Philippa Kaur

Wilkinson, D. M. Dispersal biogeography. Encyclopedia of Life Science. (Nature Publishing Group, 2001).Jan, P.L. et al. Range expansion is associated with increased survival and fecundity in a long-lived bat species. Proc. R. Soc. B. 286, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.0384 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
IUCN. IUCN Guidelines for the Prevention of Biodiversity Loss Caused by Alien Invasive Species. https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/12413(2000).McKinney, M. L. Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biological Conservation 127, 247–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.09.005 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Galko, J. et al. Invázne a nepôvodné druhy v lesoch Slovenska: hmyz—huby—rastliny. (Národné lesnícke centrum, 2018).Lockwood, J. L., Hoopes, M. F. & Marchetti, M. P. Invasion ecology_draft_2ed. (John Wiley & Sons, 2013).Colautti, R. I. & MacIsaac, H. J. A neutral terminology to define ‘invasive’ species: Defining invasive species. Divers. Distrib. 10, 135–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1366-9516.2004.00061.x (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ambros, M., Dudich, A., MIKLÓS, P., Stollmann, A. & Žiak, D. Ryšavka tmavopása (Apodemus agrarius)–novỳ druh cicavca Podunajskej roviny (Rodentia: Muridae). Lynx, series nova 41, (2010).Bradley, B. A. et al. Disentangling the abundance—impact relationship for invasive species. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 116, 9919–9924. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2605254 (2019).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nackley, L. L., West, A. G., Skowno, A. L. & Bond, W. J. The nebulous ecology of native invasions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 32, 814–824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2017.08.003 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Archer, S. Tree-grass dynamics in a Prosopis-thornscrub savanna parkland: reconstructing the past and predicting the future. Ecoscience 2, 83–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/11956860.1995.11682272 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wigley, B. J., Bond, W. J. & Hoffman, M. T. Thicket expansion in a South African savanna under divergent land use: local vs. global drivers? Global Change Biol. 16, 964–976. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.02030.x (2010).Spiegel, C. S., Hart, P. J., Woodworth, B. L., Tweed, E. J. & LeBrun, J. J. Distribution and abundance of forest birds in low-altitude habitat on Hawai’i Island: Evidence for range expansion of native species. Bird Conserv. Int. 16, 175–185. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959270906000244 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Livezey, K. B. Range expansion of Barred Owls, part II: facilitating ecological changes. Am. Midland Nat. 323–349 (2009).Veech, J. A., Small, M. F. & Baccus, J. T. The effect of habitat on the range expansion of a native and an introduced bird species. J. Biogeogr. 38, 69–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2010.02397.x (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Krupa, J. J. & Haskins, K. E. Invasion of the meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus) in southeastern Kentucky and its possible impact on the southern bog lemming (Synaptomys cooperi). American Midland Naturalist 14–22 (1996).Jareño, D. et al. Factors associated with the colonization of agricultural areas by common voles Microtus arvalis in NW Spain. Biol. Invasions 17, 2315–2327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-015-08774 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Malygin, V. M., Baskevich, M. I. & Khlyap, L. A. Invasions of the common vole sibling species. Russ. J. Biol. Invas. 11, 47–65 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tong, X., Wang, R. & Chen, X.-Y. Expansion or invasion? A Response to Nackley et al. Trends Ecol. Evol. 33, 234–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2018.01.008 (2018).Thompson, K. & Davis, M. A. Why research on traits of invasive plants tell us very little. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24,115–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.01.007 (2011).Davis, M. A. & Thompson, K. Eight ways to be a colonizer; two ways to be an invader: A proposed nomenclature scheme for invasion ecology. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Am. 81, 226–230 (2000).
Google Scholar 
Davis, M. A., Thompson, K., Grime, J. P. & Charles, S. Elton and the dissociation of invasion ecology from the rest of ecology. Diversity and Distribution 7, 97–102. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1472-4642.2001.00099.x (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Davis, M. A. Invasion biology. (Oxford University Press on Demand, 2009).Davis, M. A. et al. Don’t judge species on their origins. Nature 474, 153–154 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Klempa, B. et al. Complex evolution and epidemiology of Dobrava-Belgrade hantavirus: Definition of genotypes and their characteristics. Adv. Virol. 158, 521–529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00705-012-1514-5 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kraljik, J. et al. Genetic diversity of Bartonella genotypes found in the striped field mouse (Apodemus agrarius) in Central Europe. Parasitology 143, 1437–1442. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031182016000962 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Latinne, A. et al. Phylogeography of the striped field mouse, Apodemus agrarius (Rodentia: Muridae), throughout its distribution range in the Palaearctic region. Mamm. Biol. 100, 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42991-019-00001-0 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dudich, A. & Szabó, I. Über die Verbreitung der Hystrichopsylla Taschenberg, 1880 (Siphonaptera) in Ungarn. Folia Entomol. Hung 45, 27–32 (1984).
Google Scholar 
Dudich, A. Dynamika areálu ryšavky tmavopásej (Apodemus agrarius Pall.)–expanzia či invázia. Pp.: 53–62. Invázie a invázne organizmy. SEKOS pre SNK SCOPE, Nitra (1997).Karaseva, E. V., Tikhonova, G. N. & Bogomolov, P. L. Distribution of the Striped field mouse (Apodemus agrarius) and peculiarities of its ecology in different parts of its range. Zoologičeskij žurnal 71, 106–115 (1992).
Google Scholar 
Polechová, J. & Graciasová, R. Návrat myšice temnopásé, Apodemus agrarius (Rodentia: Muridae) na jižní Moravu. Lynx (Praha), ns 31, 153–155 (2000).Bryja, J. & Řehák, Z. Další doklady současné expanze areálu myšice temnopásé (Apodemus agrarius) na Moravě. Lynx (Praha), ns (2002).Herzig-Straschil, B., Bihari, Z. & Spitzenberger, F. Recent changes in the distribution of the field mouse (Apodemus agrarius) in the western part of the Carpathian basin. Annalen des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien. Serie B für Botanik und Zoologie 421–428 (2003).Dudich, A., Ambros, M., Stollmann, A., Uhrin, M. & Urban, P. Ryšavka tmavopása Apodemus agrarius (Pallas) v Novohrade. Príroda okresu Veľký Krtíš – 15 rokov od celoslovenského tábora ochrancov prírody 110–115 (2003).Horáček, I. & Ložek, V. Biostratigraphic investigation in the Hámorská cave (Slovak karst). Pp.: 49–60. Krasové sedimenty. Fosilní záznam klimatickỳch oscilací a změn prostředí. Knihovna České speleologické společnosti, Svazek 21, (1993).Pazonyi, P. & Kordos, L. Late Eemian (Late Pleistocene) vertebrate fauna from the Horváti-lik (Uppony, NE Hungary). Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 22, 107–117 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Obuch, J., Danko, S. & Noga, M. Recent and subrecent diet of the barn owl (Tyto alba) in Slovakia. Slovak Raptor J. 10, 1–50 . https://doi.org/10.1515/srj-2016-0003 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Obuch, J. Temporal changes in proportions of small mammals in the diet of the mammalian and avian predators in Slovakia. Lynx, n. s 55, 86–106. https://doi.org/10.37520/lynx.2021.007 (2022).Niethammer, J. Die Verbreitung der Brandmaus (Apodemus agrarius) in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Acta Sc. Nat. Brno 10, 43–55 (1976).
Google Scholar 
von Lehmann, E. Die Brandmaus in Hessen als Beispiel für die Problematik der Verbreitungsgrenzen vieler Säugetierarten. Natur und Museum 106, 112–117.Farský, O. Úlovky myšice temnopásé, Apodemus agrarius (Pallas), na Moravě a ve Slezsku v letech 1920 až 1940 [Caughts of the striped field mouse, Apodemus agrarius (Pallas), in Moravia and Silesia in the years 1920–1940]. Lynx, n. s 5, 11–18 (1965).Heroldová, M., Homolka, M. & Zejda, J. Některé nepublikované nálezy Apodemus agrarius v Čechách a na Moravě v návaznosti na současnỳ stav znalostí o jejím rozšíření (Rodentia: Muridae). Lynx, series nova 44, (2013).Ambros, M., Dudich, A. & Stollmann, A. Fauna drobných hmyzožravcov a hlodavcov (Insectivora, Rodentia) vybraných mokraďných biotopov južného Slovenska. Rosalia (Nitra) 14, 195–202 (1999).
Google Scholar 
Balát, F. Potrava sovy pálené na jižní Moravě a na jižním Slovensku [Food of Barn owl on the south Moravia and south Slovakia]. Zoologické listy 5, 237–256 (1956).
Google Scholar 
Baláž, I., Stollmann, A., Ambros, M. & Dudich, A. Drobné cicavce rezervácie Lohótsky močiar. Chránené územia Slovenska 58, 27–29 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Bridišová, Z., Baláž, I. & Ambros, M. Drobné cicavce prírodnej rezervácie Alúvium Žitavy [Small mammals of Alúvium Žitavy natural reservation]. Chránené územia Slovenska 69, 7–9 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Dudich, A., Lysỳ, J. & Štollmann, A. Súčasné poznatky o rozšírení drobnỳch zemnỳch cicavcov (Insectivora, Rodentia) južnej časti Podunajskej nížiny. Spravodaj Oblastného múzea v Komárne, Prírodné vedy 5, 157–186 (1985).
Google Scholar 
Kristofik, J. Small mammals in floodplain forests. Folia Zoologica (Czech Republic) (1999).Méhely, L. Két új poczokfaj a magyar faunában. Állattani közlemények 7, 3–14 (1908).
Google Scholar 
Noga, M. The wintering and food ecology of Long-eared Owl in South-Western part of Slovakia (Comenius University in Bratislava, 2007).
Google Scholar 
Pachinger, K., Novackỳ, M., Facuna, V. & Ambruš, B. Dynamika a zloženie synúzií mikromammálií na izolovanỳch ostrovoch vnútozemskej delty Dunaja v oblasti vodného diela Gabčíkovo. Acta Environ. Universitatis Comenianae 9, 71–77 (1997).
Google Scholar 
Poláčiková, Z. Small terrestrial mammals’ (Eulipotyphla, Rodentia) synusia of selected localities in western Slovakia. Ekológia (Bratislava) 29, 131–139. https://doi.org/10.4149/ekol_2010_02_131 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Reiterová, K. et al. Úloha drobnỳch cicavcov–dôležitỳch rezervoárov v cirkulácii larválnej toxoplazmózy. Slovenskỳ Veterinárny Časopis 4, 217–222 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Stanko, M., Mošanský, L. & Fričová, J. Small mammal communities (Eulipotyphla, Rodentia) of the middle part of alluvium Ipeľ river (Lučenská and Ipeľská basins). Ochrana prírody 26, 43–52 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Spitzenberger, F. & Engelberg, S. A new look at the dynamic western distribution border of Apodemus agrarius in Central Europe (Rodentia: Muridae). Lynx, series nova 45, (2014).Sládkovičová, V. H., Žiak, D. & Miklós, P. Synúzie drobných zemných cicavccov mokradných biotopov Podunajskej roviny. Folia faunistica Slovaca 18, 13–19 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Tulis, F. et al. Expansion of the Striped field mouse (Apodemus agrarius) in the south-western Slovakia during 2010–2015. Folia Oecologica 43, 64–73 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Ambros, M. et al. Zmeny v rozšírení ryšavky tmavopásej (Apodemus agrarius) na Slovensku. in Zborník príspevkov z vedeckého kongresu ‘Zoológia 2022’ 10 (2022).Dudich, A. Ektoparazitofauna cicavcov a vtákov južnej časti Podunajskej nížiny so zreteľom na Žitný ostrov. 1. Siphonaptera. Žitnoostrovské múzeum Dunajská Streda—Spravodaj múzea 9, 61–96 (1986).Dudich, A. Príspevok k poznaniu drobných zemných cicavcov (Insectivora, Rodentia) a ich ektoparazitov (Acarina, Anoplura, Siphonaptera) okolia ŠPR Čenkovská lesostep (Podunajská nížina). Iuxta Danubium (Komárno) 10, 186–191 (1993).
Google Scholar 
Cyprich, D., Krumpál, M. & Dúha, J. Blchy (Siphonaptera) cicavcov (Mammalia) Štátnej prírodnej rezervácii Šúr. Ochrana prírody 8, 241–289 (1987).
Google Scholar 
Lapin, M., Faško, P., Melo, M., Štastný, P. & Tomlain, J. Climate zones. in Landscape Atlas of the Slovak Republic (Harmanec: VKÚ, 2002).Faško, P. & Štastný, P. Average annual precipitation. in Landscape Atlas of the Slovak Republic (2002).Russell, J. C., Stjernman, M., Lindström, Å. & Smith, H. G. Community occupancy before-after-control-impact (CO-BACI) analysis of Hurricane Gudrun on Swedish forest birds. Ecol. Appl. 25, 685–694.  https://doi.org/10.1890/14-0645.1 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Desrosiers, M., Planas, D. & Mucci, A. Short-term responses to watershed logging on biomass mercury and methylmercury accumulation by periphyton in boreal lakes. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 63, 1734–1745. https://doi.org/10.1139/f06-077 (2006).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hanisch, J. R., Tonn, W. M., Paszkoswki, C. A. & Scrimgeour, G. J. Stocked trout have minimal effects on littoral invertebrate assemblages of productive fish-bearing lakes: A whole-lake BACI study: Stocked trout have minimal effects on littoral invertebrates. Freshw. Biol. 58, 895–907. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12095 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Louhi, P., Mäki-Petäys, A., Erkinaro, J., Paasivaara, A. & Muotka, T. Impacts of forest drainage improvement on stream biota: A multisite BACI-experiment. For. Ecol. Manage. 260, 1315–1323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.07.024 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Conner, M. M., Saunders, W. C., Bouwes, N. & Jordan, C. Evaluating impacts using a BACI design, ratios, and a Bayesian approach with a focus on restoration. Environ Monit Assess 188, 555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-016-5526-6
(2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Popescu, V. D., de Valpine, P., Tempel, D. & Peery, M. Z. Estimating population impacts via dynamic occupancy analysis of Before-After Control–Impact studies. Ecol. Appl. 22, 1389–1404. https://doi.org/10.1890/11-1669.1 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Horváth, G. F. & Herczeg, R. Site occupancy response to natural and anthropogenic disturbances of root vole: Conservation problem of a vulnerable relict subspecies. J. Nat. Conserv. 21, 350–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2013.03.004 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pounder, K. C. et al. Novel Hantavirus in Wildlife, United Kingdom. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 19, 673–675. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1904.121057 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kreisinger, J., Bastien, G., Hauffe, H. C., Marchesi, J. & Perkins, S. E. Interactions between multiple helminths and the gut microbiota in wild rodents. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 370, 20140295. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0295 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kim, H.-C. et al. Hantavirus surveillance and genetic diversity targeting small mammals at Camp Humphreys, a US military installation and new expansion site Republic of Korea. PLoS ONE 12, e0176514. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0176514 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Burnham, K. P., Anderson, D. R. & Burnham, K. P. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. (Springer, 2002).Sugiura, N. Further analysis of the data by Akaike’s information criterion and the finite corrections: Further analysis of the data by akaike’ s. Commun. Stat. Theory Methods 7, 13–26 (1978).Article 
MATH 

