwan: A comparison between habitats receiving different degrees of human disturbance. Zool. Stud. 43, 598–611 (2004).
Google Scholar 
35.Szinetar, C. & Samu, F. Intensive grazing opens spider assemblage to invasion by disturbance-tolerant species. J. Arachnol. 40, 59–70 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Pinzon, J., Spence, J. R. & Langor, D. W. Responses of ground-dwelling spiders (Araneae) to variable retention harvesting practices in the boreal forest. For. Ecol. Manag. 266, 42–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2011.10.045 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Pinzon, J., Spence, J. R. & Langor, D. W. Effects of prescribed burning and harvesting on ground-dwelling spiders in the Canadian boreal mixedwood forest. Biodivers. Conserv. 22, 1513–1536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-013-0489-1 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Samu, F. et al. Differential ecological responses of two generalist arthropod groups, spiders and carabid beetles (Araneae, Carabidae), to the effects of wildfire. Commun. Ecol. 11, 129–139. https://doi.org/10.1556/ComEc.11.2010.2.1 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Morel, L. et al. Spontaneous recovery of functional diversity and rarity of ground-living spiders shed light on the conservation importance of recent woodlands. Biodivers. Conserv. 28, 687–709. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-018-01687-3 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Seedre, M., Felton, A. & Lindbladh, M. What is the impact of continuous cover forestry compared to clearcut forestry on stand-level biodiversity in boreal and temperate forests? A systematic review protocol. Env. Evid. 7, 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-018-0138-y (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Garcia-Tejero, S., Spence, J. R., O’Halloran, J., Bourassa, S. & Oxbrough, A. Natural succession and clearcutting as drivers of environmental heterogeneity and beta diversity in North American boreal forests. PLoS ONE 13, 16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0206931 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Andrési, D., Bali, L., Tuba, K. & Szinetár, C. Comparative study of ground beetle and ground-dwelling spider assemblages of artificial gap openings. Commun. Ecol. 19, 133–140. https://doi.org/10.1556/168.2018.19.2.5 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Arganaraz, C. I. et al. Ground-dwelling spiders and understory vascular plants on Fuegian austral forests: Community responses to variable retention management and their association to natural ecosystems. For. Ecol. Manag. 474, 12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118375 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Dorow, W. H. O., Blick, T., Pauls, S. U. & Schneider, A. Waldbindung ausgewählter Tiergruppen Deutschlands (BfN-Skripten 544, 2019).
Google Scholar 
45.Szmatona-Túri, T., Magos, G., Vona-Túri, D., Gál, B. & Weiperth, A. Review of habitats occupied by Urocoras longispinus: A little-known spider species, and responses to grassland management. Biologia 73, 523–529. https://doi.org/10.2478/s11756-018-0061-2 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Haraguchi, T. F., Uchida, M., Shibata, Y. & Tayasu, I. Contributions of detrital subsidies to aboveground spiders during secondary succession, revealed by radiocarbon and stable isotope signatures. Oecologia 171, 935–944. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-012-2446-1 (2013).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
47.Carvalho, J. C. et al. Taxonomic divergence and functional convergence in Iberian spider forest communities: Insights from beta diversity partitioning. J. Biogeogr. 47, 288–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.13722 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Samu, F., Horváth, A., Neidert, D., Botos, E. & Szita, É. Metacommunities of spiders in grassland habitat fragments of an agricultural landscape. Basic Appl. Ecol. 31, 92–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2018.07.009 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Frost, C. M., Didham, R. K., Rand, T. A., Peralta, G. & Tylianakis, J. M. Community-level net spillover of natural enemies from managed to natural forest. Ecology 96, 193–202. https://doi.org/10.1890/14-0696.1 (2015).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
50.Stewart-Oaten, A., Murdoch, W. W. & Parker, K. R. Environmental impact assessment: “pseudoreplication” in time?. Ecology 67, 929–940. https://doi.org/10.2307/1939815 (1986).Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Lemmon, P. E. A new instrument for measuring forest overstory density. J. For. 55, 667–668 (1957).
Google Scholar 
52.Jimenez-Valverde, A. & Lobo, J. M. Establishing reliable spider (Araneae, Araneidae and Thomisidae) assemblage sampling protocols: estimation of species richness, seasonal coverage and contribution of juvenile data to species richness and composition. Acta Oecol. 30, 21–32 (2006).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
53.SAS Institute. JMP Statistics and Graphics Guide, Release 6. (SAS Institute Inc., 2005).54.Smilauer, P. & Leps, J. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data Using CANOCO 5 2nd edn. (Cambridge University Press, 2014).Book 

Google Scholar 
55.ter Braak, C. J. F. & Smilauer, P. Canoco Reference Manual and User’s Guide: Software for Ordination (version 5.0) (Microcomputer Power, 2012).
Google Scholar 
56.McCune, B. & Mefford, M. PC-ORD. Multivariate Analysis ofEcological Data. Version 6. (MjM software design, 2011).57.Van den Brink, P. J. & Braak, C. J. F. T. Principal response curves: Analysis of time-dependent multivariate responses of biological community to stress. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 18, 138–148. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620180207 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Weiher, E. & Boylen, C. W. Patterns and prediction of α and β diversity of aquatic plants in Adirondack (New York) lakes. Can. J. Bot. 72, 1797–1804. https://doi.org/10.1139/b94-221 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Koleff, P., Gaston, K. J. & Lennon, J. J. Measuring beta diversity for presence-absence data. J. Anim. Ecol. 72, 367–382. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2656.2003.00710.x (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Podani, J. & Schmera, D. A new conceptual and methodological framework for exploring and explaining pattern in presence—absence data. Oikos 120, 1625–1638. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2011.19451.x (2011).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Bacterial strains isolation and identificationFifty six bacterial cultures were isolated from both management systems (G1 and G2) of mango orchards (rhizosphere) at CISH, Lucknow, India. Isolation of microorganisms using spread plate methods revealed that the Nutrient agar medium had the highest number of colony appearances compared to the Rose Bengal Agar medium. Microbial enumeration showed organic system enriched with higher bacterial and fungal population than conventional system (Fig. 1). From organic system, thirty seven bacteria were isolated out of which, twenty-three isolates were (G+), and fourteen were (G−). While, in the conventional system, nineteen bacteria were isolated, out of which fifteen were (G+) and four were (G−) isolates.Figure 1Comparative microbial enumeration of organic and conventional treated mango rhizosphere soil the CFU mL−1 of selected samples showing growth of fungus and bacterial populations under two different treatments i.e. organic and conventional. The results are the average of five replicates (n = 5), with bars representing standard error. Significant differences based on the analysis variance (ANOVA) are shown by different letters above the error bars, followed by the post hoc DMRT test (p ≤ 0.05) using the software SPSS.Full size imagePlant growth promotion propertiesFor plant growth promotory properties out of fifty-six bacterial isolates total, ten bacterial cultures (2, 3, 4, 8, 15, 23 and 31) from the organic system showed positive results for phosphate solubilization. In contrast, three bacterial cultures (I1, I8 and I9) from the inorganic system (conventional system) showed positive phosphate solubilization in Pikovaskya’s agar medium. For siderophore production, bacterial cultures (2, 3, 4, 8, 12 and 26) from the organic system showed positive results, while four bacterial cultures (I1, I6, I8 and I9) inorganic system showed positive results. Bacterial cultures (2, 3, 4 and 8) from the organic system showed positive results for K-solubilization, while five bacterial cultures (I1, I2, I7, I8 and I9) from the inorganic system showed positive K-solubilization. A total of ten isolates (7 from organic and 3 from the inorganic system) possessed Zn-solubilizing activity. The test isolated from the organic system showed better Zn (ZnO), Zn3 (PO4)2, and (ZnCO3) solubilization as compared to test culture isolated from the inorganic system (Supplementary S1.8).Acetylene reduction assay (ARA)Results from acetylene reduction assay showed in aerophilic condition, bacterial isolates 1, 3, 4 (from organic treated soil) and I1, I8 and I9 (conventional system) showed 134.8, 37.70, 36.73, 13.15, 16.70 and 12.87 ppm of ethylene tube−1 h−1, respectively. In case of microaerophilic condition, bacterial isolates 4, 9, I9 showed 24.17, 19.14, and 12.71 ppm ethylene, respectively. Results indicate possible use of these bacterial isolates as a bioinoculant agent for horticultural crops, especially mango and other subtropical climate fruit crops.Soil enzymatic studyThe soil enzymatic activity in the organic system (G1) showed better dehydrogenase activity than the conventional system (G2). For both methods, alkaline phosphatase almost showed similar activity (at pH 11), while in the case of acid phosphatase showed better activity in the inorganic system (G2) as compared to the organic system (G1) at pH level 6.5 (Fig. 2). The dehydrogenase enzyme oxidizes the organic matter, and it belongs to the oxidoreductase type of enzyme. In the process of respiration of soil microorganisms, the dehydrogenase enzyme facilitates the transfer of protons and electrons from the substrate to the acceptor. It was significant to observe that the dehydrogenase activity was higher in organic treated soils (0.784 µg TPF g−1 h−1) than in conventional system (0.053 µg TPF g−1 h−1).Figure 2Comparative soil enzymes activities of conventional and organic treated mango rhizosphere soil the dehydrogenase, acid phosphatase and alkaline phosphatase activities were showing in µg TPF formed g−1 of soil h−1 and µg PNP g−1 soil h−1 respectively. The results are the average of five replicates (n = 5), with bars representing standard error. Significant differences based on the analysis variance (ANOVA) are shown by different letters above the error bars, followed by the post hoc DMRT test (p ≤ 0.05) using the software SPSS.Full size imageAlpha biodiversity with samples and rarefaction curvesIn this segment, by measuring Shannon, Chao1, and observed species metrics, we analyze the microbial diversity within the samples. The chao1 metric measures the richness of the ecosystem, while the Shannon metric is the formula for calculating reported OTU abundances and accounts for both prosperity and equality. The rarefaction curve is provided in Fig. 3 for each metric. Using QIIME software, the metric measurement was done. The impact of both treatments on the microbial complexity and abundance in the sample was also revealed using the Shannon diversity Index (depicting richness and evenness) and Chao 1 representing only richness. Shannon’s diversity index of the bacterial community in the treatment (G1 and G2) was 8.06 and 8.12. The Simpson index in ecology is used to quantify biological diversity in a region, which was also nearly similar in both the treatments. Chao 1 richness estimator showed an increase in species richness. Rarefaction analysis conducted to confirm species richness revealed a difference in the number of reads and OTUs between the samples. The Rare fraction curve had a similar pattern for both samples and showed an impact on the bacterial population in the experiment (Fig. 3a–c).Figure 3Shanon (a), Chao1 (b) curves