Philippa Kaur

1.Tsukamoto, K., Nakai, I. & Tesch, W.-V. Do all freshwater eels migrate?. Nature 396, 635–636 (1998).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Fromentin, J.-M. & Powers, J. E. Atlantic bluefin tuna: population dynamics, ecology, fisheries and management. Fish. Fish. 6, 281–306 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Kerr, L. A. & Secor, D. H. Bioenergetic trajectories underlying partial migration in Patuxent River (Chesapeake Bay) white perch (Morone americana). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 66, 602–612 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Cadrin, S. X. et al. Population structure of beaked redfish, Sebastes mentella: evidence of divergence associated with different habitats. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 67, 1617–1630 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Doak, D. F. et al. The statistical inevitability of stability-diversity relationships in community ecology. Am. Nat. 151, 264–276 (1998).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Tilman, D., Lehman, C. L. & Bristow, C. E. Diversity-stability relationships: statistical inevitability or ecological consequence?. Am. Nat. 151, 277–282 (1998).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Secor, D. H., Kerr, L. A. & Cadrin, S. X. Connectivity effects on productivity, stability, and persistence in a herring metapopulation model. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 66, 1726–1732 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Cadrin, S. X. & Secor, D. H. Accounting for spatial population structure in stock assessment: past, present, and future. In The Future of Fisheries Science in North America (eds Beamish, R. J. & Rothschild, B. J.) 405–426 (Springer, 2009).
Google Scholar 
9.Secor, D. H. The unit stock concept: bounded fish and fisheries. In Stock Identification Methods: Applications in Fishery Science 2nd edn (eds Cadrin, S. X. et al.) 7–28 (Elsevier, 2014).
Google Scholar 
10.Ricker, W. E. Maximum sustained yields from fluctuating environments and mixed stocks. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 15, 991–1006 (1958).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Kerr, L. A. et al. Lessons learned from practical approaches to reconcile mismatches between biological population structure and stock units of marine fish. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 74, 1708–1722 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Kerr, L. A., Cadrin, S. X. & Kovach, A. I. Consequences of a mismatch between biological and management units on our perception of Atlantic cod off New England. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 71, 1366–1381 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Goethel, D. R. & Berger, A. M. Accounting for spatial complexities in the calculation of biological reference points: effects of misdiagnosing population structure for stock status indicators. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 74, 1878–1894 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Van Beveren, E., Duplisea, D. E., Brosset, P. & Castonguay, M. Assessment modelling approaches for stocks with spawning components, seasonal and spatial dynamics, and limited resources for data collection. PLoS ONE 14, e0222472 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
15.Cadrin, S. X. Defining spatial structure for fishery stock assessment. Fish. Res. 221, 105397 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Sette, O. E. Biology of the Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) of North America. Part II:migration and habits. Fish. Bull. 51, 251–358 (1950).
Google Scholar 
17.Moores, J. A., Winters, G. H. & Parsons, L. S. Migrations and biological characteristics of Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) occurring in Newfoundland waters. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 32, 1347–1357 (1975).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Redding, S. G., Cooper, L. W., Castonguay, M., Wiernicki, C. & Secor, D. H. Northwest Atlantic mackerel population structure evaluated using otolith δ18O composition. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 77, 2582–2589 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Overholtz, W. J., Link, J. S. & Suslowicz, L. E. Consumption of important pelagic fish and squid by predatory fish in the northeastern USA shelf ecosystem with some fishery comparisons. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 57, 1147–1159 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Tyrrell, M. C., Link, J. S., Moustahfid, H. & Overholtz, W. J. Evaluating the effect of predation mortality on forage species population dynamics in the Northeast US continental shelf ecosystem using multispecies virtual population analysis. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 65, 1689–1700 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Jansen, T. & Gislason, H. Population structure of Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus). PLoS ONE 8, e64744 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Nøttestad, L. et al. Quantifying changes in abundance, biomass, and spatial distribution of Northeast Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) in the Nordic seas from 2007 to 2014. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 73, 359–373 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Olafsdottir, A. H. et al. Geographical expansion of Northeast Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) in the Nordic Seas from 2007 to 2016 was primarily driven by stock size and constrained by low temperatures. Deep-Sea. Res. Part II 159, 152–168 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.FAO. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2020. Sustainability in action. 244 http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/ca9229en (2020). Accessed on 23 July 2020.25.NEFSC. 64th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (64th SAW) Assessment Report. 536 (2018).26.DFO. Assessment of the Atlantic mackerel stock for the Northwest Atlantic (Subareas 3 and 4) in 2018. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2019/035: 14 (2019).27.Secor, D. H. Specifying divergent migrations in the concept of stock: the contingent hypothesis. Fish. Res. 43, 13–34 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Sette, O. E. Biology of the Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) of North America. Part I: early life history, including the growth, drift, and mortality of the egg and larval populations. Fish. Bull. 50, 149–237 (1943).
Google Scholar 
29.Berrien, P. L. Eggs and larvae of Scomber scombrus and Scomber japonicus in continental shelf waters between Massachusetts and Florida. Fish. Bull. 76, 95–115 (1978).
Google Scholar 
30.Overholtz, W. J., Hare, J. A. & Keith, C. M. Impacts of interannual environmental forcing and climate change on the distribution of Atlantic mackerel on the U.S. Northeast continental shelf. Mar. Coast. Fish. 3, 219–232 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.McManus, M. C., Hare, J. A., Richardson, D. E. & Collie, J. S. Tracking shifts in Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) larval habitat suitability on the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf. Fish. Oceanogr. 27, 49–62 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Richardson, D. E., Carter, L., Curti, K. L., Marancik, K. E. & Castonguay, M. Changes in the spawning distribution and biomass of Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) in the western Atlantic Ocean over 4 decades. Fish. Bull. 118, 120–134 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Moura, A. et al. Population structure and dynamics of the Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) in the North Atlantic inferred from otolith chemical and shape signatures. Fish. Res. 230, 105621 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Rooker, J. et al. Evidence of trans-Atlantic movement and natal homing of bluefin tuna from stable isotopes in otoliths. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 368, 231–239 (2008).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Clarke, L. M., Munch, S. B., Thorrold, S. R. & Conover, D. O. High connectivity among locally adapted populations of a marine fish (Menidia menidia). Ecology 91, 3526–3537 (2010).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
36.Wells, R. J. D. et al. Natural tracers reveal population structure of albacore (Thunnus alalunga) in the eastern North Pacific. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 72, 2118–2127 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Moreira, C. et al. Population structure of the blue jack mackerel (Trachurus picturatus) in the NE Atlantic inferred from otolith microchemistry. Fish. Res. 197, 113–122 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Trueman, C. N., MacKenzie, K. M. & Palmer, M. R. Identifying migrations in marine fishes through stable-isotope analysis. J. Fish. Biol. 81, 826–847 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
39.McMahon, K. W., Hamady, L. L. & Thorrold, S. R. A review of ecogeochemistry approaches to estimating movements of marine animals. Limnol. Oceanogr. 58, 697–714 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Kalish, J. M. 13C and 18O isotopic disequilibria in fish otoliths: metabolic and kinetic effects. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 75, 191–203 (1991).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Solomon, C. T. et al. Experimental determination of the sources of otolith carbon and associated isotopic fractionation. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 63, 79–89 (2006).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Tohse, H. & Mugiya, Y. Sources of otolith carbonate: experimental determination of carbon incorporation rates from water and metabolic CO2, and their diel variations. Aquat. Biol. 1, 259–268 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Chung, M.-T., Trueman, C. N., Godiksen, J. A., Holmstrup, M. E. & Grønkjær, P. Field metabolic rates of teleost fishes are recorded in otolith carbonate. Commun. Biol. 2, 24 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Rooker, J. R. & Secor, D. H. Microchemistry: migration and ecology of Atlantic bluefin tuna. In The Future of Bluefin Tunas: Ecology, Fisheries Management, and Conservation (ed. Block, B. A.) (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2019).
Google Scholar 
45.Uriarte, A. et al. Spatial pattern of migration and recruitment of North East Atlantic mackerel. ICES CM 2001/O:17 (2001).46.Mendiola, D., Alvarez, P., Cotano, U. & Martínez de Murguía, A. Early development and growth of the laboratory reared north-east Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) L. J. Fish. Biol. 70, 911–933 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Harrison, X. A. et al. A brief introduction to mixed effects modelling and multi-model inference in ecology. PeerJ 6, e4794 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Hartig, F. DHARMa: residual diagnostics for hierarchical (multi-level/mixed) regression models (2020).50.Kerr, L. A. et al. Mixed stock origin of Atlantic bluefin tuna in the U.S. rod and reel fishery (Gulf of Maine) and implications for fisheries management. Fish. Res. 224, 105461 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
51.R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020).
Google Scholar 
52.Smith, A. D. et al. Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus L.) in NAFO Subareas 3 and 4 in 2018. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2020/013. iv + 37 p. (2020).53.Lambrey de Souza, J., Sévigny, J.-M., Chanut, J.-P., Barry, W. F. & Grégoire, F. High genetic variability in the mtDNA control region of a Northwestern Atlantic teleost, Scomber scombrus L. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2625, vi+25 (2006).
Google Scholar 
54.Radlinski, M. K., Sundermeyer, M. A., Bisagni, J. J. & Cadrin, S. X. Spatial and temporal distribution of Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) along the northeast coast of the United States, 1985–1999. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 70, 1151–1161 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Castonguay, M., Plourde, S., Robert, D., Runge, J. A. & Fortier, L. Copepod production drives recruitment in a marine fish. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 65, 1528–1531 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
56.McManus, M. C. Atlantic Mackerel (Scomber scombrus) Population and Habitat Trends in the Northwest Atlantic (University of Rhode Island, 2017).