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

Google Scholar 
Morris, E. K. et al. Choosing and using diversity indices: insights for ecological applications from the German Biodiversity Exploratories. Ecol. Evol. 4, 3514–3524. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1155 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ingram, J. C. Berger–Parker Index. in Encyclopedia of Ecology 332–334 (Elsevier, 2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008045405-4.00091-4.Bürkner, P.-C. brms : An R package for bayesian multilevel models using Stan. J. Stat. Soft. 80, (2017).Wang, Y., Naumann, U., Eddelbuettel, D., Wilshire, J. & Warton, D. mvabund: Statistical Methods for Analysing Multivariate Abundance Data. (2022).Warton, D. I., Thibaut, L. & Wang, Y. A. The PIT-trap—A “model-free” bootstrap procedure for inference about regression models with discrete, multivariate responses. PLoS ONE 12, e0181790. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181790 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Oksanen, J. et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. (2022).R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2022).Percie du Sert, N. et al. Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0. PLoS Biol. 18, e3000411. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000411 (2020).Szacki, J. & Liro, A. Movements of small mammals in the heterogeneous landscape. Landsc. Ecol. 5, 219–224 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
Szacki, J., Babinska-Werka, J. & Liro, A. The influence of landscape spatial structure on small mammal movements. Acta Theriol. 2, (1993).Pimentel, D., Pimentel, M. & Wilson, A. Plant, animal, and microbe invasive species in the United States and World. Biol. Invasions 193 (2007).Valéry, L., Hervé, F., Lefeuvre, J. C. & Simberloff, D. Invasive species can also be native. Trends Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.07.003 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Deinet, S. et al. Wildlife comeback in Europe: The recovery of selected mammal and bird species. (2013).Gompper, M. Top Carnivores in the Suburbs? Ecological and Conservation Issues Raised by Colonization of North-eastern North America by Coyotes: The expansion of the coyote’s geographical range may broadly influence community structure, and rising coyote densities in the suburbs may alter how the general public views wildlife. BioScience 52, 185–190. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568 (2002).Dalecky, A. et al. Range expansion of the invasive house mouse Mus musculus domesticus in Senegal, West Africa: A synthesis of trapping data over three decades, 1983–2014. Mammal. Rev. 45, 176–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/mam.12043 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Konečnỳ, A. et al. Invasion genetics of the introduced black rat (Rattus rattus) in Senegal West Africa. Mol. Ecol. 22, 286–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.12112 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bramley, G. N. Home ranges and interactions of kiore (Rattus exulans) and Norway rats (R. norvegicus) on Kapiti Island, New Zealand. New Zeal. J. Ecol. 328–334 (2014).O’Rourke, R. L., Anson, J. R., Saul, A. M. & Banks, P. B. Limits to alien black rats (Rattus rattus) acting as equivalent pollinators to extinct native small mammals: The influence of stem width on mammal activity at native Banksia ericifolia inflorescences. Biol. Invasions 22, 329–338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-019-02090-x (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
White, T. A. et al. Range expansion in an invasive small mammal: influence of life-history and habitat quality. Biol. Invasions 14, 2203–2215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-012-0225-x (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
McDevitt, A. D. et al. Invading and expanding: Range dynamics and ecological consequences of the greater white-toothed shrew (Crocidura russula) invasion in Ireland. PLoS ONE 9, e100403. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0100403 (2014).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Aguilar, J.-P., Pélissié, T., Sigé, B. & Michaux, J. Occurrence of the stripe field mouse lineage (Apodemus agrarius Pallas 1771; Rodentia; Mammalia) in the Late Pleistocene of southwestern France. C.R. Palevol 7, 217–225 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kordos, L. Historico-zoogeographical and ecological investigation of the subfossil vertebrate fauna of the Aggtelek Karst. Vert. Hung. 18, 85–100 (1978).
Google Scholar 
Hairston, N. G., Smith, F. E. & Slobodkin, L. B. Community structure, population control, and competition. Am. Nat. 94, 421–425 (1960).Article 

Google Scholar 
Agnew, P., Hide, M., Sidobre, C. & Michalakis, Y. A minimalist approach to the effects of density-dependent competition on insect life-history traits. Ecol. Entomol. 27, 396–402 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Krebs, C. J. Beyond population regulation and limitation. Wildl. Res. 29, 1–10 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Huitu, O., Norrdahl, K. & Korpimäki, E. Competition, predation and interspecific synchrony in cyclic small mammal communities. Ecography 27, 197–206.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0906-7590.2003.03684.x (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lofgren, O. Niche expansion and increased maturation rate of Clethrionomys glareolus in the absence of competitors. J. Mammal. 76, 1100–1112 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hansson, L. Competition between Rodents in Successional Stages of Taiga Forests: Microtus agrestis vs. Clethrionomys glareolus. Oikos 40, 258 (1983).Article 