and observed species (c) obtained for the samples (G1 and G2).Full size imageBacterial diversity analysis at phyla levelTaxonomic study of the 16S rRNA gene amplicon reads yielded seven classifiable bacterial phyla. Six phyla, namely Acidobacteria, Actinobacteria, Bacteroides, Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, and Chloroflexi were dominant in both the systems. The Organically treated soil (G1) sample harbored a higher percentage of Bacteroidetes (14.55%), Actinobacteria (7.45%), and Proteobacteria (10.82%) as compared to conventional treatment (G2) 8.98%, 5.71%, and 6.64%, respectively. However, phylum Acidobacteria(13.6%), Firmicutes(4.84%), and Chloroflexi (2.56) were higher abundance in conventional treatment as compared to the organic treatment, which showed the same phyla with lesser quantity, i.e., 5.63%, 0.91%, and 0.79% respectively (Fig. 4a).Figure 4Comparative microbiome (a-phylum and b-order) analysis of organic (G1) and conventional (G2) treated mango orchards soil by using metagenomic (V3 and V4 region) approach.Full size imageDistribution of bacterial community at order levelThe bacterial orders in both systems were diversified. The most abundant orders in organic and conventional systems were Chitinophagales (Organic-11.32%, Conventional-43%), Elev-16S-573 (Organic-3.09%, Conventional-8.69%), Pedosphaerales (Organic-1.56%, Conventional-3.55%), Opitutales (Organic-2.46%, Conventional-0.27%), Chthoniobacterales (Organic-1.35%, Conventional-2.84%), Bacillales (Organic-0.91%, Conventional-4.84%) and Solibacterales (Organic-1.39%, Conventional-2.26%) (Fig. 4b).Bacterial community distribution at family levelBacterial family members were identified and enriched including Pedosphaeraceae (O-1.56%, C-3.55%), Opitutaceae (O-2.46%, C-0.27%), Chthoniobacteraceae (O-1.03%, C-2.68%), Steroidobacteraceae (O-2.05%, C-0.73%), Bacillaceae (O-0.77%, C-4.55%), Chitinophagaceae (O-10.99%, C-5.06%), and Xanthomonadaceae (O-1.39%, C-0.06%) and other families (Fig. 5a).Figure 5Comparative microbiome (a-family and b-genus) analysis of organic (G1) and conventional (G2) treated mango orchards soil by using metagenomic (V3 and V4 region) approach.Full size imageBacterial community distribution at the genus levelComparative abundance of unidentified genus in organic system were uncultured soil bacterium, Glycomyces, Chitinophaga, Lysobacter, Udaeobacter, Bacillus (not detected, 1.85%, 4.77%, 1.19%,1.03% and 0.75% respectively) whereas same genus-group were observed in conventional system with different percentage i.e., 0.11%, not detected, 0.56%, 0.04%, 2.67%, 4.54% respectively (Fig. 5b).Bacterial communities at species levelBecause most of the species were unidentified and uncultured bacterium based on relative abundance, they could not be assigned a species name in either sample. Few species are identified in both systems, like Sphingomonas sp. (O-1.57%, C-1.05%), Bacillus drentensis (O-0.25%, C-2.65%), and Chitinophaga sp. (O-4.64%, C-0.11%) (Fig. 6).Figure 6Comparative microbiome (Species) analysis of organic (G1) and conventional (G2) treated mango orchards soil by using metagenomic (V3 and V4 regions) approach.Full size imageHeat map and PCA analysisUnder long-term exposure of organic and conventional treatments, a microbial shift was observed in the rhizosphere microbiome of mango orchards. Based on percent abundance, nine different microbial genera Acidobacteria, Actinobacteria, Bacteroidetes and Proteobacteria formed Cluster I. While, Firmicutes, Chloroflexi and Opitutales were abundances in cluster II. Cluster III includes Chitinobacterales, Bacillales, Chitinophagarales and Otherales genera. Whereas cluster IV (Elev7-16S-573, Otherales, Solibacterales and Pedobacteriaceae), cluster V (Opitutaceae, Chitnobacteraceae, Bacillaceae, Chitinophagaceae and Otherales), cluster VI (Xanthomonadaceae, Uncultured soil bacterium, Candidatus-Udaeobacter, Lysobacter and Bacillus), cluster VII (Chitinophaga, Glycomyces and Other), cluster VIII (Uncultured bacterium and Others) and cluster IX (Bacillus drentensis and Others) (Fig. 7). The cluster I observed with the highest abundance was closely related to clusters II and III. Cluster IV to IX created large groups and is distantly related to cluster I to III of the microbial groups in organic and conventional systems (Fig. 7). In the organic system (G1), microbial groups like Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, Bacteroidetes, and Opitutaceae were largely dominated and provided benefits to the mango rhizosphere in terms of nutrient availability, plant growth promotion, and protection against biotic and abiotic stress. Phylum Proteobacteria and Actinobacteria are closely linked with the rhizosphere and identified as potential PGPR. Acidobacteria and firmicutes, on the other hand, were dominated primarily by conventional systems and serve as a bio-indicator of anthropogenic stress caused by excessive chemical fertilizer application. Undefined Acidobacteria is oligotrophic in nature and considered as an indicator of low organic carbon and acidic environment. To desire higher productivity, the indiscriminate use of chemical fertilizers or pesticides in conventional systems leads to low nutrient availability, microbial shift, less PGPR, and developing the environment for Acidobacteria, Firmicutes and Chloroflexia group of microorganisms. Principal component analysis (PCA) was performed for both systems (organic-component 1; conventional-component 2). The total variables of principal component analysis were the percentage of different parameters such as alkaline phosphatase, acid phosphatase, DHA, Acetylene reduction assay (ARA1, ARA2, ARA3), and CFU mL−1 (bacteria and fungi). The results of PCA yielded two components that explained 100% of the total variance in the data and had an Eigen value of 6.1 for component 1. In contrast, 1.8 for component 2 and together they described 100% of the total variance in the data (Fig. 8). In the organic system, the loading factor with score plot indicates that component-1 is positively associated with DHA, ARA1, ARA2, alkaline phosphatase, acid phosphatase while negatively correlated with CFU ARA3 activity. Component-1 explains the 76.42% variance of the experimental data, while component-2 explains 23.58%. The second component (PC2) represents the positive association with DHA, ARA1, ARA2, ARA3 activity, and CFU while negatively correlated with alkaline phosphatase and acid phosphatase. In the conventional system, the loading factor with score plot indicates that component-1 is positively associated with single variable acid phosphatise while negatively correlated with DHA, ARA1, ARA2, ARA3, CFU, and alkaline phosphatase activity. The second component (PC2) of the conventional system showed positive association with DHA, ARA1, ARA2, ARA3 activity, and CFU, while the negative association with alkaline phosphatase and acid phosphatase.Figure 7Comparative (G1 organic and G2 conventional) heat map of dominant microbial diversity and their clusters in terms of T1 (phylum), T2 (order), T3 (family), T4 (Genus) and T5 (Species).Full size imageFigure 8PCA analysis of different parameters for organic and conventional systems.Full size image More

1.Junk, W. J., Bayley, P. B. & Sparks, R. E. The flood pulse concept in river-floodplain systems. In D. P. Dodge [ed.] Proceedings of the International Large River Symposium, Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 106, 110-127 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights//water_issues/programs/bay_delta/docs/cmnt081712/sldmwa/junketal1989.pdf (1989).2.Karpack, M. N., Morrison, R. R. & McManamay, R. A. Quantitative assessment of floodplain functionality using an index of integrity. Ecological Indicators 111, 106051, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.106051 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Costanza, R. et al. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change 26, 152–158, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Wohl, E., Lane, S. N. & Wilcox, A. C. The science and practice of river restoration. Water Resources Research 51, 5974–5997, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR016874 (2015).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Hamilton, S. K. Wetlands of Large Rivers: Flood plains. Encyclopedia of Inland Waters 607-610 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012370626-3.00065-X (2009).6.Opperman, J. J., Luster, R., McKenney, B. A., Roberts, M. & Meadows, A. W. Ecologically functional floodplains: connectivity, flow regime, and scale. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 46, 211–226, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2010.00426.x (2010).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Waltham, N. J. et al. Lost floodplain wetland environments and efforts to restore connectivity, habitat, and water quality settings on the great barrier reef. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 71, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00071 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Tockner, K. & Stanford, J. A. Review of: riverine flood plains: present state and future trends. Biological Sciences Faculty Publications 29, 166 https://scholarworks.umt.edu/biosci_pubs/166 (2002).9.Erwin, K. L. Wetlands and global climate change: the role of wetland restoration in a changing world. Wetlands Ecology and Management 17, 71, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-008-9119-1 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Johnson, K. A. et al. A benefit-cost analysis of floodplain land acquisition for US flood damage reduction. Nat Sustain 3, 56–62, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0437-5 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Quinn, N. et al. The spatial dependence of flood hazard and risk in the United States. Water Resources Research 55, 1890–1911, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR024205 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Pinter, N. One step forward, two steps back on U.S. floodplains. Science 308(5719), 207–208 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/308/5719/207 (2005).13.Kousky, C. & Walls, M. Floodplain conservation as a flood mitigation strategy: examining costs and benefits. Ecological Economics 104, 119–128, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.05.001 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Tullos, D. Opinion: how to achieve better flood-risk governance in the United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 115(15), 3731–3734, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1722412115 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
15.Kundzewicz, Z. W., Hegger, D. L. T., Matczak, P. & Driessen, P. P. J. Opinion: flood-risk reduction: structural measures and diverse strategies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 115(49), 12321–12325, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1818227115 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
16.Lambin, E. F., Geist, H. J. & Lepers, E. Dynamics of land-use and land-cover change in tropical regions. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 28, 205–241, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.28.050302.105459 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Entwistle, N. S., Heritage, G. L., Schofield, L. A. & Williamson, R. J. Recent changes to floodplain character and functionality in England. Catena 174, 490–498, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2018.11.018 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Dewan, A. M. & Yamaguchi, Y. Land use and land cover change in Greater Dhaka, Bangladesh: using remote sensing to promote sustainable urbanization. Applied Geography 29, 390–401, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2008.12.005 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Amoateng, P., Finlayson, C. M., Howard, J. & Wilson, B. Dwindling rivers and floodplains in Kumasi, Ghana: a socio-spatial analysis of the extent and trend. Applied Geography 90, 82–95, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2017.11.007 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Rabalais, N. N., Turner, R. E. & Wiseman, W. J. Jr. Gulf of Mexico hypoxia, a.k.a. “the dead zone. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33, 235–263, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.33.010802.150513 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Wohl, E. An integrative conceptualization of floodplain storage. Reviews of Geophysics 59, e2020RG000724, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020RG000724 (2021).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Scott, D. T., Gomez-Velez, J. D., Jones, C. N. & Harvey, J. W. Floodplain inundation spectrum across the United States. Nat. Commun. 10, 5194, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-13184-4 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
