Philippa Kaur

Study areas
We collected survey and salivary hormone data from people at the Camel’s Back—Hulls Gulch Reserve of the Ridge to Rivers Management Area in Boise, Idaho, USA (Fig. 1S). The Lower Hulls Gulch area is largely characterized by sagebrush steppe habitat as well as riparian areas that act as habitat to a variety of avian, mammal, and herpetological species. Common wildlife spotted by recreationists include birds, amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals. We collected data between March 24—May 18, 2017 on both the weekend and weekdays. Weather data, consisting of average wind speed and average air temperature were taken from the Crestline Trail Idaho (Boise, ID).
Participants
We recruited participants at a prominent trail head associated with the recreational area, and the purpose and protocols of the study were explained. Upon agreeing to participate, participants were asked to read an additional written statement of the project and sign a informed consent form. Each recruited individual was minimally required to participate in either the saliva collection or survey, although participation in all parts of the study was highly encouraged. Any recreationists who had been recreating for more than 10 min were not recruited. We defined hikers as recreationists who were intent on walking in the recreational area, and excluded users who were performing exertive activities such as running or biking. All participants were given an anonymous identifier which was used throughout the study. This research project was reviewed and approved by the IRB at Boise State University, Idaho, USA under #006-SB17-061.
Salivary cortisol and testosterone collection
We restricted all sampling until late morning (often 10:00am) to control for diel patterns in hormone concentrations after awakening25,26,27. To further account for any variations due to time of day, the time of collection was recorded for each saliva sample and factored into each analysis. We found that the time of day each cortisol sample was taken did not account for variation, and that the diurnal cycle of cortisol did not explain the change in cortisol concentration that we observed in hikers.
Saliva samples were collected from recreationists using a pre-post paired design. Participants were asked to give at least 0.25 mL of saliva using a saliva collection aid (2 mL cyrovial, Salimetrics PA, USA) via the passive drool method25,28. The passive drool method allows for the collection of large samples for multiple assays, reduces the risk of contamination by collection substances, and allows samples to be frozen without interfering with assay protocols28. Saliva was immediately stored in a portable cooler with ice until frozen at -10 °C. Cortisol and testosterone concentrations were assessed using a Salimetrics Cortisol Enzyme Immunoassay following the manufacturer’s protocols and design (Salimetrics, PA, USA). All assay plates were read using the Gen5 software and Biotek EL800 Plate Reader. Hormone concentrations were then calculated from the optical densities using a standard curve and the online elisaanalysis interface.
Survey collection
After recreating, all participants were asked to take a survey. Survey questions included the following: variables affecting psychological stress levels, observation of wildlife, motivations for recreation (ranging from social, personal challenge, wildlife, and solitude), perceived ecological impact that outdoor recreational activity has on wildlife and habitats, and basic demographics including age and gender. In addition, participants were asked to rate how psychologically stressed they felt after their recreational activity. Participants also had the opportunity to note any negative experiences they had while recreating.
GPS track collection
Participants were encouraged to carry a handheld GPS device to track their route while hiking. We used GPS tracks to connect hiker routes with land cover types such as % vegetation cover, urban cover, water, and riparian cover. Using a 100 m buffer as a standard measurement for visibility, we calculated the proportion of land cover types each hiker traveled through during their trip. We also used GPS tracks to compare line density calculations to estimate areas and trails with higher recreational traffic.
Photograph collection
We used volunteer employed photography and asked participants to take photographs of landscapes they found beautiful. At the end of the trip, participants were asked to select one photograph that captured an area of high aesthetic value to them. Photographs were spatially linked to the landscape using participant GPS tracks, and analyzed using kernel density estimates (KDE) to compare what areas and land cover types were photographed more frequently. In addition, the subject and photographic elements of each photograph were tallied and collected to compare what components of the landscape participants were more likely to take pictures of.
Statistical analyses
To assess the change in salivary cortisol to landscape aesthetics, we used a backward stepwise approach to create a linear model with the following predictor variables: perceived aesthetics (using principal component PC1 scores), land cover metrics, start time, duration, total wildlife observance, plant identification skills (as a measure of ecological familiarity), and all aesthetic interaction terms. . We checked for collinearity among variables and considered pairwise r  >|0.70| to indicate a correlation. Due to high correlation between start time and duration, duration was removed from all models. A total of 6 saliva samples (all hikers) were not used due to unusually high ( > 2 SD) cortisol concentrations.
Non-significant interaction variables were removed first based on lowest SS values, followed by main effect variables with the lowest SS value until only statistically significant variables remained. Cortisol was evaluated as the change in concentration from recreational activity (Post-collection—Pre-collection). Negative changes correspond to a decrease and positive changes to an increase in hormone concentration after recreating. To meet normality assumptions, the change in both cortisol was transformed using a square root function taken at absolute value. After data transformation, all original signs were returned to maintain the negative–positive spectrum of hormone change. The removal of any outliers did not change the interpretation of the results and were kept across analyses.
We used a backward stepwise approach to explain aesthetic perception with the following predictor variables: weekend/weekday (as a metric of visitor use), total wildlife observance, plant identification skills (as a metric of ecological familiarity), gender, age, duration, and all interaction terms. We used a backward stepwise approach and a generalized linear model to evaluate whether land cover, recreational use, and ecological familiarity explained the number of wildlife observations.No variables were correlated with each other, and all interaction terms were included. To investigate the relationship between perceived ecological impact metrics and recreational motivation, we used spearman correlations. More

1.
Barber, J. R., Crooks, K. R. & Fristrup, K. M. The costs of chronic noise exposure for terrestrial organisms. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 180–189 (2010).
PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 
2.
Buxton, R. T. et al. Noise pollution is pervasive in US protected areas. Science (80-) 356, 531–533 (2017).
ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

3.
Manci, K. M., Gladwin, D. N., Villella, R. & Cavendish, M. G. Effects of aircraft noise and sonic booms on domestic animals and wildlife: a literature synthesis (Engineering and Services Center U. S. Air Force, 1988).

4.
Pott-Pollenske, M. et al. Airframe noise characteristics from flyover measurements and prediction. In 12th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference (27th AIAA Aeroacoustics Conference) 2567 (2006).

5.
Khardi, S. Reduction of commercial aircraft noise emission around airports. A new environmental challenge. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 1, 175–184 (2009).
Article  Google Scholar 

6.
Dooling, R. J. & Popper, A. N. The effects of highway noise on birds (The California Department of Transportation Division of Environmental Analysis, 2007).

7.
Etzel, R. A. & Balk, S. J. Pediatric environmental health (American Academy of Pediatrics, Itasca, 2011).
Google Scholar 

8.
Schomer, P. D. Growth function for human response to large-amplitude impulse noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 64, 1627–1632 (1978).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

9.
Kunc, H. P. & Schmidt, R. The effects of anthropogenic noise on animals: a meta-analysis. Biol. Lett. 15, 20190649 (2019).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

10.
Shannon, G. et al. A synthesis of two decades of research documenting the effects of noise on wildlife. Biol. Rev. 91, 982–1005 (2016).
PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

11.
Slabbekoorn, H. et al. A noisy spring: the impact of globally rising underwater sound levels on fish. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 419–427 (2010).
PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

12.
Brown, A. L. Measuring the effect of aircraft noise on sea birds. Environ. Int. 16, 587–592 (1990).
Article  Google Scholar 

13.
McLaughlin, K. E. & Kunc, H. P. Experimentally increased noise levels change spatial and singing behaviour. Biol. Lett. 9, 20120771 (2013).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

14.
Injaian, A. S., Poon, L. Y. & Patricelli, G. L. Effects of experimental anthropogenic noise on avian settlement patterns and reproductive success. Behav. Ecol. 29, 1181–1189 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

15.
McClure, C. J. W., Ware, H. E., Carlisle, J., Kaltenecker, G. & Barber, J. R. An experimental investigation into the effects of traffic noise on distributions of birds: avoiding the phantom road. Proc. R. Soc. London B Biol. Sci. 280, 20132290 (2013).
Google Scholar 

16.
Kruger, D. J. D. & Du Preez, L. H. The effect of airplane noise on frogs: a case study on the Critically Endangered Pickersgill’s reed frog (Hyperolius pickersgilli). Ecol. Res. 31, 393–405 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

17.
Melcon, M. L. et al. Blue whales respond to anthropogenic noise. PLoS ONE 7, e32681 (2012).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

18.
Sierro, J., Schloesing, E., Pavón, I. & Gil, D. European blackbirds exposed to aircraft noise advance their chorus, modify their song and spend more time singing. Front. Ecol. Evol. 5, 68 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

19.
McCarthy, E. et al. Changes in spatial and temporal distribution and vocal behavior of Blainville’s beaked whales (Mesoplodon densirostris) during multiship exercises with mid-frequency sonar. Mar. Mammal Sci. 27, E206–E226 (2011).
Article  Google Scholar 

20.
Dominoni, D. M., Greif, S., Nemeth, E. & Brumm, H. Airport noise predicts song timing of European birds. Ecol. Evol. 6, 6151–6159 (2016).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

21.
Gil, D., Honarmand, M., Pascual, J., Pérez-Mena, E. & Macías, G. C. Birds living near airports advance their dawn chorus and reduce overlap with aircraft noise. Behav. Ecol. 26, 435–443 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

22.
Habib, L., Bayne, E. M. & Boutin, S. Chronic industrial noise affects pairing success and age structure of ovenbirds Seiurus aurocapilla. J. Appl. Ecol. 44, 176–184 (2007).
Article  Google Scholar 

23.
Halfwerk, W., Holleman, L. J. M., Lessells, C. K. & Slabbekoorn, H. Negative impact of traffic noise on avian reproductive success. J. Appl. Ecol. 48, 210–219 (2011).
Article  Google Scholar 

24.
Wolfenden, A. D., Slabbekoorn, H., Kluk, K. & de Kort, S. R. Aircraft sound exposure leads to song frequency decline and elevated aggression in wild chiffchaffs. J. Anim. Ecol. 88, 1720–1731 (2019).
PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

25.
Halfwerk, W. et al. Low-frequency songs lose their potency in noisy urban conditions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108, 14549–14554 (2011).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

26.
Blickley, J. L., Blackwood, D. & Patricelli, G. L. Experimental evidence for the effects of chronic anthropogenic noise on abundance of Greater Sage-Grouse at leks. Conserv. Biol. 26, 461–471 (2012).
PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

27.
Pepper, C. B., Nascarella, M. A. & Kendall, R. J. A review of the effects of aircraft noise on wildlife and humans, current control mechanisms, and the need for further study. Environ. Manag. 32, 418–432 (2003).
Article  Google Scholar 

28.
Staicer, C. A., Spector, D. A. & Horn, A. G. The dawn chorus and other diel patterns in acoustic signaling. In Ecology and evolution of acoustic communication in birds, 426–453 (1996).

29.
Gil, D. & Llusia, D. The bird dawn chorus revisited. In Coding strategies in vertebrate acoustic communication 45–90 (Springer, Berlin, 2020).