Google Scholar 
57.Schloesser, R. W., Rooker, J. R., Louchuoarn, P., Neilson, J. D. & Secord, D. H. Interdecadal variation in seawater δ13C and δ18O recorded in fish otoliths. Limnol. Oceanogr. 54, 1665–1668 (2009).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Schloesser, R. W., Neilson, J. D., Secor, D. H. & Rooker, J. R. Natal origin of Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) from Canadian waters based on otolith δ13C and δ18O. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 67, 563–569 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Thorrold, S. R., Campana, S. E., Jones, C. M. & Swart, P. K. Factors determining δ13C and δ18O fractionation in aragonitic otoliths of marine fish. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta. 61, 2909–2919 (1997).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Campana, S. E. Chemistry and composition of fish otoliths: pathways, mechanisms and applications. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 188, 263–297 (1999).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Caesar, L., Rahmstorf, S., Robinson, A., Feulner, G. & Saba, V. Observed fingerprint of a weakening Atlantic Ocean overturning circulation. Nature 556, 191–196 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Saba, V. S. et al. Enhanced warming of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean under climate change. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 121, 118–132 (2016).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Pershing, A. J. et al. Slow adaptation in the face of rapid warming leads to collapse of the Gulf of Maine cod fishery. Science 350, 809–812 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Brickman, D., Hebert, D. & Wang, Z. Mechanism for the recent ocean warming events on the Scotian Shelf of eastern Canada. Cont. Shelf. Res. 156, 11–22 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Thorrold, S. R., Latkoczy, C., Swart, P. K. & Jones, C. M. Natal homing in a marine fish metapopulation. Science 291, 297–299 (2001).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Gillanders, B. M. Using elemental chemistry of fish otoliths to determine connectivity between estuarine and coastal habitats. Estuar. Coast. Shelf. Sci. 64, 47–57 (2005).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Høie, H., Andersson, C., Folkvord, A. & Karlsen, Ø. Precision and accuracy of stable isotope signals in otoliths of pen-reared cod (Gadus morhua) when sampled with a high-resolution micromill. Mar. Biol. 144, 1039–1049 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Martino, J. C., Doubleday, Z. A., Chung, M.-T. & Gillanders, B. M. Experimental support towards a metabolic proxy in fish using otolith carbon isotopes. J. Exp. Biol. 223, jeb217091 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Manel, S., Gaggiotti, O. E. & Waples, R. S. Assignment methods: matching biological questions with appropriate techniques. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20, 136–142 (2005).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Siskey, M. R., Wilberg, M. J., Allman, R. J., Barnett, B. K. & Secor, D. H. Forty years of fishing: changes in age structure and stock mixing in northwestern Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) associated with size-selective and long-term exploitation. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 73, 2518–2528 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Kerr, L. A., Cadrin, S. X. & Secor, D. H. The role of spatial dynamics in the stability, resilience, and productivity of an estuarine fish population. Ecol. Appl. 20, 497–507 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Goethel, D. R., Quinn, T. J. & Cadrin, S. X. Incorporating spatial structure in stock assessment: movement modeling in marine fish population dynamics. Rev. Fish. Sci. 19, 119–136 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
73.Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (Springer, 2016).
Google Scholar  More

1.Firth, L. B. et al. Ocean sprawl: Challenges and opportunities for biodiversity management in a changing world. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Annu. Rev. 54, 193–269 (2016).
Google Scholar 
2.Forman, R. T. T. et al. Road Ecology: Science and Solutions (Island Press, 2003).
Google Scholar 
3.Bishop, M. J. et al. Effects of ocean sprawl on ecological connectivity: Impacts and solutions. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 492, 7–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2017.01.021 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Sobocinski, K. L., Cordell, J. R. & Simenstad, C. A. Effects of shoreline modifications on supratidal macroinvertebrate fauna on Puget Sound, Washington beaches. Estuar. Coast 33, 699–711. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-009-9262-9 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Carlton, J. T. & Hodder, J. Maritime mammals: Terrestrial mammals as consumers in marine intertidal communities. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 256, 271–286. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps256271 (2003).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Levin, L. A. et al. The function of marine critical transition zones and the importance of sediment biodiversity. Ecosystems 4, 430–451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-001-0021-4 (2001).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Lee, Y. Study on Changes in the Coastal Environment Due to Human Interference: A Case Study of Sand Beach Coast in Gangneung. Master’s Thesis. Korea National University of Education, Cheongju (2011).8.Son, S. et al. Analysis of Influential factors of roadkill occurrence—A case study of Seorak national park. J. Korean Inst. Landsc. Arch. 44, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.9715/KILA.2016.44.3.001 (2016).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Carr, L. W. & Fahrig, L. Effect of road traffic on two amphibian species of differing vagility. Conserv. Biol. 15, 1071–1078. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.0150041071.x (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Coffin, A. W. From roadkill to road ecology: A review of the ecological effects of roads. J. Transp. Geogr. 15, 396–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2006.11.006 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Zielin, S. B., Littlejohn, J., de Rivera, C. E., Smith, W. P. & Jacobson, S. L. Ecological investigations to select mitigation options to reduce vehicle-caused mortality of a threatened butterfly. J. Insect Conserv. 20, 845–854. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-016-9916-4 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Bonnet, X., Naulleau, G. & Shine, R. The dangers of leaving home: Dispersal and mortality in snakes. Biol. Conserv. 89, 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(98)00140-2 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Fahrig, L., Pedlar, J. H., Pope, S. E., Taylor, P. D. & Wegner, J. F. Effect of road traffic on amphibian density. Biol. Conserv. 73, 177–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(94)00102-V (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Hobday, A. J. & Minstrell, M. L. Distribution and abundance of roadkill on Tasmanian highways: Human management options. Wildl. Res. 35, 712–726. https://doi.org/10.1080/15627020.2015.1021161 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Finder, R. A., Roseberry, J. L. & Woolf, A. Site and landscape conditions at white-tailed deer/vehicle collision locations in Illinois. Landsc. Urban Plan. 44, 77–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00006-7 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Glista, D. J., DeVault, T. L. & DeWoody, J. A. Vertebrate road mortality predominantly impacts amphibians. Herpetol. Conserv. Biol. 3, 77–87 (2008).
Google Scholar 
17.Grilo, C., Bissonette, J. A. & Cramer, P. C. Mitigation measures to reduce impacts on biodiversity. In Highways: Construction (ed. Jones, S. R.) 73–114 (Management and Maintenance. Nova Science Publishers, 2010).
Google Scholar 
18.Baine, M. et al. The development of management options for the black land crab (Gecarcinus ruricola) catchery in the San Andres Archipelago, Colombia. Ocean Coast Manage. 50, 564–589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2007.02.007 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Kantola, T., Tracy, J. L., Baum, K. A., Quinn, M. A. & Coulson, R. N. Spatial risk assessment of eastern monarch butterfly road mortality during autumn migration within the southern corridor. Biol. Conserv. 231, 150–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.01.008 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Koivula, M. J. & Vermeulen, H. J. W. Highways and forest fragmentation—Effects on carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Landsc. Ecol. 20, 911–926. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-005-7301-x (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Costa, L. L., Mothé, N. A. & Zalmon, I. R. Light pollution and ghost crab road-kill on coastal habitats. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 39, 101457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsma.2020.101457 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Hübner, L., Pennings, S. C. & Zimmer, M. Sex- and habitat-specific movement of an omnivorous semi-terrestrial crab controls habitat connectivity and subsidies: A multi-parameter approach. Oecologia 178, 999–1015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-015-3271-0 (2015).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
23.Burggren, W. W. & McMahon, B. R. Biology of the Terrestrial Crabs (Cambridge University Press, 1988).
Google Scholar 
24.Micheli, F., Gherardi, F. & Vannini, M. Feeding and burrowing ecology of two East African mangrove crabs. Mar. Biol. 111, 247–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01319706 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Green, P. T., O’Dowd, D. J. & Lake, P. S. Recruitment dynamics in a rainforest seedling community: Context independent impact of a keystone consumer. Oecologia 156, 373–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-008-0992-3 (2008).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
26.Suzuki, S. The life history of Sesarma haematocheirin the Miura peninsula. Res. Crust 11, 51–65. https://doi.org/10.18353/rcustacea.11.0_51 (1981).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Adamczewska, A. M. & Morris, S. Ecology and behavior of Gecarcoideanatalis, the Christmas Island red crab, during the annual breeding migration. Biol. Bull. 200, 305–320. https://doi.org/10.2307/1543512 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Le Galliard, J.-F., Fitze, P. S., Ferriere, R. & Clobert, J. Sex ratio bias, male aggression, and population collapse in lizards. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 102, 18231–18236. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0505172102 (2005).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
29.Caswell, H. Matrix Population Models: Construction, Analysis, and Interpretation (Sinauer Associates, 2001).
Google Scholar 
30.Aresco, M. J. The effect of sex-specific terrestrial movements and roads on the sex ratio of freshwater turtles. Biol. Conserv. 123, 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2004.10.006 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Mumme, R. L., Schoech, S. J., Woolfenden, G. E. & Fitzpatrick, J. W. Life and death in the fast lane: Demographic consequences of road mortality in the Florida scrub-jay. Conserv. Biol. 14, 501–512. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.98370.x (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Kioko, J., Kiffner, C., Jenkins, N. & Collinson, W. J. Wildlife roadkill patterns on a major highway in northern Tanzania. Afr. Zool. 50, 17–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/15627020.2015.1021161 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Seo, C., Thorne, J. H., Choi, T., Kwon, H. & Park, C. H. Disentangling roadkill: The influence of landscape and season on cumulative vertebrate mortality in South Korea. Landsc. Ecol. Eng. 11, 87–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11355-013-0239-2 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Beebee, T. J. C. Effects of road mortality and mitigation measures on amphibian populations. Conserv. Biol. 27, 657–668. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12063 (2013).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
35.Zhang, W. et al. Daytime driving decreases amphibian roadkill. PeerJ 6, e5385. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5385 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
36.Saigusa, M. & Hidaka, T. Semilunar rhythm in the zoea-release activity of the terrestrial crabs Sesarma. Oecologia 37, 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00344988 (1978).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
37.Hartnoll, R. G. et al. Reproduction in the land crab Johngarthialagostoma on Ascension Island. J. Crust. Biol. 30, 83–92. https://doi.org/10.1651/09-3143.1 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Schmidt, A. J., Bemvenutia, C. E. & Dieleet, K. Effects of geophysical cycles on the rhythm of mass mate searching of a harvested mangrove crab. Anim. Behav. 84, 333–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.04.023 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Saigusa, M. Ecological distribution of three species of the genus Sesarma in winter season. Zool. Mag. 87, 142–150 (1978).