23.Hattermann, F. F. et al. Climatological drivers of changes in flood hazard in Germany. Acta Geophysica 61, 463–477, https://doi.org/10.2478/s11600-012-0070-4 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Mallakpour, I. & Villarini, G. The changing nature of flooding across the central United States. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 250–254, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2516 (2015).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Corvalán, C., Hales, S., McMichael, A. J., Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Program), & World Health Organization (Eds.). Ecosystems and human well-being: Health synthesis (World Health Organization, 2005).26.Enhancing Restoration and advancing knowledge of the upper Mississippi river: a strategic plan for the upper Mississippi river restoration program 2015-2025. https://www.umesc.usgs.gov/ltrmp/documents/umrr_strategic_plan_jan2015.pdf (USGS, 2015).27.Nardi, F., Annis, A., Di Baldassarre, G., Vivoni, E. R. & Grimaldi, S. GFPLAIN250m, a global high-resolution dataset of Earth’s floodplains. Scientific Data 6, 180309, https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2018.309 (2019).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
28.Sohl, T. L. et al. Modeled historical land use and land cover for the conterminous United States: 1938-1992. U.S. Geological Survey data release https://doi.org/10.5066/F7KK99RR (2018).29.Sohl, T.L. et al. Conterminous United States land cover projections – 1992 to 2100. U.S. Geological Survey data release https://doi.org/10.5066/P95AK9HP (2018).30.Leopold, L. B., & Maddock, T. The hydraulic geometry of stream channels and some physiographic implications. (U.S. Geological Survey, 1953)31.Nardi, F., Vivoni, E. R. & Grimaldi, S. Investigating a floodplain scaling relation using a hydrogeomorphic delineation method. Water Resources Research 42(9), https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004155 (2006).32.Di Baldassarre, G. et al. Brief communication: comparing hydrological and hydrogeomorphic paradigms for global flood hazard mapping. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 20, 1415–1419, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-1415-2020 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Homer, C. et al. Conterminous United States land cover change patterns 2001–2016 from the 2016 National Land Cover Database. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 162, 184–199, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2020.02.019 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Yang, L. et al. A new generation of the United States national land cover database: requirements, research priorities, design, and implementation strategies. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 146, 108–123, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2018.09.006 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Jin, S. et al. Overall methodology design for the United States National Land Cover Database 2016 products. Remote Sensing 11, 2971, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11242971 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36. USDA Census of Agriculture Historical Archive http://agcensus.mannlib.cornell.edu/AgCensus/homepage.do;jsessionid=17C0132051BEB31DF79D01B0D07300F2 (US Department of Agriculture, 2007).37.Sleeter, B. M. et al. Land-cover change in the conterminous United States from 1973 to 2000. Global Environmental Change 23(4), 733–748, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.03.006 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Cao, Y. et al. Analysis of errors introduced by geographic coordinate systems on weather numeric prediction modeling. Geosci. Model Dev. 10(9), 3425–3440, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-3425-2017 (2017).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Piwowar, J. M., Ledrew, E. F. & Dudycha, D. J. Integration of spatial data in vector and raster formats in a geographic information system environment. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 4, 429–444, https://doi.org/10.1080/02693799008941557 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Croissant, C. Landscape patterns and parcel boundaries: an analysis of composition and configuration of land use and land cover in south-central Indiana. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 101, 219–232, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2003.09.006 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
41.LaGro Jr., J. A. Land-use Classification (Elsevier Press, 2005).42.Kutcher T. E. et al. Habitat and Land Cover Classification Scheme for the National Estuarine Research Reserve System. (National Estuarine Research Reserve System, 2008).43.Buskey, E. J. et al. in System-wide monitoring program of the national estuarine research reserve System: research and monitoring to address coastal management issues Chapter 21 (Academic Press, 2015).44.Feng, C.-C. & Flewelling, D. M. Assessment of semantic similarity between land use/land cover classification systems. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 28(3), 229–246, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0198-9715(03)00020-6 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Foufoula-Georgiou, E., Takbiri, Z., Czuba, J. A. & Schwenk, J. The change of nature and the nature of change in agricultural landscapes: Hydrologic regime shifts modulate ecological transitions. Water Resources Research 51, 6649–6671, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR017637 (2015).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Biondini, M. & Kandus, P. Transition matrix analysis of land-cover change in the accretion area of the Lower Delta of the Paraná River (Argentina) reveals two succession pathways. Wetlands 26, 981–991, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1672/0277-5212(2006)26[981:TMAOLC]2.0.CO;2#citeas (2006).47.Hu, Y., Batunacun, Zhen, L. & Zhuang, D. Assessment of land-use and land-cover change in Guangxi, China. Sci Rep. 9, 2189, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-38487-w (2019).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
48.Liu, X. et al. High-spatiotemporal-resolution mapping of global urban change from 1985 to 2015. Nature Sustainability 3, 564–570, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0521-x (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Teferi, E., Bewket, W., Uhlenbrook, S. & Wenninger, J. Understanding recent land use and land cover dynamics in the source region of the Upper Blue Nile, Ethiopia: spatially explicit statistical modeling of systematic transitions. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment 165(15), 98–117, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2012.11.007 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Yu, Z., Guo, X., Zeng, Y., Koga, M. & Vejre, H. Variations in land surface temperature and cooling efficiency of green space in rapid urbanization: the case of Fuzhou city, China. Urban forestry & urban greening 29, 113–121, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.11.008 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Yuan, F., Sawaya, K. E., Loeffelholz, B. C. & Bauer, M. E. Land cover classification and change analysis of the twin cities (Minnesota) metropolitan area by multitemporal Landsat remote sensing. Remote Sensing of Environment 98, 317–328, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2005.08.006 (2005).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Yuh, Y. G. et al. Effects of land cover change on great apes distribution at the Lobéké National Park and its surrounding forest management units, south-east Cameroon. A 13 year time series analysis. Sci. Rep. 9, 1445, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-36225-2 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
53.Zhao, J., Yang, Y., Zhao, Q. & Zhao, Z. Effects of ecological restoration projects on changes in land cover: a case study on the Loess Plateau in China. Sci. Rep. 7, 44496, https://doi.org/10.1038/srep44496 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
54.Rajib, A. et al. Land Use Changes in The Mississippi River Basin Floodplains: 1941 to 2000 (version 1). HydroShare https://doi.org/10.4211/hs.41a3a9a9d8e54cc68f131b9a9c6c8c54 (2021).55.Annis, A., Nardi, F., Morrison, R. R. & Castelli, F. Investigating hydrogeomorphic floodplain mapping performance with varying DTM resolution and stream order. Hydrological Sciences Journal 64(5), 525–538, https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2019.1591623 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Dottori, F. et al. Development and evaluation of a framework for global flood hazard mapping. Advances in Water Resources 94, 87–102, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2016.05.002 (2016).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Scheel, K., Morrison, R. R., Annis, A. & Nardi, F. Understanding the large-scale influence of levees on floodplain connectivity using a hydrogeomorphic approach. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 55(2), 413–429, https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12717 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
58. Climate Change Initiative (CCI) Land Cover products http://maps.elie.ucl.ac.be/CCI/viewer/download.php (2018).59. Land Cover CCI Product User Guide Version 2. Tech. Rep. http://maps.elie.ucl.ac.be/CCI/viewer/download/ESACCI-LC-Ph2-PUGv2_2.0.pdf (European Space Agency, 2017).60.Wilkinson, M. D. et al. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data 3, 160018, https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18 (2016).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar  More

1.Hallmann, C. A. et al. More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas. PLoS ONE 12, e0185809. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185809 (2017).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
2.Cardoso, P. et al. Scientists’ warning to humanity on insect extinctions. Biol. Conserv. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108426 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
3.van Klink, R. et al. Meta-analysis reveals declines in terrestrial but increases in freshwater insect abundances. Science 368, 417–420. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax9931 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
4.Costanza, R. et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253. https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0 (1997).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Hill, D. S. The Economic Importance of Insects (Springer, 2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5348-5.Book 

Google Scholar 
6.Gallai, N., Salles, J.-M., Settele, J. & Vaissière, B. E. Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture confronted with pollinator decline. Ecol. Econ. 68, 810–821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.06.014 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Neumann, P. et al. Ecosystem services, agriculture and neonicotinoids. EASAC Policy Rep. 26, 1–53 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
8.Sánchez-Bayo, F. & Wyckhuys, K. A. Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: a review of its drivers. Biol. Cons. 232, 8–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.01.020 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Seibold, S. et al. Arthropod decline in grasslands and forests is associated with landscape-level drivers. Nature 574, 671–674. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1684-3 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
10.Wagner, D. L. Insect declines in the Anthropocene. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 65, 457–480. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-011019-025151 (2019).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