30.
Warren, P. S., Katti, M., Ermann, M. & Brazel, A. Urban bioacoustics: It’s not just noise. Anim. Behav. 71, 491–502 (2006).
Article  Google Scholar 

31.
Dooling, R. Avian hearing and the avoidance of wind turbines (University of Maryland, College Park, 2002).
Google Scholar 

32.
Díaz, M., Parra, A. & Gallardo, C. Serins respond to anthropogenic noise by increasing vocal activity. Behav. Ecol. 22, 332–336 (2011).
Article  Google Scholar 

33.
Gentry, K. E. & Luther, D. A. Spatiotemporal patterns of avian vocal activity in relation to urban and rural background noise. J. Ecoacoust. https://doi.org/10.22261/jea.z9tqh (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

34.
Cunnington, G. M. & Fahrig, L. Plasticity in the vocalizations of anurans in response to traffic noise. Acta Oecologica 36, 463–470 (2010).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

35.
Kaiser, K. & Hammers, J. The effect of anthropogenic noise on male advertisement call rate in the neotropical treefrog, Dendropsophus triangulum. Behaviour 146, 1053–1069 (2009).
Article  Google Scholar 

36.
Brumm, H. & Slater, P. J. B. Ambient noise, motor fatigue, and serial redundancy in chaffinch song. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 60, 475–481 (2006).
Article  Google Scholar 

37.
Meh, F. et al. Humpback whales Megaptera novaeangliae alter calling behavior in response to natural sounds and vessel noise. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 607, 251–268 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

38.
Slabbekoorn, H. & Peet, M. Ecology: birds sing at a higher pitch in urban noise. Nature 424, 267 (2003).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

39.
Ríos-Chelén, A. A., Lee, G. C. & Patricelli, G. L. Anthropogenic noise is associated with changes in acoustic but not visual signals in red-winged blackbirds. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 69, 1139–1151 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

40.
Gross, K., Pasinelli, G. & Kunc, H. P. Behavioral plasticity allows short-term adjustment to a novel environment. Am. Nat. 176, 456–464 (2010).
PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

41.
Gentry, K. E., McKenna, M. F. & Luther, D. A. Evidence of suboscine song plasticity in response to traffic noise fluctuations and temporary road closures. Bioacoustics 27, 165–181 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

42.
Conomy, J. T., Dubovsky, J. A., Collazo, J. A. & Fleming, W. J. Do black ducks and wood ducks habituate to aircraft disturbance?. J. Wildl. Manag. 62, 1135–1142 (1998).
Article  Google Scholar 

43.
Neo, Y. Y., Hubert, J., Bolle, L. J., Winter, H. V. & Slabbekoorn, H. European seabass respond more strongly to noise exposure at night and habituate over repeated trials of sound exposure. Environ. Pollut. 239, 367–374 (2018).
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

44.
Halfwerk, W., Both, C. & Slabbekoorn, H. Noise affects nest-box choice of 2 competing songbird species, but not their reproduction. Behav. Ecol. 27, 1592–1600 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

45.
Ware, H. E., McClure, C. J. W., Carlisle, J. D. & Barber, J. R. A phantom road experiment reveals traffic noise is an invisible source of habitat degradation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112, 12105–12109 (2015).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

46.
Williams, R., Erbe, C., Ashe, E., Beerman, A. & Smith, J. Severity of killer whale behavioral responses to ship noise: A dose–response study. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 79, 254–260 (2014).
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

47.
Cynx, J., Lewis, R., Tavel, B. & Tse, H. Amplitude regulation of vocalizations in noise by a songbird Taeniopygia guttata. Anim. Behav. 56, 107–113 (1998).
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

48.
Rushing, C. S., Ryder, T. B. & Marra, P. P. Quantifying drivers of population dynamics for a migratory bird throughout the annual cycle. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 283, 20152846 (2016).
Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

49.
Stanley, C. Q. et al. Connectivity of wood thrush breeding, wintering, and migration sites based on range-wide tracking. Conserv. Biol. 29, 164–174 (2015).
PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

50.
Kleist, N. J., Guralnick, R. P., Cruz, A. & Francis, C. D. Anthropogenic noise weakens territorial response to intruder’s songs. Ecosphere 7, e01259 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

51.
Ward, S., Speakman, J. R. & Slater, P. J. B. The energy cost of song in the canary, Serinus canaria. Anim. Behav. 66, 893–902 (2003).
Article  Google Scholar 

52.
Nemeth, E. & Brumm, H. Birds and anthropogenic noise: are urban songs adaptive?. Am. Nat. 176, 465–475 (2010).
PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

53.
Oberweger, K. & Goller, F. The metabolic cost of birdsong production. J. Exp. Biol. 204, 3379–3388 (2001).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

54.
Ophir, A. G., Schrader, S. B. & Gilooly, J. F. Energetic cost of calling: general constraints and species-specific differences. J. Evol. Biol. 23, 1564–1569 (2010).
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

55.
Thomas, R. et al. The trade-off between singing and mass gain in a daytime-singing bird, the European robin. Behaviour 140, 387–404 (2003).
Article  Google Scholar 

56.
Sheikh, P. A. & Uhl, C. Airplane noise: A pervasive disturbance in Pennsylvania Parks, USA. J. Sound Vib. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2003.09.014 (2004).
Article  Google Scholar 

57.
Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. Multimodel inference understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociol. Methods Res. 33, 261–304 (2004).
MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

58.
Hurvich, C. M. & Tsai, C.-L. Regression and time series model selection in small samples. Biometrika 76, 297–307 (1989).
MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar  More

1.
Kuwae, T. et al. Biofilm grazing in a higher vertebrate: The Western Sandpiper, Calidris mauri. Ecology 89, 599–606 (2008).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 
2.
Góngora, E., Braune, B. M. & Elliott, K. H. Nitrogen and sulfur isotopes predict variation in mercury levels in Arctic seabird prey. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 135, 907–914 (2018).
PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

3.
Ben-Yosef, M., Aharon, Y., Jurkevitch, E. & Yuval, B. Give us the tools and we will do the job: Symbiotic bacteria affect olive fly fitness in a diet-dependent fashion. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 277, 1545–1552 (2010).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

4.
Alberdi, A., Aizpurua, O., Bohmann, K., Zepeda-Mendoza, M. L. & Gilbert, M. T. P. Do vertebrate gut metagenomes confer rapid ecological adaptation?. Trends Ecol. Evol. 31, 689–699 (2016).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

5.
Lapanje, A., Zrimec, A., Drobne, D. & Rupnik, M. Long-term Hg pollution-induced structural shifts of bacterial community in the terrestrial isopod (Porcellio scaber) gut. Environ. Pollut. 158, 3186–3193 (2010).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

6.
Lewis, W. B., Moore, F. R. & Wang, S. Characterization of the gut microbiota of migratory passerines during stopover along the northern coast of the Gulf of Mexico. J. Avian Biol. 47, 659–668 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

7.
Bolnick, D. I. et al. Individuals’ diet diversity influences gut microbial diversity in two freshwater fish (threespine stickleback and Eurasian perch). Ecol. Lett. 17, 979–987 (2014).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

8.
Bolnick, D. I. et al. Individual diet has sex-dependent effects on vertebrate gut microbiota. Nat. Commun. 5, 4500 (2014).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

9.
Bolnick, D. I., Yang, L. H., Fordyce, J. A., Davis, J. M. & Svanbäck, R. Measuring individual-level resource specialization. Ecology 83, 2936–2941 (2002).
Article  Google Scholar 

10.
Bolnick, D. I. et al. The ecology of individuals: Incidence and implications of individual specialization. Am. Nat. 161, 1–28 (2003).
MathSciNet  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

11.
Apajalahti, J. H. A., Kettunen, A., Bedford, M. R. & Holben, W. E. Percent G + C profiling accurately reveals diet-related differences in the gastrointestinal microbial community of broiler chickens. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 67, 5656–5667 (2001).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

12.
Apajalahti, J. & Kettunen, A. Microbes of the chicken gastrointestinal tract. In Avian Gut Function in Health and Disease (ed. Perry, G. C.) 124–137 (CAB International, Wallingford, 2006).
Google Scholar 

13.
Oakley, B. B. et al. The chicken gastrointestinal microbiome. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 360, 100–112 (2014).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

14.
Bangert, R. L., Ward, A. C. S., Stauber, E. H., Cho, B. R. & Widders, P. R. A survey of the aerobic bacteria in the feces of captive raptors. Avian Dis. 32, 53–62 (1988).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

15.
Soucek, Z. & Mushin, R. Gastrointestinal bacteria of certain Antarctic birds and mammals. Appl. Microbiol. 20, 561–566 (1970).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

16.
Mead, G. C., Griffiths, N. M., Impey, C. S. & Coplestone, J. C. Influence of diet on the intestinal microflora and meat flavour of intensively-reared broiler chickens. Br. Poult. Sci. 24, 261–272 (1983).
Article  Google Scholar 

17.
Waldenström, J. et al. Prevalence of Campylobacter jejuni, Campylobacter lari, and Campylobacter coli in different ecological guilds and taxa of migrating birds. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 68, 5911–5917 (2002).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

18.
Waite, D. W. & Taylor, M. W. Exploring the avian gut microbiota: Current trends and future directions. Front. Microbiol. 6, 1–12 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

19.
Maul, J. D., Gandhi, J. P. & Farris, J. L. Community-level physiological profiles of cloacal microbes in songbirds (order: Passeriformes): Variation due to host species, host diet, and habitat. Microb. Ecol. 50, 19–28 (2005).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

20.
Risely, A., Waite, D. W., Ujvari, B., Hoye, B. J. & Klaassen, M. Active migration is associated with specific and consistent changes to gut microbiota in Calidris shorebirds. J. Anim. Ecol. 87, 428–437 (2018).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

21.
Dewar, M. L. et al. Interspecific variations in the gastrointestinal microbiota in penguins. Microbiologyopen 2, 195–204 (2013).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

22.
Waite, D. W. & Taylor, M. W. Characterizing the avian gut microbiota: Membership, driving influences, and potential function. Front. Microbiol. 5, 1–12 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

23.
Teyssier, A. et al. Inside the guts of the city: Urban-induced alterations of the gut microbiota in a wild passerine. Sci. Total Environ. 612, 1276–1286 (2018).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

24.
Hird, S. M., Sánchez, C., Carstens, B. C. & Brumfield, R. T. Comparative gut microbiota of 59 neotropical bird species. Front. Microbiol. 6, 1403 (2015).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

25.
Capunitan, D. C., Johnson, O., Terrill, R. S. & Hird, S. M. Evolutionary signal in the gut microbiomes of 74 bird species from Equatorial Guinea. Mol. Ecol. 29, 829–847 (2020).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

26.
Michel, A. J. et al. The gut of the finch: Uniqueness of the gut microbiome of the Galápagos vampire finch. Microbiome 6, 167 (2018).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

27.
Elliott, K. H., Woo, K. J. & Gaston, A. J. Specialization in murres: The story of eight specialists. Waterbirds 32, 491–506 (2009).
Article  Google Scholar 

28.
Woo, K. J., Elliott, K. H., Davidson, M., Gaston, A. J. & Davoren, G. K. Individual specialization in diet by a generalist marine predator reflects specialization in foraging behaviour. J. Anim. Ecol. 77, 1082–1091 (2008).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

29.
Elliott, K. H., Gaston, A. J. & Crump, D. Sex-specific behavior by a monomorphic seabird represents risk partitioning. Behav. Ecol. 21, 1024–1032 (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

30.
Paredes, R., Jones, I. & Boness, D. Parental roles of male and female thick-billed murres and razorbills at the Gannet Islands, Labrador. Behaviour 143, 451–481 (2006).
Article  Google Scholar 

31.
Atwell, L., Hobson, K. A. & Welch, H. E. Biomagnification and bioaccumulation of mercury in an arctic marine food web: Insights from stable nitrogen isotope analysis. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 55, 1114–1121 (1998).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

32.
Carr, M. K. et al. Stable sulfur isotopes identify habitat-specific foraging and mercury exposure in a highly mobile fish community. Sci. Total Environ. 586, 338–346 (2017).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

33.
Peterson, B. J. & Fry, B. Stable isotopes in ecosystem studies. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 18, 293–320 (1987).
Article  Google Scholar 

34.
Song, S. J. et al. Preservation methods differ in fecal microbiome stability, affecting suitability for field studies. mSystems 1, e00021-e116 (2016).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

35.
Grond, K., Sandercock, B. K., Jumpponen, A. & Zeglin, L. H. The avian gut microbiota: Community, physiology and function in wild birds. J. Avian Biol. 49, e01788 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

36.
Lawson, P. A., Collins, M. D., Falsen, E. & Foster, G. Catellicoccus marimammalium gen. nov., sp. nov., a novel Gram-positive, catalase-negative, coccus-shaped bacterium from porpoise and grey seal. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 56, 429–432 (2006).
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

37.
Sinigalliano, C. D. et al. Multi-laboratory evaluations of the performance of Catellicoccus marimammalium PCR assays developed to target gull fecal sources. Water Res. 47, 6883–6896 (2013).
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

38.
Ryu, H. et al. Comparison of gull feces-specific assays targeting the 16S rRNA genes of Catellicoccus marimammalium and Streptococcus spp. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 78, 1909–1916 (2012).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

