Philippa Kaur

Alphan, H. Land use change and urbanisation of Adana, Turkey. Land Degrad. Dev. 14, 575–586 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Catalàn, B., Sauri, D. & Serra, P. Urban sprawl in the Mediterranean? Patterns of growth and change in the Barcelona Metropolitan Region 1993–2000. Landsc. Urban Plan. 85(3–4), 174–184 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Chen, K., Long, H., Liao, L., Tu, S. & Li, T. Land use transitions and urban-rural integrated development: Theoretical framework and China’s evidence. Land Use Policy 92, 104465 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bianchini, L. et al. Forest transition and metropolitan transformations in developed countries: Interpreting apparent and latent dynamics with local regression models. Land 11(1), 12 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Angel, S., Parent, J., Civco, D. L., Blei, A. & Potere, D. The dimensions of global urban expansion: Estimates and projections for all countries, 2000–2050. Prog. Plan. 75(2), 53–107 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fischer, A. P. Forest landscapes as social-ecological systems and implications for management. Landsc. Urban Plan. 177, 138–147 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Darvishi, A., Yousefi, M. & Marull, J. Modelling landscape ecological assessments of land use and cover change scenarios. Application to the Bojnourd Metropolitan Area (NE Iran). Land Use Policy 99, 105098 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cheng, L. L., Tian, C. & Yin, T. T. Identifying driving factors of urban land expansion using Google earth engine and machine-learning approaches in Mentougou District, China. Sci. Rep. 12(1), 1–13 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kasanko, M. et al. Are European Cities becoming dispersed? A comparative analysis of fifteen European urban areas. Landsc. Urban Plan. 77(1–2), 111–130 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Terzi, F. & Bolen, F. Urban sprawl measurement of Istanbul. Eur. Plan. Stud. 17(10), 1559–1570 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Angel, S., Parent, J. & Civco, D. L. Ten compactness properties of circles: measuring shape in geography. Can. Geogr. 54, 441–461 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Salvati, L., Gemmiti, R. & Perini, L. Land degradation in Mediterranean urban areas: An unexplored link with planning?. Area 44(3), 317–325 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Attorre, F., Bruno, M., Francesconi, F., Valenti, R. & Bruno, F. Landscape changes of Rome through tree-lined roads. Landsc. Urban Plan. 49, 115–128 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Turok, I. & Mykhnenko, V. The trajectories of European cities, 1960–2005. Cities 24(3), 165–182 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ioannidis, C., Psaltis, C. & Potsiou, C. Towards a strategy for control of suburban informal buildings through automatic change detection. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 33, 64–74 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Grekousis, G., Manetos, P. & Photis, Y. N. Modeling urban evolution using neural networks, fuzzy logic and GIS: The case of the athens metropolitan area. Cities 30, 193–203 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Salvati, L. Towards a polycentric region? The socioeconomic trajectory of Rome, an ‘Eternally Mediterranean’ city. Tijdschr. Econ. Soc. Geogr. 105(3), 268–284 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chorianopoulos, I., Pagonis, T., Koukoulas, S. & Drymoniti, S. Planning, competitiveness and sprawl in the Mediterranean city: The case of Athens. Cities 27, 249–259 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Munafò, M., Salvati, L. & Zitti, M. Estimating soil sealing rate at national level—Italy as a case study. Ecol. Ind. 26, 137–140 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Morelli, V. G., Rontos, K. & Salvati, L. Between suburbanisation and re-urbanisation: Revisiting the urban life cycle in a Mediterranean compact city. Urban Res. Pract. 7(1), 74–88 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Basem Ajjur, S. & Al-Ghamdi, S. G. Exploring urban growth–climate change–flood risk nexus in fast growing cities. Sci. Rep. 12, 12265 (2022).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Li, H. & Wu, J. Use and misuse of landscape indices. Landsc. Ecol. 19, 389–399 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Salvati, L. Agro-forest landscape and the ‘fringe’city: A multivariate assessment of land-use changes in a sprawling region and implications for planning. Sci. Total Environ. 490, 715–723 (2014).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sang, X. et al. Intensity and stationarity analysis of land use change based on CART algorithm. Sci. Rep. 9(1), 1–12 (2019).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ettehadi Osgouei, P., Sertel, E. & Kabadayı, M. E. Integrated usage of historical geospatial data and modern satellite images reveal long-term land use/cover changes in Bursa/Turkey, 1858–2020. Sci. Rep. 12(1), 1–17 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
He, S., Yu, S., Li, G. & Zhang, J. Exploring the influence of urban form on land-use efficiency from a spatiotemporal heterogeneity perspective: Evidence from 336 Chinese cities. Land Use Policy 95, 104576 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bockarjova, M., Wouter Botzen, W. J., Bulkeley, H. A. & Toxopeus, H. Estimating the social value of nature-based solutions in European cities. Sci. Rep. 12, 19833 (2022).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Liu, J. & Niyogi, D. Meta-analysis of urbanisation impact on rainfall modification. Sci. Rep. 9(1), 1–14 (2019).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Holland, J. H. Studying complex adaptive systems. J. Syst. Sci. Complex. 19(1), 1–8 (2006).Article 
MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Salvati, L. & Serra, P. Estimating rapidity of change in complex urban systems: A multidimensional, local-scale approach. Geogr. Anal. 48(2), 132–156 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bura, S., Guerin-Pace, F., Mathian, H., Pumain, D. & Sanders, L. Multi-agents systems and the dynamics of a settlement system. Geogr. Anal. 28(2), 161–178 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hasse, J. E. & Lathrop, R. G. Land resource impact indicators of urban sprawl. Appl. Geogr. 23, 159–175 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Grafius, D. R., Corstanje, R. & Harris, J. A. Linking ecosystem services, urban form and green space configuration using multivariate landscape metric analysis. Landsc. Ecol. 33(4), 557–573 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pumain, D. Hierarchy in Natural and Social Sciences (Kluwer-Springer, 2005).
Google Scholar 
Cabral, P., Augusto, G., Tewolde, M. & Araya, Y. Entropy in urban systems. Entropy 15(12), 5223–5236 (2013).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Salvati, L. & Carlucci, M. In-between stability and subtle changes: Urban growth, population structure, and the city life cycle in Rome. Popul. Space Place 22(3), 216–227 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Batty, M. & Longley, P. Fractal Cities (Academic Press, 1994).MATH 