11.Potts, S. G. et al. Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 345–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2010.01.007 (2010).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
12.Goulson, D., Nicholls, E., Botías, C. & Rotheray, E. L. Bee declines driven by combined stress from parasites, pesticides, and lack of flowers. Science 347, 1255957. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1255957 (2015).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
13.Chagnon, M. et al. Risks of large-scale use of systemic insecticides to ecosystem functioning and services. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 22, 119–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-014-3277-x (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Pisa, L. W. et al. Effects of neonicotinoids and fipronil on non-target invertebrates. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 22, 68–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-014-3471-x (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Stanley, J. & Preetha, G. Pesticide Toxicity to Non-target Organisms (Springer, 2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7752-0.Book 

Google Scholar 
16.Wood, T. J. & Goulson, D. The environmental risks of neonicotinoid pesticides: a review of the evidence post 2013. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 24, 17285–17325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-9240-x (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Humann-Guilleminot, S. et al. A nation-wide survey of neonicotinoid insecticides in agricultural land with implications for agri-environment schemes. J. Appl. Ecol. 56, 1502–1514. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13392 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Goulson, D. Review: an overview of the environmental risks posed by neonicotinoid insecticides. J. Appl. Ecol. 50, 977–987. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12111 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Hilton, M. J., Jarvis, T. D. & Ricketts, D. C. The degradation rate of thiamethoxam in European field studies. Pest Manag. Sci. 72, 388–397. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.4024 (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
20.Lewis, K. A., Tzilivakis, J., Warner, D. J. & Green, A. An international database for pesticide risk assessments and management. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. Int. J. 22, 1050–1064. https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2015.1133242 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Li, Y. et al. Adsorption-desorption and degradation of insecticides clothianidin and thiamethoxam in agricultural soils. Chemosphere 207, 708–714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.05.139 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
22.Nauen, R., Ebbinghaus-Kintscher, U., Salgado, V. L. & Kaussmann, M. Thiamethoxam is a neonicotinoid precursor converted to clothianidin in insects and plants. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 76, 55–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-3575(03)00065-8 (2003).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Straub, L. et al. Neonicotinoid insecticides can serve as inadvertent insect contraceptives. Proc. R. Soc. B 283, 20160506. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2016.0506 (2016).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
24.Blacquiere, T., Smagghe, G., Van Gestel, C. A. & Mommaerts, V. Neonicotinoids in bees: a review on concentrations, side-effects and risk assessment. Ecotoxicology 21, 973–992. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-012-0890-7 (2012).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
25Straub, L., Strobl, V. & Neumann, P. The need for an evolutionary approach to ecotoxicology. Nat. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-1194-6 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
26.Wilson, E. O. The Insect Societies (Harvard University Press, 1971).
Google Scholar 
27.Schläppi, D., Kettler, N., Straub, L., Glauser, G. & Neumann, P. Long-term effects of neonicotinoid insecticides on ants. Commun. Biol. 3, 335. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-020-1066-2 (2020).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
28.Schläppi, D., Stroeymeyt, N. & Neumann, P. Unintentional effects of neonicotinoids on ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Myrmecological News, in press.29Straub, L., Williams, G. R., Pettis, J., Fries, I. & Neumann, P. Superorganism resilience: eusociality and susceptibility of ecosystem service providing insects to stressors. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 12, 109–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2015.10.010 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Cremer, S. Social immunity in insects. Curr. Biol. 29, R458–R463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2019.03.035 (2019).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
31.Straub, L. et al. From antagonism to synergism: extreme differences in stressor interactions in one species. Sci. Rep. 10, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-61371-x (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Crall, J. D. et al. Neonicotinoid exposure disrupts bumblebee nest behavior, social networks, and thermoregulation. Science 362, 683–686. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat1598 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
33Hölldobler, B. & Wilson, E. O. The Ants (Springer, 1990). https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1420-9101.1992.5010169.x.Book 

Google Scholar 
34.Del Toro, I., Ribbons, R. R. & Pelini, S. L. The little things that run the world revisited: a review of ant-mediated ecosystem services and disservices (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Myrmecol. News 17, 133–146 (2012).
Google Scholar 
35.Keller, L. & Genoud, M. Extraordinary lifespans in ants: a test of evolutionary theories of ageing. Nature 389, 958. https://doi.org/10.1038/40130 (1997).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36Bird, G., Wilson, A. E., Williams, G. R. & Hardy, N. B. Parasites and pesticides act antagonistically on honey bee health. J. Appl. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13811 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Siviter, H. et al. Agrochemicals interact synergistically to increase bee mortality. Nature 596, 389–392. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03787-7 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
38.Ranjeva, S. et al. Age-specific differences in the dynamics of protective immunity to influenza. Nat. Commun. 10, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09652-6 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Dahlgren, L., Johnson, R. M., Siegfried, B. D. & Ellis, M. D. Comparative toxicity of acaricides to honey bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) workers and queens. J. Econ. Entomol. 105, 1895–1902. https://doi.org/10.1603/EC12175 (2012).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
40O’Neal, T. S., Anderson, T. D. & Wu-Smart, J. Y. Interactions between pesticides and pathogen susceptibility in honey bees. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 26, 57–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2018.01.006 (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
41.Feldhaar, H. & Otti, O. Pollutants and their interaction with diseases of social hymenoptera. Insects 11, 153. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects11030153 (2020).Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
42.Doublet, V., Labarussias, M., de Miranda, J. R., Moritz, R. F. & Paxton, R. J. Bees under stress: sublethal doses of a neonicotinoid pesticide and pathogens interact to elevate honey bee mortality across the life cycle. Environ. Microbiol. 17, 969–983. https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.12426 (2015).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
43.Sánchez-Bayo, F. et al. Are bee diseases linked to pesticides?—a brief review. Environ. Int. 89, 7–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2016.01.009 (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
44.Annoscia, D. et al. Neonicotinoid Clothianidin reduces honey bee immune response and contributes to Varroa mite proliferation. Nat. Commun. 11, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19715-8 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Di Prisco, G. et al. Neonicotinoid clothianidin adversely affects insect immunity and promotes replication of a viral pathogen in honey bees. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 110, 18466–18471. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1314923110 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
46.Coulon, M. et al. Influence of chronic exposure to thiamethoxam and chronic bee paralysis virus on winter honey bees. PLoS ONE 14, e0220703. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220703 (2019).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
47.Brandt, A. et al. Immunosuppression in honeybee queens by the neonicotinoids thiacloprid and clothianidin. Sci. Rep. 7, 4673. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-04734-1 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
48.Beaurepaire, A. et al. Diversity and global distribution of viruses of the western honey bee, Apis mellifera. Insects 11, 239. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects11040239 (2020).Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
49.Martin, S. J. et al. Global honey bee viral landscape altered by a parasitic mite. Science 336, 1304–1306. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1220941 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
50.Wilfert, L. et al. Deformed wing virus is a recent global epidemic in honeybees driven by Varroa mites. Science 351, 594–597. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac9976 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
51.Neumann, P., Yañez, O., Fries, I. & De Miranda, J. R. Varroa invasion and virus adaptation. Trends Parasitol. 28, 353–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pt.2012.06.004 (2012).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
52.Woolhouse, M. E., Haydon, D. T. & Antia, R. Emerging pathogens: the epidemiology and evolution of species jumps. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20, 238–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.02.009 (2005).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
53.McMahon, D. P. et al. A sting in the spit: widespread cross-infection of multiple RNA viruses across wild and managed bees. J. Anim. Ecol. 84, 615–624. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12345 (2015).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
54.Levitt, A. L. et al. Cross-species transmission of honey bee viruses in associated arthropods. Virus Res. 176, 232–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virusres.2013.06.013 (2013).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
55.Tehel, A., Brown, M. J. & Paxton, R. J. Impact of managed honey bee viruses on wild bees. Curr. Opin. Virol. 19, 16–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coviro.2016.06.006 (2016).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
56Martin, S. J. & Brettell, L. E. Deformed wing virus in honeybees and other insects. Ann. Rev. Virol. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-virology-092818-015700 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Schläppi, D., Lattrell, P., Yañez, O., Chejanovsky, N. & Neumann, P. Foodborne transmission of deformed wing virus to ants (Myrmica rubra). Insects 10, 394. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects10110394 (2019).Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
58.Schläppi, D., Chejanovsky, N., Yañez, O. & Neumann, P. Foodborne Transmission and clinical symptoms of honey bee viruses in ants Lasius spp. Viruses 12, 321. https://doi.org/10.3390/v12030321 (2020).Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
59.Seifert, B. Die Ameisen Mittel- und Nordeuropas (Lutra Verlags und Vertriebsgesellschaft, 2007).