39.
Koskey, A. M., Fisher, J. C., Traudt, M. F., Newton, R. J. & McLellan, S. L. Analysis of the gull fecal microbial community reveals the dominance of Catellicoccus marimammalium in relation to culturable enterococci. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 80, 757–765 (2014).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

40.
Lu, J., Santo Domingo, J. W., Lamendella, R., Edge, T. & Hill, S. Phylogenetic diversity and molecular detection of bacteria in gull feces. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 74, 3969–3976 (2008).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

41.
Benskin, C. M. H., Rhodes, G., Pickup, R. W., Wilson, K. & Hartley, I. R. Diversity and temporal stability of bacterial communities in a model passerine bird, the zebra finch. Mol. Ecol. 19, 5531–5544 (2010).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

42.
Kreisinger, J. et al. Temporal stability and the effect of transgenerational transfer on fecal microbiota structure in a long distance migratory bird. Front. Microbiol. 8, 1–19 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

43.
Grond, K., Ryu, H., Baker, A. J., Santo Domingo, J. W. & Buehler, D. M. Gastro-intestinal microbiota of two migratory shorebird species during spring migration staging in Delaware Bay, USA. J. Ornithol. 155, 969–977 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

44.
Santos, S. S. et al. Diversity of cloacal microbial community in migratory shorebirds that use the Tagus estuary as stopover habitat and their potential to harbor and disperse pathogenic microorganisms. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 82, 63–74 (2012).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

45.
Laviad-Shitrit, S., Izhaki, I., Lalzar, M. & Halpern, M. Comparative analysis of intestine microbiota of four wild waterbird species. Front. Microbiol. 10, 1–13 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

46.
Weigand, M. R., Ryu, H., Bozcek, L., Konstantinidis, K. T. & Santo Domingo, J. W. Draft genome sequence of Catellicoccus marimammalium, a novel species commonly found in gull feces. Genome Announc. 1, 12–13 (2013).
Article  Google Scholar 

47.
Dewar, M. L. et al. Influence of fasting during moult on the faecal microbiota of penguins. PLoS ONE 9, e99996 (2014).
ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

48.
Dewar, M. L., Arnould, J. P. Y., Krause, L., Dann, P. & Smith, S. C. Interspecific variations in the faecal microbiota of Procellariiform seabirds. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 89, 47–55 (2014).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

49.
Roggenbuck, M. et al. The microbiome of New World vultures. Nat. Commun. 5, 5498 (2014).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

50.
Potrykus, J., White, R. L. & Bearne, S. L. Proteomic investigation of amino acid catabolism in the indigenous gut anaerobe Fusobacterium varium. Proteomics 8, 2691–2703 (2008).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

51.
Tsuchiya, C., Sakata, T. & Sugita, H. Novel ecological niche of Cetobacterium somerae, an anaerobic bacterium in the intestinal tracts of freshwater fish. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 46, 071018031740002–000 (2007).
Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

52.
Tegtmeier, D., Riese, C., Geissinger, O., Radek, R. & Brune, A. Breznakia blatticola gen. nov. sp. nov. and Breznakia pachnodae sp. nov., two fermenting bacteria isolated from insect guts, and emended description of the family Erysipelotrichaceae. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 39, 319–329 (2016).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

53.
Vandamme, P. et al. Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale gen. nov., sp. nov. isolated from the avian respiratory tract. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 44, 24–37 (1994).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

54.
Cerdà-Cuéllar, M. et al. Do humans spread zoonotic enteric bacteria in Antarctica?. Sci. Total Environ. 654, 190–196 (2019).
ADS  PubMed  Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

55.
Anderson, M. J. & Walsh, D. C. I. PERMANOVA, ANOSIM, and the Mantel test in the face of heterogeneous dispersions: What null hypothesis are you testing?. Ecol. Monogr. 83, 557–574 (2013).
Article  Google Scholar 

56.
Lott, C. A., Meehan, T. D. & Heath, J. A. Estimating the latitudinal origins of migratory birds using hydrogen and sulfur stable isotopes in feathers: Influence of marine prey base. Oecologia 134, 505–510 (2003).
ADS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

57.
Góngora, E., Elliott, K. & Whyte, L. Dataset from Gut microbiome is affected by inter-sexual and inter-seasonal variation in diet for thick-billed murres (Uria lomvia). Mendeley Data v4, (2020).

58.
Eriksson, P., Mourkas, E., González-Acuna, D., Olsen, B. & Ellström, P. Evaluation and optimization of microbial DNA extraction from fecal samples of wild Antarctic bird species. Infect. Ecol. Epidemiol. 7, 1386536 (2017).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

59.
Parada, A. E., Needham, D. M. & Fuhrman, J. A. Every base matters: Assessing small subunit rRNA primers for marine microbiomes with mock communities, time series and global field samples. Environ. Microbiol. 18, 1403–1414 (2016).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

60.
Quast, C. et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: Improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, D590–D596 (2012).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

61.
Callahan, B. J. et al. DADA2: High-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat. Methods 13, 581–583 (2016).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

62.
Bolyen, E. et al. Reproducible, interactive, scalable and extensible microbiome data science using QIIME 2. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 852–857 (2019).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

63.
Bokulich, N. A. et al. Optimizing taxonomic classification of marker-gene amplicon sequences with QIIME 2’s q2-feature-classifier plugin. Microbiome 6, 90 (2018).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

64.
Price, M. N., Dehal, P. S. & Arkin, A. P. FastTree 2—Approximately maximum-likelihood trees for large alignments. PLoS ONE 5, e9490 (2010).
ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

65.
Braune, B. M., Gaston, A. J., Hobson, K. A., Gilchrist, H. G. & Mallory, M. L. Changes in food web structure alter trends of mercury uptake at two seabird colonies in the Canadian arctic. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 13246–13252 (2014).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

66.
Callahan, B. J., Sankaran, K., Fukuyama, J. A., McMurdie, P. J. & Holmes, S. P. Bioconductor workflow for microbiome data analysis: From raw reads to community analyses. F1000Research 5, 1492 (2016).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

67.
Bokulich, N. A. et al. q2-longitudinal: Longitudinal and paired-sample analyses of microbiome data. mSystems 3, 1–9 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

68.
Wilcoxon, F. Individual comparisons by Ranking methods. Biometrics Bull. 1, 80 (1945).
Article  Google Scholar 

69.
Anderson, M. J. A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral. Ecol. 26, 32–46 (2001).
Google Scholar 

70.
Lozupone, C. & Knight, R. UniFrac: A new phylogenetic method for comparing microbial communities. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71, 8228–8235 (2005).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

71.
Faith, D. P. Conservation evaluation and phylogenetic diversity. Biol. Conserv. 61, 1–10 (1992).
Article  Google Scholar 

72.
Shannon, C. E. & Weaver, W. The Mathematical Theory of Communication (University of Illinois Press, Champaign, 1949).
Google Scholar 

73.
Kruskal, W. H. & Wallis, W. A. Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 47, 583–621 (1952).
MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

74.
Anderson, M. J. Distance-based tests for homogeneity of multivariate dispersions. Biometrics 62, 245–253 (2006).
MathSciNet  PubMed  PubMed Central  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

75.
Legendre, P. & Legendre, L. Ordination in reduced space. In Numerical Ecology Vol. 24 (eds Legendre, P. & Legendre, L.) 425–520 (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2012).
Google Scholar 

76.
Vázquez-Baeza, Y., Pirrung, M., Gonzalez, A. & Knight, R. EMPeror: A tool for visualizing high-throughput microbial community data. Gigascience 2, 16 (2013).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

77.
Vázquez-Baeza, Y. et al. Bringing the dynamic microbiome to life with animations. Cell Host Microbe 21, 7–10 (2017).
PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

78.
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 

79.
Love, M. I., Huber, W. & Anders, S. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biol. 15, 550 (2014).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

80.
McMurdie, P. J. & Holmes, S. Waste not, want not: Why rarefying microbiome data is inadmissible. PLoS Comput. Biol. 10, e1003531 (2014).
ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

81.
Mann, H. B. & Whitney, D. R. On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Ann. Math. Stat. 18, 50–60 (1947).
MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

82.
Bartoń, K. MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference. (2019). More

1.
Kopatz, A. et al. Connectivity and population subdivision at the fringe of a large brown bear (Ursus arctos) population in North Western Europe. Conserv. Genet. 13, 681–692 (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 
2.
Mohammadi, A. & Kaboli, M. Evaluating wildlife–vehicle collision hotspots using kernel-based estimation: a focus on the endangered Asiatic cheetah in central Iran. Hum. Wildl. Interact. 10, 13 (2016).
Google Scholar 

3.
Murphy, S. M. et al. Consequences of severe habitat fragmentation on density, genetics, and spatial capture–recapture analysis of a small bear population. PLoS ONE 12, e0181849 (2017).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

4.
Hosseini-Zavarei, F., Farhadinia, M. S., Beheshti-Zavareh, M. & Abdoli, A. Predation by grey wolf on wild ungulates and livestock in central Iran. J. Zool. 290, 1–8 (2013).
Article  Google Scholar 

5.
Tumendemberel, O. et al. Phylogeography, genetic diversity, and connectivity of brown bear populations in Central Asia. PLoS ONE 14, e0220746 (2019).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

6.
Hilty, J. A., Lidicker, W. Z. Jr. & Merenlender, A. M. Corridor Ecology: The Science and Practice of Linking Landscapes for Biodiversity Conservation (Island Press, Washington, 2012).
Google Scholar 

7.
Cushman, S. A. et al. Limiting factors and landscape connectivity: the American marten in the Rocky Mountains. Landsc. Ecol. 26, 1137 (2011).
Article  Google Scholar 

8.
Oriol-Cotterill, A., Valeix, M., Frank, L. G., Riginos, C. & Macdonald, D. W. Landscapes of coexistence for terrestrial carnivores: the ecological consequences of being downgraded from ultimate to penultimate predator by humans. Oikos 124, 1263–1273 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

9.
Cushman, S. A. et al. Prioritizing core areas, corridors and conflict hotspots for lion conservation in southern Africa. PLoS ONE 13, e0196213 (2018).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

10.
Rio-Maior, H., Nakamura, M., Álvares, F. & Beja, P. Designing the landscape of coexistence: integrating risk avoidance, habitat selection and functional connectivity to inform large carnivore conservation. Biol. Conserv. 235, 178–188 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

11.
Macdonald, D. W. et al. Multi-scale habitat modelling identifies spatial conservation priorities for mainland clouded leopards (Neofelis nebulosa). Divers. Distrib. 25, 1639–1654 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

12.
Johansson, Ö. et al. Land sharing is essential for snow leopard conservation. Biol. Conserv. 203, 1–7 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

13.
López-Bao, J. V., Bruskotter, J. & Chapron, G. Finding space for large carnivores. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1–2 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

14.
Crespin, S. J. & Simonetti, J. A. Reconciling farming and wild nature: Integrating human–wildlife coexistence into the land-sharing and land-sparing framework. Ambio 48, 131–138 (2019).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

15.
Kaszta, Ż, Cushman, S. A. & Macdonald, D. W. Prioritizing habitat core areas and corridors for a large carnivore across its range. Anim. Conserv. 23, 1–10 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

16.
Kaszta, Ż et al. Simulating the impact of Belt and Road initiative and other major developments in Myanmar on an ambassador felid, the clouded leopard, Neofelis nebulosa. Landsc. Ecol. 35, 727–746 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

17.
Cushman, S. A., Compton, B. W. & McGarigal, K. Habitat fragmentation effects depend on complex interactions between population size and dispersal ability: modeling influences of roads, agriculture and residential development across a range of life-history characteristics. In Spatial Complexity, Informatics, and Wildlife Conservation (eds Cushman, S. A. & Huettmann, F.) 369–385 (Springer, Berlin, 2010).
Google Scholar 

18.
Kaszta, Ż et al. Integrating Sunda clouded leopard (Neofelis diardi) conservation into development and restoration planning in Sabah (Borneo). Biol. Conserv. 235, 63–76 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

19.
Beier, P., Majka, D. R. & Spencer, W. D. Forks in the road: choices in procedures for designing wildland linkages. Conserv. Biol. 22, 836–851 (2008).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

20.
Romportl, D. et al. Designing migration corridors for large mammals in the Czech Republic. J. Landsc. Ecol. 6, 47–62 (2013).
Article  Google Scholar 

21.
Ruiz-González, A. et al. Landscape genetics for the empirical assessment of resistance surfaces: the European pine marten (Martes martes) as a target-species of a regional ecological network. PLoS ONE 9, e110552 (2014).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

22.
Cushman, S. A., Elliot, N. B., Macdonald, D. W. & Loveridge, A. J. A multi-scale assessment of population connectivity in African lions (Panthera leo) in response to landscape change. Landsc. Ecol. 31, 1337–1353 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

23.
Linnell, J., Salvatori, V. & Boitani, L. Guidelines for population level management plans for large carnivores in Europe. A Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (2008).