Google Scholar 
Berry, B. J. L. Cities as systems within systems of cities. Pap. Reg. Sci. 13, 147–163 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Petrosillo, I. et al. The resilient recurrent behavior of mediterranean semi-arid complex adaptive landscapes. Land 10(3), 296 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Portugali, J. Complexity, Cognition and the City, Understanding Complex Systems (Springer, 2011).Book 

Google Scholar 
Wu, J., Jenerette, G. D., Buyantuyev, A. & Redman, C. L. Quantifying spatiotemporal patterns of urbanisation: The case of the two fastest growing metropolitan regions in the United States. Ecol. Complex. 8(1), 1–8 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sun, Y., Gao, C., Li, J., Li, W. & Ma, R. Examining urban thermal environment dynamics and relations to biophysical composition and configuration and socioeconomic factors: A case study of the Shanghai metropolitan region. Sustain. Cities Soc. 40, 284–295 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Phillips, M. A. & Ritala, P. A complex adaptive systems agenda for ecosystem research methodology. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 148, 119739 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R. & Kinzig, A. Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 9(2), 5 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kelly, C. et al. Community resilience and land degradation in forest and shrublandsocio-ecological systems: A case study in Gorgoglione, Basilicata regionn, Italy. Land Use Policy 46, 11–20 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Preiser, R., Biggs, R., De Vos, A. & Folke, C. Social-ecological systems as complex adaptive systems. Ecol. Soc. 23(4), 46 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ferrara, A. et al. Shaping the role of ‘fast’ and ‘slow’ drivers of change in forest-shrubland socio-ecological systems. J. Environ. Manag. 169, 155–166 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lamy, T., Liss, K. N., Gonzalez, A. & Bennett, E. M. Landscape structure affects the provision of multiple ecosystem services. Environ. Res. Lett. 11(12), 124017 (2016).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Riitters, K. H., Vogt, P., Soille, P., Kozak, J. & Estreguil, C. Neutral model analysis of landscape patterns from mathematical morphology. Landsc. Ecol. 22(7), 1033–1043 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Riitters, K., Vogt, P., Soille, P. & Estreguil, C. Landscape patterns from mathematical morphology on maps with contagion. Landsc. Ecol. 24(5), 699–709 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Anas, A., Arnott, R. & Small, K. Urban spatial structure. J. Econ. Lit. 36(3), 1426–1464 (1998).
Google Scholar 
Arroyo-Mora, J. P., Sánchez-Azofeifa, G. A., Rivard, B., Calvo, J. C. & Janzen, D. H. Dynamics in landscape structure and composition for the Chorotega region, Costa Rica from 1960 to 2000. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 106(1), 27–39 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Siles, G., Charland, A., Voirin, Y. & Bénié, G. B. Integration of landscape and structure indicators into a web-based geoinformation system for assessing wetlands status. Eco. Inform. 52, 166–176 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Soille, P. Morphological Image Analysis: Principles and Applications (Springer, 2003).MATH 