Google Scholar 
Eccard, J. A. & Ylönen, H. Direct interference or indirect exploitation? An experimental study of fitness costs of interspecific competition in voles. Oikos 99, 580–590. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2002.11833.x (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gliwicz, J. Competition among forest rodents: Effects of Apodemus flavicollis and Clethrionomys glareolus on A. agrarius. Acta Zool. Fennica 1984. (1984).Neet, C. R. & Hausser, J. Habitat selection in zones of parapatric contact between the common shrew Sorex araneus and Millet’s shrew S. coronatus. J. Anim. Ecol. 235–250 (1990).Zub, K., Jędrzejewska, B., Jędrzejewski, W. & Bartoń, K. A. Cyclic voles and shrews and non-cyclic mice in a marginal grassland within European temperate forest. Acta Theriol. 57, 205–216 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Henttonen, H. et al. Long-term population dynamics of the common shrew Sorex araneus in Finland. in Annales Zoologici Fennici 349–355 (JSTOR, 1989).Gębczyńska, Z., Gębczyński, M., Morzuch, K. & Zielińska, D. M. Food eaten by four species of rodents in polluted forests. Acta Theriol. 34, 465–477 (1989).Article 

Google Scholar 
Babinska-Werka, J. Response of rodents to an increased and quantitatively diverse food base. Acta theriologica 35, (1990).Margaletic, J., Glavaš, M. & Bäumler, W. The development of mice and voles in an oak forest with a surplus of acorns. J. Pest Sci. 75, 95–98 (2002).Holisova, V. The food of Apodemus agrarius (Pall.). Zoologické listy 16, 1–14 (1967).Obrtel, R. & Hološová, V. The trophic niche of Apodemus agrarius in northern Moravia. Folia Zool. 30, 125–138 (1981).
Google Scholar 
Grant, P. R. Interspecific competition among rodents. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 3, 79–106 (1972).Article 

Google Scholar 
Redfield, J. A., Krebs, C. J. & Taitt, M. J. Competition between Peromyscus maniculatus and Microtus townsendii in grasslands of coastal British Columbia. J. Anim. Ecol. 607–616 (1977).Kincaid, W. B. & Cameron, G. N. Effects of species removal on resource utilization in a Texas rodent community. J. Mammal. 63, 229–235 (1982).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yurkonis, K. A., Meiners, S. J. & Wachholder, B. E. Invasion impacts diversity through altered community dynamics. J. Ecol. 93, 1053–1061 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Powell, K. I., Chase, J. M. & Knight, T. M. A synthesis of plant invasion effects on biodiversity across spatial scales. Am. J. Bot. 98, 539–548. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.1000402 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jaksic, F. M. Vertebrate invaders and their ecological impacts in Chile. Biodivers. Conserv. 7, 1427–1445 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Richter-Boix, A. et al. Effects of the non-native amphibian species Discoglossus pictus on the recipient amphibian community: Niche overlap, competition and community organization. Biol. Invasions 15, 799–815. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-012-0328-4 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kumschick, S., Bacher, S. & Blackburn, T. M. What determines the impact of alien birds and mammals in Europe? Biol. Invasions 15, 785–797. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-012-0326-6 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tedeschi, L., Biancolini, D., Capinha, C., Rondinini, C. & Essl, F. Introduction, spread, and impacts of invasive alien mammal species in Europe. Mam. Rev. Mam. 12277. https://doi.org/10.1111/mam.12277 (2021).Harris, D. B. Review of negative effects of introduced rodents on small mammals on islands. Biol. Invasions 11, 1611–1630. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-008-9393-0 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Traveset, A. et al. A review on the effects of alien rodents in the Balearic (Western Mediterranean Sea) and Canary Islands (Eastern Atlantic Ocean). Biol. Invasions 11, 1653–1670. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-008-9395-y (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jung, T. S., Nagorsen, D. W., Kukka, P. M. & Barker, O. E. Alien invaders: recent establishment of an urban population of house mice (Mus musculus) in the Yukon. Northwest. Nat. 93, 240–242 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
McKinney, M. L. & Lockwood, J. L. Biotic homogenization: A few winners replacing many losers in the next mass extinction. Trends Ecol. Evol. 14, 450–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(99)01679-1 (1999).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
MacGregor-Fors, I., Morales-Pérez, L., Quesada, J. & Schondube, J. E. Relationship between the presence of House Sparrows (Passer domesticus) and Neotropical bird community structure and diversity. Biol. Invasions 12, 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-009-9432-5 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Phillips, B. L. Behaviour on Invasion Fronts, and the Behaviour of Invasion Fronts. in Biological Invasions and Animal Behaviour (eds. Weis, J. S. & Sol, D.) 82–95 (Cambridge University Press, 2016). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139939492.007.Pietrek, A. G., Goheen, J. R., Riginos, C., Maiyo, N. J. & Palmer, T. M. Density dependence and the spread of invasive big-headed ants (Pheidole megacephala) in an East African savanna. Oecologia 195, 667–676. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-021-04859-1 (2021).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Stanko, M. Ryšavka tmavopása (Apodemus agrarius, Rodentia) na Slovensku. (Parazitologický ústav SAV, 2014).Thompson, K., Hodgson, J. G. & Rich, T. C. Native and alien invasive plants: more of the same?. Ecography 18, 390–402 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Ai H, Fang X, Yang B, Huang Z, Chen H, Mao L et al. (2015) Adaptation and possible ancient interspecies introgression in pigs identified by whole-genome sequencing. Nat Genet 47:217–225Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Alexander DH, Novembre J, Lange K (2009) Fast model-based estimation of ancestry in unrelated individuals. Genome Res 19:1655–1664Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Alexandri P, Megens HJ, Crooijmans RPMA, Groenen MAM, Goedbloed DJ, Herrero-Medrano JM et al. (2017) Distinguishing migration events of different timing for wild boar in the Balkans. J Biogeogr 44:259–270Article 

Google Scholar 
Alexandri P, Triantafyllidis A, Papakostas S, Chatzinikos E, Platis P, Papageorgiou N et al. (2012) The Balkans and the colonization of Europe: the post-glacial range expansion of the wild boar, Sus scrofa. J Biogeogr 39:713–723Article 

Google Scholar 
Alves PC, Pinheiro I, Godinho R, Vicente JJ, Gortázar C, Scandura M et al. (2010) Genetic diversity of wild boar populations and domestic pig breeds (Sus scrofa) in South-western Europe. Biol J Linn Soc 101:797–822Article 

Google Scholar 
Apollonio M, Andersen R, Putman R (2010) European ungulates and their management in the 21st century (M Apollonio, R Andersen, and R Putman, Eds.) Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKAzzaroli A, De Giuli C, Ficcarelli G, Torre D (1988) Late pliocene to early mid-pleistocene mammals in Eurasia: Faunal succession and dispersal events. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 66:77–100Article 

Google Scholar 
Bérénos C, Ellis PA, Pilkington JG, Pemberton JM (2016) Genomic analysis reveals depression due to both individual and maternal inbreeding in a free‐living mammal population. Mol Ecol 25:3152–3168Article 

Google Scholar 
Braga RT, Rodrigues JFM, Diniz-Filho JAF, Rangel TF (2019) Genetic population structure and allele surfing during range expansion in dynamic habitats. An da Academia Brasileira de Ciências 91:e20180179Article 

Google Scholar 
Bragina EV, Ives AR, Pidgeon AM, Kuemmerle T, Baskin LM, Gubar YP, Piquer-Rodríguez M, Keuler NS, Petrosyan VG, Radeloff VC (2015) Rapid Declines of Large Mammal Populations after the Collapse of the Soviet Union. Cons Biol 29:844–853Article 

Google Scholar 
Brewer S, Cheddadi R, de Beaulieu JL, Reille M, Allen J, Almqvist-Jacobson H et al. (2002) The spread of deciduous Quercus throughout Europe since the last glacial period. For Ecol Manag 156:27–48Article 

Google Scholar 
Cahill S, Llimona F, Cabañeros L, Calomardo F (2012) Characteristics of wild boar (Sus scrofa) habituation to urban areas in the Collserola Natural Park (Barcelona) and comparison with other locations. Anim Biodivers Conserv 35:221–233Article 

Google Scholar 
Canu A, Costa S, Iacolina L, Piatti P, Apollonio M, Scandura M (2014) Are captive wild boar more introgressed than free-ranging wild boar? Two case studies in Italy. Eur J Wildl Res 60:459–467Article 

Google Scholar 
Canu A, Vilaça STT, Iacolina L, Apollonio M, Bertorelle G, Scandura M (2016) Lack of polymorphism at the MC1R wild-type allele and evidence of domestic allele introgression across European wild boar populations. Mamm Biol 81:477–479Article 

Google Scholar 
Carranza J, Salinas M, de Andrés D, Pérez-González J (2016) Iberian red deer: paraphyletic nature at mtDNA but nuclear markers support its genetic identity. Ecol Evol 6:905–922Article 

Google Scholar 
Chang CC, Chow CC, Tellier LCAM, Vattikuti S, Purcell SM, Lee JJ (2015) Second-generation PLINK: Rising to the challenge of larger and richer datasets. Gigascience 4:1–16Article 

Google Scholar 
Cheddadi R, Bar-Hen A (2009) Spatial gradient of temperature and potential vegetation feedback across Europe during the late Quaternary. Clim Dyn 32:371–379Article 

Google Scholar 
Clark PU, Dyke AS, Shakun JD, Carlson AE, Clark J, Wohlfarth B et al. (2009) The Last Glacial Maximum. Science 325:710–714Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
DeGiorgio M, Rosenberg NA (2013) Geographic sampling scheme as a determinant of the major axis of genetic variation in principal components analysis. Mol Biol Evol 30:480–488Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Deinet S, Ieronymidou C, McRae L, Burfield IJ, Foppen RP, Collen B, et al. (2013) Wildlife comeback in Europe. The recovery of selected mammal and bird species. London, UKEckert CG, Samis KE, Lougheed SC (2008) Genetic variation across species’ geographical ranges: the central–marginal hypothesis and beyond. Mol Ecol 17:1170–1188Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Fang M, Berg F, Ducos A, Andersson L (2006) Mitochondrial haplotypes of European wild boars with 2n = 36 are closely related to those of European domestic pigs with 2n = 38. Anim Genet 37:459–464Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ferenčaković M, Sölkner J, Curik I (2013) Estimating autozygosity from high-throughput information: Effects of SNP density and genotyping errors. Genet Sel Evol 45:42Article 