Google Scholar 
60.Payne, A. N., Shepherd, T. F. & Rangel, J. The detection of honey bee (Apis mellifera)-associated viruses in ants. Sci. Rep. 10, 2923. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-59712-x (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
61.Kutter, H. & Stumper R. Hermann Appel, ein leidgeadelter Entomologe (1892–1966). in Proceedings of the VI Congress of the International Union for the Study of Social Insects (eds Ernst, E., Frauchiger, L., Hauschteck-Jungen, E., Jungen, H., Leuthold, R., Maurizio, A., Ruppli, E. & Tschumi, P.), 275–279 (Organizing Committee of the VI Congress IUSSI, Bern, 1969).62.Jeschke, P., Nauen, R., Schindler, M. & Elbert, A. Overview of the status and global strategy for neonicotinoids. J. Agric. Food Chem. 59, 2897–2908. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf101303g (2011).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
63.Limay-Rios, V. et al. Neonicotinoid insecticide residues in soil dust and associated parent soil in fields with a history of seed treatment use on crops in southwestern Ontario. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 35, 303–310. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.3257 (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
64.Schaafsma, A., Limay-Rios, V., Xue, Y., Smith, J. & Baute, T. Field-scale examination of neonicotinoid insecticide persistence in soil as a result of seed treatment use in commercial maize (corn) fields in southwestern Ontario. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 35, 295–302. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.3231 (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
65.De Miranda, J. R., Cordoni, G. & Budge, G. The acute bee paralysis virus–Kashmir bee virus–Israeli acute paralysis virus complex. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 103, 30–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jip.2009.06.014 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
66Decourtye, A. & Devillers, J. Ecotoxicity of neonicotinoid insecticides to bees. In Insect Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors (ed. Thany, S. H.) 85–95 (Springer, 2010).Chapter 

Google Scholar 
67.Diez, L., Lejeune, P. & Detrain, C. Keep the nest clean: survival advantages of corpse removal in ants. Biol. Let. 10, 20140306. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2014.0306 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Wang, L., Zeng, L. & Chen, J. Impact of imidacloprid on new queens of imported fire ants, Solenopsis invicta (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Sci. Rep. 5, 17938. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep17938 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
69.Moya-Laraño, J., Macías-Ordóñez, R., Blanckenhorn, W. U. & Fernández-Montraveta, C. Analysing body condition: mass, volume or density?. J. Anim. Ecol. 77, 1099–1108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2008.01433.x (2008).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
70Knapp, M., Knappová, J. & Miller, T. Measurement of body condition in a common carabid beetle, Poecilus cupreus: a comparison of fresh weight, dry weight, and fat content. J. Insect Sci. https://doi.org/10.1673/031.013.0601 (2013).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
71.Retschnig, G. et al. Sex-specific differences in pathogen susceptibility in honey bees (Apis mellifera). PLoS ONE 9, e85261. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0085261 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
72.Suchail, S., Guez, D. & Belzunces, L. P. Discrepancy between acute and chronic toxicity induced by imidacloprid and its metabolites in Apis mellifera. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. Int. J. 20, 2482–2486. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620201113 (2001).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
73.Helms, K. R. & Vinson, S. B. Plant resources and colony growth in an invasive ant: the importance of honeydew-producing hemiptera in carbohydrate transfer across trophic levels. Environ. Entomol. 37, 487–493. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/37.2.487 (2008).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
74.Dornhaus, A. & Franks, N. R. Colony size affects collective decision-making in the ant Temnothorax albipennis. Insectes Soc. 53, 420–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00040-006-0887-4 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
75.Ruel, C., Cerda, X. & Boulay, R. Behaviour-mediated group size effect constrains reproductive decisions in a social insect. Anim. Behav. 84, 853–860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.07.006 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
76.Sommer, K. & Hölldobler, B. Colony founding by queen association and determinants of reduction in queen number in the ant Lasius niger. Anim. Behav. 50, 287–294. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1995.0244 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
77Boomsma, J., Van der Lee, G. & Van der Have, T. On the production ecology of Lasius niger (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in successive coastal dune valleys. J. Anim. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.2307/4017 (1982).Article 

Google Scholar 
78.Zioni, N., Soroker, V. & Chejanovsky, N. Replication of varroa destructor virus 1 (VDV-1) and a varroa destructor virus 1–deformed wing virus recombinant (VDV-1–DWV) in the head of the honey bee. Virology 417, 106–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virol.2011.05.009 (2011).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
79.Wood, T. et al. Managed honey bees as a radar for wild bee decline?. Apidologie 51, 1100–1116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13592-020-00788-9 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
80.Stroeymeyt, N. et al. Social network plasticity decreases disease transmission in a eusocial insect. Science 362, 941–945. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat4793 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
81.Folt, C., Chen, C., Moore, M. & Burnaford, J. Synergism and antagonism among multiple stressors. Limnol. Oceanogr. 44, 864–877. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.1999.44.3_part_2.0864 (1999).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
82.Gennings, C. et al. A unifying concept for assessing toxicological interactions: changes in slope. Toxicol. Sci. 88, 287–297. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfi275 (2005).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
83.Jonker, M. J., Svendsen, C., Bedaux, J. J., Bongers, M. & Kammenga, J. E. Significance testing of synergistic/antagonistic, dose level-dependent, or dose ratio-dependent effects in mixture dose-response analysis. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. Int. J. 24, 2701–2713. https://doi.org/10.1897/04-431R.1 (2005).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
84.Brühl, C. A. & Zaller, J. G. Biodiversity decline as a consequence of an inadequate environmental risk assessment of pesticides. Front. Environ. Sci. 7, 177. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2019.00177 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
85.Ortega-Calvo, J.-J. et al. From bioavailability science to regulation of organic chemicals. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 10255–10264. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b02412 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
86.Dauber, J. & Wolters, V. Edge effects on ant community structure and species richness in an agricultural landscape. Biodivers. Conserv. 13, 901–915. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BIOC.0000014460.65462.2b (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
87.EFSA PPR Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues). Scientific Opinion addressing the state of the science on risk assessment of plant protection products for non‐target arthropods. EFSA Journal 13, 3996 (2015). https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2015.399688.EFSA PPR Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues). Scientific Opinion addressing the state of the science on risk assessment of plant protection products for in-soil organisms. EFSA Journal 15, 4690. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4690 (2017).89.Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, section 2—Effects on Biotic Systems. (OECD Publishing, 2019).90.Storck, V., Karpouzas, D. G. & Martin-Laurent, F. Towards a better pesticide policy for the European Union. Sci. Total Environ. 575, 1027–1033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.167 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
91.De Miranda, J. R. et al. Standard methods for virus research in Apis mellifera. J. Apic. Res. 52, 1–56. https://doi.org/10.3896/IBRA.1.52.4.22 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
92.Evans, J. D. et al. Standard methods for molecular research in Apis mellifera. J. Apic. Res. 52, 1–54. https://doi.org/10.3896/IBRA.1.52.4.11 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
93.Lowenthal, M. S., Quittman, E. & Phinney, K. W. Absolute quantification of RNA or DNA using acid hydrolysis and mass spectrometry. Anal. Chem. 91, 14569–14576. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.9b03625 (2019).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
94.Locke, B., Forsgren, E., Fries, I. & De Miranda, J. R. Acaricide treatment affects viral dynamics in Varroa destructor-infested honey bee colonies via both host physiology and mite control. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 78, 227–235. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.06094-11 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
95.R Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Version 3.6.3. R Foundation for Statistical Computing (Vienna, 2020). http://cran.r-project.org.96.Therneau, T. A Package for Survival Analysis in S. version 2.38 (2015). http://cran.rproject.org/package=survival97.Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., Neter, J. & Li, W. Applied Linear Statistical Models Vol. 5 (McGraw-Hill Irwin, 2005).