Google Scholar 
40.Saigusa, M. Adaptive significance of a semilunar rhythm in the terrestrial crab Sesarma. Biol. Bull. 160, 311–321. https://doi.org/10.2307/1540891 (1981).Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Saigusa, M., Terajima, M. & Yamamoto, M. Structure, formation, mechanical properties, and disposal of the embryo attachment system of an estuarine crab, Sesarma haematocheir. Biol. Bull. 203, 289–306. https://doi.org/10.2307/1543572 (2002).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
42.Saigusa, M. Hatching of an estuarine crab, sesarma haematochier: Factors affecting the timing of hatching in detached embryos, and enhancement of hatching synchrony by the female. J. Oceanogr. 56, 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011118726283 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Saigusa, M. Larval release rhythm coinciding with solar day and tidal cycles in the terrestrial crab Sesarma-harmony with the semilunar timing and its adaptive significance. Biol. Bull. 162, 371–386. https://doi.org/10.2307/1540990 (1982).Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Forward, R. B. Larval release rhythms of decapod crustaceans: An overview. Bull. Mar. Sci. 41, 165–176 (1987).
Google Scholar 
45.Hicks, J. W. The breeding behaviour and migrations of the terrestrial crab Gecarcoideanatalis (Decapoda: Brachyura). Aust. J. Zool. 33, 127–142. https://doi.org/10.1071/ZO9850127 (1985).Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Morgan, S. G. & Christy, J. H. Adaptive significance of the timing of larval release by crabs. Am. Nat. 145, 457–479. https://doi.org/10.1086/285749 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Paula, J. Rhythms of larval release of decapod crustaceans in the Mira Estuary, Portugal. Mar. Biol. 100, 309–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00391144 (1989).Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Bergin, M. E. Hatching rhythms in Ucapugilator (Decapoda: Brachyura). Mar. Biol. 63, 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00406823 (1981).Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Christy, J. H. Adaptive significance of semilunar cycles of larval release in fiddler crabs (Genus Uca): Test of a hypothesis. Biol. Bull. 163, 251–263. https://doi.org/10.2307/1541264 (1982).Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Quintero-Angel, A., Osorio-Dominguez, D., Vargas-Salinas, F. & Saavedra-Rodriguez, C. A. Roadkill rate of snakes in a disturbed landscape of central Andes of Columbia. Herpetol. Notes 5, 99–105 (2012).
Google Scholar 
51.Orłowski, G. Roadside hedgerows and trees as factors increasing road mortality of birds: Implications for management of roadside vegetation in rural landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 86, 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.02.003 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Saeki, M. & Macdonald, D. W. The effects of traffic on the raccoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides viverrinus) and other mammals in Japan. Biol. Conserv. 118, 559–571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2003.10.004 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Costa, L. L., Secco, H., Arueira, V. F. & Zalmon, I. R. Mortality of the Atlantic ghost crab Ocypode quadrata (Fabricius, 1787) due to vehicle traffic on sandy beaches: A road ecology approach. J. Environ. Manage. 260, 110168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110168 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
54.Tsai, J. R., Hsieh, Y. T., Lin & H. C. The effect of dike types on terrestrial crab passage through the access road: The predicament of terrestrial crab conservation in Gaomei Wetland. In Proceedings of the 39th Oceans Engineering Conference in Taiwan Hungkuang University, November (2017)55.Bellis, M. A., Jackson, S. D., Griffin, C. R., Warren, P. S. & Thompson, A. O. Utilizing a multi-technique, multi-taxa approach to monitoring wildlife passageways in southern Vermont. Oecol. Aust. 17, 111–128. https://doi.org/10.4257/oeco.2013.1701.10 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Song, J. et al. Roadkill of amphibians in the Korea national park. Korean J. Environ. Ecol. 23, 187–193 (2009).
Google Scholar 
57.Ryu, M. & Kim, J. G. Influence of roadkill during breeding migration on the sex ratio of land crab (Sesarma haematoche). J. Environ. Ecol. 44, 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41610-020-00167-6 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Mizuta, T. Moonlight-related mortality: Lunar conditions and roadkill occurrence in the Amami woodcock Scolopax mira. Wilson J. Ornithol. 126, 544–552. https://doi.org/10.1676/13-159.1 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Gibbs, J. P. & Steen, D. A. Trends in sex ratios of turtles in the United States: Implications of road mortality. Conserv. Biol. 19, 552–556. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.000155.x (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Rytwinski, T. & Fahrig, L. Do species life history traits explain population responses to roads? A meta-analysis. Biol. Conserv. 147, 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.11.023 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute. Korean Astronomical Almanac (Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute, 2017).
Google Scholar  More

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

1.Orians, G. H. & Pearson, N. E. On the theory of central place foraging. Analysis of ecological systems. In Analysis of ecological systems Vol. 2 (eds Horn D. J., Mitchell R. D. & Stairs G. R.) 155–177 (Ohio State Univ. Press, 1979).
Google Scholar 
2.Biuw, M. et al. Variations in behavior and condition of a Southern Ocean top predator in relation to in situ oceanographic conditions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104, 13705–13710 (2007).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Arcalís-Planas, A. et al. Limited use of sea ice by the Ross seal (Ommatophoca rossii), in Amundsen Sea, Antarctica, using telemetry and remote sensing data. Polar Biol. 38, 445–461 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Staniland, I. J., Boyd, I. L. & Reid, K. An energy–distance trade-off in a central-place forager, the Antarctic fur seal (Arctocephalus gazella). Mar. Biol. 152, 233–241 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Le Boeuf, B. et al. Foraging ecology of northern elephant seals. Ecol. Monogr. 70, 353–382 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Adelung, D., Kierspel, M. A., Liebsch, N., Müller, G. & Wilson, R. P. Distribution of harbour seals in the German bight in relation to offshore wind power plants. In Offshore Wind Energy: Research on Environmental Impacts (eds Köller, J., Köppel J. & Peters, W.) 65–75 (Springer, 2006).
Google Scholar 
7.Thompson, P. M., Mackay, A., Tollit, D. J., Enderby, S. & Hammond, P. S. The influence of body size and sex on the characteristics of harbour seal foraging trips. Can. J. Zool. 76, 1044–1053 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Wilson, R. P. et al. Options for modulating intra-specific competition in colonial pinnipeds : the case of harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) in the Wadden Sea. PeerJ 4, e957 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Sharples, R. J., Moss, S. E., Patterson, T. A. & Hammond, P. S. Spatial variation in foraging behaviour of a marine top predator (Phoca vitulina) determined by a large-scale satellite tagging program. PLoS ONE 7, e37216 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Liebsch, N., Wilson, R. P. & Adelung, D. Utilisation of time and space by harbour seals (Phoca vitulina vitulina) determined by new remote-sensing methods. In Progress in Marine Conservation in Europe (eds von Nordheim, H., Boedeker, D. & Krause, J.C.) 179–188 (Springer, 2006).
Google Scholar 
11.Tougaard, J., Teilmann, J. & Tougaard, S. Harbour seal spatial distribution estimated from Argos satellite telemetry: overcoming positioning errors. Endanger. Species Res. 4, 113–122 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Common Wadden Sea Secretariat. Report on the State of Conservation of the World Heritage property “ The Wadden Sea ( N1314 )” (2016).13.Brasseur, S. M. J. M. et al. Echoes from the past: regional variations in recovery within a harbour seal population. PLoS ONE 13, 1–21 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
14.Wolff, W. J. Ecology of the Wadden Sea (Balkema, 1983).
Google Scholar 
15.Baumann, H., Malzahn, A. M., Voss, R. & Temming, A. The German Bight (North Sea) is a nursery area for both locally and externally produced sprat juveniles. J. Sea Res. 61, 234–243 (2009).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Tulp, I., Bolle, L. J. & Rijnsdorp, A. D. Signals from the shallows: in search of common patterns in long-term trends in Dutch estuarine and coastal fish. J. Sea Res. 60, 54–73 (2008).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Dulvy, N. K. et al. Climate change and deepening of the North Sea fish assemblage: a biotic indicator of warming seas. J. Appl. Ecol. 45, 1029–1039 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Birt, V., Birt, T., Goulet, D., Cairns, D. & Montevecchi, W. Ashmole’s halo: direct evidence for prey depletion by a seabird. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 40, 205–208 (1987).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Russell, D. J. F. et al. Intrinsic and extrinsic drivers of activity budgets in sympatric grey and harbour seals. Oikos 124, 1462–1472 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Sparling, C. E., Fedak, M. A. & Thompson, D. Eat now, pay later? Evidence of deferred food-processing costs in diving seals. Biol. Lett. 3, 94–98 (2007).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
21.Ramasco, V., Biuw, M. & Nilssen, K. T. Improving time budget estimates through the behavioural interpretation of dive bouts in harbour seals. Anim. Behav. 94, 117–134 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Mikkelsen, L. et al. Long-term sound and movement recording tags to study natural behavior and reaction to ship noise of seals. Ecol. Evol. 9(5), 2588–2601 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
23.Carter, M. I. D., Bennett, K. A., Embling, C. B., Hosegood, P. J. & Russell, D. J. F. Navigating uncertain waters: a critical review of inferring foraging behaviour from location and dive data in pinnipeds. Mov. Ecol. 4, 1–20 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Boyd, I. L. Temporal scales of foraging in a marine predator author. Ecology 77, 426–434 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Bjorge, A. et al. Habitat Use and Diving Behaviour of Harbour Seals in a Coastal Archipelage in Norway 211–223 (Elsevier, 1995).