Google Scholar 
Ferreira E, Souto L, Soares AMVM, Fonseca C (2009) Genetic structure of the wild boar population in Portugal: Evidence of a recent bottleneck. Mamm Biol 74:274–285Article 

Google Scholar 
Franois O, Currat M, Ray N, Han E, Excoffier L, Novembre J (2010) Principal component analysis under population genetic models of range expansion and admixture. Mol Biol Evol 27:1257–1268Article 

Google Scholar 
Frantz AC, Bertouille S, Eloy MC, Licoppe A, Chaumont F, Flamand MC (2012) Comparative landscape genetic analyses show a Belgian motorway to be a gene flow barrier for red deer (Cervus elaphus), but not wild boars (Sus scrofa). Mol Ecol 21:3445–3457Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Fulgione D, Rippa D, Buglione M, Trapanese M, Petrelli S, Maselli V (2016) Unexpected but welcome. Artificially selected traits may increase fitness in wild boar. Evol Appl 9:769–776Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Goedbloed DJ, Megens HJ, van Hooft P, Herrero-Medrano JM, Lutz W, Alexandri P et al. (2013a) Genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphism analysis reveals recent genetic introgression from domestic pigs into Northwest European wild boar populations. Mol Ecol 22:856–866Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Goedbloed DJ, van Hooft P, Megens HJ, Langenbeck K, Lutz W, Crooijmans RPMA et al. (2013b) Reintroductions and genetic introgression from domestic pigs have shaped the genetic population structure of Northwest European wild boar. BMC Genet 14:2–10Article 

Google Scholar 
Groenen MAM, Archibald AL, Uenishi H, Tuggle CK, Takeuchi Y, Rothschild MF et al. (2012) Analyses of pig genomes provide insight into porcine demography and evolution. Nature 491:393–398Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Herrero-Medrano JM, Megens H-J, Groenen MAM, Ramis G, Bosse M, Pérez-Enciso M et al. (2013) Conservation genomic analysis of domestic and wild pig populations from the Iberian Peninsula. BMC Genet 14:1–13Article 

Google Scholar 
Hewitt GM (1999) Post-glacial re-colonization of European biota. Biol J Linn Soc 68:87–112Article 

Google Scholar 
Hewitt GM (2004) Genetic consequences of climatic oscillations in the Quaternary. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 359:183–195Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hiemstra PH, Pebesma EJ, Twenhöfel CJW, Heuvelink GBM (2009) Real-time automatic interpolation of ambient gamma dose rates from the Dutch radioactivity monitoring network. Comput Geosci 35:1711–1721Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Howrigan DP, Simonson MA, Keller MC (2011) Detecting autozygosity through runs of homozygosity: a comparison of three autozygosity detection algorithms. BMC Genomics 12:460Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Huisman J, Kruuk LEB, Ellis PA, Clutton-Brock T, Pemberton JM (2016) Inbreeding depression across the lifespan in a wild mammal population. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113:3585–3590Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Iacolina L, Corlatti L, Buzan E, Safner T, Šprem N (2019) Hybridisation in European ungulates: an overview of the current status, causes, and consequences. Mamm Rev 49:45–59Article 

Google Scholar 
Iacolina L, Pertoldi C, Amills M, Kusza S, Megens H-J, Bâlteanu VA et al. (2018) Hotspots of recent hybridization between pigs and wild boars in Europe. Sci Rep. 8:17372Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Iacolina L, Scandura M, Goedbloed DJ, Alexandri P, Crooijmans RPMA, Larson G et al. (2016) Genomic diversity and differentiation of a managed island wild boar population. Heredity 116:60–67Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jombart T, Ahmed I (2011) adegenet 1.3-1: new tools for the analysis of genome-wide SNP data. Bioinformatics 27:1–2Article 

Google Scholar 
de Jong JF, Hooft van P, Megens HJ, Crooijmans RPMA, Groot de GA, Pemberton JM, Huisman J et al. (2020) Fragmentation and translocation distort the genetic landscape of ungulates: red deer in the Netherlands. Front Ecol Evol 8:535715Article 

Google Scholar 
Kamvar ZN, Tabima JF, Grünwald NJ (2014) Poppr: an R package for genetic analysis of populations with clonal, partially clonal, and/or sexual reproduction. PeerJ 2:e281Article 

Google Scholar 
Kardos M, Åkesson M, Fountain T, Flagstad Ø, Liberg O, Olason P et al. (2018) Genomic consequences of intensive inbreeding in an isolated wolf population. Nat Ecol Evol 2:124–131Article 

Google Scholar 
Kaplan JO, Krumhardt KM, Zimmermann N (2009) The prehistoric and preindustrial deforestation of Europe. Quat Sci Rev 28:3016–3034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2009.09.028Koemle D, Zinngrebe Y, Yu X (2018) Highway construction and wildlife populations: Evidence from Austria. Land use policy 73:447–457Article 

Google Scholar 
Krže B (1982) Divji prašič: biologija, gojitev, ekologija. Lovska zveza Slovenije, Ljubljana
Google Scholar 
Kusza S, Podgórski T, Scandura M, Borowik T, Jávor A, Sidorovich VE et al. (2014) Contemporary genetic structure, phylogeography and past demographic processes of wild boar Sus scrofa population in central and eastern Europe. PLoS One 9:e91401Article 

Google Scholar 
Lorenzini R, Lovari S, Masseti M (2002) The rediscovery of the Italian roe deer: Genetic differentiation and management implications. Ital J Zool 69(4):367–379Article 

Google Scholar 
Lorenzini R, San José C, Braza F, Aragón S (2003) Genetic differentiation and phylogeography of roe deer in Spain, as suggested by mitochondrial DNA and microsatellite analysis. Ital J Zool 70(1):89–99Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Magri D (2013) Early to Middle Pleistocene dynamics of plant and mammal communities in South West Europe. Quat Int 288:63–72Article 

Google Scholar 
Manunza A, Zidi A, Yeghoyan S, Balteanu VA, Carsai TC, Scherbakov O et al. (2013) A high throughput genotyping approach reveals distinctive autosomal genetic signatures for European and Near Eastern wild boar. PLoS One 8:e55891Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Maselli V, Rippa D, De Luca A, Larson G, Wilkens B, Linderholm A et al. (2016) Southern Italian wild boar population, hotspot of genetic diversity. Hystrix 27:137–144
Google Scholar 
McVean G (2009) A genealogical interpretation of principal components analysis. PLoS Genet 5:e1000686Article 

Google Scholar 
Megens H-J, Crooijmans RP, Cristobal M, Hui X, Li N, Groenen MA (2008) Biodiversity of pig breeds from China and Europe estimated from pooled DNA samples: differences in microsatellite variation between two areas of domestication. Genet Sel Evol 40:103
Google Scholar 
Melis C, Szafrańska PA, Jȩdrzejewska B, Bartoń K (2006) Biogeographical variation in the population density of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in western Eurasia. J Biogeogr 33:803–811Article 

Google Scholar 
Mihalik B, Stéger V, Frank K, Szendrei L, Kusza S (2018) Barrier effect of the M3 highway in Hungary on the genetic diversity of wild boar (Sus scrofa) population. Res J Biotechnol 13:32–38
Google Scholar 
NCBI (2018) Genome Organism Overview: Sus scrofa (pig). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome?term=sus%20scrofa%20%5BOrganism%5D&cmd=DetailsSearch&report=OverviewNikolov IS, Gum B, Markov G, Kuehn R (2009) Population genetic structure of wild boar Sus scrofa in Bulgaria as revealed by microsatellite analysis. Acta Theriol (Warsz) 54:193–205Article 

Google Scholar 
Nykänen M, Rogan E, Foote AD, Kaschner K, Dabin W, Louis M et al. (2019) Postglacial colonization of northern coastal habitat by bottlenose dolphins: a marine leading-edge expansion? J Hered 110:662–674Article 

Google Scholar 
Palombo M, Romana AV-G (2003) Remarks on the biochronology of mammalian faunal complexes from the Pliocene to the Middle Pleistocene in France. Geol Rom: 145–163Paradis E, Claude J, Strimmer K (2004) APE: analysis of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Bioinformatics 20:289–290Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Purcell S, Neale B, Todd-Brown K, Thomas L, Ferreira MAR, Bender D et al (2007) PLINK: A tool Set for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analyses. Am J Hum Genet 81:559–575. www.cog-genomics.org/plink/1.9/Putman R, Apollonio M, Andersen R (2011) Ungulate management in Europe: problems and practices. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKBook 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team (2018) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, AustriaRejduch B, Sota E, Ró M, Ko M (2003) Chromosome number polymorphism in a litter of European wild boar (Sus scrofa scrofa L.). Anim Sci Pap Rep. 21:57–62
Google Scholar 
Scandura M, Iacolina L, Apollonio M (2011a) Genetic diversity in the European wild boar Sus scrofa: phylogeography, population structure and wild x domestic hybridization: Genetic variation in European wild boar. Mamm Rev 41:125–137Article 

Google Scholar 
Scandura M, Iacolina L, Cossu A, Apollonio M (2011b) Effects of human perturbation on the genetic make-up of an island population: The case of the Sardinian wild boar. Heredity 106:1012–1020Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Scandura M, Iacolina L, Crestanello B, Pecchioli E, Di Benedetto MF, Russo V et al. (2008) Ancient vs. recent processes as factors shaping the genetic variation of the European wild boar: Are the effects of the last glaciation still detectable? Mol Ecol 17:1745–1762Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Scandura M, Fabbri G, Caniglia R, Iacolina L, Mattucci F, Mengoni C, Pante G, Apollonio M, Mucci N (2022) Resilience to Historical Human Manipulations in the Genomic Variation of Italian Wild Boar Populations. Front Ecol Evol 10:833081Article 

Google Scholar 
Schmitt T, Varga Z (2012) Extra-Mediterranean refugia: the rule and not the exception. Front Zool 9:22Article 

Google Scholar 
Sommer RS, Fahlke JM, Schmölcke U, Benecke N, Zachos FE (2009) Quaternary history of the European roe deer Capreolus capreolus. Mamm Rev 39:1–16Article 

Google Scholar 
Sommer RS, Nadachowski A (2006) Glacial refugia of mammals in Europe: evidence from fossil records. Mamm Rev 36:251–265Article 