24.
Reljic, S. et al. Challenges for transboundary management of a European brown bear population. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 16, e00488 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

25.
Mateo Sanchez, M. C., Cushman, S. A. & Saura, S. Scale dependence in habitat selection: the case of the endangered brown bear (Ursus arctos) in the Cantabrian Range (NW Spain). Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 28, 1531–1546 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

26.
Vergara, M., Cushman, S. A., Urra, F. & Ruiz-González, A. Shaken but not stirred: multiscale habitat suitability modeling of sympatric marten species (Martes martes and Martes foina) in the northern Iberian Peninsula. Landsc. Ecol. 31, 1241–1260 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

27.
Ziółkowska, E. et al. Assessing differences in connectivity based on habitat versus movement models for brown bears in the Carpathians. Landsc. Ecol. 31, 1863–1882 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

28.
Sarkar, M. S. et al. Multiscale statistical approach to assess habitat suitability and connectivity of common leopard (Panthera pardus) in Kailash Sacred Landscape, India. Spat. Stat. 28, 304–318 (2018).
MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

29.
Ashrafzadeh, M. R. et al. A multi-scale, multi-species approach for assessing effectiveness of habitat and connectivity conservation for endangered felids. Biol. Conserv. 245, 108523 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

30.
McGarigal, K., Wan, H. Y., Zeller, K. A., Timm, B. C. & Cushman, S. A. Multi-scale habitat selection modeling: a review and outlook. Landsc. Ecol. 31, 1161–1175 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

31.
Wasserman, T. N., Cushman, S. A., Shirk, A. S., Landguth, E. L. & Littell, J. S. Simulating the effects of climate change on population connectivity of American marten (Martes americana) in the northern Rocky Mountains, USA. Landsc. Ecol. 27, 211–225 (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 

32.
Mateo-Sánchez, M. C. et al. A comparative framework to infer landscape effects on population genetic structure: Are habitat suitability models effective in explaining gene flow?. Landsc. Ecol. 30, 1405–1420 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

33.
Zeller, K. A. et al. Are all data types and connectivity models created equal? Validating common connectivity approaches with dispersal data. Divers. Distrib. 24, 868–879 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

34.
Cushman, S. A., Lewis, J. S. & Landguth, E. L. Why did the bear cross the road? Comparing the performance of multiple resistance surfaces and connectivity modeling methods. Diversity 6, 844–854 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

35.
Adriaensen, F. et al. The application of ‘least-cost’modelling as a functional landscape model. Landsc. Urban Plan. 64, 233–247 (2003).
Article  Google Scholar 

36.
McRae, B. H. Isolation by resistance. Evolution (N. Y.) 60, 1551–1561 (2006).
Google Scholar 

37.
Cushman, S. A., McKelvey, K. S. & Schwartz, M. K. Use of empirically derived source–destination models to map regional conservation corridors. Conserv. Biol. 23, 368–376 (2009).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

38.
Compton, B. W., McGarigal, K., Cushman, S. A. & Gamble, L. R. A resistant-kernel model of connectivity for amphibians that breed in vernal pools. Conserv. Biol. 21, 788–799 (2007).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

39.
Panzacchi, M. et al. Predicting the continuum between corridors and barriers to animal movements using step selection functions and randomized shortest paths. J. Anim. Ecol. 85, 32–42 (2016).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

40.
Cushman, S. A., Lewis, J. S. & Landguth, E. L. Evaluating the intersection of a regional wildlife connectivity network with highways. Mov. Ecol. 1, 12 (2013).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

41.
Moqanaki, E. M. & Cushman, S. A. All roads lead to Iran: predicting landscape connectivity of the last stronghold for the critically endangered Asiatic cheetah. Anim. Conserv. 20, 29–41 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

42.
Khosravi, R., Hemami, M. & Cushman, S. A. Multispecies assessment of core areas and connectivity of desert carnivores in central Iran. Divers. Distrib. 24, 193–207 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

43.
Shahnaseri, G. et al. Contrasting use of habitat, landscape elements, and corridors by grey wolf and golden jackal in central Iran. Landsc. Ecol. 34, 1263–1277 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

44.
Cushman, S. A. & Landguth, E. L. Ecological associations, dispersal ability, and landscape connectivity in the northern Rocky Mountains. In Research Paper RMRS-RP-90. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. vol. 90, 21 p (2012).

45.
McGarigal, K. & Cushman, S. A. Comparative evaluation of experimental approaches to the study of habitat fragmentation effects. Ecol. Appl. 12, 335–345 (2002).
Article  Google Scholar 

46.
Cozzi, G. et al. Anthropogenic food resources foster the coexistence of distinct life history strategies: year-round sedentary and migratory brown bears. J. Zool. 300, 142–150 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

47.
McLellan, B. N., Proctor, M. F., Huber, D. & Michel, S. Ursus arctos (amended version of 2017 assessment). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017: e. T41688A121229971 (2017).

48.
Penteriani, V. & Melletti, M. Bears of the World: Ecology, Conservation and Management (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2020).
Google Scholar 

49.
Wolf, C. & Ripple, W. J. Range contractions of the world’s large carnivores. R. Soc. Open Sci. 4, 170052 (2017).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

50.
Garshelis, D. & McLellan, B. Are bear subspecies a thing of the past?. Int. Bear News 20, 9–10 (2011).
Google Scholar 

51.
Hajjar, I. The Syrian bear still lives in Syria. Int. Bear News 20, 7–11 (2011).
Google Scholar 

52.
Calvignac, S., Hughes, S. & Hänni, C. Genetic diversity of endangered brown bear (Ursus arctos) populations at the crossroads of Europe, Asia and Africa. Divers. Distrib. 15, 742–750 (2009).
Article  Google Scholar 

53.
Ansari, M. & Ghoddousi, A. Water availability limits brown bear distribution at the southern edge of its global range. Ursus 29, 13–24 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

54.
Ashrafzadeh, M. R., Kaboli, M. & Naghavi, M. R. Mitochondrial DNA analysis of Iranian brown bears (Ursus arctos) reveals new phylogeographic lineage. Mamm. Biol. 81, 1–9 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

55.
Gutleb, B. & Ziaie, H. On the distribution and status of the Brown Bear, Ursus arctos, and the Asiatic Black Bear, U. thibetanus, Iran. Zool. Middle East 18, 5–8 (1999).
Article  Google Scholar 

56.
Moqanaki, E. M., Jiménez, J., Bensch, S. & López-Bao, J. V. Counting bears in the Iranian Caucasus: remarkable mismatch between scientifically-sound population estimates and perceptions. Biol. Conserv. 220, 182–191 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

57.
Yusefi, G. H., Faizolahi, K., Darvish, J., Safi, K. & Brito, J. C. The species diversity, distribution, and conservation status of the terrestrial mammals of Iran. J. Mammal. 100, 55–71 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

58.
Almasieh, K., Rouhi, H. & Kaboodvandpour, S. Habitat suitability and connectivity for the brown bear (Ursus arctos) along the Iran–Iraq border. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 65, 57 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

59.
Nezami, B. & Farhadinia, M. S. Litter sizes of brown bears in the Central Alborz Protected Area, Iran. Ursus 22, 167–171 (2011).
Article  Google Scholar 

60.
Darvishsefat, A. A. Atlas of Protected Areas of Iran. (Ravi, 2006).

61.
Atzeni, L. et al. Meta-replication, sampling bias, and multi-scale model selection: a case study on snow leopard (Panthera uncia) in western China. Ecol. Evol. 10, 7686–7712 (2020).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

62.
Ambarli, H., Erturk, A. & Soyumert, A. Current status, distribution, and conservation of brown bear (Ursidae) and wild canids (gray wolf, golden jackal, and red fox; Canidae) in Turkey (2016).

63.
Brown, J. L. SDM toolbox: a python-based GIS toolkit for landscape genetic, biogeographic and species distribution model analyses. Methods Ecol. Evol. 5, 694–700 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

64.
Evans, J. S. & Oakleaf, J. Geomorphometry and gradient metrics toolbox (ArcGIS 10.0) (2012).

65.
Ghorbanian, A. et al. Improved land cover map of Iran using Sentinel imagery within Google Earth Engine and a novel automatic workflow for land cover classification using migrated training samples. ISPRS J. Photogram. Remote Sens. 167, 276–288 (2020).
Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

66.
Sanderson, E. W. et al. The human footprint and the last of the wild: the human footprint is a global map of human influence on the land surface, which suggests that human beings are stewards of nature, whether we like it or not. Bioscience 52, 891–904 (2002).
Article  Google Scholar 

67.
Fick, S. E. & Hijmans, R. J. WorldClim 2: new 1-km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 37, 4302–4315 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

68.
Jueterbock, A. ‘MaxentVariableSelection’vignette. (2015).

69.
R Development Core, team. A Language ans Environment for Statistical Computing. R Found Stat. Comput. Vienna Austria 2, (2018).

70.
Naimi, B., Hamm, N. A. S., Groen, T. A., Skidmore, A. K. & Toxopeus, A. G. Where is positional uncertainty a problem for species distribution modelling?. Ecography (Cop.) 37, 191–203 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

71.
Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N. & Elphick, C. S. A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods Ecol. Evol. 1, 3–14 (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

72.
Liaw, A. & Wiener, M. Classification and regression by randomForest. R News 2, 18–22 (2002).
Google Scholar 

73.
Evans, J. S. & Cushman, S. A. Gradient modeling of conifer species using random forests. Landsc. Ecol. 24, 673–683 (2009).
Article  Google Scholar 

74.
Wasserman, T. N., Cushman, S. A., Schwartz, M. K. & Wallin, D. O. Spatial scaling and multi-model inference in landscape genetics: Martes Americana in Northern Idaho. Landsc. Ecol. 25, 1601–1612 (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

75.
Cushman, S. A. & Lewis, J. S. Movement behavior explains genetic differentiation in American black bears. Landsc. Ecol. 25, 1613–1625 (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

76.
Cushman, S. A., Macdonald, E. A., Landguth, E. L., Malhi, Y. & Macdonald, D. W. Multiple-scale prediction of forest loss risk across Borneo. Landsc. Ecol. 32, 1581–1598 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

77.
Zeller, K. A., McGarigal, K. & Whiteley, A. R. Estimating landscape resistance to movement: a review. Landsc. Ecol. 27, 777–797 (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 

78.
Wan, H. Y., Cushman, S. A. & Ganey, J. L. Improving habitat and connectivity model predictions with multi-scale resource selection functions from two geographic areas. Landsc. Ecol. 34, 503–519 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

79.
Landguth, E. L., Hand, B. K., Glassy, J., Cushman, S. A. & Sawaya, M. A. UNICOR: a species connectivity and corridor network simulator. Ecography (Cop.) 35, 9–14 (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 

80.
Cushman, S. A., Landguth, E. L. & Flather, C. H. Evaluating population connectivity for species of conservation concern in the American Great Plains. Biodivers. Conserv. 22, 2583–2605 (2013).
Article  Google Scholar 

81.
Kaszta, Ż, Cushman, S. A., Sillero-Zubiri, C., Wolff, E. & Marino, J. Where buffalo and cattle meet: modelling interspecific contact risk using cumulative resistant kernels. Ecography (Cop.) 41, 1616–1626 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

82.
Støen, O.-G. Natal Dispersal and Social Organization in Brown Bears. (Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Department of Ecology and Natural, 2006).