Google Scholar 
Soille, P. & Vogt, P. Morphological segmentation of binary patterns. Pattern Recogn. Lett. 30, 456–459 (2009).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Vogt, P. et al. Mapping spatial patterns with morphological image processing. Landsc. Ecol. 22(2), 171–177 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bajocco, S., Ceccarelli, T., Smiraglia, D., Salvati, L. & Ricotta, C. Modeling the ecological niche of long-term land use changes: The role of biophysical factors. Ecol. Ind. 60, 231–236 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yin, Y., Zhou, K. & Chen, Y. Deconstructing the driving factors of land development intensity from multi-scale in differentiated functional zones. Sci. Rep. 12(1), 1–13 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Duvernoy, I., Zambon, I., Sateriano, A. & Salvati, L. Pictures from the other side of the fringe: Urban growth and peri-urban agriculture in a post-industrial city (Toulouse, France). J. Rural. Stud. 57, 25–35 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Smiraglia, D., Ceccarelli, T., Bajocco, S., Salvati, L. & Perini, L. Linking trajectories of land change, land degradation processes and ecosystem services. Environ. Res. 147, 590–600 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Shaker, R. R. Examining sustainable landscape function across the Republic of Moldova. Habitat Int. 72, 77–91 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Zheng, H. & Li, H. Spatial–temporal evolution characteristics of land use and habitat quality in Shandong Province, China. Sci. Rep. 12(1), 1–12 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tombolini, I., Munafò, M. & Salvati, L. Soil sealing footprint as an indicator of dispersed urban growth: A multivariate statistics approach. Urban Res. Pract. 9(1), 1–15 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Salvati, L., Sateriano, A., Grigoriadis, E. & Carlucci, M. New wine in old bottles: The (changing) socioeconomic attributes of sprawl during building boom and stagnation. Ecol. Econ. 131, 361–372 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zambon, I., Benedetti, A., Ferrara, C. & Salvati, L. Soil matters? A multivariate analysis of socioeconomic constraints to urban expansion in Mediterranean Europe. Ecol. Econ. 146, 173–183 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Paul, V. & Tonts, M. Containing urban sprawl: Trends in land use and spatial planning in the Metropolitan Region of Barcelona. J. Environ. Plann. Manag. 48(1), 7–35 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Serra, P., Vera, A., Tulla, A. F. & Salvati, L. Beyond urban–rural dichotomy: Exploring socioeconomic and land-use processes of change in Spain (1991–2011). Appl. Geogr. 55, 71–81 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Seifollahi-Aghmiuni, S., Kalantari, Z., Egidi, G., Gaburova, L. & Salvati, L. Urbanisation-driven land degradation and socioeconomic challenges in peri-urban areas: Insights from Southern Europe. Ambio 51(6), 1446–1458 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pili, S., Grigoriadis, E., Carlucci, M., Clemente, M. & Salvati, L. Towards sustainable growth? A multi-criteria assessment of (changing) urban forms. Ecol. Ind. 76, 71–80 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Salvati, L., Sateriano, A. & Grigoriadis, E. Crisis and the city: Profiling urban growth under economic expansion and stagnation. Lett. Spat. Resour. Sci. 9(3), 329–342 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Champion, T. & Hugo, G. New Forms of Urbanisation: Beyond the Urban-Rural Dichotomy (Ashgate, 2004).
Google Scholar 
Frondoni, R., Mollo, B. & Capotorti, G. A landscape analysis of land cover change in the municipality of Rome (Italy): Spatio-temporal characteristics and ecological implications of land cover transitions from 1954 to 2001. Landsc. Urban Plan. 100(1–2), 117–128 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Perrin, C., Nougarèdes, B., Sini, L., Branduini, P. & Salvati, L. Governance changes in peri-urban farmland protection following decentralisation: A comparison between Montpellier (France) and Rome (Italy). Land Use Policy 70, 535–546 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Salvati, L. Monitoring high-quality soil consumption driven by urban pressure in a growing city (Rome, Italy). Cities 31, 349–356 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Salvati, L., Ciommi, M. T., Serra, P. & Chelli, F. M. Exploring the spatial structure of housing prices under economic expansion and stagnation: The role of socio-demographic factors in metropolitan Rome, Italy. Land Use Policy 81, 143–152 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ferrara, C., Salvati, L. & Tombolini, I. An integrated evaluation of soil resource depletion from diachronic settlement maps and soil cartography in peri-urban Rome, Italy. Geoderma 232, 394–405 (2014).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Egidi, G. & Salvati, L. Beyond the suburban-urban divide: Convergence in age structures in metropolitan Rome, Italy. J. Popul. Soc. Stud. 28(2), 130–142 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pili, S., Serra, P. & Salvati, L. Landscape and the city: Agro-forest systems, land fragmentation and the ecological network in Rome, Italy. Urban For. Urban Green. 41, 230–237 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
European Environment Agency. Urban Sprawl in Europe – The Ignored Challenge. Copenhagen: EEA Report no. 10 (2006).Park, S., Hepcan, Ç. C., Hepcan, Ş & Cook, E. A. Influence of urban form on landscape pattern and connectivity in metropolitan regions: a comparative case study of Phoenix, AZ, USA, and Izmir, Turkey. Environ. Monit. Assess. 186(10), 6301–6318 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Luo, F., Liu, Y., Peng, J. & Wu, J. Assessing urban landscape ecological risk through an adaptive cycle framework. Landsc. Urban Plan. 180, 125–134 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ortega, M., Pascual, S., Elena-Rosselló, R. & Rescia, A. J. Land-use and spatial resilience changes in the Spanish olive socio-ecological landscape. Appl. Geogr. 117, 102171 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Parcerisas, L. et al. Land use changes, landscape ecology and their socioeconomic driving forces in the Spanish Mediterranean coast (El Maresme County, 1850–2005). Environ. Sci. Policy 23, 120–132 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Masini, E. et al. Urban growth, land-use efficiency and local socioeconomic context: A comparative analysis of 417 metropolitan regions in Europe. Environ. Manag. 63(3), 322–337 (2019).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Luck, M. & Wu, J. A gradient analysis of urban landscape pattern: a case study from the Phoenix metropolitan region, Arizona, USA. Landsc. Ecol. 17(4), 327–339 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pesaresi, M. & Bianchin, A. Recognising settlement structure using mathematical morphology and image texture. Remote Sensing Urban Anal. GISDATA 9, 46–60 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Schneider, A. & Woodcock, C. E. Compact, dispersed, fragmented, extensive? A comparison of urban growth in twenty-five global cities using remotely sensed data, pattern metrics and census information. Urban Stud. 45(3), 659–692 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mubareka, S., Koomen, E., Estreguil, C. & Lavalle, C. Development of a composite index of urban compactness for land use modelling applications. Landsc. Urban Plan. 103(3–4), 303–317 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vogt, P. et al. Mapping landscape corridors. Ecol. Ind. 7(2), 481–488 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Daya Sagar, B. S. & Murthy, K. S. R. Generation of a fractal landscape using nonlinear mathematical morphological transformations. Fractals 8(03), 267–272 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Scott, A. J., Carter, C., Reed, M. R., Stonyer, B. & Coles, R. Disintegrated development at the rural-urban fringe: Re-connecting spatial planning theory and practice. Prog. Plan. 83, 1–52 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhao, Q., Wen, Z., Chen, S., Ding, S. & Zhang, M. Quantifying land use/land cover and landscape pattern changes and impacts on ecosystem services. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17(1), 126 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Parr, J. The regional economy, spatial structure and regional urban systems. Reg. Stud. 48(12), 1926–1938 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Salvati, L., Zambon, I., Chelli, F. M. & Serra, P. Do spatial patterns of urbanisation and land consumption reflect different socioeconomic contexts in Europe?. Sci. Total Environ. 625, 722–730 (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Coppi, R. & Bolasco, S. Multiway Data Analysis (Elsevier, 1988).MATH 