Google Scholar 
Sommer RS, Zachos FE (2009) Fossil evidence and phylogeography of temperate species: ‘glacial refugia’ and post-glacial recolonization. J Biogeogr 36:2013–2020Article 

Google Scholar 
Sommer RS, Zachos FE, Street M, Jöris O, Skog A, Benecke N (2008) Late Quaternary distribution dynamics and phylogeography of the red deer (Cervus elaphus) in Europe. Quat Sci Rev 27:714–733Article 

Google Scholar 
Stillfried M, Fickel J, Börner K, Wittstatt U, Heddergott M, Ortmann S et al. (2017) Do cities represent sources, sinks or isolated islands for urban wild boar population structure? J Appl Ecol 54:272–281Article 

Google Scholar 
Taberlet P, Fumagalli L, Wust-Saucy AG, Cossons JF (1998) Comparative phylogeography and post-glacial colonization routes in Europe. Mol Ecol 7:453–461.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Veličković N, Djan M, Ferreira E, Stergar M, Obreht D, Maletić V et al. (2015) From north to south and back: the role of the Balkans and other southern peninsulas in the recolonization of Europe by wild boar. J Biogeogr 42:716–728Article 

Google Scholar 
Veličković N, Ferreira E, Djan M, Ernst M, Obreht Vidaković D, Monaco A et al. (2016) Demographic history, current expansion and future management challenges of wild boar populations in the Balkans and Europe. Heredity 117:348–357Article 

Google Scholar 
Vernesi C, Crestanello B, Pecchioli E, Tartari D, Caramelli D, Hauffe H et al. (2003) The genetic impact of demographic decline and reintroduction in the wild boar (Sus scrofa): A microsatellite analysis. Mol Ecol 12:585–595Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Vilaça ST, Biosa D, Zachos F, Iacolina L, Kirschning J, Alves PC et al. (2014) Mitochondrial phylogeography of the European wild boar: The effect of climate on genetic diversity and spatial lineage sorting across Europe. J Biogeogr 41:987–998Article 

Google Scholar 
Zachos FE, Frantz AC, Kuehn R, Bertouille S, Colyn M, Niedziałkowska M et al. (2016) Genetic structure and effective population sizes in European red deer (Cervus elaphus) at a continental scale: insights from microsatellite DNA. J Hered 107:318–326 More

Parmesan, C. & Yohe, G. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421, 37–42 (2003).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chen, I.-C., Hill, J. K., Ohlemüller, R., Roy, D. B. & Thomas, C. D. Rapid range shifts of species associated with high levels of climate warming. Science 333, 1024–1026 (2011).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bowler, D. E. et al. Cross-realm assessment of climate change impacts on species’ abundance trends. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1–7 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Barrett, J. E. et al. Persistent effects of a discrete warming event on a polar desert ecosystem. Glob. Change Biol. 14, 2249–2261 (2008).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Gooseff, M. N. et al. Decadal ecosystem response to an anomalous melt season in a polar desert in Antarctica. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1334–1338 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Iknayan, K. J. & Beissinger, S. R. In transition: Avian biogeographic responses to a century of climate change across desert biomes. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 3268–3284 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Conradie, S. R., Woodborne, S. M., Cunningham, S. J. & McKechnie, A. E. Chronic, sublethal effects of high temperatures will cause severe declines in southern African arid-zone birds during the 21st century. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 14065–14070 (2019).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
du Plessis, K. L., Martin, R. O., Hockey, P. A. R., Cunningham, S. J. & Ridley, A. R. The costs of keeping cool in a warming world: implications of high temperatures for foraging, thermoregulation and body condition of an arid-zone bird. Glob. Change Biol. 18, 3063–3070 (2012).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Ward, D. The Biology of Deserts (OUP Oxford, 2016).Reid, V. W. et al. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. In Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis (Island Press, 2005).Zhou, L., Chen, H. & Dai, Y. Stronger warming amplification over drier ecoregions observed since 1979. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 064012 (2015).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Hoegh-Guldberg, O. et al. 2018: Impacts of 1.5ºC Global Warming on Natural and Human Systems. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 175-312, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157940.005.Albright, T. P. et al. Mapping evaporative water loss in desert passerines reveals an expanding threat of lethal dehydration. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 2283–2288 (2017).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Friedrich, T., Timmermann, A., Tigchelaar, M., Timm, O. E. & Ganopolski, A. Nonlinear climate sensitivity and its implications for future greenhouse warming. Sci. Adv. 2, e1501923 (2016).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Kearney, M. R. & Porter, W. P. NicheMapR—an R package for biophysical modelling: the microclimate model. Ecography 40, 664–674 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Huey, R. B. et al. Predicting organismal vulnerability to climate warming: roles of behaviour, physiology and adaptation. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 367, 1665–1679 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kearney, M. & Porter, W. Mechanistic niche modelling: combining physiological and spatial data to predict species’ ranges. Ecol. Lett. 12, 334–350 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bicudo, J. E. P., Buttemer, W. A., Chappell, M. A., Pearson, J. T. & Bech, C. Ecological and Environmental Physiology of Birds Vol. 2 (Oxford University Press, 2010).McKechnie, A. E. & Wolf, B. O. Climate change increases the likelihood of catastrophic avian mortality events during extreme heat waves. Biol. Lett. 6, 253–256 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Riddell, E. A. et al. Exposure to climate change drives stability or collapse of desert mammal and bird communities. Science 371, 633–636 (2021).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Williams, J. B. & Tieleman, B. I. Physiological adaptation in desert birds. BioScience 55, 416–425 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Iknayan, K. J. & Beissinger, S. R. Collapse of a desert bird community over the past century driven by climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 8597–8602 (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Albright, T. P. et al. Combined effects of heat waves and droughts on avian communities across the conterminous United States. Ecosphere 1, art12 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cruz-McDonnell, K. K. & Wolf, B. O. Rapid warming and drought negatively impact population size and reproductive dynamics of an avian predator in the arid southwest. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 237–253 (2016).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Dawson, W. R. Temperature Regulation and Water Requirements of the Brown and Abert Towhees, Pipilo Fuscus and Pipilo Aberti.[With Plates.] (University of California Press, 1954).Riddell, E. A., Iknayan, K. J., Wolf, B. O., Sinervo, B. & Beissinger, S. R. Cooling requirements fueled the collapse of a desert bird community from climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1908791116 (2019).Wolf, B. Global warming and avian occupancy of hot deserts; a physiological and behavioral perspective. Rev. Chil. Hist. Nat. 73, 395–400 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kier, G. et al. A global assessment of endemism and species richness across island and mainland regions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 9322–9327 (2009).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ioffe, S. Improved consistent sampling, weighted Minhash and L1 sketching. In Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining 246–255 (IEEE Computer Society, 2010).Losos, E., Hayes, J., Phillips, A., Wilcove, D. & Alkire, C. Taxpayer-subsidized resource extraction harms species. BioScience 45, 446–455 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rodríguez-Estrella, R. Land use changes affect distributional patterns of desert birds in the Baja California peninsula, Mexico. Divers. Distrib. 13, 877–889 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stralberg, D. et al. Climate-change refugia in boreal North America: what, where, and for how long? Front. Ecol. Environ. 18, 261–270 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hinkel, J. et al. Sea-level rise scenarios and coastal risk management. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 188–190 (2015).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
He, Q. & Silliman, B. R. Climate change, human impacts, and coastal ecosystems in the anthropocene. Curr. Biol. 29, R1021–R1035 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
C. B. D. Zero Draft of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework CBD/WG2020/2/3. https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/efb0/1f84/a892b98d2982a829962b6371/wg2020-02-03-en.pdf Convention on Biology Diversity, Montreal, Canada (2020).Jung, M. et al. A global map of terrestrial habitat types. Sci. Data 7, 256 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
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 
Meigs, P. World distributions of arid and semi-arid homoclimates. In Review of Research on Arid Zone Hydrology (UNESCO, 1953).Holt, B. G. et al. An update of Wallace’s zoogeographic regions of the world. Science 339, 74–78 (2013).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Abatzoglou, J. T., Dobrowski, S. Z., Parks, S. A. & Hegewisch, K. C. TerraClimate, a high-resolution global dataset of monthly climate and climatic water balance from 1958-2015. Sci. Data 5, 170191 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Qin, Y. et al. Agricultural risks from changing snowmelt. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 459–465 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Kearney, M. R. & Porter, W. P. NicheMapR – an R package for biophysical modelling: the microclimate model. Ecography 40, 664–674 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pattinson, N. B. et al. Heat dissipation behaviour of birds in seasonally hot arid-zones: are there global patterns? J. Avian Biol. 51, e02350 (2020).Smith, E. K., O’Neill, J., Gerson, A. R. & Wolf, B. O. Avian thermoregulation in the heat: resting metabolism, evaporative cooling and heat tolerance in Sonoran Desert doves and quail. J. Exp. Biol. 218, 3636–3646 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Smith, E. K., O’Neill, J. J., Gerson, A. R., McKechnie, A. E. & Wolf, B. O. Avian thermoregulation in the heat: resting metabolism, evaporative cooling and heat tolerance in Sonoran Desert songbirds. J. Exp. Biol. 220, 3290–3300 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Kearney, M. NicheMapR: R implementation of Niche Mapper software for biophysical modelling. https://github.com/mrke/NicheMapR. (2020).Cunningham, S. J., Martin, R. O. & Hockey, P. A. Can behaviour buffer the impacts of climate change on an arid-zone bird? Ostrich 86, 119–126 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Czenze, Z. J. et al. Regularly drinking desert birds have greater evaporative cooling capacity and higher heat tolerance limits than non-drinking species. Funct. Ecol. 34, 1589–1600 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Smit, B. et al. Avian thermoregulation in the heat: phylogenetic variation among avian orders in evaporative cooling capacity and heat tolerance. J. Exp. Biol. 221, jeb174870 (2018).Worcester, S. E. The scaling of the size and stiffness of primary flight feathers. J. Zool. 239, 609–624 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, X., Nudds, R. L., Palmer, C. & Dyke, G. J. Size scaling and stiffness of avian primary feathers: implications for the flight of Mesozoic birds. J. Evol. Biol. 25, 547–555 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
McKechnie, A. E., Gerson, A. R. & Wolf, B. O. Thermoregulation in desert birds: scaling and phylogenetic variation in heat tolerance and evaporative cooling. J. Exp. Biol. 224, jeb229211 (2021).Flint, L. E., Flint, A. L., Thorne, J. H. & Boynton, R. Fine-scale hydrologic modeling for regional landscape applications: the California Basin Characterization Model development and performance. Ecol. Process. 2, 25 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Handbook of the Birds of the World and BirdLife International. Handbook of the Birds of the World and BirdLife International digital checklist of the birds of the world. Version 5. http://datazone.birdlife.org/userfiles/file/Species/Taxonomy/HBW-BirdLife_Checklist_v5_Dec20.zip (2020).Brooks, T. M. et al. Measuring terrestrial Area of Habitat (AOH) and its utility for the IUCN red list. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34, 977–986 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pastore, M. Overlapping: a R package for estimating overlapping in empirical distributions. J. Open Source Softw. 3, 1023 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, Protected Planet: The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) [Online], June 2021, Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC and IUCN www.protectedplanet.net (2021).Butchart, S. H. M. et al. Shortfalls and solutions for meeting national and global conservation area targets. Conserv. Lett. 8, 329–337 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dudley, N. Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories (ICUN, 2008).Mangiafico, S. rcompanion: Functions to Support Extension Education Program Evaluation. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rcompanion. (2021).Crawford, C. L., Estes, L. D., Searchinger, T. D. & Wilcove, D. S. Consequences of underexplored variation in biodiversity indices used for land-use prioritization. Ecol. Appl. 31, e02396 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gorelick, N. et al. Google Earth Engine: planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. Remote Sens. Environ. 202, 18–27 (2017).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020). More