83.
Saura, S. & Pascual-Hortal, L. A new habitat availability index to integrate connectivity in landscape conservation planning: comparison with existing indices and application to a case study. Landsc. Urban Plan. 83, 91–103 (2007).
Article  Google Scholar 

84.
Saura, S. & Torné, J. Conefor Sensinode 2.2: a software package for quantifying the importance of habitat patches for landscape connectivity. Environ. Model. Softw. 24, 135–139 (2009).
Article  Google Scholar 

85.
Avon, C. & Bergès, L. Prioritization of habitat patches for landscape connectivity conservation differs between least-cost and resistance distances. Landsc. Ecol. 31, 1551–1565 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

86.
Ahmadi, M. et al. SPECIES OR SPACE: a combined gap analysis to guide management planning of conservation areas. Landsc. Ecol. 35, 1505–1517 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

87.
Saura, S. & Rubio, L. A common currency for the different ways in which patches and links can contribute to habitat availability and connectivity in the landscape. Ecography (Cop.) 33, 523–537 (2010).
Google Scholar 

88.
Elliot, N. B., Cushman, S. A., Macdonald, D. W. & Loveridge, A. J. The devil is in the dispersers: predictions of landscape connectivity change with demography. J. Appl. Ecol. 51, 1169–1178 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

89.
Noroozi, J., Akhani, H. & Breckle, S.-W. Biodiversity and phytogeography of the alpine flora of Iran. Biodivers. Conserv. 17, 493–521 (2008).
Article  Google Scholar 

90.
Habibzadeh, N. & Ashrafzadeh, M. R. Habitat suitability and connectivity for an endangered brown bear population in the Iranian Caucasus. Wildl. Res. 45, 602–610 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

91.
Ashrafzadeh, M.-R., Khosravi, R., Ahmadi, M. & Kaboli, M. Landscape heterogeneity and ecological niche isolation shape the distribution of spatial genetic variation in Iranian brown bears, Ursus arctos (Carnivora: Ursidae). Mamm. Biol. 93, 64–75 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

92.
Ash, E., Cushman, S. A., Macdonald, D. W., Redford, T. & Kaszta, Ż. How important are resistance, dispersal ability, population density and mortality in temporally dynamic simulations of population connectivity? A case study of tigers in southeast Asia. Land 9, 415 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

93.
Cushman, S. A. et al. Biological corridors and connectivity [Chapter 21]. In Key Topics in Conservation Biology 2 (eds Macdonald, D. W. & Willis, K. J.) 384–404 (Wiley, Hoboken, 2013).
Google Scholar 

94.
Ghoddousi, A. Habitat suitability modelling of the Brown bear Ursus arctos in Croatia and Slovenia using telemetry data (2010).

95.
Steyaert, S. M. J. G. et al. Ecological implications from spatial patterns in human-caused brown bear mortality. Wildl. Biol. 22, 144–152 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

96.
Güthlin, D. et al. Estimating habitat suitability and potential population size for brown bears in the Eastern Alps. Biol. Conserv. 144, 1733–1741 (2011).
Article  Google Scholar 

97.
Penteriani, V. et al. Evolutionary and ecological traps for brown bears Ursus arctos in human-modified landscapes. Mamm. Rev. 48, 180–193 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

98.
Zarzo-Arias, A. et al. Identifying potential areas of expansion for the endangered brown bear (Ursus arctos) population in the Cantabrian Mountains (NW Spain). PLoS ONE 14, e0209972 (2019).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

99.
Morales-González, A., Ruiz-Villar, H., Ordiz, A. & Penteriani, V. Large carnivores living alongside humans: brown bears in human-modified landscapes. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 22, e00937 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

100.
Fedorca, A. et al. Inferring fine-scale spatial structure of the brown bear (Ursus arctos) population in the Carpathians prior to infrastructure development. Sci. Rep. 9, 1–12 (2019).
Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

101.
Liu, C., Newell, G., White, M. & Bennett, A. F. Identifying wildlife corridors for the restoration of regional habitat connectivity: a multispecies approach and comparison of resistance surfaces. PLoS ONE 13, e0206071 (2018).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

102.
Macdonald, D. W. et al. Predicting biodiversity richness in rapidly changing landscapes: Climate, low human pressure or protection as salvation?. Biodivers. Conserv. 29, 4035–4057 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

103.
Herrero, S., Smith, T., DeBruyn, T. D., Gunther, K. & Matt, C. A. From the field: brown bear habituation to people—safety, risks, and benefits. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 33, 362–373 (2005).
Article  Google Scholar 

104.
Skuban, M. et al. Effects of roads on brown bear movements and mortality in Slovakia. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 63, 82 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

105.
Findo, S., Skuban, M., Kajba, M., Chalmers, J. & Kalaš, M. Identifying attributes associated with brown bear (Ursus arctos) road-crossing and roadkill sites. Can. J. Zool. 97, 156–164 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

106.
Watson, J. E. M. et al. Persistent disparities between recent rates of habitat conversion and protection and implications for future global conservation targets. Conserv. Lett. 9, 413–421 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

107.
Boitani, L., Ciucci, P., Corsi, F. & Dupre, E. Potential range and corridors for brown bears in the Eastern Alps. Italy. Ursus 11, 123–130 (1999).
Google Scholar 

108.
Cushman, S. A., McKelvey, K. S., Hayden, J. & Schwartz, M. K. Gene flow in complex landscapes: testing multiple hypotheses with causal modeling. Am. Nat. 168, 486–499 (2006).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

109.
Mohammadi, A. et al. Road expansion: a challenge to conservation of mammals, with particular emphasis on the endangered Asiatic cheetah in Iran. J. Nat. Conserv. 43, 8–18 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar  More

1.
DiGiacomo, G., Hadrich, J., Hutchison, W. D., Peterson, H. & Rogers, M. Economic impact of spotted wing drosophila (Diptera: Drosophilidae) yield loss on Minnesota Raspberry farms: A grower survey. J. Integr. Pest Manag. 10, https://doi.org/10.1093/jipm/pmz006 (2019).
2.
Farnsworth, D. et al. Economic analysis of revenue losses and control costs associated with the spotted wing drosophila, Drosophila suzukii (Matsumura), in the California raspberry industry. Pest Manag. Sci. 73, 1083–1090. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.4497 (2017).
CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

3.
Cini, A., Ioriatti, C. & Anfora, G. A review of the invasion of Drosophila suzukii in Europe and a draft research agenda for integrated pest management. Bull. Insectol. 65, 149–160 (2012).
Google Scholar 

4.
Okada, T. Systematic Study of Drosophilidae and Allied Families of Japan. 95–106 (Gihodo Co. Ltd., 1956).

5.
Walsh, D. B. et al. Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae): Invasive pest of ripening soft fruit expanding its geographic range and damage potential. J. Integr. Pest Manag. 2, G1–G7. https://doi.org/10.1603/Ipm10010 (2011).
Article  Google Scholar 

6.
Kanzawa, T. Studies on Drosophila suzukii mats. J. Plant Proteom. 23, 66–70, 127–132, 183–191 (1939).

7.
Bolda, M. P. & Goodhue, R. E. Spotted wing Drosophila: Potential economic impact of a newly established pest. Agric. Resour. Econ. Updates Univ. Calif. Giannini Found. 13, 5–8, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jff.2015.04.027 (2010).

8.
Schetelig, M. F. et al. Environmentally sustainable pest control options for Drosophila suzukii. J. Appl. Entomol. 142, 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/jen.12469 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

9.
Lee, J. C. et al. Biological control of spotted-wing Drosophila (Diptera: Drosophilidae)—Current and pending tactics. J. Integr. Pest Manag. 10, https://doi.org/10.1093/jipm/pmz012 (2019).

10.
Fleury, F., Gibert, P., Ris, N. & Allemand, R. Chapter 1 Ecology and life history evolution of frugivorous Drosophila parasitoids. 70, 3–44, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-308x(09)70001-6 (2009).

11.
Daane, K. M. et al. First exploration of parasitoids of Drosophila suzukii in South Korea as potential classical biological agents. J. Pest Sci. 89, 823–835. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-016-0740-0 (2016).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

12.
Girod, P. et al. The parasitoid complex of D. suzukii and other fruit feeding Drosophila species in Asia. Sci. Rep. 8, 11839, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-29555-8 (2018).

13.
Girod, P. et al. Host specificity of Asian parasitoids for potential classical biological control of Drosophila suzukii. J. Pest. Sci. 2004(91), 1241–1250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-018-1003-z (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

14.
Matsuura, A., Mitsui, H. & Kimura, M. T. A preliminary study on distributions and oviposition sites of Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae) and its parasitoids on wild cherry tree in Tokyo, central Japan. Appl. Entomol. Zool. 53, 47–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13355-017-0527-7 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

15.
Wang, X. G., Nance, A. H., Jones, J. M. L., Hoelmer, K. A. & Daane, K. M. Aspects of the biology and reproductive strategy of two Asian larval parasitoids evaluated for classical biological control of Drosophila suzukii. Biol. Control 121, 58–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2018.02.010 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

16.
Abram, P. K. et al. New records of Leptopilina, Ganaspis, and Asobara species associated with Drosophila suzukii in North America, including detections of L. japonica and G. brasiliensis. J. Hymenoptera Res. 78, 1–17, https://doi.org/10.3897/jhr.78.55026 (2020).

17.
Puppato, S., Grassi, A., Pedrazzoli, F., De Cristofaro, A. & Ioriatti, C. First report of Leptopilina japonica in Europe. Insects 11, https://doi.org/10.3390/insects11090611 (2020).

18.
Kacsoh, B. Z. & Schlenke, T. A. High hemocyte load is associated with increased resistance against parasitoids in Drosophila suzukii, a relative of D. melanogaster. PLoS One 7, e34721, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0034721 (2012).

19.
Chabert, S., Allemand, R., Poyet, M., Eslin, P. & Gibert, P. Ability of European parasitoids (Hymenoptera) to control a new invasive Asiatic pest, Drosophila suzukii. Biol. Control 63, 40–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2012.05.005 (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 

20.
Nagaraja, H. in Biological Control of Insect Pests Using Egg Parasitoids (eds S. Sithanantham, Chandish R. Ballal, S. K. Jalali, & N. Bakthavatsalam) Chapter 8, 175–189 (Springer, 2013).

21.
Rossi Stacconi, M. V., Grassi, A., Ioriatti, C. & Anfora, G. Augmentative releases of Trichopria drosophilae for the suppression of early season Drosophila suzukii populations. BioControl 64, 9–19, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-018-09914-0 (2018).

22.
Rossi-Stacconi, M. V. et al. Multiple lines of evidence for reproductive winter diapause in the invasive pest Drosophila suzukii: Useful clues for control strategies. J. Pest Sci. 89, 689–700. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-016-0753-8 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

23.
Mazzetto, F. et al. Drosophila parasitoids in northern Italy and their potential to attack the exotic pest Drosophila suzukii. J. Pest Sci. 89, 837–850. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-016-0746-7 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

24.
Wang, X. G., Kacar, G., Biondi, A. & Daane, K. M. Foraging efficiency and outcomes of interactions of two pupal parasitoids attacking the invasive spotted wing drosophila. Biol. Control 96, 64–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2016.02.004 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

25.
Kacar, G., Wang, X. G., Biondi, A. & Daane, K. M. Linear functional response by two pupal Drosophila parasitoids foraging within single or multiple patch environments. PLoS ONE 12, e0183525. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183525 (2017).
CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

26.
Zhu, C. J., Li, J., Wang, H., Zhang, M. & Hu, H. Y. Demographic potential of the pupal parasitoid Trichopria drosophilae (Hymenoptera: Diapriidae) reared on Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae). J. Asia-Pac. Entomol. 20, 747–751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aspen.2017.04.008 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

27.
Kruitwagen, A., Beukeboom, L. W. & Wertheim, B. Optimization of native biocontrol agents, with parasitoids of the invasive pest Drosophila suzukii as an example. Evol. Appl. 11, 1473–1497. https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.12648 (2018).
Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

28.
Rossi Stacconi, M. V. et al. Host location and dispersal ability of the cosmopolitan parasitoid Trichopria drosophilae released to control the invasive spotted wing Drosophila. Biol. Control 117, 188–196, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2017.11.013 (2018).