Google Scholar 
98.Wobbrock, J. O., Findlater, L., Gergle, D. & Higgins, J. J. The aligned rank transform for nonparametric factorial analyses using only anova procedures. in Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (eds. Tan, D., Fitzpatrick, G., Gutwin, C., Begole, B. & Kellogg, W. A.), 143–146, doi:https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1978963 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, United States, 2011)99.Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Influence of soil organic matter on zeta potentialIn this study, the zeta potential of a clayey red soil was compared among 4 types of long-term treatments including manure, NPK + straw, NPK and CK in a subtropical climate. Generally, the manure treatment which also had the greatest concentration of SOC resulted in the highest clay zeta potential (less intense charge imbalance), while NPK + straw did not result in the second highest zeta potential as expected compared to the NPK and CK treatments. Variation in clay zeta potential among types of fertilization might be related with their different SOM content, because SOM had an influence on the zeta potentials via affecting the negative charges of soils19. The zeta potential of manure and NPK + straw treatments having high SOC agreed with earlier studies in Marchuk et al.9 that decreases of SOC via NaOH treatments decreased the negative zeta potential value9, where Claremont soil originally having high SOC (2.2%) displayed a greater degree of decline in negative zeta potential (from − 29 to − 34.9 mV) than Urrbrae having lower SOC (1.4%) (− 66.3 to − 68 mV). However, zeta potential in water dispersible clay responded to SOC contrastly in the study of Melo et al.12 , where Londrina soil with high SOC (5–20 g kg−1) displayed lower negative zeta potential values in water dispersible clay than that in Rondon soil (SOC 5 to 12 g kg−1) in subtropical Brazil.Differences of SOC effect on zeta potential in our study and other studies were probably because ionic strength in bulk solution also affected the intensity of soil charge imbalance. Generally, in tropical and subtropical Ferralsols, high amounts of SOM that was released following the breakdown of macroaggregate provided an excess of negative charges and intensified the imbalance in charge, resulting in more negative in zeta potential of clay12. In contrast to Ferralsols in Brazil, red soil (highly-weathered) in our study showed higher negative zeta potential in manure soils with higher SOM. This was because high ionic strength in bulk solution might counterbalance the negative charges from SOM, and attenuated the imbalance in charges. Hence, manure treatment which provided greater EC and Ca2+, Mg2+ concentration and possibly higher ionic strength was reasonable to allow for more charge balance and greater negative zeta potential values than other treatment.In this study, NPK + straw treatment exhibited similar negative zeta potential values as that in NPK but slightly lower than manure, probably due to the effect of SOM functional group from straw and soil solution concentration. Straw can increase the humin content as reported in the study of Sheng et al.11, and then a decrease of negative zeta potential can be induced as addition of humic acid on a Luvisol20. But the negative humic effect from straw on zeta potential was probably stronger than the positive effect from the increased bulk soil solution concentration in NPK + straw relative to NPK in Fig. 3 where increase of bulk solution concentration was found to increase the negative charge numbers and the negative zeta potential in Ultisol and Oxisol15. Therefore, our hypothesis that organic treatments decreased negative zeta potential value of soil was not supported for manure treatment, but was for NPK + straw treatment.NPK + straw’s similar effect on negative zeta potential as NPK treatment was probably also related with their similar pH values. The effect of pH on the potential of clay surfaces can be related to the amount of variable charge on the external surface of the clay particles. Negative zeta potential decreased with rising pH of the solution due to deprotonation of the functional groups on the surface of the organic matter and Fe/Aloxides in NPK + straw treated soils. An increase of soil pH (from 3.5 to 7.5) influenced zeta potential through production of more negative net surface charges on soils in subtropical Australia21,22. Therefore, the pH in our study after KCl adjustment that showed a first increase and then decrease pattern with the increase of concentration, can help to explain the bell shape pattern of negative zeta potential (first decrease and then increase). However, in our study, the pH pattern with increment of KCl concentration was different from the results in study of Yu et al.8 where a continuous decline pattern in pH of two soils (Vertisol and Ultisol) was reported when the KCl concentration increased from 10–5 to 10–1 mol L−1. This is probably because the Ultisol possessed high amount of variable charges from Fe or Al oxides, which resulted in the diffusion layer attracted more positive charged cations (i.e. K+) from bulk solution to balance the increased negative charge on the surface of colloidal particles in order to maintain the electrical neutrality of the system15. This indicated that when KCl concentration was low, between 0 and 10–2 mol L−1, part of K+ was attracted to the diffuse double layer and the remaining K+ hydration allowed for raising in soil pH. When KCl concentration was beyond 10–2 mol L−1, many Al3+ions on soil exchange site were released into solution (0.03 to 0.12 mg L−1) through K+ exchange and probably dropped soil pH (data not shown).Studies also found that the effect of SOM on zeta potential of clay also varied for soils in different climate. Yu et al.8 compared rice straw incorporation effect on two soils (Ultisol and Vertisol) and found that similar SOC content resulted in contrasting effects on surface potential of two types of soils, where surface potential of Ultisol continuously increased while firstly increased and became stable for Vertisol with increase of treated solution concentration. Different SOM effect on soil potential properties of two soils were probably associated with presence of soil variable charges in Ultisol23. SOM and Fe/Al (hydro)oxides in Ultisol carried a larger number of variable surface charges, and resulted in a strong overlapping of oppositely charged electric double layers (EDLs) between SOM and Fe/Al (hydro)oxides at low concentration8. The overlapping of oppositely charged EDLs between SOM and Fe/Al probably yielded in an increase in negative surface charge for Ultisols compared to Vertisol.Effect of SOM and zeta potential on soil aggregationIncrement in content of SOM after additions of straw or other organic treatments can improve aggregate stability6,24,25. The hydrophobic organic compounds that coated around soil particle can act as nucleus of aggregate formation and reduce the destruction effect from water infiltration26,27. The hydrophobic-C/hydrophilic-C increased from 1.04 to 1.07, from 1.22 to 1.27 for chicken manure and maize residues treatments, respectively, when soil water conditions changed from water deficiency to natural rainfall treatment28. This indicated that a small change of hydrophobic-C/hydrophilic-C might result in substantial change in soil water, which was a critical factor of aggregate development28. Xue et al.24 also reported that a small difference of aromatic percentage between tillage + straw and no tillage + straw treatments resulted in significant differences for aggregate ( > 0.25 mm). Hence, small variation in soil hydrophobic-C groups can yield in soil aggregate variation. In our study, the manure treatment, which had higher SOM and hydrophobic-C (aromatic C) while lower hydrophilic-C than other treatments, was probably reasonable to yield in its higher stability than others. In these previous studies, the positive effect of SOM on soil aggregate development was attributed to the increment in van der Waals force between soil particles. However, different from our study, Melo et al.12 reported that Londrina soil with high SOC released greater water dispersible clay (60–80%) than that in Rondon with low SOC (50–70%) after mechanical breakdown of macroaggregate. This was probably due to the repulsive force prevailing attractive force between soil particles as affected by more negative zeta potential or surface potential8.Clay zeta potential influenced the powerful electrostatic fields, soil internal forces and aggregate stability9. Decrease in negative clay zeta potential mainly yielded an increase in the soil microaggregate portion ( More

1.Chaney, R. L., Kim, W. I., Kunhikrishnan, A., Yang, J. E. & Ok, Y. S. Integrated management strategies for arsenic and cadmium in rice paddy environments. Geoderma 270, 1–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.03.001 (2016).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Nakashima, K., Yamaguchi-Shinozaki, K. & Shinozaki, K. The transcriptional regulatory network in the drought response and its crosstalk in abiotic stress responses including drought, cold, and heat. Front. Plant Sci. 5, 170. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2014.00170 (2014).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
3.Senthil-Nathan, S. Physiological and biochemical effect of neem and other Meliaceae plants secondary metabolites against Lepidopteran insects. Front. Physiol. 4, 359. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2013.00359 (2013).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
4.Kalaivani, K., Maruthi-Kalaiselvi, M. & Senthil-Nathan, S. Seed treatment and foliar application of methyl salicylate (MeSA) as a defense mechanism in rice plants against the pathogenic bacterium, Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae. Pest Biochem. Physiol. 171, 104718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pestbp.2020.104718 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Das, G. & Rao, G. J. N. Molecular marker assisted gene stacking for biotic and abiotic stress resistance genes in an elite rice cultivar. Front. Plant Sci. 6, 698. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.00698 (2015).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
6.Senthil-Nathan, S. A review of biopesticides and their mode of action against insect pests. Environ. Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2056-5_3 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Shi, W. et al. Grain yield and quality responses of tropical hybrid rice to high night-time temperature. Food Crop Res. 190, 18–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2015.10.006 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Farooq, M. et al. Rice direct seeding: Experiences, challenges and opportunities. Soil Till. Res. 111, 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2010.10.008 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Brown, J. K. M. Yield penalties of disease resistance in crops. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 5, 339–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-5266(02)00270-4 (2002).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
10.Liu, H. et al. Antifungal effect and mechanism of chitosan against the rice sheath blight pathogen, Rhizoctonia solani. Biotechnol. Lett. 34, 2291–2298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10529-012-1035-z (2012).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
11.Orzali, L., Corsi, B., Forni, C. & Riccinoi, L. Chitosan in agriculture: A new challenge for managing plant disease, biological activities and application of marine polysaccharides. Biol. Act. Appl. Mar. Polysaccharides. 17–36. https://doi.org/10.5772/66840 (2017).