Evapotranspiration measurements and above-ground biomassFigure 1 shows daily evapotranspiration (ET, mm day−1) of each CC tested before mowing (DOY, day of the year, 184) and at 2, 8, 17 and 25 days after mowing (DOY 190, 196, 205 and 213); bare soil was also included as a reference. Before mowing, ET rates showed significant differences between and within the three groups. CR plants had a mean ET of 8.1 mm day−1, which was lower, compared to the other two groups (10.6 and 18.6 mm day−1 for GR and LE, respectively) and the bare soil control (8.5 mm day−1). On DOY 184, values as high as 9.4 (Glechoma hederacea L., GH) and 9.8 mm day−1 (Trifolium subterraneum L. cv. Denmark, TS) were found (Fig. 1), while ranging around 7 mm day-1, Dichondra repens J.R.Forst. & G.Forst. (DR), Hieracium pilosella L. (HP), and Sagina subulata (Swartz) C. Presl (SS) ET were lower than soil evaporation itself.Figure 1Vertical bars represent the daily water use as referred to unit of soil (ET, mm day−1) for the bare soil (yellow) and all the cover crop species as divided into creeping plants (shades of blue), legumes (shades of green) and grasses (shades of orange). Evapotranspiration was measured though a gravimetric method before (i.e. − 4) and at 2, 8, 17 and 25 days after mowing. ET data are mean values ± SE (n = 4).Full size imageOn the same day, a large ET variation was recorded within the GR group as Festuca arundinacea Schreb. cv. Thor (FA) scored the highest daily ET values (13.4 mm day−1), whereas in Festuca ovina L. cv. Ridu (FO), water loss was reduced by 45% (7.5 mm day−1). Within the 15 CCs, LE registered the highest pre-mowing ET with Trifolium michelianum Savi cv. Bolta (TM) peaking at 22.6 mm day−1. However, within LE, Medicago polymorpha L. cv. Scimitar (MP) showed ET values as low as 12.1 mm day−1 (Fig. 1).Two days after mowing, all tested CCs recorded ET values lower than 9 mm day−1 (Fig. 1). Moreover, water use reduction among LE ranged between 56% (M. polymorpha, MP) and 73% (T. michelianum, TM), such that T. michelianum (TM, 6.1 mm day−1), Medicago truncatula Gaertn. cv. Paraggio (MT, 5.6 mm day−1) and M. polymorpha (MP, 5.2 mm day−1) registered ET values lower than the bare soil (7.0 mm day−1). Even though registering a consistent ET reduction after mowing, GR retained ET rates slightly higher than bare soil, except for F. ovina (FO), which recorded the lowest at 6.3 mm day−1. Subsequent samplings showed that most of the CCs had a progressive recovery in water use (Fig. 1) and data taken 17 days after mowing confirmed that Lotus corniculatus L. cv. Leo (LC) and all GR fetched pre-mowing ET rates. Medicago lupulina L. cv. Virgo (ML) registered a partial recovery with similar rates (about 13 mm day−1) at 17 and 25 days after the mowing event. F. ovina and all remaining LE stayed below 10 mm day−1 with ET values close to the control until the end of the trial. At 17 days from grass cutting, under a quite high exceeding-the-pot biomass, both G. hederacea (GH) and T. subterraneum (TS) reached ET values as high as 12.0 and 11.4 mm day−1, respectively. On the other hand, D. repens (DR), H. pilosella (HP), and S. subulata (SS) even though with slightly higher ET values than those registered at the beginning of the trial (DOY 184), remained close to the soil evaporation rates until DOY 213.Aboveground dry clipped biomass at the first mowing date (ADW_MW1, DOY 188) showed large differences among groups, as represented in Table 1. ADW_MW1 within LE was quite variable, as values ranged between 274.3 g m−2 (M. polymorpha, MP) and 750.0 g m−2 (T. michelianum, TM). With a mean value of 565.9 g m−2, LE aboveground biomass was 80% higher than the mean GR ADW_MW1 (110.2 g m-2). F. ovina (FO) scored the lowest value at 48.4 g m−2 among grasses, while within the creeping group, G. hederacea (GH) and T. subterraneum (TS) had biomass development outside the pot edges totalling 89.6 g m−2 and 23.2 g m−2, respectively.Table 1 Aboveground dry biomass clipped at the first mowing event (ADW _MW1), the corresponding leaf area surface index (LAI) and water use per leaf area unit (ETLEAF) of all cover crops tested.Full size tableLeaf area index (LAI, m2 m−2) at mowing showed the highest values in LE with LAI peaking at 12.4 (Table 1). Among GR, LAI did not show significant differences, being around 1.2. Concerning CR, LAI was assessed at 0.2 and 0.8 for T. subterraneum (TS) and G. hederacea (GH) respectively, while LAI estimated through photo analysis ranged between 1.3 (D. repens, DR) and 3.6 (T. subterraneum TS).Evapotranspiration per leaf area unit (ETLEAF) was notably higher in GR, ranging between 7.75 (F. ovina, FO) and 9.22 (Lolium perenne L. cv. Playfast, LP) mm m−2 day−1 (Table 1). In descending order, ETLEAF was the highest in D. repens (DR, 5.46 mm m−2 day−1). Similar ETLEAF was found when comparing some LE and CR species such as M. truncatula (MT, 3.40 mm m−2 day−1), M. lupulina (ML, 4.05 mm m−2 day−1), G. hederacea (GH, 3.68 mm m−2 day−1), H. pilosella (HP, 3.86 mm m-2 day-1) and T. subterraneum (TS, 2.74 mm m−2 day−1). T. michelianum (TM), with 1.81 mm m-2 day-1 scored the lowest ETLEAF of all species (Table 1).Plotting LAI versus the before-mowing ET yielded a significant quadratic relationship (R2  > 0.76) (Fig. 2a) which helped to distinguish two different data clouds. Till LAI values of about 6, the model was linear, having at its lower end all GR and CR species with the inclusion of M. polymorpha (MP) as a legume, while, at the other end, M. truncatula (MT), L. corniculatus (LC) and M. lupulina (ML) were grouped together. T. michelianum (TM) was isolated from all CCs at 22.56 mm day−1.Figure 2Panel (a): quadratic regression of leaf area index (LAI, m2 m−2) vs cover crop evapotranspiration per unit of soil (ET, mm day−1). Each data point is mean value ± SE (n = 4). The quadratic model equation is y = − 0.128×2 + 2.9968x + 5.4716, R2 = 0.76. Panel (b): the quadratic regression between LAI corresponding to the clipped biomass (m2 m−2) and cover crop ET reduction (%). Each data point is mean value ± SE (n = 4). Quadratic model equation is y = − 0.8985×2 + 16.503x + 5.1491, R2 = 0.94.Full size imageWhen regressing the fraction of ET reduction, compared to pre-mowing values vs LAI (Fig. 2b), the same quadratic model achieved a very close fit (R2 = 0.94, p  1 mm) root diameters as affected by soil cover.Full size tableThe highest values of diameter class length (DCL, mm cm−3) for very fine roots (DCL_VF,  1.0 mm) roots although, most notably, L. corniculatus roots showed the highest abundance for both DCL_M (23.08 cm cm−3) and DCL_C (0.54 cm cm−3).At the 10–20 cm soil depth, GR confirmed the highest values for both very fine and fine roots, with F. arundinacea reaching maximum DCL of 2.269 and 5.215 cm cm-3, respectively (Table 2). L. corniculatus largely outscored any other species for both medium and coarse root diameter (6.173 and 0.037 cm cm−3, respectively), with F. arundinacea ranking second (3.157 and 0.016 cm cm−3, respectively).The highest root dry weight (RDW, mg cm-3) within the topsoil layer was reached by L. corniculatus (8.7 mg cm−3) and F. arundinacea (7.6 mg cm-3). Notably, such values were significantly higher than those recorded on the remaining species, except for the F. arundinacea vs F. rubra commutata comparison (Table 2). At 10–20 depth, scant variation was recorded in RDW measured in grasses, whereas L. corniculatus held its supremacy within legumes (4.5 mg cm−3). Within the creeping type, D. repens (DR) and G. hederacea (GH) scored RDW values as high as those determined for grass species (namely F. arundinacea , P. pratensis and F. rubra commutata), whereas S. subulata (SS) essentially had no root development.Soil aggregates and mean weight diameter (MWD)Table 3 reports the proportional aggregate weight (g kg−1) for both 0–10 and 10–20 cm soil depths. Compared to bare soil, the largest increase in large macroaggregates (LM,  > 2000 µm) in the top 10 cm of soil was achieved by L. corniculatus with 461 g kg−1. L. corniculatus differed from the rest of the LE group, whose grand mean (90 g kg−1) was the lowest of the three tested groups. As a legume, T. subterraneum (TS, 122 g kg−1) recorded the lowest values compared to fellow CR species, ranging between 211 (D. repens, DR) and 316 g kg−1 (G. hederacea, GH). GR recorded LM values slightly lower than those of CR, with a mean value of 217 vs 224 g kg-1.Table 3 Proportional aggregate weight (g kg−1) of sand-free aggregate-size fractions acquired from wet sieving as affected by soil cover and mean weight diameter (MWD). Aggregate-size fraction divided as macroaggregates with large size ( > 2 mm, LM) and small size (2 mm—250 μm, sM), microaggregates (250 μm—53 μm, m), and silt and clay ( More