Google Scholar 
26.Lesage, V., Hammill, M. O. & Kovacs, K. M. Functional classification of harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) dives using depth profiles, swimming velocity, and an index of foraging success. Can. J. Zool. 77, 74–87 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Baechler, J., Beck, C. A. & Bowen, W. Dive shapes reveal temporal changes in the foraging behaviour of different age and sex classes of harbour seals (Phoca vitulina). Can. J. Zool. Can. Zool. 80, 1569–1577 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Dragon, A. C., Bar-Hen, A., Monestiez, P. & Guinet, C. Comparative analysis of methods for inferring successful foraging areas from Argos and GPS tracking data. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 452, 253–267 (2012).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Dragon, A. C., Bar-Hen, A., Monestiez, P. & Guinet, C. Horizontal and vertical movements as predictors of foraging success in a marine predator. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 447, 243–257 (2012).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Thums, M. T., Bradshaw, C. J. A. & Hindell, M. A. In situ measures of foraging success and prey encounter reveal marine habitat-dependent search strategies. Ecology 92, 1258–1270 (2011).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Volpov, B. L., Hoskins, A. J., Battaile, B. C. & Viviant, M. Identification of prey captures in Australian fur seals (Arctocephalus pusillus doriferus) using head-mounted accelerometers: Field validation with animal-borne video cameras. PLoS ONE 10, e0128789 (2015).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
32.Gallon, S. et al. Identifying foraging events in deep diving southern elephant seals, Mirounga leonina, using acceleration data loggers. Deep. Res. Part II Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 88–89, 14–22 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Viviant, M., Trites, A. W., Rosen, D. A. S., Monestiez, P. & Guinet, C. Prey capture attempts can be detected in Steller sea lions and other marine predators using accelerometers. Polar Biol. 33, 713–719 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Watanabe, Y. Y. & Takahashi, A. Linking animal-borne video to accelerometers reveals prey capture variability. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110, 2199–2204 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Martín Lopez, L. M., Miller, P. J. O., Aguilar de Soto, N. & Johnson, M. Gait switches in deep-diving beaked whales: biomechanical strategies for long-duration dives. J. Exp. Biol. 218, 1325–1338 (2015).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
36.Naito, Y., Bornemann, H., Takahashi, A., McIntyre, T. & Plötz, J. Fine-scale feeding behavior of Weddell seals revealed by a mandible accelerometer. Polar Sci. 4, 309–316 (2010).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Ydesen, K. S. et al. What a jerk: prey engulfment revealed by high-rate, super-cranial accelerometry on a harbour seal (Phoca vitulina). J. Exp. Biol. 217, 2239–2243 (2014).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
38.Johnson, M., De Soto, N. A. & Madsen, P. T. Studying the behaviour and sensory ecology of marine mammals using acoustic recording tags: a review. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 395, 55–73 (2009).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Goldbogen, J. A., Friedlaender, A. S., Calambokidis, J., McKenna, M. F. & Simon, M. Integrative approaches to the study of baleen whale diving behavior, feeding performance, and foraging ecology. Bioscience 63, 90–100 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Wilson, R. P. et al. All at sea with animal tracks; methodological and analytical solutions for the resolution of movement. Deep. Res. Part II(54), 193–210 (2007).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Baylis, A. M. M., Page, B. & Goldsworthy, S. D. Effect of seasonal changes in upwelling activity on the foraging locations of a wide-ranging central-place forager, the New Zealand fur seal. Can. J. Zool. 789, 774–789 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.McClintock, B. T., Russell, D. J. F., Matthiopoulos, J. & King, R. Combining individual animal movement and ancillary biotelemetry data to investigate population-level activity budgets. Ecology 94, 838–849 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Siebert, U., Müller, S., Gilles, A., Sundermeyer, J. & Narberhaus, I. Chapter VII species profiles marine mammals authors: harbour porpoise red lists, conservation status and assessment. In Threatened Biodiversity in the German North and Baltic Seas-Sensitivities Towards Human Activities and the Effects of Climate Change (eds Narberhaus, I. & Krause, J.) 448–495 (Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt, 2012).
Google Scholar 
44.Ashmole, N. P. The regulation of numbers of tropical oceanic birds. Ibis (Lond. 1859) 103, 458–473 (1963).
Google Scholar 
45.Gaston, A. J., Ydenberg, R. C. & Smith, G. E. J. Ashmole’s halo and population regulation in seabirds. Mar. Ornithol. 35, 119–126 (2007).
Google Scholar 
46.Cronin, M., Pomeroy, P. & Jessopp, M. Size and seasonal influences on the foraging range of female grey seals in the northeast Atlantic. Mar. Biol. 160, 531–539 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Dietz, R., Teilmann, J., Andersen, S. M., Rige, F. & Olsen, M. T. Movements and site fidelity of harbour seal (Phoca vitulina) in Kattegat, Denmark, with implications for the epidemiology of the phocine distemper virus. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 70, 186–195 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Brasseur, S., Creuwels, J., Werf, B. & Reijnders, P. Deprivation indicates necessity for haul-out in harbor seals. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 12, 619–624 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Lyamin, O. I., Mukhametov, L. M. & Siegel, J. M. Sleep in the northern fur seal. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 44, 144–151 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Härkönen, T. et al. The 1988 and 2002 phocine distemper virus epidemics in European harbour seals. Dis. Aquat. Organ. 68, 115–130 (2006).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
51.Bodewes, R. et al. Avian influenza a(H10n7) virus–associated mass deaths among harbor seals. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 21, 720–722 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Galatius, A. et al. Trilateral Surveys of Harbour Seals in the Wadden Sea and Helgoland in 2019 (2019).53.Madsen, P. T., Wahlberg, M., Tougaard, J., Lucke, K. & Tyack, P. Wind turbine underwater noise and marine mammals: implications of current knowledge and data needs. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 309, 279–295 (2006).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Cremer, J. et al. EG-Seals Grey Seal Surveys in the Wadden Sea and Helgoland in 2018–2019-Steady Growth (2019).55.Christensen, J. T. & Richardson, K. Stable isotope evidence of long-term changes in the North Sea food web structure. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 368, 1–8 (2008).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Daan, N., Gislason, H., Pope, J. G. & Rice, J. C. Changes in the North Sea fish community: Evidence of indirect effects of fishing ?. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 62, 177–188 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Baudron, A. R., Needle, C. L., Rijnsdorp, A. D. & Marshall, C. T. Warming temperatures and smaller body sizes: Synchronous changes in growth of North Sea fishes. Glob. Change Biol. 20, 1023–1031 (2014).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Hasselmeier, I., Fonfara, S., Driver, J. & Siebert, U. Differential hematology profiles of free-ranging, rehabilitated, and captive harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) of the German North Sea. Aquat. Mamm. 34, 149–156 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Wales, B., Tarazona, L. & Bavaro, M. Snapshot positioning for low-power miniaturised spaceborne GNSS receivers. In 2010 5th ESA Work. Satell. Navig. Technol. Eur. Work. GNSS Signals Signal Process.1–6 (IEEE, 2010).60.Johnson, M. P. & Tyack, P. L. A digital acoustic recording tag for measuring the response of wild marine mammals to sound. IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 28, 3–12 (2003).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Sibly, R. M., Nott, H. M. R. & Fletcher, D. J. Splitting behaviour into bouts. Anim. Behav. 39, 63–69 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Bowen, W. D., Tully, D., Boness, D. J., Bulheier, B. M. & Marshall, G. J. Prey-dependent foraging tactics and preyprofitability in a marine mammal. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 244, 235–245 (2002).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Cox, S. L. et al. Processing of acceleration and dive data on-board satellite relay tags to investigate diving and foraging behaviour in free-ranging marine predators. Methods Ecol. Evol. 9, 64–77 (2018).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
64.Thompson, D. & Fedak, M. A. How long should a dive last? A simple model of foraging decisions by breath-hold divers in a patchy environment. Anim. Behav. 61, 287–296 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Martín López, L. M., de Soto, N. A., Miller, P. & Johnson, M. Tracking the kinematics of caudal-oscillatory swimming: a comparison of two on-animal sensing methods. J. Exp. Biol. 219, 2103–2109. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.136242 (2016).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
66.Sato, K. et al. Stroke frequency, but not swimming speed, is related to body size in free-ranging seabirds, pinnipeds and cetaceans. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 274, 471–477 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Bartoń, K. MuMIn: Multi‐model inference. R package version 1.43.17. 75 (2020). More

1.Otero, J. et al. Basin-scale phenology and effects of climate variability on global timing of initial seaward migration of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Glob. Change Biol. 20, 61–75 (2014).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Thorstad, E. B., Whoriskey, F., Rikardsen, A. H. & Aarestrup, K. Aquatic nomads: The life and migrations of the Atlantic salmon. In Atlantic Salmon Ecology (eds Aas, Ø. et al.) 1–32 (Wiley-Blackwell, 2010) https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444327755.ch1.
Google Scholar 
3.Harvey, A. C., Glover, K. A., Wennevik, V. & Skaala, Ø. Atlantic salmon and sea trout display synchronised smolt migration relative to linked environmental cues. Sci. Rep. 10, 3529 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Jensen, A. J. et al. Timing of smolt migration in sympatric populations of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), brown trout (Salmo trutta), and Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 69, 711–723 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Hansen, L. P. & Jonsson, B. Salmon ranching experiments in the River Imsa: Effect of timing of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) smolt migration on survival to adults. Aquaculture 82, 367–373 (1989).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Hvidsten, N. A. et al. Influence of sea temperature and initial marine feeding on survival of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) post-smolts from the Rivers Orkla and Hals, Norway. J. Fish Biol. 74, 1532–1548 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Hvidsten, N. A., Heggberget, T. & Jensen, A. J. Sea water temperatures at Atlantic salmon smolt enterance. Nord. J. Freshw. Res. 74, 79–86 (1998).8.Otero, J. et al. Quantifying the ocean, freshwater and human effects on year-to-year variability of one-sea-winter Atlantic salmon angled in multiple Norwegian rivers. PLoS ONE 6, e24005 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Rikardsen, A. H. & Dempson, J. B. Dietary life-support: the food and feeding of Atlantic salmon at sea. In Atlantic Salmon Ecology (eds. Aas, Ø., Klemetsen, A., Einum, S. & Skurdal, J.) 115–143 (Wiley, 2011).10.Edwards, M. & Richardson, A. J. Impact of climate change on marine pelagic phenology and trophic mismatch. Nature 430, 881–884 (2004).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Piou, C. & Prévost, E. Contrasting effects of climate change in continental vs. oceanic environments on population persistence and microevolution of Atlantic salmon. Glob. Change Biol. 19, 711–723 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.McCormick, S. D., Hansen, L. P., Quinn, T. P. & Saunders, R. L. Movement, migration, and smolting of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 55, 77–92 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Thorstad, E. B. et al. A critical life stage of the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar): Behaviour and survival during the smolt and initial post-smolt migration. J. Fish Biol. 81, 500–542 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Aldrin, M., Storvik, B., Kristoffersen, A. B. & Jansen, P. A. Space-time modelling of the spread of salmon lice between and within Norwegian marine salmon farms. PLoS ONE 8, e64039 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Jansen, P. A. et al. Sea lice as a density-dependent constraint to salmonid farming. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 279, 2330–2338 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Kristoffersen, A. B. et al. Large scale modelling of salmon lice (Lepeophtheirus salmonis) infection pressure based on lice monitoring data from Norwegian salmonid farms. Epidemics 9, 31–39 (2014).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Bøhn, T. et al. Timing is everything: Survival of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) postsmolts during events of high salmon lice densities. J. Appl. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13612 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Berge, Å. I. et al. Development of salinity tolerance in underyearling smolts of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) reared under different photoperiods. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 52, 243–251 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Hoar, W. S. 4 The physiology of smolting salmonids. In Fish Physiology Vol. 11 (eds Hoar, W. S. & Randall, D. J.) 275–343 (Academic Press, 1988).