Google Scholar 
Kroonenberg, P. M. Applied Multiway Data Analysis (Wiley, 2008).Book 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Escofier, B. & Pages, J. Multiple factor analysis (AFMULT Package). Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 18, 121–140 (1994).Article 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
De Rosa, S. & Salvati, L. Beyond a ‘side street story’? Naples from spontaneous centrality to entropic polycentricism, towards a ‘crisis city’. Cities 51, 74–83 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Favaro, J.-M. & Pumain, D. Gibrat revisited: An urban growth model incorporating spatial interaction and innovation cycles. Geogr. Anal. 43(3), 261–286 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Walker, B. H., Carpenter, S. R., Rockstrom, J., Crepin, A.-S. & Peterson, G. D. “Drivers, “slow” variables, “fast” variables, shocks, and resilience. Ecol. Soc. 17(3), 30 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, Z., Su, S., Xiao, R., Jiang, D. & Wu, J. Identifying determinants of urban growth from a multi-scale perspective: A case study of the urban agglomeration around Hangzhou Bay, China. Appl. Geogr. 45, 193–202 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fratarcangeli, C., Fanelli, G., Franceschini, S., De Sanctis, M. & Travaglini, A. Beyond the urban-rural gradient: Self-organising map detects the nine landscape types of the city of Rome. Urban For. Urban Green. 38, 354–370 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Crisci, M., Benassi, F., Rabiei-Dastjerdi, H., McArdle, G. Spatio-temporal variations and contextual factors of the supply of Airbnb in Rome. An initial investigation. Lett. Spat. Resour. Sci. 1–17 (2022).Lelo, K., Monni, S. & Tomassi, F. Socio-spatial inequalities and urban transformation. The case of Rome districts. Socio-Econ. Plann. Sci. 68, 100696 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Crisci, M. The impact of the real estate crisis on a south european metropolis: From urban diffusion to Reurbanisation. Appl. Spat. Anal. Policy 15(3), 797–820 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, Y. & Zhang, X. A dynamic modeling approach to simulating socioeconomic effects on landscape changes. Ecol. Model. 140(1–2), 141–162 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Voghera, A. The River agreement in Italy. Resilient planning for the co-evolution of communities and landscapes. Land Use Policy 91, 104377 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chen, A. & Partridge, M. D. When are cities engines of growth in China? Spread and backwash effects across the urban hierarchy. Reg. Stud. 47(8), 1313–1331 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ciommi, M., Chelli, F. M., Carlucci, M. & Salvati, L. Urban growth and demographic dynamics in southern Europe: Toward a new statistical approach to regional science. Sustainability 10(8), 2765 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jacobs-Crisioni, C., Rietveld, P. & Koomen, E. The impact of spatial aggregation on urban development analyses. Appl. Geogr. 47, 46–56 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kourtit, K., Nijkamp, P. & Reid, N. The new urban world: Challenges and policy. Appl. Geogr. 49, 1–3 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bruegmann, R. Sprawl: A Compact History (University of Chicago Press, 2005).Book 