Crowther, T. W. et al. Mapping tree density at a global scale. Nature 525, 201–205 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Asner, G. P. et al. A universal airborne LiDAR approach for tropical forest carbon mapping. Oecologia 168, 1147–1160 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Walker, A. P. et al. Predicting long‐term carbon sequestration in response to CO2 enrichment: How and why do current ecosystem models differ? Glob. Biogeochem. Cy. 29, 476–495 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Madrigal-González, J. et al. Climate reverses directionality in the richness–abundance relationship across the World’s main forest biomes. Nat. Commun. 11, 1–7 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stephenson, N. L. Climatic control of vegetation distribution: the role of the water balance. Am. Nat. 135, 649–670 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
Weiskittel, A. R., Maguire, D. A., Monserud, R. A. Development of a hybrid model for intensively managed Douglas-fir in the Pacific Northwest. In Forest Growth and Timber Quality, 49 (USDA, Portland, 2009).Paoli, G. D., Curran, L. M. & Slik, J. W. F. Soil nutrients affect spatial patterns of aboveground biomass and emergent tree density in southwestern Borneo. Oecologia 155, 287–299 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yoda, K., Kira, T., Ogawa, H. & Hozami, K. Self-thinning in overcrowded pure stands under cultivated and natural conditions. J. Biol. Osaka City Univ. 14, 107–129 (1963).
Google Scholar 
Westoby, M. The self-thinning rule. Adv. Ecol. Res. 14, 167–225 (1984).Article 

Google Scholar 
Weiner, J. & Freckleton, R. P. Constant final yield. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. S. 41, 173–192 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pillet, M. et al. Disentangling competitive vs. climatic drivers of tropical forest mortality. J. Ecol. 106, 1165–1179 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schluter, D. Experimental evidence that competition promotes divergence in adaptive radiation. Science 266, 798–801 (1994).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pacala, S.W. & Levin, S.A. Biologically generated spatial pattern and the coexistence of competing species. Spatial Ecology: The Role of Space in Population Dynamics and Interspecific Interactions. (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, p. 204-232, 1997).Asefa, M., Cao, M., Zhang, G., Ci, X. & Li, J. Yang Environmental filtering structures tree functional traits combination and lineages across space in tropical tree assemblages. Sci. Rep. 7, 1–10 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pretzsch, H. & Biber, P. Tree species mixing can increase maximum stand density. Can. J. For. Res. 46, 1179–1193 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Escudero, A. et al. Every bit helps: The functional role of individuals in assembling any plant community, from the richest to monospecific ones. J. Veg. Sci. 32, e13059 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jump, A. S. et al. Structural overshoot of tree growth with climate variability and the global spectrum of drought-induced forest dieback. Glob. Chang. Biol. 23, 3742–3757 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
M. Takyu, Y. Kubota, S.I. Aiba, T. Seino, T. Nishimura. Pattern of changes in species diversity, structure and dynamics of forest ecosystems along latitudinal gradients in East Asia. In Forest Ecosystems and Environments (Springer, Tokyo, 2005), pp. 49–58.Rivoire, M. & Le, G. A. Moguedec, generalized self-thinning relationship for multi-species and mixed-size forests. Ann. Sci. 69, 207–219 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Salas‐Eljatib, C. & Weiskittel, A. R. Evaluation of modelling strategies for assessing self‐thinning behaviour and carrying capacity. Ecol. Evol. 8, 10768–10779 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schietti, J. et al. Forest structure along a 600 km transect of natural disturbances and seasonality gradients in central‐southern Amazonia. J. Ecol. 104, 1335–1346 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vanclay, J. K. & Sands, P. J. Calibrating the self-thinning frontier. For. Ecol. Manag. 259, 81–85 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sapijanskas, J., Paquette, A., Potvin, C., Kunert, N. & Loreau, M. Tropical tree diversity enhances light capture through crown plasticity and spatial and temporal niche differences. Ecology 95, 2479–2492 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lieth, H. Modeling the primary productivity of the world. In H. Lieth & R. H. Whittaker, eds. Primary Productivity of the Biosphere (Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA, 1975), pp. 237–264.Grieser, J., Gommes, R., Cofield, S., Bernardi, M. World Maps of Climatological net Primary Production of Biomass, NPP. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (GEONETWORK. FAO, Rome, Italy, 2006).Hengl, T. et al. SoilGrids250m: global gridded soil information based on machine learning. PLoS One 12, e0169748 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wood, S. N. Stable and efficient multiple smoothing parameter estimation for generalized additive models. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 99, 673–686 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
J.B. Grace. Structural Equation Modeling and Natural Systems. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006).Aho, K., Derryberry, D. & Peterson, T. Model selection for ecologists: the worldviews of AIC and BIC. Ecology 95, 631–636 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/).Wood, S., Scheipl, F. & Wood, M. S. Package ‘gamm4’. Am. Stat. 45, 339 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Lefcheck, J. S. piecewiseSEM: Piecewise structural equation modelling in r for ecology, evolution, and systematics. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 573–579 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pinheiro, J., Bates, D., DebRoy, S., Sarkar, D. R. Core Team nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models. R package version 3.1-148 (2020).Latham J, Cumani R, Rosati I, Bloise M. FAO Global Land Cover (GLC-SHARE) Database Beta-Release 1.0, Land and Water Division. 2014. http://www.fao.org/uploads/media/glc-share-doc.pdf. More

Conservationist Jim Groombridge in Hawaii (standing) performing a ‘heli-hook-up’, in which a net full of equipment is hooked up to the hovering helicopter, to save it needing to land.Credit: Jim Groombridge/Maui Forest Bird Recovery Project

Since his undergraduate degree, Jim Groombridge has been part of several teams that work with critically endangered animals, including the Mauritius kestrel (Falco punctatus), which was brought back from the brink of extinction. But he has also experienced the devastation of some species being lost forever, despite all possible interventions. After receiving his PhD from Queen Mary University of London in 2000, he worked as a project coordinator at the Maui Forest Bird Recovery Project in Makawao, Hawaii. Conservation science spans many topics including climate change, working with local communities, epidemiology, genomics and designing protected areas. Projects can range from single-species conservation to ecosystem-level or landscape conservation, such as restoring whole islands. Now a professor in biodiversity conservation at the University of Kent’s Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology in Canterbury, UK, Groombridge teaches bachelor’s and master’s students about leadership of conservation teams and how to motivate them in the face of setbacks.What is special about leading conservation teams?Conservation field teams are slightly quirky, and those quirks can define what makes a team work well or not. One is that team leaders are rarely trained in management tasks, such as overseeing a budget, interacting with project partners and local governments, dealing with team members who feel passionate about what they do and facing the high stakes involved. Team members are enthusiastic, passionate and seldom motivated by money.Another quirk is that, in a small conservation team of four to six people, there is often a mix of skill sets and experience. You can have highly experienced specialists in a particular area, such as screening parrots for diseases, or reintroduction biology, and you might also have volunteers with only passion and enthusiasm to offer.How do you lead a team with such variable experience?Even with those different levels of expertise, you still need to meet high standards for specimen and data collection. At the moment, for example, I’m sequencing the genome of the pink pigeon (Nesoenas mayeri), using samples collected in the 1990s. There’s a sense of responsibility, especially if you’re working with species that are rare, because if you mess it up, they could go extinct. It’s not unusual to have volunteers with only two or three weeks’ worth of experience handling extremely rare samples or working with valuable data sets. Their learning curve is pretty steep. As a leader, you need to make sure that you understand the details — ranging from tasks such as collecting data and monitoring and recording invasive species to, for example, knowing how to trap a mongoose — so that you can make sure that everyone is collecting the data in the same way.

Jim Groombridge (far left), who studies biodiversity conservation at the University of Kent, UK, with one of the field crews involved in an operation to translocate a bird called the po‘ouli in Hawaii.Credit: Jim Groombridge/Maui Forest Bird Recovery Project

What do team members tend to have in common?They often share a passion for nature. They want to save the environment, they want to save a species from going extinct, they want to make a difference. That level of emotion is important. It creates an energy, which needs to be channelled proactively and positively into the project to make it a success.In 2002, for example, I was leading a team working to save a bird called the po‘ouli (Melamprosops phaeosoma) on the island of Maui, part of the Hawaiian archipelago. We were trying to translocate one of the last known birds into the range of another one to give them the opportunity to breed. There was huge excitement, but after four weeks of failing to catch the bird, there was also a lot of frustration.How do you manage a team with such strong emotions?Morale is really important. So is being able to deal with difficulties when they arise. That’s what gets small teams through tough times. With the po‘ouli, I had to make sure that the team had fun, and that people genuinely enjoyed themselves. That meant taking time out with the team in the evenings and ensuring that everyone had a bit of a laugh, so it wasn’t deadly serious all the time. Also, I made sure that team members got to perform the aspects of the job that they were good at, to increase their confidence and well-being. We eventually trapped the po‘ouli and moved it, but even though the birds were in the same territory, they didn’t breed.How do you manage expectations amid failure?I had to remind the team about the broader picture of what we had achieved. This was the first time anyone had followed the po‘ouli in the forest for ten days. I think we learnt more about the ecology of that species in that time than anyone had learnt in 30 years. We held the translocated bird for about two hours before we released it, and it took food items from us, which showed that the birds could be kept in captivity if necessary. We learnt a huge amount that could be applied to another project.
Treading carefully: saving frankincense trees in Yemen
You have to manage people’s expectations and have goals that are achievable. If you are starting a project on a species with fewer than ten individuals left in the wild, and your goal is to have thousands, that’s a difficult leap of imagination. Instead, perhaps start with finding a food that a species would eat in captivity. People need to remain connected with what’s achievable. There’s a delicate balance between being aspirational and being pragmatic.As a team member, what do you wish more conservation leaders knew?Often, there is too much emphasis placed on the command structure. Innovation in a conservation team is undersold, and easily quashed by a type of line-manager approach. The hierarchy in a team is important because people know what to do and who to report to, but you also have to encourage team members to use their initiative and ask questions. I remember when my team and I were in the cloud forests, tropical mountain regions covered by clouds for most of the year in Hawaii, we were struggling with baiting rats, which prey on eggs and fledglings of native birds. It’s one of the wettest places on Earth, and the rat poison basically turns to cottage cheese. However, one of my colleagues designed a bait box, which kept the bait dry for many weeks. When you’re working with critically endangered species and in field conditions, ingenuity is crucial.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity. More