Google Scholar 
20.Saunders, R. L. & Henderson, E. B. Influence of photoperiod on smolt development and growth of Atlantic salmon (Salmo solar). J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 27, 1295–1311 (1970).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Strand, J. E. T., Hazlerigg, D. & Jørgensen, E. H. Photoperiod revisited: Is there a critical day length for triggering a complete parr-smolt transformation in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)?. J. Fish Biol. 93, 440–448 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Antonsson, T. & Gudjonsson, S. Variability in timing and characteristics of Atlantic salmon smolt in Icelandic rivers. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 131, 643–655 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Kennedy, R. & Crozier, W. Evidence of changing migratory patterns of wild Atlantic salmon Salmo salar smolts in the River Bush, Northern Ireland, and possible associations with climate change. J. Fish Biol. 76, 1786–1805 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Hvidsten, N. A., Jensen, A. J., Vivås, H. & Bakke, Ø. Downstream migration of Atlantic salmon smolts in relation to water flow, water temperature, moon phase and social interaction. Nord. J. Freshw. Res. 70, 38–48 (1995).25.Urke, H. A., Kristensen, T., Ulvund, J. B. & Alfredsen, J. A. Riverine and fjord migration of wild and hatchery-reared Atlantic salmon smolts. Fish. Manag. Ecol. 20, 544–552 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Carlsen, K. T., Berg, O. K., Finstad, B. & Heggberget, T. G. Diel periodicity and environmental influence on the smolt migration of Arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus, Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, and Brown Trout, Salmo trutta, Northern Norway. Environ. Biol. Fishes 70, 403–413 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Birnie-Gauvin, K., Larsen, M. H., Thomassen, S. T. & Aarestrup, K. Testing three common stocking methods: Differences in smolt size, migration rate and timing of two strains of stocked Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Aquaculture 483, 163–168 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Nielsen, C., Holdensgaard, G., Petersen, H. C., Bjornsson, BTh. & Madsen, S. S. Genetic differences in physiology, growth hormone levels and migratory behaviour of Atlantic salmon smolts. J. Fish Biol. 59, 28–44 (2001).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Orciari, R. D. & Leonard, G. H. Length characteristics of smolts and timing of downstream migration among three strains of Atlantic salmon in a southern New England stream. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 16, 851–860 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Skaala, Ø. et al. An extensive common-garden study with domesticated and wild Atlantic salmon in the wild reveals impact on smolt production and shifts in fitness traits. Evol. Appl. 12, 1001–1016 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Cooke, S. J. et al. Tracking animals in freshwater with electronic tags: Past, present and future. Anim. Biotelemetry 1, 5 (2013).MathSciNet 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Lennox, R. J. et al. Envisioning the future of aquatic animal tracking: Technology, science, and application. Bioscience 67, 884–896 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Finstad, B., Okland, F., Thorstad, E. B., BjOrn, P. A. & McKinley, R. S. Migration of hatchery-reared Atlantic salmon and wild anadromous brown trout post-smolts in a Norwegian fjord system. J. Fish Biol. 66, 86–96 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.McMichael, G. A. et al. The juvenile salmon acoustic telemetry system: A new tool. Fisheries 35, 9–22 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Welch, D. W. et al. Freshwater and marine migration and survival of endangered Cultus Lake sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) smolts using POST, a large-scale acoustic telemetry array. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 66, 736–750 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Nilsen, F. et al. Vurdering av lakselusindusert villfiskdødelighet per produksjonsområde i 2018. Rapp. Fra Ekspertgruppe Vurder. Av Lusepåvirkning Append 2, 62 (2018).
Google Scholar 
37.Mulcahy, D. M. Surgical implantation of transmitters into fish. ILAR J. 44, 295–306 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Cooke, S. J. & Wagner, G. N. Training, experience, and opinions of researchers who use surgical techniques to implant telemetry devices into fish. Fisheries 29, 10–18 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Percie du Sert, N. et al. Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0. PLOS Biol. 18, e3000411 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Grün, B. & Leisch, F. FlexMix version 2: Finite mixtures with concomitant variables and varying and constant parameters. J. Stat. Softw. 28, 1–35 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Leisch, F. FlexMix: A general framework for finite mixture models and latent class regression in R. J. Stat. Softw. 11, 1–18 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Zuur, A., Ieno, E. N., Walker, N., Saveliev, A. A. & Smith, G. M. Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R (Springer Science & Business Media, 2009).
Google Scholar 
43.Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models using lme4. arXiv:1406.5823Stat (2014).44.Lebreton, J.-D., Burnham, K. P., Clobert, J. & Anderson, D. R. Modeling survival and testing biological hypotheses using marked animals: A unified approach with case studies. Ecol. Monogr. 62, 67–118 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Laake, J. L. RMark: An R Interface for Analysis of Capture-Recapture Data with MARK. 25 http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Publications/ProcRpt/PR2013-01.pdf (2013).46.White, G. C. & Burnham, K. P. Program MARK: Survival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Study 46, S120–S139 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Burnham, K. P. Design and analysis methods for fish survival experiments based on release-recapture. Am. Fish. Soc. Monogr. 5, 1–437 (1987).
Google Scholar 
48.Michel, C. J. et al. Chinook salmon outmigration survival in wet and dry years in California’s Sacramento River. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 72, 1749–1759 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Persson, L., Kagervall, A., Leonardsson, K., Royan, M. & Alanärä, A. The effect of physiological and environmental conditions on smolt migration in Atlantic salmon Salmo salar. Ecol. Freshw. Fish 28, 190–199 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Whalen, K. G., Parrish, D. L. & McCormick, S. D. Migration timing of Atlantic salmon smolts relative to environmental and physiological factors. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 128, 289–301 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Haraldstad, T., Kroglund, F., Kristensen, T., Jonsson, B. & Haugen, T. O. Diel migration pattern of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and sea trout (Salmo trutta) smolts: An assessment of environmental cues. Ecol. Freshw. Fish 26, 541–551 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Skilbrei, O. T., Wennevik, V., Dahle, G., Barlaup, B. & Wiers, T. Delayed smolt migration of stocked Atlantic salmon parr. Fish. Manag. Ecol. 17, 493–500 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Freshwater, C. et al. Individual variation, population-specific behaviours and stochastic processes shape marine migration phenologies. J. Anim. Ecol. 88, 67–78 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Chapman, B. B., Brönmark, C., Nilsson, J. -Å. & Hansson, L.-A. The ecology and evolution of partial migration. Oikos 120, 1764–1775 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Urke, H. A., Arnekleiv, J. V., Nilsen, T. O. & Nilssen, K. J. Development of seawater tolerance and subsequent downstream migration in wild and stocked young-of-the-year derived Atlantic salmon Salmo salar smolts. J. Fish Biol. 84, 178–192 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Virtanen, E., Söderholm-Tana, L., Soivio, A., Foreman, L. & Muona, M. Effect of physiological condition and smoltification status at smolt release on subsequent catches of adult salmon. Aquaculture 97, 231–257 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Björnsson, B. T., Stefansson, S. O. & McCormick, S. D. Environmental endocrinology of salmon smoltification. Gen. Comp. Endocrinol. 170, 290–298 (2011).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
58.Stefansson, S. O., Björnsson, B. T., Ebbesson, L. O. E. & McCormick, S. D. Smoltification. In Fish Larval Physiology (eds. Finn, R. N. & Kapoor, B. G.) 639–681 (Science Publishers, 2008).59.McCormick, S. D., Shrimpton, J. M., Nilsen, T. O. & Ebbesson, L. O. Advances in our understanding of the parr-smolt transformation of juvenile salmon: A summary of the 10th International Workshop on Salmon Smoltification. J. Fish Biol. 93, 437–439 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Simons, A. Playing smart vs. playing safe: The joint expression of phenotypic plasticity and potential bet hedging across and within thermal environments. J. Evol. Biol. 27, 1047–1056 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Finstad, B. & Jonsson, N. Factors influencing the yield of smolt releases in Norway. Nord. J. Freshw. Res. 75, 37–55 (2001).62.Diserud, O. H., Hindar, K., Karlsson, S., Glover, K. A. & Skaala, Ø. Genetic impact of escaped farmed Atlantic salmon on wild salmon populations—status 2017. NINA Rapp. 1337, 55 (2017).
Google Scholar 
63.Vollset, K. W. et al. Can the river location within a fjord explain the density of Atlantic salmon and sea trout?. Mar. Biol. Res. 10, 268–278 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Lacroix, G. L., Knox, D. & McCurdy, P. Effects of implanted dummy acoustic transmitters on juvenile Atlantic salmon. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 133, 211–220 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Newton, M. et al. Does size matter? A test of size-specific mortality in Atlantic salmon Salmo salar smolts tagged with acoustic transmitters. J. Fish Biol. 89, 1641–1650 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Hansen, L. P., Holm, M., Hoist, J. C. & Jacobsen, J. A. The ecology of post-smolts of Atlantic salmon. In Salmon at the Edge (ed. Mills, D.) 25–39 (Blackwell Science Ltd., 2003) https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470995495.ch4.