Google Scholar 
Neuman, M. & Hull, A. The Futures of the City Region. Reg. Stud. 43(6), 777–787 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Couch, C., Petschel-held, G. & Leontidou, L. Urban Sprawl In Europe: Landscapes, Land-use Change and Policy (Blackwell, 2007).Book 

Google Scholar 
Longhi, C. & Musolesi, A. European cities in the process of economic integration: towards structural convergence. Ann. Reg. Sci. 41, 333–351 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tian, G., Ouyang, Y., Quan, Q. & Wu, J. Simulating spatiotemporal dynamics of urbanisation with multi-agent systems—A case study of the Phoenix metropolitan region, USA. Ecol. Model. 222(5), 1129–1138 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tian, L., Chen, J. & Yu, S. X. Coupled dynamics of urban landscape pattern and socioeconomic drivers in Shenzhen, China. Landsc. Ecol. 29(4), 715–727 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fielding, A. J. Counterurbanization in Western Europe. Prog. Plan. 17, 1–52 (1982).Article 

Google Scholar 
Oueslati, W., Alvanides, S. & Garrod, G. Determinants of urban sprawl in European cities. Urban Stud. 52(9), 1594–1614 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tress, B., Tress, G., Décamps, H. & d’Hauteserre, A. M. Bridging human and natural sciences in landscape research. Landsc. Urban Plan. 57(3–4), 137–141 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Xu, Z., Lv, Z., Li, J., Sun, H. & Sheng, Z. A Novel perspective on travel demand prediction considering natural environmental and socioeconomic factors. IEEE Intell. Transp. Syst. Mag. https://doi.org/10.1109/MITS.2022.3162901 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Xu, Z., Lv, Z., Li, J. & Shi, A. A novel approach for predicting water demand with complex patterns based on ensemble learning. Water Resour. Manag. 36(11), 4293–4312 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lv, Z., Li, J., Dong, C., Li, H. & Xu, Z. Deep learning in the COVID-19 epidemic: A deep model for urban traffic revitalisation index. Data Knowl. Eng. 135, 101912 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Hsu-Kim H, Kucharzyk KH, Zhang T, Deshusses MA. Mechanisms regulating mercury bioavailability for methylating microorganisms in the aquatic environment: A critical review. Environ Sci Technol. 2013;47:2441–56.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Podar M, Gilmour CC, Brandt CC, Soren A, Brown SD, Crable BR, et al. Global prevalence and distribution of genes and microorganisms involved in mercury methylation. Sci Adv. 2015;1:e1500675.Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu YR, Johs A, Bi L, Lu X, Hu HW, Sun D, et al. Unraveling microbial communities associated with methylmercury production in paddy soils. Environ Sci Technol. 2018;52:13110–8.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lee C-S, Fisher NS. Bioaccumulation of methylmercury in a marine copepod. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2017;36:1287–93.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Parks JM, Johs A, Podar M, Bridou R, Hurt RAJ, Smith SD, et al. The genetic basis for bacterial mercury methylation. Science 2013;339:1332–5.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
McDaniel EA, Peterson BD, Stevens SLR, Tran PQ, Anantharaman K, McMahon KD. Expanded phylogenetic diversity and metabolic flexibility of mercury-methylating microorganisms. mSystems 2020;5:e00299–20.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cooper CJ, Zheng K, Rush KW, Johs A, Sanders BC, Pavlopoulos GA, et al. Structure determination of the HgcAB complex using metagenome sequence data: Insights into microbial mercury methylation. Commun Biol. 2020;3:320.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kerin EJ, Gilmour CC, Roden E, Suzuki MT, Coates JD, Mason RP. Mercury methylation by dissimilatory iron-reducing bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006;72:7919–21.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gilmour CC, Podar M, Bullock AL, Graham AM, Brown SD, Somenahally AC, et al. Mercury methylation by novel microorganisms from new environments. Environ Sci Technol. 2013;47:11810–20.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Capo E, Bravo AG, Soerensen AL, Bertilsson S, Pinhassi J, Feng C, et al. Deltaproteobacteria and Spirochaetes-like bacteria are abundant putative mercury methylators in oxygen-deficient water and marine particles in the Baltic Sea. Front Microbiol. 2020;11:574080.Article 