12.Anosheh, H. P., Sadeghi, H. & Emam, Y. Chemical priming with urea and KNO3 enhances maize hybrids (Zea mays L.) seed viability under abiotic stress. J. Crop Sci. Biotechnol. 14, 289–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12892-011-0039-x (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Hänsch, R. & Mendel, R. R. Physiological functions of mineral micronutrients (Cu, Zn, Mn, Fe, Ni, Mo, B, Cl). Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 12, 259–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2009.05.006 (2009).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
14.Savvides, A., Ali, S., Tester, M. & Fotopoulos, V. Chemical priming of plants against multiple abiotic stresses: Mission possible?. Trends Plant Sci. 21, 329–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2015.11.003 (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
15.Kurita, K. Chitin and chitosan: Functional biopolymers from marine crustaceans. Mar. Biotechnol. 8, 203–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10126-005-0097-5 (2006).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Hamed, I., Özogul, F. & Regenstein, J. M. Industrial applications of crustacean by-products (chitin, chitosan, and chitooligosaccharides): A review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 48, 40–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2015.11.007 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Badawy, M. E. I. & Rabea, E. I. A. Biopolymer chitosan and its derivatives as promising antimicrobial agents against plant pathogens and their applications in crop protection. Int. J. Carbohydr. Chem. https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/460381 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Davydova, V. N. et al. Chitosan antiviral activity: Dependence on structure and depolymerization method. Appl. Biochem. Microbiol. 47, 103–108. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0003683811010042 (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Park, B. K. & Kim, M. M. Applications of chitin and its derivatives in biological medicine. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 11, 5152–5164. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms11125152 (2010).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
20.Malerba, M. & Cerana, R. Chitosan effects on plant systems. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 17, 996. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms17070996 (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
21.Liu, H. et al. Progress and constraints of dry direct-seeded rice in China. J. Food Agric. Environ. 2121, 465–472 (2014).
Google Scholar 
22.Li, B., Wang, X., Chen, R., Huangfu, W. & Xie, G. Antibacterial activity of chitosan solution against Xanthomonas pathogenic bacteria isolated from Euphorbia pulcherrima. Carbohydr. Polym. 72, 287–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2007.08.012 (2008).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Falcón-Rodríguez, A. B., Cabrera, J. C., Wégria, G., Onderwater, R. C. A., González, G., Nápoles, M. C., Costales, D., Rogers, H. J., Diosdado, E., González, S., Cabrera, G., González, L. & Wattiez, R. Practical use of oligosaccharins in agriculture. In Ist World Congress on the use of biostimulants in agriculture. Acta Hortic. 1009, 195–212 (2012).24.Yin, H. et al. Genome shuffling of Saccharomyces cerevisiae for enhanced glutathione yield and relative gene expression analysis using fluorescent quantitation reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. J. Microbiol. Methods 127, 188–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mimet.2016.06.012 (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
25.Borah, N. et al. Low energy rice stubble management through in situ decomposition. Procedia Environ. Sci. 35, 771–780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2016.07.092 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Singh, R., Srivastava, M. & Shukla, A. Environmental sustainability of bioethanol production from rice straw in India: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 54, 202–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.005 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Mrudula, S. & Murugammal, R. Production of cellulase by Aspergillus niger under submerged and solid state fermentation using coir waste as a substrate. Braz. J. Microbiol. 42, 1119–1127. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1517-83822011000300033 (2011).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
28.El-Sayed, S. M. & Mahdy, M. E. Effect of chitosan on root-knot nematode, Meloidogyne javanica on tomato plants. Int. J. ChemTech Res. 7, 1985–1992 (2015).
Google Scholar 
29.Iriti, M. & Varoni, E. M. Chitosan-induced antiviral activity and innate immunity in plants. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 22, 2935–2944. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-014-3571-7 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Orzali, L. et al. Chitosan in agriculture: A new challenge for chitosan in agriculture: A new challenge for managing plant disease managing plant disease. InTech Open Publisher https://doi.org/10.5772/66840 (2017).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Nanda, S., Mohammad, J., Reddy, S. N., Kozinski, J. A. & Dalai, A. K. Pathways of lignocellulosic biomass conversion to renewable fuels. Biomass Convers. Biorefinery 4, 157–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-013-0097-z (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Aggarwal, N. K., Goyal, V., Saini, A., Yadav, A. & Gupta, R. Enzymatic saccharification of pretreated rice straw by cellulases from Aspergillus niger BK01. 3 Biotech 7, 158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13205-017-0755-0 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
33.Fatma, H., Abd-EI-Zaher & Fadel, M. Production of bioethanol via enzymatic saccharification of rice straw by cellulase produced by Trichoderma Reesei under solid state fermentation. N. Y. Sci. J., 72–78. http://www.sciencepub.net/newyork (2010).34.Chang, A. K. T., Frias, R. R., Alvarez, L. V., Bigol, U. G. & Guzman, J. P. M. D. Comparative antibacterial activity of commercial chitosan and chitosan extracted from Auricularia sp. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 17, 189–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcab.2018.11.016 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Lizárraga-Paulín, E. G., Miranda-Castro, S. P., Moreno-Martínez, E., Lara-Sagahón, A. V. & Torres-Pacheco, I. Maize seed coatings and seedling sprayings with chitosan and hydrogen peroxide: Their influence on some phenological and biochemical behaviors. J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci. B. 14, 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.B1200270 (2013).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
36.Hadwiger, L. A., Fristensky, B. & Riggleman, R. C. Chitosan, a natural regulator in plant-fungal pathogen interactions, increases crop yields. Chitin Chitosan Relat. Enzymes. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-780950-2.50024-1 (1984).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Mrda, J., Crnobarac, J., Dušanić, N., Jocić, S. & Miklič, V. Germination energy as a parameter of seed quality in different sunflower genotypes. Genetika 43, 427–436. https://doi.org/10.2298/GENSR1103427M (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Singh, H. et al. Seed priming techniques in field crops—A review. Agric. Rev. 36, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.18805/ag.v36i4.6662 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Hameed, A., Sheikh, M. A., Farooq, T., Basra, S. M. A. & Jamil, A. Chitosan priming enhances the seed germination, antioxidants, hydrolytic enzymes, soluble proteins and sugars in wheat seeds. Agrochimica LVII, 31–46 (2013).
Google Scholar 
40.Zhou, Y. G. et al. Effects of chitosan on some physiological activity in germinating seed of peanut. J. Peanut Sci. 31, 22–25 (2002).
Google Scholar 
41.Samarah, N. H., Wang, H. & Welbaum, G. E. Pepper (Capsicum annuum) seed germination and vigour following nanochitin, chitosan or hydropriming treatments. Seed Sci. Technol. 44, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.15258/sst.2016.44.3.18 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Chen, J. L. & Zhao, Y. Effect of molecular weight, acid, and plasticizer on the physicochemical and antibacterial properties of β-chitosan based films. J. Food Sci. 77, E127–E136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2012.02686.x (2012).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
43.Kulikov, S. N., Chirkov, S. N., Il’ina, A. V., Lopatin, S. A. & Varlamov, V. P. Effect of the molecular weight of chitosan on its antiviral activity in plants. Appl. Biochem. Microbiol. 42, 200–203. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0003683806020165 (2006).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.El Hadrami, A., Adam, L. R., El Hadrami, I. & Daayf, F. Chitosan in plant protection. Mar. Drugs 8, 968–987. https://doi.org/10.3390/md8040968 (2010).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
45.Orzali, L., Forni, C. & Riccioni, L. Effect of chitosan seed treatment as elicitor of resistance to Fusarium graminearum in wheat. Seed Sci. Technol. 42, 132–149. https://doi.org/10.15258/sst.2014.42.2.03 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Rabea, E. I., Badawy, M. E. T., Stevens, C. V., Smagghe, G. & Steurbaut, W. Chitosan as antimicrobial agent: Applications and mode of action. Biomacromol 4, 1457–1465. https://doi.org/10.1021/bm034130m (2003).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Wang, X., El Hadrami, A., Adam, L. R. & Daayf, F. Differential activation and suppression of potato defence responses by Phytophthora infestans isolates representing US-1 and US-8 genotypes. Plant Pathol. 57, 1026–1037. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3059.2008.01866.x (2008).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Smits, J. P., Rinzema, A., Tramper, J., Schlösser, E. E. & Knol, W. Accurate determination of process variables in a solid-state fermentation system. Process Biochem. 31, 669–678. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0032-9592(96)00019-2 (1996).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Kalaivani, K., Kalaiselvi, M. M. & Senthil-Nathan, S. Effect of methyl salicylate (MeSA), an elicitor on growth, physiology and pathology of resistant and susceptible rice varieties. Sci. Rep. 6, 1–11 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Rane, K. D. & Hoover, D. G. An evaluation of alkali and acid treatments for chitosan extraction from fungi. Process Biochem. 28, 115–118 (1993).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Crestini, C., Kovac, B. & Giovannozzi-Sermanni, G. Production of chitosan by fungi. 50, 207–210. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.260500202 (1996).52.Khalaf, S. A. Production and characterization of fungal chitosan under solid-state fermentation conditions. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 6, 1033–1036 (2004).CAS 

Google Scholar 
53.Zhang, Z. T., Chen, D. H. & Chen, L. Preparation of two different serials of chitosan. J. Dong Hua Univ. Engl. Ed. 19, 36–39 (2002).