Google Scholar 
67.Gregory, S. D. et al. Atlantic salmon return rate increases with smolt length. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 76, 1702–1712 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Bjørn, P. A. et al. Metodeutvikling for overvåkning og telling av lakselus på viltlevende laksefisk: Ekstrainnsats i 2010 med midler fra FKD. (2011).69.Riley, W. D. et al. Development of schooling behaviour during the downstream migration of Atlantic salmon Salmo salar smolts in a chalk stream: Development of schooling in Salmo salar smolts. J. Fish Biol. 85, 1042–1059 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Daniels, J., Sutton, S., Webber, D. & Carr, J. Extent of predation bias present in migration survival and timing of Atlantic salmon smolt (Salmo salar) as suggested by a novel acoustic tag. Anim. Biotelemetry 7, 16 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Halttunen, E. et al. Migration of Atlantic salmon post-smolts in a fjord with high infestation pressure of salmon lice. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 592, 243–256 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Harvey, A. C. et al. Inferring Atlantic salmon post-smolt migration patterns using genetic assignment. R. Soc. Open Sci. 6, 190426 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.Amato, K. R. Incorporating the gut microbiota into models of human and non-human primate ecology and evolution. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 159, S196–S215 (2016).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Ley, R., Hamady, M. & Lozupone, C. Evolution of mammals and their gut microbes. Science 320, 1647–1651 (2008).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Walter, J. Ecological role of lactobacilli in the gastrointestinal tract: Implications for fundamental and biomedical research. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 74, 4985–4996 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.O’Callaghan, A. & van Sinderen, D. Bifidobacteria and their role as members of the human gut microbiota. Front. Microbiol. 7, 925 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
5.Redford, K. H., Segre, J. A., Salafsky, N., Del Rio, C. M. & Mcaloose, D. Conservation and the microbiome. Conserv. Biol. 26, 195–197 (2012).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Costello, E. K., Stagaman, K., Dethlefsen, L., Bohannan, B. J. & Relman, D. A. The application of ecological theory towards an understanding of the human microbiome. Science 336, 1255–1262 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Nicholson, J. K. et al. Host-gut microbiota metabolic interactions. Science 336, 1262–1267 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Kohl, K. D., Skopec, M. M. & Dearing, M. D. Captivity results in disparate loss of gut microbial diversity in closely related hosts. Conserv. Physiol. 2, cou009 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Clayton, J. B. et al. Captivity humanizes the primate microbiome. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113, 10376–10381 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.McKenzie, V. J. et al. The effects of captivity on the mammalian gut microbiome. Integr. Comp. Biol. 57, 690–704 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Muegge, B. D. et al. Diet drives convergence in gut microbiome functions across mammalian phylogeny and within humans. Science 332, 970–974 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Myers, S. P. & Hawrelak, J. A. The causes of intestinal dysbiosis: a review. Altern. Med. Rev. 9, 180–197 (2004).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
13.Knights, D. et al. Complex host genetics influence the microbiome in inflammatory bowel disease. Genome Med. 6, 107 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
14.Perofsky, A. C., Lewis, R. J., Abondano, L. A., Fiore, A. D. & Meyers, L. A. Hierarchical social networks shape gut microbial composition in wild Verreaux ’ s sifaka. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 248, 20172274 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Phillips, C. D. et al. Microbiome analysis among bats describes influences of host phylogeny, life history, physiology and geography. Mol. Ecol. 21, 2617–2627 (2012).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Hale, V. L. et al. Diet versus phylogeny: a comparison of gut microbiota in captive colobine monkey species. Microb. Ecol. 75, 515–527 (2018).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Delsuc, F. et al. Convergence of gut microbiomes in myrmecophagous mammals. Mol. Ecol. 23, 1301–1317 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Lambert, J. E. Primate Nutritional Ecology: Feeding Biology and Diet at Ecological and Evolutionary Scales: Primates in Perspective (Oxford University Press, 2010).
Google Scholar 
19.Gomez, A. et al. Temporal variation selects for diet-microbe co-metabolic traits in the gut of Gorilla spp. ISME J. 10, 514–526 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Amato, K. R. et al. Habitat degradation impacts black howler monkey (Alouatta pigra) gastrointestinal microbiomes. ISME J. 7, 1344–1353 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Ochman, H. et al. Evolutionary relationships of wild hominids recapitulated by gut microbial communities. PLoS Biol. 8, 3–10 (2010).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
22.Amato, K. R. et al. Evolutionary trends in host physiology outweigh dietary niche in structuring primate gut microbiomes. ISME J. 13, 576–587 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
23.Borbón-García, A., Reyes, A., Vives-Flórez, M. & Caballero, S. Captivity shapes the gut microbiota of Andean bears: Insights into health surveillance. Front. Microbiol. 8, 1316 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Kohl, K. D. & Dearing, M. D. Wild-caught rodents retain a majority of their natural gut microbiota upon entrance into captivity. Environ. Microbiol. Rep. 6, 191–195 (2014).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Xiao, Y. et al. Captivity causes taxonomic and functional convergence of gut microbial communities in bats. PeerJ 7, e6844 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Prabhu, V. R., Wasimuddin, V. R., Kamalakkannan, R., Arjun, M. S. & Nagarajan, M. Consequences of domestication on gut microbiome: a comparative study between wild gaur and domestic mithun. Front. Microbiol. 11, 133 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Chaves, Ó. M., Stoner, K. E. & Arroyo-Rodríguez, V. Differences in diet between spider monkey groups living in forest fragments and continuous forest in Mexico. Biotropica 44, 105–113 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Nakagawa, N. Determinants of the dramatic seasonal changes in the intake of energy and protein by Japanese monkeys in a cool temperate forest. Am. J. Primatol. 41, 267–288 (1997).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Amato, K. R. et al. The gut microbiota appears to compensate for seasonal diet variation in the wild black howler monkey (Alouatta pigra). Microb. Ecol. 69, 434–443 (2014).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
30.Chen, T., Li, Y., Liang, J., Li, Y. & Huang, Z. Gut microbiota of provisioned and wild rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) living in a limestone forest in southwest Guangxi China. Microbiologyopen 9, e981 (2020).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
31.Mackie, R. I., Sghir, A. & Gaskins, H. R. Developmental microbial ecology of the neonatal gastrointestinal tract. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 69, 1035s–1045s (1999).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Donnet-hughes, A. et al. Potential role of the intestinal microbiota of the mother in neonatal immune education. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 69, 407–415 (2010).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Orkin, J. D. et al. Seasonality of the gut microbiota of free-ranging white-faced capuchins in a tropical dry forest. ISME J. 13, 183–196 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Eckburg, P. B. et al. Diversity of the human intestinal microbial flora. Science 308, 1635–1638 (2015).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Ley, R. E. et al. Obesity alters gut microbial ecology. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 102, 11070–11075 (2005).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Frank, D. N. et al. Molecular-phylogenetic characterization of microbial community imbalances in human inflammatory bowel diseases. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 104, 13780–13785 (2007).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Shin, N. R., Whon, T. W. & Bae, J. W. Proteobacteria: Microbial signature of dysbiosis in gut microbiota. Trends Biotechnol. 33, 496–503 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Jang, H. B., Choi, M. K., Kang, J. H., Park, S. I. & Lee, H. J. Association of dietary patterns with the fecal microbiota in Korean adolescents. BMC Nutr. 3, 1–11 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Wang, B. et al. Comparison of the fecal microbiomes of healthy and diarrheic captive wild boar. Microb. Pathog. 147, 104377 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Tang, J. et al. Gut microbiota in reintroduction of giant panda. Ecol. Evol. 10, 1012–1028 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Clayton, J. B. et al. The gut microbiome of nonhuman primates: Lessons in ecology and evolution. Am. J. Primatol. 80, e22867 (2018).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Martínez-Mota, R., Kohl, K. D., Orr, T. J. & Denise Dearing, M. Natural diets promote retention of the native gut microbiota in captive rodents. ISME J. 14, 67–78 (2020).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
43.Kilkenny, C. et al. Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol. 8, e1000412 (2010).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
44.Vargas, S. A., León, J., Ramírez, M., Galvis, N., Cifuentes, E., & Stevenson, P. R. Population density and ecological traits of highland woolly monkeys at Cueva de los Guácharos National Park, Colombia. In High altitude primates Springer, New York. 85–102 (2014)45.Stevenson, P. R. Seed dispersal by woolly monkeys (Lagothrix lagothricha) at Tinigua National Park, Colombia: dispersal distance, germination rates, and dispersal quantity. Am. J. Primatol. Off. J. Am. Soc. Primatol. 50, 275–289 (2000).CAS 

Google Scholar 
46.Botero, S., Rengifo, L. Y., Bueno, M. L. & Stevenson, P. R. How many species of woolly monkeys inhabit Colombian forests?. Am. J. Primatol. 72, 1131–1140 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Di Fiore, A. et al. The rise and fall of a genus: Complete mtDNA genomes shed light on the phylogenetic position of yellow-tailed woolly monkeys, Lagothrix flavicauda, and on the evolutionary history of the family Atelidae (Primates: Platyrrhini). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 82, 495–510 (2015).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
48.Fooden, D. A revision of the woolly monkeys (genus Lagothrix). J. Mammal. 44, 213–247 (1963).Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Botero, S. & Stevenson, P. R. Coat color is not an indicator of subspecies identity in colombian woolly monkeys. The Woolly Monkey https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0697-0 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Stevenson, P. R. Activity and ranging patterns of Colombian woolly monkeys in north-western Amazonia. Primates https://doi.org/10.1007/s10329-005-0172-6 (2006).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
51.Altmann, J. Observational study of behavior: sampling methods. Behaviuor. 49, 227–266 (1974).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Caporaso, J. G. et al. Correspondence QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data intensity normalization improves color calling in SOLiD sequencing. Nat. Publ. Gr 7, 335–336 (2010).CAS 

Google Scholar 
53.Liu, Z., Lozupone, C., Hamady, M., Bushman, F. D. & Knight, R. Short pyrosequencing reads suffice for accurate microbial community analysis. Nucl. Acids Res. 35, e120 (2007).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
54.Liu, Z., Desantis, T. Z., Andersen, G. L. & Knight, R. Accurate taxonomy assignments from 16S rRNA sequences produced by highly parallel pyrosequencers. Nucl. Acids Res. 36, 1–11 (2008).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
55.Yang, B., Wang, Y. & Qian, P. Sensitivity and correlation of hypervariable regions in 16S rRNA genes in phylogenetic analysis. BMC Bioinform. 17, 1–8 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Martin, M. Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet. J. 17, 10–12 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Andrews, S. FastQC: a quality control tool for high throughput sequence data. (2010).58.Bolger, A. M., Lohse, M. & Usadel, B. Trimmomatic: A flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 30, 2114–2120 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
59.Magoč, T. & Salzberg, S. L. FLASH: Fast length adjustment of short reads to improve genome assemblies. Bioinformatics 27, 2957–2963 (2011).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
60.Bolyen, E. et al. Reproducible, interactive, scalable and extensible microbiome data science using QIIME 2. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 852–857. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0209-9 (2019).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
61.Amir, A. et al. Deblur rapidly resolves single-. Am. Soc. Microbiol. 2, 1–7 (2017).