29.
Wolf, S., Boycheva-Woltering, S., Romeis, J. & Collatz, J. Trichopria drosophilae parasitizes Drosophila suzukii in seven common non-crop fruits. J. Pest Sci. 93, 627–638. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-019-01180-y (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

30.
Wang, X. G. et al. Thermal performance of two indigenous pupal parasitoids attacking the invasive Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae). Environ. Entomol. 47, 764–772. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvy053 (2018).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

31.
Rossi Stacconi, M. V. et al. Comparative life history traits of indigenous Italian parasitoids of Drosophila suzukii and their effectiveness at different temperatures. Biol. Control 112, 20–27, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2017.06.003 (2017).

32.
Colombari, F., Tonina, L., Battisti, A. & Mori, N. Performance of Trichopria drosophilae (Hymenoptera: Diapriidae), a generalist parasitoid of Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae), at low temperature. J. Insect Sci. 20, https://doi.org/10.1093/jisesa/ieaa039 (2020).

33.
Carton, Y., Bouletreau, M., Alphen, J. J. M. V. & Lenteren, J. C. V. in The Genetics and Biology of Drosophila Vol. 3 (eds M. Ashburner, H.L. Carson, & J.N. Thompson) Chap. 39, 348–394 (Academic Press, 1986).

34.
Wang, X. G., Kacar, G., Biondi, A. & Daane, K. M. Life-history and host preference of Trichopria drosophilae, a pupal parasitoid of spotted wing drosophila. Biocontrol 61, 387–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-016-9720-9 (2016).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

35.
Boycheva Woltering, S., Romeis, J. & Collatz, J. Influence of the rearing host on biological parameters of Trichopria drosophilae, a potential biological control agent of Drosophila suzukii. Insects 10, https://doi.org/10.3390/insects10060183 (2019).

36.
Yi, C. et al. Life history and host preference of Trichopria drosophilae from Southern China, one of the effective pupal parasitoids on the Drosophila species. Insects 11, https://doi.org/10.3390/insects11020103 (2020).

37.
Lynch, Z. R., Schlenke, T. A. & de Roode, J. C. Evolution of behavioural and cellular defences against parasitoid wasps in the Drosophila melanogaster subgroup. J. Evol. Biol. 29, 1016–1029. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.12842 (2016).
CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

38.
Schneider, C. A., Rasband, W. S. & Eliceiri, K. W. NIH image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat. Methods 9, 671–675. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2089 (2012).
CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

39.
Otto, M. & Mackauer, M. The developmental strategy of an idiobiont ectoparasitoid, Dendrocerus carpenteri : Influence of variations in host quality on offspring growth and fitness. Oecologia 117, 353–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050668 (1998).
ADS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

40.
Friard, O., Gamba, M. & Fitzjohn, R. BORIS: A free, versatile open-source event-logging software for video/audio coding and live observations. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 1325–1330. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.12584 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

41.
Bates, D., Machler, M., Bolker, B. M. & Walker, S. C. 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 

42.
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R, Vienna, 2008).

43.
Steidle, J. L. M. & van Loon, J. J. A. in Chemoecology of Insect Eggs and Egg Deposition (eds Monika Hilker & Torsten Meiners) 291–317 (Blackwell, 2003).

44.
Romani, R., Isidoro, N., Bin, F. & Vinson, S. B. Host recognition in the pupal parasitoid Trichopria drosophilae: A morpho-functional approach. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 105, 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1570-7458.2002.01040.x (2002).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

45.
Ballman, E. S., Collins, J. A. & Drummond, F. A. Pupation behavior and predation on Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae) pupae in maine wild blueberry fields. J. Econ. Entomol. 110, 2308–2317. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/tox233 (2017).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

46.
Carton, Y. Biologie de pimpla instigator (Ichneumonidae: Pimplinae). Entomol. Exp. Appl. 17, 265–278. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.1974.tb00344.x (1974).
Article  Google Scholar 

47.
Vinson, S. B. Host selection by insect parasitoids. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 21, 109–133. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.en.21.010176.000545 (1976).
Article  Google Scholar 

48.
Poyet, M. et al. Resistance of Drosophila suzukii to the larval parasitoids Leptopilina heterotoma and Asobara japonica is related to haemocyte load. Physiol. Entomol. 38, 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/phen.12002 (2013).
Article  Google Scholar 

49.
Honti, V., Csordas, G., Kurucz, E., Markus, R. & Ando, I. The cell-mediated immunity of Drosophila melanogaster: Hemocyte lineages, immune compartments, microanatomy and regulation. Dev. Comp. Immunol. 42, 47–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dci.2013.06.005 (2014).
CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

50.
Iacovone, A., Ris, N., Poirie, M. & Gatti, J. L. Time-course analysis of Drosophila suzukii interaction with endoparasitoid wasps evidences a delayed encapsulation response compared to D. melanogaster. PLoS One 13, e0201573, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201573 (2018).

51.
Bozler, J., Kacsoh, B. Z. & Bosco, G. Maternal priming of offspring immune system in Drosophila. G3 (Bethesda) 10, 165–175, https://doi.org/10.1534/g3.119.400852 (2020).

52.
Charnov, E. L., Los-den Hartogh, R. L., Jones, W. T. & van den Assem, J. Sex ratio evolution in a variable environment. Nature 289, 27–33, https://doi.org/10.1038/289027a0 (1981).

53.
Sandlan, K. Sex-ratio regulation in Coccygomimus-Turionella Linnaeus (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae) and its ecological implications. Ecol. Entomol. 4, 365–378. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2311.1979.tb00596.x (1979).
Article  Google Scholar 

54.
King, B. H. Offspring sex-ratios in parasitoid wasps. Q. Rev. Biol. 62, 367–396. https://doi.org/10.1086/415618 (1987).
Article  Google Scholar  More

The fines content of the pellets, agglutinated with wheat starch and kraft lignin (both at 4%), was 125 higher and 75% lower than in the control, respectively (Table 1). The fines generation of the pellets in all treatments was lower than 1% (0.03 to 0.27%) and, therefore, they met the marketing standard EN 14961-232.
Table 1 Fine content (%), hardness (%), bulk density (g m−3), apparent density (g m−3) by gravimetric method and apparent density (g m−3) by X-ray densitometry of Pinus wood pellets produced with different percentages of the additives (A) corn and wheat and kraft lignin and in the control.
Full size table

The lower values of the fines content of the pellets produced with kraft lignin are possibly due to the densification process of the pellet matrix with higher contents of this additive, generating pellets with better bonding characteristics between the particles and, consequently, less fines. In addition, lignin has a cementing action between the cells9 during the pressing process, and high temperature causes this compound to reach the glass transition stage, ensuring a strong bond between the particles8,33. Pellets with lower fines production during handling and transport should be preferred commercially34. The fines content increases with the moisture level of the material, causing cracks to exhaust gases, mainly water vapor, and, consequently, reducing their mechanical resistance during handling35. On the other hand, the low moisture content makes biomass compaction difficult, due to the water’s characteristic of helping the heat transfer and promoting lignin plasticization as a natural biomass binder36. The moisture content between 8 and 12% in the dry basis is ideal for reducing fines generation to within the European standard EN 14961-232.
The hardness of the pellets was similar with the different percentages of corn starch, but it was higher with wheat starch (Table 1). The hardness increased by 22% when the percentage of kraft lignin reached 5%, in relation to the control. The hardness of the pellets with 3 and 5% of corn starch and 4% of kraft lignin was similar to the control.
The similar hardness of the pellets with the different percentages of wheat starch confirms studies that binders can reduce the mechanical properties of pellets at a higher moisture content, because water takes the place of hydrogen bonds, affecting cohesion between the particles37. Higher hardness affects pellet length, because the higher the hardness, the greater the breaking strength after contact with the pelletizing press knife15. In addition, pellets with lower hardness have points for water ingress, increasing the moisture content and consequently the breaking point and causing higher fine generation38. The higher hardness of pellets produced with 5% kraft lignin is possibly due to the decrease of their hygroscopic equilibrium moisture, due to the hydrophobic character of this compound. The kraft lignin residue is a compound of C–C and C–O–C phenylpropane units with low water relationship39. In addition, the constant pressing temperature of 120 °C plasticizes kraft lignin as an adhesive, increasing particle contact and reducing expansion due to lower hygroscopicity, consequently increasing hardness40. Kraft lignin, as an additive, facilitates the use of this residue and confers better properties to pellets by increasing their mechanical strength13,14,15.
The bulk density of pellets with 1% corn or wheat starches and 3% kraft lignin was higher than other mixtures (Table 1). The bulk density of kraft lignin pellets was higher than those with corn or wheat starch. The bulk density of pellets with 1% corn starch and 5% kraft lignin was lower than those with 3% lignin, which were denser than those with only wood (control).
The higher bulk density values for 3% kraft lignin pellets may be associated with a higher amount of lignin in the mixture (wood + additive), which plasticizes more efficiently, generating a smooth and uniform texture in the pellets and improving their density. The pelletizing matrix temperature influences the durability and bulk density of pellets36, as lignin is a natural wood binder and requires temperatures above the glass transition (75–100 °C) to produce bonding between the particles. Temperatures above 90 °C improve pellet characteristics, and require lower compaction pressure at increasing compaction matrix temperatures4,41. The lower density values of wheat starch pellets may be due to the high moisture content of the steam generated during the high temperatures in the compaction process (120 °C), causing micro-cracks in the pellet structure and reducing its density35. Starch acts as a lubricating agent in the pelletizing process, facilitating the flow of raw material through the pelletizing matrix36. The bulk density of the pellets was greater than the minimum required by the European Marketing Standard EN 14961-232, equal to or greater than 0.60 g cm−3 in all treatments. This highlights the potential use of additives in pelletizing, which should be at most 2% relative to the dry mass of primary raw material.
The apparent density of pellets varied in a fashion similar to that of bulk density (Table 1), with no effect from the type and amount of additive added to the particles mass, comparing the three different additives and considering the same proportion used, except for pellets produced with 3% wheat starch, with lower apparent density. The apparent density of pellets produced with 1 and 2% corn starch and 1, 3, 4 and 5% kraft lignin was higher, and the other treatments were similar to the control (Table 1). Lignin and corn starch promoted better connection between particles, favoring biomass compaction and increasing pellet density.
The variation in the apparent density of the pellets, similar to that of bulk density between 1.15 g m−3 (3% wheat) and 1.23 g m−3 (3% lignin), is possibly due to the wheat starch gelatinization process starting at lower temperatures (± 70 °C) than that of corn starch (± 85 °C)42. This leads to the starch adhering to the pellet feeder system wall, reducing the proportion of additive that reaches the pelletizing matrix and consequently diminishing the unit density of the pellet. The higher apparent density of pellets produced with 1 and 2% corn starch and 1, 3, 4 and 5% kraft lignin is due to the lower rate of return of the pelletizing process and the higher molecular weight of the additives, influencing the pellet density7,36. Bulk density and apparent density determine pellet storage and transport conditions, and are directly related to energy density in those with 1 and 2% corn starch and 1, 3, 4 and 5% lignin, with higher density and a higher amount of energy per volume unit43.
The apparent density of the pellets produced with additives and evaluated by X-ray densitometry ranged from 1.00 to 1.31 g m−3 in their longitudinal axis (Table 1), with the lowest value for pellets produced with 1% wheat starch, and the highest value with 1% corn starch.
The lower apparent density values of wheat starch pellets can be associated with the presence of cracks (empty spaces), directly related to the susceptibility to rupture2. Low density peaks indicate small cracks that are attributed to a moisture content of the mixture or particle sizes inadequate for pelletizing4, affecting the physical properties of biomass densification44. The average apparent density of pellets is within the range established by the German standard DIN 51731, from 1.00 to 1.40 g m−345.
Pellet density varied in longitudinal density profiles, with one uniform and one irregular pattern (Fig. 1). The apparent density variation of pellets produced without additives along the longitudinal axis (coefficient of variation of 5.29%) was higher. On the other hand, the apparent density variation of the profile (coefficient of variation of 4.19%) with additives was lower, showing greater cohesion between the particles and the additives. X-ray densitometry showed pellet density variations for all additives and in the control.
Figure 1

Longitudinal variation of pellet density with different proportions of the additives kraft lignin and corn and wheat starch.