Google Scholar 
Gionfriddo CM, Tate MT, Wick RR, Schultz MB, Zemla A, Thelen MP, et al. Microbial mercury methylation in Antarctic sea ice. Nat Microbiol. 2016;1:16127.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jones DS, Walker GM, Johnson NW, Mitchell CPJ, Coleman Wasik JK, Bailey JV. Molecular evidence for novel mercury methylating microorganisms in sulfate-impacted lakes. ISME J. 2019;13:1659–75.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Christensen GA, Gionfriddo CM, King AJ, Moberly JG, Miller CL, Somenahally AC, et al. Determining the reliability of measuring mercury cycling gene abundance with correlations with mercury and methylmercury concentrations. Environ Sci Technol. 2019;53:8649–63.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Villar E, Cabrol L, Heimburger-Boavida LE. Widespread microbial mercury methylation genes in the global ocean. Environ Microbiol Rep. 2020;12:277–87.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lin H, Ascher DB, Myung Y, Lamborg CH, Hallam SJ, Gionfriddo CM, et al. Mercury methylation by metabolically versatile and cosmopolitan marine bacteria. ISME J. 2021;15:1810–25.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
King JK, Kostka JE, Frischer ME, Saunders FM, Jahnke RA. A quantitative relationship that demonstrates mercury methylation rates in marine sediments are based on the community composition and activity of sulfate-reducing bacteria. Environ Sci Technol. 2001;35:2491–6.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Regnell O, Watras CJ. Microbial mercury methylation in aquatic environments: A critical review of published field and laboratory studies. Environ Sci Technol. 2019;53:4–19.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Xie R, Wang Y, Huang D, Hou J, Li L, Hu H, et al. Expanding Asgard members in the domain of Archaea sheds new light on the origin of eukaryotes. Sci China Life Sci. 2022;65:818–29.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Seitz KW, Dombrowski N, Eme L, Spang A, Lombard J, Sieber JR, et al. Asgard archaea capable of anaerobic hydrocarbon cycling. Nat Commun. 2019;10:1822.Article 

Google Scholar 
Zaremba-Niedzwiedzka K, Caceres EF, Saw JH, Backstrom D, Juzokaite L, Vancaester E, et al. Asgard archaea illuminate the origin of eukaryotic cellular complexity. Nature 2017;541:353–8.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Liu Y, Makarova KS, Huang W-C, Wolf YI, Nikolskaya AN, Zhang X, et al. Expanded diversity of Asgard archaea and their relationships with eukaryotes. Nature 2021;593:553–7.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zhang JW, Dong HP, Hou LJ, Liu Y, Ou YF, Zheng YL, et al. Newly discovered Asgard archaea Hermodarchaeota potentially degrade alkanes and aromatics via alkyl/benzyl-succinate synthase and benzoyl-CoA pathway. ISME J. 2021;15:1826–43.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cai M, Liu Y, Yin X, Zhou Z, Friedrich MW, Richter-Heitmann T, et al. Diverse Asgard archaea including the novel phylum Gerdarchaeota participate in organic matter degradation. Sci China Life Sci. 2020;63:886–97.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Baker BJ, De Anda V, Seitz KW, Dombrowski N, Santoro AE, Lloyd KG. Diversity, ecology and evolution of Archaea. Nat Microbiol. 2020;5:887–900.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Farag Ibrahim F, Zhao R, Biddle Jennifer F, Atomi H. “Sifarchaeota,” a novel Asgard phylum from Costa Rican sediment capable of polysaccharide degradation and anaerobic methylotrophy. Appl Environ Micro. 2021;87:e02584–20.
Google Scholar 
Adam PS, Borrel G, Brochier-Armanet C, Gribaldo S. The growing tree of Archaea: new perspectives on their diversity, evolution and ecology. ISME J. 2017;11:2407–25.Article 

Google Scholar 
Cai M, Richter-Heitmann T, Yin X, Huang W-C, Yang Y, Zhang C, et al. Ecological features and global distribution of Asgard archaea. Sci Total Environ. 2021;758:143581.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zhang C-J, Chen Y-L, Sun Y-H, Pan J, Cai M-W, Li M. Diversity, metabolism and cultivation of archaea in mangrove ecosystems. Mar Life Sci Tech. 2020;3:252–62.Article 

Google Scholar 
Dai SS, Yang Z, Tong Y, Chen L, Liu SY, Pan R, et al. Global distribution and environmental drivers of methylmercury production in sediments. J Hazard Mater. 2021;407:124700.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Tang WL, Liu YR, Guan WY, Zhong H, Qu XM, Zhang T. Understanding mercury methylation in the changing environment: Recent advances in assessing microbial methylators and mercury bioavailability. Sci Total Environ. 2020;714:136827.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Tsui MTK, Finlay JC, Balogh SJ, Nollet YH. In situ production of methylmercury within a stream channel in northern California. Environ Sci Technol. 2010;44:6998–7004.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Liu Y, Zhou Z, Pan J, Baker BJ, Gu JD, Li M. Comparative genomic inference suggests mixotrophic lifestyle for Thorarchaeota. ISME J. 2018;12:1021–31.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lei P, Zhong H, Duan D, Pan K. A review on mercury biogeochemistry in mangrove sediments: Hotspots of methylmercury production? Sci Total Environ. 2019;680:140–50.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Beckers F, Rinklebe J. Cycling of mercury in the environment: Sources, fate, and human health implications: A review. Crit Rev Env Sci Tec. 2017;47:693–794.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
de Oliveira DC, Correia RR, Marinho CC, Guimaraes JR. Mercury methylation in sediments of a Brazilian mangrove under different vegetation covers and salinities. Chemosphere 2015;127:214–21.Article 