Google Scholar 
62.DeSantis, T. Z. et al. Greengenes, a chimera-checked 16S rRNA gene database and workbench compatible with ARB. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 72, 5069–5072 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Douglas, G. M., Maffei, V. J., Zaneveld, J., Yurgel, S. N., Brown, J. R., Taylor, C. M., & Langille, M. G. PICRUSt2: An improved and extensible approach for metagenome inference. BioRxiv 672295 (2020).64.McMurdie, P. J. & Holmes, S. Phyloseq: an R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PLoS ONE 8, e61217 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Lozupone, C., Lladser, M. E., Knights, D., Stombaugh, J. & Knight, R. UniFrac: an effective distance metric for microbial community comparison. ISME J. 5, 169–172 (2011).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
66.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 
67.Barton, K. MuMIn: multi-model inference. (2009). http://r-forge.R-project.org/projects/mumin/.68.Richards, S. A., Whittingham, M. J. & Stephens, P. A. Model selection and model averaging in behavioural ecology: the utility of the IT-AIC framework. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 65, 77–89 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Experimental designThis experiment was conducted at the Science and Technology experimental site (125° 27′ 5″ N, 49° 33′ 35″ E) of the North Corporation of Sinograin, Nenjiang, Heilongjiang, China. The soil in the tested area was classified as Black soil according to Chinese Soil Taxonomy (as Mollisol according to USDA classification system) with a thick humus layer and clay texture. The area has a mid-temperate continental monsoon climate with an average annual temperature of − 1.4 to 0.8 °C, precipitation of 450 mm, a frost-free period of 115 days, and an effective accumulated temperature of 2150 °C. The basic physicochemical properties at 0–20 cm plow layer of soil were shown in Table 2. The experiment included two modes: maize straw mulching (FG) and straw returning combined with rotary tillage. In the test plot, there were six 10-m ridges per treatment, and each treatment area was 39 m2. Each treatment has three replicate. The experiment started in 2012 under the continuous planting of maize, and the straw was mechanically crushed and returned to the field in the fall. In accordance with the adjustment in the C/N of the straw, the amount of applied fertilizer was N 150 kg hm−2, P2O5 75 kg hm−2, and K2O 75 kg hm−2. Five treatments were included: (1) stubble remaining in the field, which served as the control (CK); (2) full straw mulching (FG); (3) full straw returning combined with rotary tillage (1 XG) ; (4) 1/3 of full straw returning combined with rotary tillage (1/3 XG); and (5) half of full straw returning combined with rotary tillage (1/2 XG).Table 2 Basic physicochemical properties of surface soil.Full size tableSample collectionSoil samples were collected after the maize (Demeiya 2) was harvested in November 2019. Five soil cores (diameter 5 cm) were randomly taken from 0 to 20 cm depth in each plot, mixed thoroughly, and packed into cloth bags. After the crop roots and other debris were removed, the samples were air-dried for analyzing the content and chemical structure of SOC.Determination of total soil organic carbonThe content of total SOC was measured using a TOC (total organic carbon) analyzer (NC2100, Jena, Germany,) after air-dried soil samples were passed through a 100-mesh sieve.Purification of soil organic carbonFive grams of air-dried soil was added to a 100 mL plastic centrifuge tube, followed by the addition of 50 mL of hydrogen fluoride (HF) solution (10% v/v). After the tube was capped, the solution was shaken for 1 h and centrifuged for 10 min (3000 r min−1), and the supernatant was removed. Subsequently, the residue in the tube was treated with HF solution and then followed the above shaking and centrifuging steps. A total of eight repeats (according to the conditions of the actual samples) were performed with different duration of shaking (4 × 1 h, 3 × 12 h, and 1 × 24 h). Lastly, the residue in the tube was washed with double-distilled water four times, mainly to remove the residual HF in the soil sample. The detailed steps were as follows: 50 mL of double-distilled water was added into tube, shaken for 10 min and centrifuged (3000 r min−1) for 10 min, and then the supernatant was removed. The purified samples with free-HF were dried in an oven at 40 °C, ground through a 60-mesh sieve, and stored in a Zip-lock bag for NMR measurement.Determination of the chemical structure of soil organic carbonThe 13C solid-state NMR spectrum was collected on a Bruker AV400 NMR spectrometer (Switzerland). The cross-polarization magic-angle spinning (CPMAS) technique was used, the 13C NMR frequency was 400.18 MHz, the magic angle spinning frequency was 8 kHz, the contact time was 2 ms, the delay time was 3 s, and the number of data points was 3000. The chemical shift was calibrated based on the external standard sodium 2, 2-dimethyl-2-silapentane-5-sulfonate (DSS), the integrated area was automatically given by the instrument, and the relative content of organic C in each functional group of SOC was expressed as the percentage of the integrated area of a chemical shift interval to the total integrated area. The C structures corresponding to the chemical shift of the main 13C signal of SOC (Table 3) were as follows: alkyl C region (0–45 ppm), alkoxy C region (45–110 ppm), aromatic C region (110–160 ppm), and carbonyl C region (160–220 ppm)4,19.Table 3 13C solid-state NMR determination of organic carbon functional groups and corresponding high-molecular-weight compounds.Full size tableData analysisNMR spectra (CPMAS 13C-NMR) were analyzed using MestReNova professional software. After analyzing and extracting the source data, Microsoft Office Excel 2010 and Origin 8.0 software were used for data processing and plotting. The data in the “Available Data” were plotted using Origin by overlapping the fitted curve, and SPSS 17.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA) statistical analysis software was used to test for significant differences (Duncan’s method) and for correlation analysis. More

1.Costello, M. J., May, R. M. & Stork, N. E. Can we name Earth’s species before they go extinct? Science 339, 413–416 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
2.Mora, C., Rollo, A. & Tittensor, D. P. Comment on ‘Can we name Earth’s species before they go extinct?’. Science 341, 237 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
3.Mora, C., Tittensor, D. P., Adl, S., Simpson, A. G. B. & Worm, B. How many species are there on Earth and in the Ocean? PLoS Biol. 9, e1001127 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.May, R. & Beverton, R. J. H. How many species? Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 330, 293–304 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Scheffers, B. R., Joppa, L. N., Pimm, S. L. & Laurance, W. F. What we know and don’t know about Earth’s missing biodiversity. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 501–510 (2012).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
6.Raven, P. H. & Wilson, E. O. A fifty-year plan for biodiversity surveys. Science 258, 1099–1100 (1992).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
7.Whittaker, R. J. et al. Conservation biogeography: assessment and prospect. Divers. Distrib. 11, 3–23 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Hortal, J. et al. Seven shortfalls that beset large-scale knowledge of biodiversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 46, 523–549 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Guide to the Global Taxonomy Initiative (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010).10.Costello, M. J., May, R. M. & Stork, N. E. Response to comments on ‘Can we name Earth’s species before they go extinct?’. Science 341, 237 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Bebber, D. P., Marriott, F. H. C., Gaston, K. J., Harris, S. A. & Scotland, R. W. Predicting unknown species numbers using discovery curves. Proc. R. Soc. B 274, 1651–1658 (2007).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Edie, S. M., Smits, P. D. & Jablonski, D. Probabilistic models of species discovery and biodiversity comparisons. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 3666–3671 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Guenard, B., Weiser, M. D. & Dunn, R. R. Global models of ant diversity suggest regions where new discoveries are most likely are under disproportionate deforestation threat. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 7368–7373 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Blackburn, T. M. & Gaston, K. J. What determines the probability of discovering a species – a study of South-American Oscine Passerine birds. J. Biogeogr. 22, 7–14 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Costello, M. J., Lane, M., Wilson, S. & Houlding, B. Factors influencing when species are first named and estimating global species richness. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 4, 243–254 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Collen, B., Purvis, A. & Gittleman, J. L. Biological correlates of description date in carnivores and primates. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 13, 459–467 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Diniz-Filho, J. A. F. et al. Macroecological correlates and spatial patterns of anuran description dates in the Brazilian Cerrado. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 14, 469–477 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Costello, M. J., Houlding, B. & Joppa, L. N. Further evidence of more taxonomists discovering new species, and that most species have been named: response to Bebber et al. (2014). New Phytol. 202, 739–740 (2014).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Meiri, S. Small, rare and trendy: traits and biogeography of lizards described in the 21st century. J. Zool. 299, 251–261 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Klein, J. P. & Moeschberger, M. L. Survival Analysis: Techniques for Censored and Truncated Data.(Springer, 2003).21.Essl, F., Rabitsch, W., Dullinger, S., Moser, D. & Milasowszky, N. How well do we know species richness in a well-known continent? Temporal patterns of endemic and widespread species descriptions in the European fauna. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 22, 29–39 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Colli, G. R. et al. In the depths of obscurity: knowledge gaps and extinction risk of Brazilian worm lizards (Squamata, Amphisbaenidae). Biol. Conserv. 204, 51–62 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Burgin, C. J., Colella, J. P., Kahn, P. L. & Upham, N. S. How many species of mammals are there? J. Mammal. 99, 1–14 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Meyer, C., Kreft, H., Guralnick, R. & Jetz, W. Global priorities for an effective information basis of biodiversity distributions. Nat. Commun. 6, 8221 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Bellard, C. et al. Vulnerability of biodiversity hotspots to global change. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 23, 1376–1386 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Quintero, I. & Jetz, W. Global elevational diversity and diversification of birds. Nature 555, 246–250 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Joppa, L. N., Roberts, D. L. & Pimm, S. L. How many species of flowering plants are there? Proc. R. Soc. B 278, 554–559 (2011).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Giam, X. et al. Reservoirs of richness: least disturbed tropical forests are centres of undescribed species diversity. Proc. R. Soc. B 279, 67–76 (2012).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Jetz, W. & Fine, P. V. A. Global gradients in vertebrate diversity predicted by historical area-productivity dynamics and contemporary environment. PLoS Biol. 10, e1001292 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Gouveia, S. F., Villalobos, F., Dobrovolski, R., Beltrão-Mendes, R. & Ferrari, S. F. Forest structure drives global diversity of primates. J. Anim. Ecol. 83, 1523–1530 (2014).