Full size image

Uniform or irregular density patterns according to longitudinal pellet density profiles are due to variations in pellet internal density, which can be attributed to factors such as additive molecular weight, particle size, and temperature and pressure during pelletization46,47,48. Cracks are common in compacted material during pelletizing4,6, and can be attributed to inadequate pellet moisture content or particle sizes. The density of biomass varies with the moisture content44 and with the temperature strengthening the adhesion between the particles. Density profiles can explain the performance of pellets, whose cracks and high density variability affect their durability and final quality, since reductions in density are associated with cracks and, consequently, pellet breakage or rupture points, which can generate fines5. The apparent density of the pellets by gravimetric and X-ray densitometry, similar between treatments with additives, confirm that this technique, commonly used to evaluate the apparent density of materials and easier to apply than other methodologies, can be used to evaluate the quality of the pellets. Variations in the apparent density and longitudinal density profile obtained with the gravimetric and X-ray densitometry demonstrate that factors such as moisture, binder type, pressure and particle size interfere with the pelletizing process, causing variations in the material’s internal structure46,47. In addition, this technique accesses different parts of the pellet and therefore identifies point variations in the product density as reported for the 2% wheat starch pellet.
In conclusion, the additives reduced the fines content and increased the hardness and density of the pellets. Therefore, they have the potential to produce pellets with greater resistance to the transport, storage and handling processes. Apparent density along the longitudinal axis of the pellets without starch was higher. The apparent density of pellets containing starch increased the cohesion between the particles and reduced the density variation as shown by their densitometric profiles. More

Myopic reallocation improves collective wealth
Beginning from some initial extraction state, agents within a networked population of multiple common-pool resources play an iterated game in which they observe current resource conditions at each round, and incrementally shift their extraction efforts from lower-quality sources toward higher-quality sources in order to maximize their payoffs in the following round (Eq. 3). Agents’ extraction efforts are thus redirected away from over-exploited sources toward less-exploited sources so that the system approaches a steady state in which all sources equally share the burden of over-extraction. In the process, some sources increase in quality, while others are further degraded; nonetheless, the overall result of these reallocations is a net increase in collective wealth.
To show this, we consider an arbitrary initial extraction state, in which the population’s collective extraction effort is (Q=Nlangle overrightarrow{q}rangle). In this state, the initial collective payoff extracted by the population is ({F}_{0}={sum }_{sin mathbf{S}}overrightarrow{q}(s)cdot b(s)) (where we ignore cost terms, since these remain constant under reallocation), and so the population’s collective wealth per unit extraction effort is

$$frac{{F}_{0}}{Q}=frac{sum_{sin mathbf{S}}overrightarrow{q}(s)cdot left[alpha -beta (s)overleftarrow{q}(s)right]}{sum_{sin mathbf{S}}overrightarrow{q}(s)}=alpha -frac{langle beta {overrightarrow{q}}^{2}rangle }{langle overrightarrow{q}rangle }.$$
(4)

Under reallocation dynamics (Eq. 3), this total extraction (Q) is conserved, and the system will approach a steady state in which all sources share a common quality value

$${b}_{f}=alpha -frac{langle overrightarrow{q}rangle }{langle {beta }^{-1}rangle }.$$
(5)

The population’s collective wealth approaches the steady-state value

$${F}_{f}={sum }_{sin mathbf{S}}left[overrightarrow{q}(s)cdot {b}_{f}right]=Q{b}_{f}.$$
(6)

Collective wealth is increased (or at least conserved) if ({F}_{0}le {F}_{f}), or equivalently, if (frac{{F}_{0}}{Q}le {b}_{f}). Using Eqs. 4 and 5, this condition reduces to

$$langle overrightarrow{q}{rangle }^{2}le langle beta {overleftarrow{q}}^{2}rangle langle {beta }^{-1}rangle .$$
(7)

The validity of this inequality is guaranteed by the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality29, (langle XY{rangle }^{2}le langle {X}^{2}rangle langle {Y}^{2}rangle) for random variables (X) and (Y), with the identifications (X=sqrt{beta (s)}overrightarrow{q}(s)) and (Y=sqrt{beta (s{)}^{-1}}). Furthermore, equality occurs if and only if the quantity (beta left(sright)overrightarrow{q}left(sright)) shares the same value for all sources, that is, when initial conditions are already steady states where all sources share a common quality value. Reallocation dynamics thus increase collective wealth for any initial condition where sources vary from one another in quality (see Section S2.1 of the Supplementary Information). This includes Nash equilibrium initial conditions, upon which we will now focus our attention.
CPR degree heterogeneity leads to greater improvements in efficiency under myopic reallocation
In the unique Nash equilibrium state of a given network26, each agent sets its extraction at each source to the point beyond which further extraction would increase its costs more than it would increase its payoffs, given that all other agents are doing the same. In this state, no agent can increase its payoffs by unilaterally adjusting its extraction levels while other agents hold their extraction levels constant. However, when all agents simultaneously adapt their extraction levels according to the reallocation update rule (Eq. 3), under which each increase in extraction at one source is matched by an equal decrease at another source, then higher payoffs can be achieved. To quantify the extent to which reallocation alone can help alleviate the “tragedy of the commons” represented by Nash equilibrium, we now apply reallocation dynamics to Nash equilibrium initial conditions on a variety of network types, and compare the population’s collective wealth values before and after reallocation.
When network-structured populations of rational individuals extract benefits from multiple linearly-degrading CPRs, the burdens of over-exploitation tend to fall upon sources in a degree-dependent manner. Myopic reallocation tends to shift these burdens among sources of different degrees, and to distribute the resulting increases in collective wealth among individuals of different degree classes. In order to understand how these reallocations shift extraction pressure and agent payoffs among nodes of different degrees, we use a heterogeneous mean-field approach to derive estimates for these shifts. Under this perspective, the conditions defining Nash equilibrium ((frac{partial f(a)}{partial q(a,s)}=0)) lead us to estimate the expected values for extraction pressure on degree-(n) sources, (langle overrightarrow{q}{rangle }_{n}), by solving a linear system defined by

$$langle overrightarrow{q}{rangle }_{n}=frac{1}{{beta }_{n}}left[frac{n}{n+1}right]left[alpha -sum_{m=1}^{{m}_{mathrm{max}}}{P}_{mathbf{A}}left(mright)frac{m}{langle mrangle }cdot left(frac{gamma m}{[gamma mlangle {beta }^{-1}{rangle }_{m}+1]}left[alpha langle {beta }^{-1}{rangle }_{m}-sum_{{n}^{^{prime}}=1}^{{n}_{mathrm{max}}}{P}_{mathbf{S}}({n}^{^{prime}})frac{{n}^{^{prime}}}{langle nrangle }cdot langle overrightarrow{q}{rangle }_{{n}^{^{prime}}}right]right)right],$$
(8)

with one such condition for each unique source degree (nin {1,dots , {n}_{mathrm{max}}}) represented in the network, where brackets subscripted by agent degree (m) indicate expected values (langle x{rangle }_{m}={sum }_{n=1}^{{n}_{mathrm{max}}}{P}_{mathbf{S}}left(nright)frac{n}{langle nrangle }cdot {x}_{n}) and we have assumed no degree-degree correlations (see the Supplementary Information Section S3 for details). Solving this system numerically (here we use Python 3.7.3 with SciPy 1.2.130) for each of the 9 network types under consideration by inserting the corresponding ensemble degree distributions ({P}_{mathbf{A}}left(mright)) and ({P}_{mathbf{S}}left(nright)) (Fig. 1), we use the resulting values of (langle overrightarrow{q}{rangle }_{n}) to compute the expected total extraction by a degree-m agent (langle overleftarrow{q}{rangle }_{m}) at equilbrium as

$$langle overleftarrow{q}{rangle }_{m}=left(frac{m}{mgamma langle {beta }^{-1}{rangle }_{m}+1}right)left[alpha langle {beta }^{-1}{rangle }_{m}-left(sum_{n=1}^{{n}_{mathrm{max}}}{P}_{mathbf{S}}left(nright)frac{n}{langle nrangle }cdot langle overrightarrow{q}{rangle }_{n}right)right],$$
(9)

from which (langle q{rangle }_{m,n}), the expected equilibrium extraction by a degree-(m) agent from a degree-(n) source, can be computed using the Nash equilbrium condition:

$$langle q{rangle }_{m,n}=frac{alpha }{{beta }_{n}}-langle overrightarrow{q}{rangle }_{n}-frac{upgamma }{{beta }_{n}}langle overleftarrow{q}{rangle }_{m}.$$
(10)

These values are then used to compute the corresponding estimated collective wealth (i.e. the sum of all agent payoffs, (F=sum_{ain mathbf{A}}f(a))) and wealth equality (as quantified by Gini index (G)) attained at Nash equilibrium, as well as the subsequent shifts that are brought by myopic reallocation dynamics toward steady states. These values are shown in Fig. 2 for a range of values of the cost parameter (gamma), which quantifies the influence of diminishing marginal utility. The expected changes in extraction pressure for sources of different degrees, as well as the changes in agent fitness expected for agents of each degree class, are illustrated for each network type for cost-free extraction ((gamma =0)) in Fig. 3, and similarly for a representative case of costly extraction ((gamma =0.2)) in Fig. 4. The estimates presented here correspond to a uniform capacity scenario where all CPRs degrade in proportion to the total amount of extraction exerted upon their users. However, we find that qualitatively similar results also hold for a degree-proportional capacity scenario in which sources degrade in proportion to the total extraction per user that they receive (see Section S4 in the Supplementary Information).
Figure 2

Estimates of (a) Ratio of total collective wealth of equilibrium (“Eq”) states relative to efficient (“Ef”) states, ({F}_{mathrm{Eq}}/{F}_{mathrm{Ef}}); (b) increase in efficiency from equilibrium to steady states (“SS”), (({F}_{mathrm{SS}}-{F}_{mathrm{Eq}})/{F}_{mathrm{Ef}}); (c) Gini index of equilibrium states ({G}_{mathrm{Eq}}); and (d) decrease in Gini index from equilibrium to steady states, (({G}_{mathrm{Eq}}-{G}_{mathrm{SS}})), all as functions of cost parameter (gamma). Results shown correspond to a uniform capacity scenario with (alpha =beta =1).

Full size image

Figure 3

Estimated shifts in extraction patterns due to reallocation dynamics from Nash equilibrium (“Eq”) to steady states (“SS”) under cost-free extraction: (a) Change in total extraction pressure (Delta langle overrightarrow{q}{rangle }_{n}=langle overrightarrow{q}{rangle }_{n,mathrm{SS}}-langle overrightarrow{q}{rangle }_{n,mathrm{Eq}}), as a function of source degree (n); and (b) change in expected agent fitness, (Delta langle f{rangle }_{m}=langle f{rangle }_{m,mathrm{SS}}-langle f{rangle }_{m,mathrm{Eq}}) as a function of agent degree (m). Results shown correspond to a uniform capacity scenario with (alpha =beta =1) and (gamma =0). Note that results for all network types sharing a common source degree distribution type (“D”, “N”, or “PL”) are overlapping.

Full size image

Figure 4

Estimated shifts in extraction patterns due to reallocation dynamics from Nash equilibrium (“Eq”) to steady states (“SS”) under costly extraction: (a) Change in total extraction pressure (Delta langle overrightarrow{q}{rangle }_{n}=langle overrightarrow{q}{rangle }_{n,mathrm{SS}}-langle overrightarrow{q}{rangle }_{n,mathrm{Eq}}), as a function of source degree (n); and (b) change in expected agent fitness, (Delta langle f{rangle }_{m}=langle f{rangle }_{m,mathrm{SS}}-langle f{rangle }_{m,mathrm{Eq}}) as a function of agent degree (m). Results shown correspond to a uniform capacity scenario with (alpha =beta =1) and (gamma =0.2).