Google Scholar 
Li R, Xu H, Chai M, Qiu GY. Distribution and accumulation of mercury and copper in mangrove sediments in Shenzhen, the world’s most rapid urbanized city. Environ Moni Assess. 2016;188:87.Article 

Google Scholar 
O’Connor D, Hou D, Ok YS, Mulder J, Duan L, Wu Q, et al. Mercury speciation, transformation, and transportation in soils, atmospheric flux, and implications for risk management: A critical review. Environ Int. 2019;126:747–61.Article 

Google Scholar 
Obrist D, Kirk JL, Zhang L, Sunderland EM, Jiskra M, Selin NE. A review of global environmental mercury processes in response to human and natural perturbations: Changes of emissions, climate, and land use. Ambio 2018;47:116–40.Article 

Google Scholar 
Capo E, Peterson BD, Kim M, Jones DS, Acinas SG, Amyot M, et al. A consensus protocol for the recovery of mercury methylation genes from metagenomes. Mol Ecol Resour. 2022; https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13687.Gionfriddo CM, Wymore AM, Jones DS, Wilpiszeski RL, Lynes MM, Christensen GA, et al. An improved hgcAB primer set and direct high-throughput sequencing expand Hg-methylator diversity in nature. Front Microbiol. 2020;11:541554.Article 

Google Scholar 
Yu R-Q, Barkay T. Chapter two – microbial mercury transformations: Molecules, functions and organisms. Adv Appl Microbiol. 2022;118:31–90.Article 

Google Scholar 
Chételat J, Richardson MC, MacMillan GA, Amyot M, Poulain AJ. Ratio of methylmercury to dissolved organic carbon in water explains methylmercury bioaccumulation across a latitudinal gradient from north-temperate to arctic lakes. Environ Sci Technol. 2018;52:79–88.Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu Y-R, Dong J-X, Han L-L, Zheng Y-M, He J-Z. Influence of rice straw amendment on mercury methylation and nitrification in paddy soils. Environ Pollut. 2016;209:53–9.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Moreau JW, Gionfriddo CM, Krabbenhoft DP, Ogorek JM, DeWild JF, Aiken GR, et al. The effect of natural organic matter on mercury methylation by Desulfobulbus propionicus 1pr3. Front Microbiol. 2015;6:1389.Article 

Google Scholar 
Chen C-F, Ju Y-R, Chen C-W, Dong C-D. The distribution of methylmercury in estuary and harbor sediments. Sci Total Environ. 2019;691:55–63.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bravo AG, Bouchet S, Guédron S, Amouroux D, Dominik J, Zopfi J. High methylmercury production under ferruginous conditions in sediments impacted by sewage treatment plant discharges. Water Res. 2015;80:245–55.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wang H, Su J, Zheng T, Yang X. Insights into the role of plant on ammonia-oxidizing bacteria and archaea in the mangrove ecosystem. J Soil Sediment. 2015;15:1212–23.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Imachi H, Nobu MK, Nakahara N, Morono Y, Ogawara M, Takaki Y, et al. Isolation of an archaeon at the prokaryote–eukaryote interface. Nature 2020;577:519–25.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zhou J, Riccardi D, Beste A, Smith JC, Parks JM. Mercury methylation by HgcA: Theory supports carbanion transfer to Hg(II). Inorg Chem. 2014;53:772–7.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Smith Steven D, Bridou R, Johs A, Parks Jerry M, Elias Dwayne A, Hurt Richard A, et al. Site-directed mutagenesis of HgcA and HgcB reveals amino acid residues important for mercury methylation. Appl Environ Micro. 2015;81:3205–17.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sousa FL, Neukirchen S, Allen JF, Lane N, Martin WF. Lokiarchaeon is hydrogen dependent. Nat Microbiol. 2016;1:16034.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Schaefer JK, Rocks SS, Zheng W, Liang L, Gu B, Morel FMM. Active transport, substrate specificity, and methylation of Hg(II) in anaerobic bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2011;108:8714.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sakai S, Imachi H, Hanada S, Ohashi A, Harada H, Kamagata Y. Methanocella paludicola gen. nov., sp. nov., a methane-producing archaeon, the first isolate of the lineage ‘Rice Cluster I’, and proposal of the new archaeal order Methanocellales ord. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2008;58:929–36.Article 