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Oliveira, B. F. & Scheffers, B. R. Vertical stratification influences global patterns of biodiversity. Ecography 42, 249–249 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Oliveira, U. et al. The strong influence of collection bias on biodiversity knowledge shortfalls of Brazilian terrestrial biodiversity. Divers. Distrib. 22, 1232–1244 (2016).33.Roll, U. et al. The global distribution of tetrapods reveals a need for targeted reptile conservation. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1677–1682 (2017).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Garnett, S. T. & Christidis, L. Taxonomy anarchy hampers conservation. Nature 546, 25–27 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Isaac, N. J. B., Mallet, J. & Mace, G. M. Taxonomic inflation: its influence on macroecology and conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19, 464–469 (2004).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Bremer, K., Bremer, B., Karis, P. & Källersjö, M. Time for change in taxonomy. Nature 343, 202 (1990).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Raposo, M. A. et al. What really hampers taxonomy and conservation? A riposte to Garnett and Christidis (2017). Zootaxa 4317, 179–184 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Wake, D. B. Persistent plethodontid themes: species, phylogenies, and biogeography. Herpetologica 73, 242–251 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Tedesco, P. A. et al. Estimating how many undescribed species have gone extinct. Conserv. Biol. 28, 1360–1370 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Jetz, W., McPherson, J. M. & Guralnick, R. P. Integrating biodiversity distribution knowledge: toward a global map of life. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 151–159 (2012).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Jetz, W., Thomas, G. H., Joy, J. B., Hartmann, K. & Mooers, A. O. The global diversity of birds in space and time. Nature 491, 444–448 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Jetz, W. & Pyron, R. A. The interplay of past diversification and evolutionary isolation with present imperilment across the amphibian tree of life. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 850–858 (2018).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Upham, N. S., Esselstyn, J. A. & Jetz, W. Inferring the mammal tree: species-level sets of phylogenies for questions in ecology, evolution, and conservation. PLoS Biol. 17, e3000494 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.González-del-Pliego, P. et al. Phylogenetic and trait-based prediction of extinction risk for data-deficient amphibians. Curr. Biol. 29, 1557–1563.e3 (2019).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
45.Moura, M. R. et al. Geographical and socioeconomic determinants of species discovery trends in a biodiversity hotspot. Biol. Conserv. 220, 237–244 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Gaston, K. J., Blackburn, T. M. & Loder, N. Which species are described first? The case of North-American butterflies. Biodivers. Conserv. 4, 119–127 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Oliveira, B. F., São-Pedro, V. A., Santos-Barrera, G., Penone, C. & Costa, G. C. AmphiBIO, a global database for amphibian ecological traits. Sci. Data 4, 170123 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Feldman, A., Sabath, N., Pyron, R. A., Mayrose, I. & Meiri, S. Body sizes and diversification rates of lizards, snakes, amphisbaenians and the tuatara. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 25, 187–197 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Hallmann, K. & Griebeler, E. M. An exploration of differences in the scaling of life history traits with body mass within reptiles and between amniotes. Ecol. Evol. 8, 5480–5494 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Slavenko, A., Itescu, Y., Ihlow, F. & Meiri, S. Home is where the shell is: predicting turtle home range sizes. J. Anim. Ecol. 85, 106–114 (2016).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Regis, K. W. & Meik, J. M. Allometry of sexual size dimorphism in turtles: a comparison of mass and length data. PeerJ 5, e2914 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Itescu, Y., Karraker, N. E., Raia, P., Pritchard, P. C. H. & Meiri, S. Is the island rule general? Turtles disagree. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 23, 689–700 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Faurby, S. & Svenning, J.-C. Resurrection of the island rule: human-driven extinctions have obscured a basic evolutionary pattern. Am. Nat. 187, 812–820 (2016).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Wilman, H. et al. EltonTraits 1.0: species-level foraging attributes of the world’s birds and mammals. Ecology 95, 2027–2027 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Tonini, J. F. R., Beard, K. H., Ferreira, R. B., Jetz, W. & Pyron, R. A. Fully-sampled phylogenies of squamates reveal evolutionary patterns in threat status. Biol. Conserv. 204A, 23–31 (2016).56.Goolsby, E. W., Bruggeman, J. & Ané, C. Rphylopars: fast multivariate phylogenetic comparative methods for missing data and within-species variation. Methods Ecol. Evol. 8, 22–27 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Gaston, K. J., Blackburn, T. M. & Lawton, J. H. Interspecific abundance–range size relationships: an appraisal of mechanisms. J. Anim. Ecol. 66, 579–601 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Borregaard, M. K. & Rahbek, C. Causality of the relationship between geographic distribution and species abundance. Q. Rev. Biol. 85, 3–25 (2010).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
59.IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2018 (IUCN, 2018).60.Freitag, S., Hobson, C., Biggs, H. C. & Jaarsveld, A. S. Testing for potential survey bias: the effect of roads, urban areas and nature reserves on a southern African mammal data set. Anim. Conserv. 1, 119–127 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Kier, G. & Barthlott, W. Measuring and mapping endemism and species richness: a new methodological approach and its application on the flora of Africa. Biodivers. Conserv. 10, 1513–1529 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Vilela, B. & Villalobos, F. letsR: a new R package for data handling and analysis in macroecology. Methods Ecol. Evol. 6, 1229–1234 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Papavero, N. Essays on the History of Neotropical Dipterology: With Special Reference to Collectors: 1750–1905: Vol. I (Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de São Paulo, 1971).64.Baselga, A., Lobo, J. M., Hortal, J., Jiménez-Valverde, A. & Gómez, J. F. Assessing alpha and beta taxonomy in eupelmid wasps: determinants of the probability of describing good species and synonyms. J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res. 48, 40–49 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Yang, W., Ma, K. & Kreft, H. Environmental and socio-economic factors shaping the geography of floristic collections in China. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 23, 1284–1292 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Karger, D. N. et al. Climatologies at high resolution for the Earth’s land surface areas. Sci. Data 4, 170122 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
67.R Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing Version 3.5.3 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2019).68.Hijmans, R. J. raster: Geographic Data Analysis and Modeling https://cran.r-project.org/package=raster (2015).69.Amatulli, G. et al. A suite of global, cross-scale topographic variables for environmental and biodiversity modeling. Sci. Data 5, 180040 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Klein Goldewijk, K., Beusen, A., Van Drecht, G. & De Vos, M. The HYDE 3.1 spatially explicit database of human-induced global land-use change over the past 12,000 years. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 20, 73–86 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Joppa, L. N., Roberts, D. L. & Pimm, S. L. The population ecology and social behaviour of taxonomists. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26, 551–553 (2011).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
72.Wickham, H. stringr: Simple, Consistent Wrappers for Common String Operations. R package version 1.3.1 http://stringr.tidyverse.org (2018).73.Mahto, A. splitstackshape: Stack and Reshape Datasets After Splitting Concatenated Values. R package version 1.4.6 http://github.com/mrdwab/splitstackshape (2018).74.Dinerstein, E. et al. An ecoregion-based approach to protecting half the terrestrial realm. BioScience 67, 534–545 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
75.Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., Neter, J. & Li, W. Applied Linear Statistical Models (McGraw-Hill, 2004).
Google Scholar 
76.Naimi, B. usdm: Uncertainty Analysis for Species Distribution Models https://cran.r-project.org/package=usdm (2017).77.von Linné, C. Systema Naturae https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.542 (Impensis Direct Laurentii Salvii, 1758).78.Harrell, F. E. Regression Modeling Strategies (Springer, 2001).79.George, B., Seals, S. & Aban, I. Survival analysis and regression models. J. Nucl. Cardiol. 21, 686–694 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
80.Jackson, C. flexsurv: a platform for parametric survival modeling in R. J. Stat. Softw. 70, 1–33 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
81.Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. A. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach (Springer, 2002).82.Johnson, J. B. & Omland, K. S. Model selection in ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19, 101–108 (2004).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
83.Barton, K. MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference. R package version 1.43.6 https://cran.r-project.org/package=MuMIn (2019).84.Alexander Pyron, R. & Wiens, J. J. A large-scale phylogeny of Amphibia including over 2800 species, and a revised classification of extant frogs, salamanders, and caecilians. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 61, 543–583 (2011).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
85.Pyron, R. A., Burbrink, F. T. & Wiens, J. J. A phylogeny and revised classification of Squamata, including 4161 species of lizards and snakes. BMC Evol. Biol. 13, 93 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
86.Fisher, D. O. & Blomberg, S. P. Correlates of rediscovery and the detectability of extinction in mammals. Proc. R. Soc. B 278, 1090–1097 (2011).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
87.Jetz, W., Sekercioglu, C. H. & Böhning-Gaese, K. The worldwide variation in avian clutch size across species and space. PLoS Biol. 6, e303 (2008).PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
88.Jetz, W. & Rubenstein, D. R. Environmental uncertainty and the global biogeography of cooperative breeding in birds. Curr. Biol. 21, 72–78 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
89.Jetz, W. & Rahbek, C. Geographic range size and determinants of avian species richness. Science 297, 1548–1551 (2002).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
90.Dowle, M. & Srinivasan, A. data.table: Extension of ‘data.frame’. R package version 1.12.4 https://cran.r-project.org/package=data.table (2019).91.Gaston, K. J., Chown, S. L. & Evans, K. L. Ecogeographical rules: elements of a synthesis. J. Biogeogr. 35, 483–500 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
92.Violle, C., Reich, P. B., Pacala, S. W., Enquist, B. J. & Kattge, J. The emergence and promise of functional biogeography. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 13690–13696 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
93.Database of Global Administrative Areas Version 3.6 (GADM, 2019); http://www.gadm.org More