Full size image

In Nash equilibrium states of the uniform capacity scenario, sources with fewer users (i.e. lower degree) experience lower extraction pressure. Since all networks under comparison here share an equal number of edges, networks having greater heterogeneity among source degrees—and thus a greater abundance of low-degree sources—suffer less over-exploitation overall, and so tend to operate more efficiently at equilibrium (Fig. 2). As agents then shift their extraction away from over-burdened, lower-quality sources toward higher-quality sources, these systems approach steady states where their multiple CPR sources all share a uniform quality value. In this way, steady states of reallocation dynamics qualitatively resemble Pareto efficient extraction states, which are characterized by uniform quality among all CPR sources (though, unlike these steady states, optimal efficiency also requires uniform extraction levels among all agents regardless of degree; see Section S3.2 in the Supplementary Information). The resulting shifts in efficiency (Fig. 2b), source extraction pressure (Figs. 3a and 4a), and agent payoffs (Figs. 3b and 4b) are more pronounced for networks having greater heterogeneity among CPR source degrees due to the greater initial discrepancies among source quality values that these networks support at Nash equilibrium. When simulations of reallocation dynamics from equilbrium are performed on individual networks (see Section S6 in the Supplementary Information), then the shifts in extraction pressure and agent payoffs observed are often more exaggerated than those estimated here. Since the heterogeneous mean-field perspective treats all sources of a common degree as a single class, it does not distinguish higher-order differences among nodes that share the same degree. As a result, the model predicts no shifts under reallocation dynamics for networks in which all sources share a common degree, i.e. delta-function (“D”) source degree distributions, for example. However, on actual networks of this type, reallocation dynamics nonetheless do increase collective wealth by equalizing differences in quality among sources.
When extraction is costly ((gamma >0)), agent degree heterogeneity also plays a secondary role to source degree heterogeneity in determining equilibrium efficiency and the effects of reallocation dynamics (Figs. 2 and 4). Diminishing marginal utility motivates agents to moderate their overall extraction levels; all sources affiliated with any given agent will be affected by its tendency to reduce extraction, and the extent of this reduction will depend in turn on each source’s degree, the degrees of its other users, and so on. Higher agent degree heterogeneity is thus predicted to slightly increase equilibrium efficiency due to the presence of higher-degree agents that reduce their extraction per source by larger amounts than do lower-degree agents. While the overall gains in collective wealth expected to be achieved by way of reallocations are thus slightly reduced by the presence of these higher-degree agents, greater agent degree heterogeneity is also associated with faster times of convergence toward steady states, since high-degree agents are able to simultaneously shift efforts directly between a large number of sources, and so to more rapidly equalize source quality values (see Section S5.1 in the Supplementary Information).
Myopic reallocation from Nash equilibrium reduces wealth inequality
Since reallocation dynamics increase collective wealth, many—if not all—agents will attain improved payoffs under reallocation dynamics from suboptimal states like Nash equilibrium. We now turn our attention to how these increases in collective wealth are distributed throughout a population with respect to agent degree. Under the heterogeneous mean-field approach, we estimate that the shift in expected payoffs due to reallocations from Nash equilibrium are given by

$$Delta langle f{rangle }_{m}=mleft[left(frac{1}{langle nrangle }left[langle frac{n{b}_{n}}{{beta }_{n}}rangle {b}_{f}-langle frac{n{b}_{n}^{2}}{{beta }_{n}}rangle right]right)-upgamma langle overleftarrow{q}{rangle }_{m}left(frac{1}{langle nrangle }left[langle frac{n}{{beta }_{n}}rangle -langle frac{n{b}_{n}^{2}}{{beta }_{n}}rangle right]right)right],$$
(11)

where ({b}_{n}=alpha -{beta }_{n}langle overrightarrow{q}{rangle }_{n}) (see Section S3.1.3 in the Supplementary Information). When extraction is cost-free ((gamma =0)), the increased payoffs brought about by reallocation dynamics are expected to affect each edge in a uniform way, on average, and thus tend to be shared among agents of all degree classes in proportion to their degree (m). This is reflected in the linear increase of expected agent payoff with respect to degree (Fig. 3b), and also in the lack of change in the expected Gini index predicted for all network types under cost-free ((gamma =0)) extraction (Fig. 2d). However, when extraction is costly ((gamma >0)) and diminishing marginal utility acts to disincentivize increased extraction for higher-degree agents, the overall efficiency (Fig. 2a) and equality (Fig. 2c) of equilibrium states are increased from those observed under cost-free extraction. In these cases, reallocation dynamics also tend to increase the equality of the population’s wealth distribution, as reflected in the decreasing—and eventually negative—shifts in payoffs expected for agents of increasingly high degree (Fig. 4b), and also in the expected reductions in Gini index (Fig. 2d), caused by reallocation dynamics. This occurs because diminishing marginal utility motivates high-degree agents to exert less overall extraction effort per source at Nash equilibrium than do lower-degree agents. In the steady states subsequently reached under reallocation dynamics, all sources share a uniform quality value; each agent’s total extracted benefits then becomes strictly proportional to the overall magnitude of its extraction effort. Higher-degree agents end up receiving a smaller payoff per source than do their lower-degree counterparts in steady states. As Eq. (11) suggests, agents with higher initial extraction levels (langle overleftarrow{q}{rangle }_{m}) will experience a lower (and possibly even negative) shift in payoff per source (Delta langle f{rangle }_{m}/m) as a result of reallocations. This levelling-out of degree-based payoff inequities has its most pronounced effects at intermediate levels of the cost parameter (here, for values of (gamma approx .35), as shown in Fig. 2d). In simulations performed on specific networks, we find that reallocation dynamics lead not only to increased collective wealth, but also to increased equality, even on networks with homogeneous, “delta-function” (“D”) source degree distributions, although the heterogeneous mean-field approach predicts no such shift. Networks of other types similarly tend to undergo greater increases in equality than those predicted here due to higher-order types of heterogeneity not captured by the model (see Section S6 in the Supplementary Information). More

Molecular analyses
Results of molecular analyses
The sequences obtained are available in GenBank (Supplementary Information 1). Sequence alignments were 399 bp for COI and 587 bp for 28S including gaps.
Phylogenetic analysis
Our molecular analysis (Fig. 1) with both markers generated seven supported clusters, six of which were in agreement with the morphological determination (i.e. C. alazanicus, C. brunnicans, C. circumscriptus, C. furcillatus, C. nubeculous and C. pictipennis). However, one cluster (i.e. two species) corresponded to undistinguished C. clastrieri and C. festivipennis.
Figure 1

Block diagram of the study.

Full size image

In addition, the COI mtDNA tree shows that C. furcillatus is the sister of the “C. clastrieri/festivipennis” clade. Indeed, C. pictipennis is the sister species of C. brunnicans while C. circumscriptus is positioned between the two clades.
Moreover, the 28S rDNA tree shows that C. pictipennis is the sister of the “C. clastrieri/festivipennis” clade. The other species are positioned in several places without a clade.
Intra- and inter-specific comparison
The COI Genbank sequences show little intraspecific divergence in both C. clastrieri (0.1 ± 0.1%) and C. festivipennis (1.2 ± 0.4%). The interspecific difference between C. clastrieri and in C. festivipennis is 0.7 ± 0.2%.
Small intraspecific divergences with COI sequences were observed in our sample: C. alazanicus (1.2 ± 0.4%), C. brunnicans (0.7 ± 0.2%), C. circumscriptus (2.2 ± 0.5%), C. clastrieri (0.3 ± 0.1%), C. festivipennis (0.4 ± 0.1%), C. furcillatus (1.5 ± 0.4%), C. nubeculosus (0.2 ± 0.1%) and C. pictipennis (1.1 ± 0.3%).
Finally, C. festivipennis and C. clastrieri—grouped in the same main clade—showed small interspecific distances (0.4 ± 0.2%); these were not identified as separate species based on DNA barcodes. We therefore decided to create a new group (C. clastrieri/festivipennis clade) based on interspecific distance. The overall mean genetic distance (K2P) computed for the different species of Culicoides was found to be 16.6 ± 1.4%. Interspecific K2P values for different (Table 1) species and taxa ranged from 27.3% (between C. furcillatus and C. nubeculosus; between C. circumscriptus-and C. furcillatus) to 17.2 ± 2.1% (between C. circumscriptus and the C. clastrieri/festivipennis clade) for our samples. For the COI Genbank sequences, we observed approximatively the same proportion and the same species (Table 1). We remarked very little interspecific divergence between our sample of the C. clastrieri/festivipennis clade and the C. clastrieri/festivipennis Genbank clade (0.6 ± 0.4%).
Table 1 Estimation of pairwise distance (± SD) of the Culicoides species for the COI domain of the mtDNA and D1D2 region of the rDNA.
Full size table

Analysis from 28S rDNA sequences did not show any intraspecific divergence whatever the taxa (0.000) with the exception of C. nubeculosus (0.1 ± 0.1%) and C. festivipennis/C.clastrieri (0.1 ± 0%). The overall mean genetic distance (K2P) computed for the different species of Culicoides was found to be 2.1 ± 0.03%. Interspecific K2P values for different species (Table 1) and taxa ranged from 1.2% (between C. circumscriptus and C. furcillatus; C. furcillatus and C. brunnicans, the main C. clastrieri/festivipennis clade and C. furcillatus) to 5.3 ± 0.9% (between C. circumscriptus and C. nubeculosus).
Morphometric and morphological analyses
In all, 148 specimens identified as C. alazanicus (n = 10), C. brunnicans (n = 27), C. circumscriptus (n = 27), C. clastrieri (n = 21), C. festivipennis (n = 20), C. furcillatus (n = 14), C. nubeculosus (n = 19) and C. pictipennis (n = 20) were analysed with 11 wing landmarks/specimens (Fig. 2).
Figure 2

Trees obtained from nucleotide analysis of: (a) COI mtDNA; (b) 28S rDNA (with MP method) sequences of C. alazanicus, C. brunnicans, C. circumscriptus C. clastrieri, C. festivipennis, C. furcillatus, C. nubeculosus and C. pictipennis and bootstrap values are shown in nodes (1000 replicates).

Full size image

Principal component analyses
Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to observe possible grouping trends.
Firstly, we performed a first normed PCA using the “Wing landmarks” model. The first three axes accounted for 76%, 15% and 8% of the total variance, which suggests a weak structuration of the data. This was confirmed by a scatterplot of PCA axes 1 and 2 that was unable to separate the species (Fig. 3).
Figure 3

Principal component analysis (PCA): percentage of variance explained for each PCA dimension and results.

Full size image

Secondly, we performed a first normed PCA on the “Wing morphological characters” model. The various specimens of each species are represented by a single point suggesting a close correlation of wing morphological characters. This model, without variance, is not validated and does not permit species separation.
We studied the “Full wing (landmarks and morphological, characters)” model through a normed PCA on raw data. C. clastrieri could be clearly separated from C. festivipennis. The first five axes accounted for 40%, 25%, 12%, 10% and 5% of the total variance. The scatterplot separated unambiguously and without overlap C. clastrieri-C. festivipennis on the one hand and the six species on the other hand (Fig. 3).
Finally, we performed a first normed PCA on the “Full model” (Morphological characters—wing, head, abdomen, legs—and wing landmarks). The first nine axes accounted for 26%, 23%, 22%, 10%, 8%., 4%, 3%, 2% and 1% of the total variance, which reveals good structuration of the data. This was confirmed by a scatterplot of PCA axes 1 and 2 that presents the same topology as the wing morphological model (Fig. 3).
This supports discrimination according to the species’ wing pattern. Similarly, and some body pattern characters could be used to identify Culicoides from the clastrieri/festivipennis clade better and quicker. With that objective in mind, we performed analyses on three datasets: (1) “Wing landmarks” (11 landmarks); (2) “Full wing” (38 items) and (3) the “Full model” that includes 71 items.
Discriminant analyses
PLS-DA and sPLS-DA models were used in order to discriminate the extremes (i.e. the most sensitive and most robust groups) using the three datasets (species, models and components) as described. The accuracy and the balanced error rate (BER) for the two models were compared and are summarised in Supplementary Information 2 and Fig. 4.
Figure 4

Balanced error rate (BER) choosing the number of dimensions. Performance and ncomp selection.

Full size image

The tuning step of the number of components to select showed that 16 components were necessary to lower the BER (Fig. 4A,B) for the “Wing landmarks” data. The AUC values with 16 components are as follows: C. alazanicus (0.97, p  More