Study areaWe focused on hiking activity in the four main islands of Japan (Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, and Shikoku) and nearby small islands connected to the main islands by a bridge (Fig. 1a). These islands lie between latitudes 31.0° and 45.5°N, and the total area is 361,000 km2. The islands are generally mountainous and tallest mountains in central Honshu exceed 3000 m a.s.l. (Fig. 1c). In Tokyo, mean monthly temperatures range between 5.2 °C in January and 26.4 °C in August, while they range between − 18.4 °C in January and 6.2 °C in August at the summit of the highest mountain, Mt. Fuji (3776 m a.s.l., Japan Meteorological Agency). In northern Honshu and Hokkaido, snow depth can exceed 1 m even at low elevations and high mountains are covered with snow even in southern Japan.Vegetation excluding farmland and pasture covers 70.9% of the study area and the 93.9% is forest. Plantations of mostly evergreen conifers such as Japanese cedar (Cryptomeria japonica) occupy 37.6% of the vegetation area (National Surveys on the Natural Environment by the Biodiversity Center of Japan 2nd–7th; http://www.biodic.go.jp/trialSystem/top_en.html). Secondary vegetation after past human disturbances occupies 39.4% of the total vegetation and the remaining 23.0% is primary vegetation. The typical primary vegetation types are, from north to south, boreal mixed forest, deciduous broad leaved forest, and evergreen broad leaved forest.Grid squaresRecords of hiking activity were summarized for 4244 secondary grid squares based on Standard Grid Square System, which was defined by the Minister’s Order of Administrative Management Agency in 1973. In the system, the secondary grid was defined as a grid of 5′ in latitude and 7′ 30″ in longitude, which roughly corresponds to a 10 km grid in the study area. This is the standard grid system of the government and we adopted the system for convenience in future application uses and communication with practitioners. The grids, which are defined by latitude and longitude, are different in the area up to 22% between the north and south ends. Therefore, area of each grid was included in a model as an offset term.Hiking activityAccording to a government survey in 2016, (the Survey on Time Use and Leisure Activities by the Statistics Bureau of Japan, http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/shakai/index.htm), 10.0% (about 10.7 million people) of Japan’s population age 15 or over enjoyed hiking/mountaineering in the last year. The census showed also that hiking is more popular among urban residents in the metropolitan areas. Both multi-day expedition to high mountains and day trek to low mountains in suburban areas are popular. Because of the severe winter climate, unskilled hikers use the high mountains in summer and early autumn only. During a summer vacation, whose peak time in Japan is August, many hikers enjoy multi-day trips to distant mountains. Spring and autumn are also popular seasons because of the mild weather and the scenic beauty of the fresh green or autumn colors.Data collectionIn this study, we used number of hiking records accumulated on the most popular social networking service for hikers in Japan (Yamareco; https://www.yamareco.com) as a surrogate for flow of recreation service. For all the registered destinations in the study area, the number of hiking records for each month and the latitude and longitude of the destination were collected from the service in September 2016 with the rvest28 package in R software29. This service launched in October 2005 hosts records of the hiking route, photos, participants, and impressions of a hiking trip and facilitates communication among users. Although monthly number of records for each destination is always available on the site, the exact date of each hiking record is not always public information for privacy reasons; therefore, all of the records from the almost 11 years since the start of the service were lumped together in our analysis. Hikers may record multiple places in a single trip, so the total number of records must be larger than the number of unique trips. Users of the service sometime record a place that is not a destination, e.g. start points and stations of trails, parking areas, stations of transports, and bus stops. Such records were excluded before analyses as far as it can be judged from the name of the place. As a result, the total number of hiking records was 4,708,229 records for 16,179 destinations. Finally, these records were assigned to the 4244 grids based on the latitude and longitude of each destination and then total number of records for each grid was used as a surrogate of the recreation service flow in our analysis. Not only total number but also monthly number was used in our analysis to examine seasonal changes in associations between the service and vegetation. Total record number of the grids was strongly right-skewed; no record (handled as 0 in our analysis) was found in 2036 grids while mean and maximum record number were 1109 and 350,384, respectively.Explanation variablesFifty ecological, environmental, and social/infrastructural variables (Table S1) were prepared for each grid by using ArcGIS version 10.5 (ESRI, Redlands, CA, USA). For vegetation and land-use attributes, National Surveys on the Natural Environment by the Biodiversity Center of Japan (2nd–7th; http://www.biodic.go.jp/trialSystem/top_en.html) and National Land Numerical Information (http://nlftp.mlit.go.jp/ksj-e/index.html) were used. The proportion of sea, that of total vegetation cover (excluding agricultural land and pasture) to land area, that of agricultural land (including pasture) to land area, that of natural vegetation (vegetation excluding plantations) to total vegetated area, and that of primary vegetation (vegetation with no record or evidence of a disturbance) to natural vegetation were summarized at four spatial scales: a radius of 10 km, 20 km, 50 km, and 100 km from the center of each grid. Spatial patterns of the three vegetation variables in 10 km radius were summarized in Fig. 1d–f.Maximum elevation, minimum elevation, and ruggedness (index of topographic heterogeneity30) were summarized at the four spatial scales based on a digital elevation model (10-m resolution) provided by the Geospatial Information Authority of Japan (https://fgd.gsi.go.jp/download/menu.php). For climatic variables (annual and monthly mean temperature, annual and monthly precipitation, annual and monthly hours of sunshine, and annual maximum snow depth), the National Land Numeric Information provided by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism of Japan (http://nlftp.mlit.go.jp/ksj-e/index.html) was referenced. Densities of population and roads at the four spatial scales were prepared from population census data from the Statistics Bureau of Japan (http://e-stat.go.jp/SG2/eStatGIS/page/download.html) and the National Land Numeric Information. For calculation of these densities, the sea surface was excluded. In addition, latitude and longitude of center of each grid were also used as explanatory variables to average effects of spatial coordinates.Statistical analysisIn this study, we employed BRT, a machine-learning method based on regression trees31 for modeling the complex relationship between a CES flow and landscape attributes12. BRT is an ensemble learning method where multiple regression trees are sequentially combined to minimize the loss function by means of gradient descent. This technique has advantage in the development of a model with a high predictive performance, in which high-dimensional interactions among explanatory variables and nonlinear responses are fully accounted for. In ecology, BRT has been frequently used for modeling of a species distribution32.Total and monthly numbers of hiking records were modeled as a function of the 50 variables described above under the assumption of a Poisson response. For temperature, precipitation, and hours of sunshine, annual and monthly average were used for the analysis of total and monthly records, respectively. In modeling by BRT, parameters for building of each learner and assembly of the learners must be carefully chosen to maximize generalization ability of a model31. In our case, candidate parameters were 2, 5, and 10 for the maximum depth of variable interactions for each learner; 2, 5, 10, and 20 for the minimum number of observations in the terminal nodes for each learner; 0.5 and 0.75 for the proportion of training data used for building each learner; and 1000, 2000, 4000, 6000, 8000 and 10,000 for the total number of learners (Table S2). In the model assembling process, the value of 0.01 was used as a shrinkage parameter. Ten-fold cross validation was used to obtain the best suites of parameters. R2 based on sum of squares:$${R}^{2}=1-frac{{sum ({y}_{i}-widehat{{y}_{i}})}^{2}}{{sum ({y}_{i}-overline{{y }_{i}})}^{2}}$$
was used for evaluation of the model’s prediction performance. The importance of explanatory variables was evaluated as an increase of mean absolute error after 100-times permutation of a variable33.Effects of each explanatory variable (a landscape attribute) on the response variable (record number) and the context dependence were visually inspected by individual conditional expectation (ICE) plot34. ICE plot visualizes the effect of a given explanatory variable for each observation by connecting outcome of a model for shifting values of the focal explanatory variable throughout the range while keeping other explanatory variables as the original value. Predictions were performed in log-scale and each line was centered to be zero at the left end of the x-axis to show relative effects of explanatory variables (c-ICE plot sensu Goltstein et al.34). Each line in ICE plot can be colored based on value of the second explanatory variable to assist assessment of the interactive effects of the two predictors. Friedman’s H statistic35 was used to detect explanatory variables whose interaction with the vegetation variables are important and therefore should be used for color-coding of an ICE plot. Friedman’s H is defined as a proportion of variance of partial dependence estimates explained by interactive effects for arbitrary suites of explanatory variables.Then, expected impacts of 0.1 decrease in the three local vegetation variables were assessed by the trained model and mapped. Although vegetation variables were sometimes more important at larger spatial scales (see “Results”), we focused on vegetation at a local (10 km radius) scale because most changes in vegetation occur at the scale in Japan (National Surveys on the Natural Environment by the Biodiversity Center of Japan, https://www.biodic.go.jp/kiso/fnd_list_h.html).All statistical analyses were performed using the R software packag29. The gbm36 package was used for BRT, the iml37 package was used for calculation of Friedman’s H statistic, and the cv.models (Oguro, https://github.com/Marchen/cv.models) packages was used for cross validation and parameter tuning. More

Microbial community composition in cave sedimentsThe ITS1 dataset generated 5,793,980 raw sequence reads, resulting in 5,458,895 gene quality-filtered reads, ranging from 1252 up to 540,803 per sample. After singletons and rare taxa ( More