Google Scholar 
54.Chanthini, K. M. et al. Sustainable agronomic strategies for enhancing the yield and nutritional quality of wild tomato Solanum Lycopersicum (l) Var Cerasiforme Mill. Agronomy 9, 311 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Ellis, R. H. & Roberts, E. H. Improved equations for the prediction of seed longevity. Ann. Bot. 45, 13–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aob.a085797 (1980).Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Chanthini, K. M. et al. Biocatalysis and agricultural biotechnology Chaetomorpha antennina (Bory) Kützing derived seaweed liquid fertilizers as prospective bio-stimulant for Lycopersicon esculentum (Mill). Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 20, 101190 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Murray, P. R., Baron, E. J., Pfaller, M. A., Tenover, F. C. & Yolke, R. H. Manual of clinical Microbiology 6th edn. (American Society of Microbiology Press, 1995).
Google Scholar 
58.French, E. R. Efficacy of five methods of inoculating potato plants with Pseudomonas solanacearum. Phytopathology 76, 1078 (1986).
Google Scholar 
59.Yasmin, S. et al. Biocontrol of Bacterial Leaf Blight of rice and profiling of secondary metabolites produced by rhizospheric Pseudomonas aeruginosa BRp3. Front. Microbiol. 8, 1895. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.01895 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
60.Hammerschmidt, R. & Kuć, J. Lignification as a mechanism for induced systemic resistance in cucumber. Physiol. Plant Pathol. 20, 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-4059(82)90024-8 (1982).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Worthington, C. C. Worthington Enzyme Manual: Enzymes and Related Biochemicals (Worthington Biochemical Corporation, 1988).
Google Scholar  More

Altogether, we found that, while traffic volume declined by  > 7% during the pandemic year (with a maximum monthly decline of nearly 40%), the absolute number of annual WVCs was largely unchanged. This resulted in significant increases of  > 8% in collision rates between vehicles and wildlife during the pandemic year, peaking at a  > 27% nationwide increase in April 2020. Other studies from the first several months of the pandemic documented similar transient declines in the number of WVCs when the pandemic began which then reversed in many jurisdictions as the pandemic progressed and traffic rebounded26,27. We observed a similar pattern over the first five months of the pandemic at the national scale (Fig. 2): WVCs initially declined during the pandemic in step with declines in traffic volume, but then started to increase to baseline levels at a faster rate than traffic, possibly due to behavioral lags by wildlife following traffic-mediated increases in wildlife road use. Though based on coarse-scale data, our research aligns with assertions from studies during27 and prior to the pandemic3,15,16,28,29 that the relationship between traffic volume and WVCs is non-linear.We postulate that the observed non-linear relationship between traffic volume and WVCs is the result of greater use of roads and roadsides by certain wildlife species, namely large mammals (Table S1), in response to decreasing traffic volume, as prior research has suggested3,14,15,16. This explanation is consistent with accounts of various wildlife species making increased use of human spaces during the pandemic17,20,21: with less cars on the roads, wildlife might be less deterred from roads by the noise and light pollution that accompany high traffic volumes9,10,11,20 and perceive roads as less risky, thereby increasing their willingness to attempt road crossings3,8,15,16. Beyond incidentally crossing roads while moving about the landscape8,9, wildlife might be attracted to roads for travel, mates, or other resources8,10,11. Many animals are shown to utilize roads to move efficiently across the landscape11,12, and roads and the surrounding areas are comparatively open, such that wildlife might select roads and roadsides for enhanced visibility to find mates, detect predators, or locate prey10,13. Roadsides also can provide foraging opportunities and essential nutrients for wildlife via abundant, high-quality early successional vegetation and high salt concentrations10,11. As such, decreased road traffic during the pandemic might have caused certain wildlife species to tolerate the risks associated with roads in order to access the benefits of roads and roadsides.An alternative explanation for the observed increases in collision rates is that human driving behavior, rather than animal behavior, changed during the pandemic. With fewer cars on the road, people might drive faster35, rendering it more difficult for both humans and wildlife to avoid collisions3. Preliminary studies from throughout the United States have indeed suggested changes to human driving behavior during the pandemic, with several jurisdictions reporting increased vehicle speeds35,36. Despite reported increases in vehicle speeds, however, the total number of vehicle collisions (the sum of both wildlife and non-wildlife collisions) mirrored trends in traffic volume and declined considerably during the pandemic37,38. Thus, because changes to human behavior appear to have had a minimal effect on vehicle collisions overall, it is unlikely that the observed changes in collision rates are due to increased vehicle speeds alone. Still, we cannot discount the possibility that changes to human driving behavior contributed to the patterns documented here, and future work should more explicitly test the relative effects of changes in traffic volume on both human driving behavior and wildlife space-use, as well as the resultant impacts on WVCs.A greater understanding of human driving behavior would also help explain our findings regarding changes in traffic patterns during the pandemic. Nationwide, the severity of COVID-19 restrictions accounted for a large amount of the variation in changes in monthly traffic volume (R2 = 0.968), but the severity of restrictions was less influential on changes in yearly traffic across states (Tables S3 and S4). Restrictions implemented throughout the pandemic were largely enacted for the purpose of minimizing travel, and other research has demonstrated that these restrictions were effective at reducing human mobility18,21. Our state-level findings, however, imply that it was not only the restrictions themselves that reduced travel, but possibly also the associated anxiety regarding the risk of contracting the SARS-CoV-2 virus, as has been suggested in other studies21,22,23,24; although we observed the greatest declines in traffic volume early in the pandemic (Fig. 2A) when restrictions were most stringent (Fig. S2)21, there was widespread anxiety about the risks posed by SARS-CoV-2 during this time22,23, which likely motivated people to stay home independent of restrictions24. Indeed, anxiety and risk perception might explain the relationship between traffic volume and the other covariates in our top models (Table S4). Declines in traffic were greatest in the most densely populated states (Fig. 4A) and in states that had the highest and the lowest disease burdens (Fig. 4B). The risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission is greater in more densely populated states due to the close proximity of and frequent interactions amongst people21. As such, people may have altered their road use more in densely populated states as compared to sparsely populated ones due to differing perceptions of disease transmission risk23—though differences in infrastructure in relation to population density likely contributed to this pattern as well39. Similarly, declines in traffic volume in states with larger outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 might have been driven by increases in the perceived risk of contracting the virus21,23. Alternatively, traffic reductions in states with low disease burdens might reflect increased compliance with stay-at-home orders, and therefore less opportunity for disease spread40,41; essentially, reductions in traffic volume might be the cause of locally low disease burdens therein, rather than a consequence. Altogether, we posit that the observed heterogeneity in traffic volume between states is, at least in part, attributed to differences in the perceived risk posed by the SARS-CoV-2 virus.Regardless of the mechanisms underlying changes in traffic volume and WVCs, our observation that the annual number of WVCs was largely unchanged despite substantive declines in traffic volume has implications for mitigating WVCs going forward. Most directly, the lack of a directional change in WVCs suggests that road traffic levels in the United States are currently such that even large decreases in traffic volume would have minimal long-term effects on the absolute number of WVCs. As such, decreasing collisions by reducing traffic volume would require even larger and longer-lasting changes in traffic than those observed during the pandemic. Since such massive and sustained reductions in traffic are unlikely4,5,6, WVCs in the United States essentially represent a fixed cost as of now, both for human society and wildlife populations. As such, these transient decreases in traffic likely provided minimal reprieve to large mammals from collision-induced mortality, in contrast to speculation that changes in human mobility during the COVID-19 pandemic had substantial positive effects for wildlife populations by freeing wildlife from the pervasive direct and indirect effects of humans17,18,19,20,26,27,42.Indeed, it is possible that short-term decreases in traffic volume might ultimately be harmful to those wildlife species that increased their road use. Although the increases in collision rates we observed at the beginning of the pandemic were rapid and corresponded to nationwide declines in traffic volume (see also26,27), collision rates remained elevated even as traffic approached baseline levels in July (Fig. 2B). If wildlife responses to changes in traffic are asymmetric (i.e., increases in wildlife road use following declines in traffic occur more rapidly than decreases in wildlife road use in response to increased traffic), then short-term declines in traffic volume might lead to net increases in the number WVCs over longer timeframes, ultimately proving detrimental to certain wildlife populations1,3. Future work should evaluate the long-term effects of the pandemic on wildlife populations, specifically with regards to collision-induced mortality17,20,26,27,42.Although the COVID-19 pandemic provided an opportunity to examine the short-term effects of transient decreases in traffic volume on WVCs, the longer-term effects of expanding human populations, greater road densities, and altogether higher traffic volumes on WVCs are less clear. Similar to the increases in wildlife road use in response to decreases in traffic volume theorized here, steady increases in traffic might reduce wildlife road use long-term3,14,15,16; since road traffic is indeed increasing through time4,5,6, we might therefore see declines in WVCs as roads become more effective at repelling wildlife1,3,14. Although these reductions in vehicle-induced wildlife mortality are welcome, this would see roads increasingly serve as barriers to animal movement and gene flow43, further fragmenting already disconnected wildlife populations8. Thus, policy makers and urban planners should invest in infrastructure such as overpasses, underpasses, and fencing that enables wildlife to cross high-traffic roads safely or directs wildlife towards low-risk areas8,9. Even substantive short-term declines in road traffic are not sufficient to mitigate wildlife-vehicle conflict on their own. More