Google Scholar 
Dridi B, Fardeau ML, Ollivier B, Raoult D, Drancourt M. Methanomassiliicoccus luminyensis gen. nov., sp. nov., a methanogenic archaeon isolated from human faeces. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2012;62:1902–7.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dietz R, Sonne C, Basu N, Braune B, O’Hara T, Letcher RJ, et al. What are the toxicological effects of mercury in arctic biota? Sci Total Environ. 2013;443:775–90.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gilmour Cynthia C, Bullock Allyson L, McBurney A, Podar M, Elias Dwayne A, Lovley Derek R. Robust mercury methylation across diverse methanogenic archaea. mBio 2018;9:e02403–17.
Google Scholar 
Pan J, Chen Y, Wang Y, Zhou Z, Li M. Vertical distribution of Bathyarchaeotal communities in mangrove wetlands suggests distinct niche preference of Bathyarchaeota subgroup 6. Micro Ecol. 2019;77:417–28.Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang C-J, Pan J, Duan C-H, Wang Y-M, Liu Y, Sun J, et al. Prokaryotic diversity in mangrove sediments across southeastern China fundamentally differs from that in other biomes. mSystems 2019;4:e00442–19.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Peng Y, Leung HC, Yiu SM, Chin FY. IDBA-UD: a de novo assembler for single-cell and metagenomic sequencing data with highly uneven depth. Bioinformatics 2012;28:1420–8.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Li D, Liu C-M, Luo R, Sadakane K, Lam T-W. MEGAHIT: an ultra-fast single-node solution for large and complex metagenomics assembly via succinct de Bruijn graph. Bioinformatics 2015;31:1674–6.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hyatt D, Chen G-L, LoCascio PF, Land ML, Larimer FW, Hauser LJ. Prodigal: prokaryotic gene recognition and translation initiation site identification. BMC Bioinforma. 2010;11:119.Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang C-J, Pan J, Liu Y, Duan C-H, Li M. Genomic and transcriptomic insights into methanogenesis potential of novel methanogens from mangrove sediments. Microbiome. 2020;8:94.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kang DD, Froula J, Egan R, Wang Z. MetaBAT, an efficient tool for accurately reconstructing single genomes from complex microbial communities. PeerJ 2015;3:e1165.Article 

Google Scholar 
Sieber CMK, Probst AJ, Sharrar A, Thomas BC, Hess M, Tringe SG, et al. Recovery of genomes from metagenomes via a dereplication, aggregation and scoring strategy. Nat Microbiol. 2018;3:836–43.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Parks DH, Imelfort M, Skennerton CT, Hugenholtz P, Tyson GW. CheckM: assessing the quality of microbial genomes recovered from isolates, single cells, and metagenomes. Genome Res. 2015;25:1043–55.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Olm MR, Brown CT, Brooks B, Banfield JF. dRep: A tool for fast and accurate genomic comparisons that enables improved genome recovery from metagenomes through de-replication. ISME J. 2017;11:2864–8.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chaumeil PA, Mussig AJ, Hugenholtz P, Parks DH. GTDB-Tk: a toolkit to classify genomes with the Genome Taxonomy Database. Bioinformatics 2019;36:1925–7.
Google Scholar 
Kanehisa M, Sato Y, Morishima K. BlastKOALA and GhostKOALA: KEGG tools for functional characterization of genome and metagenome sequences. J Mol Biol. 2016;428:726–31.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Huerta-Cepas J, Forslund K, Szklarczyk D, Jensen LJ, von Mering C, Bork P. Fast genome-wide functional annotation through orthology assignment by eggNOG-mapper. Mol Biol Evol. 2017;34:2115–22.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Finn RD, Clements J, Eddy SR. HMMER web server: interactive sequence similarity searching. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011;39:W29–W37.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Eddy SR. Accelerated profile HMM searches. PLoS Comput Biol. 2011;7:e1002195.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Edgar RC. MUSCLE: Multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32:1792–7.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Capella-Gutiérrez S, Silla-Martínez JM, Gabaldón T. trimAl: a tool for automated alignment trimming in large-scale phylogenetic analyses. Bioinformatics 2009;25:1972–3.Article 

Google Scholar 
Nguyen L-T, Schmidt HA, von Haeseler A, Minh BQ. IQ-TREE: a fast and effective stochastic algorithm for estimating maximum-likelihood phylogenies. Mol Biol Evol. 2015;32:268–74.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Price MN, Dehal PS, Arkin AP. FastTree 2 – approximately maximum-likelihood trees for large alignments. Plos ONE. 2010;5:e9490.Article 

Google Scholar 
Letunic I, Bork P. Interactive tree of life (iTOL) v3: an online tool for the display and annotation of phylogenetic and other trees. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44:W242–5.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jumper J, Evans R, Pritzel A, Green T, Figurnov M, Ronneberger O, et al. Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold. Nature 2021;596:583–9.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Trott O, Olson AJ. AutoDock Vina: Improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization, and multithreading. J Comput Chem. 2010;31:455–61.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Langmead B, Salzberg SL. Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nat Methods. 2012;9:357–9.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Quinlan AR, Hall IM. BEDTools: a flexible suite of utilities for comparing genomic features. Bioinforma (Oxf, Engl). 2010;26:841–2.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Li H, Durbin R. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics 2009;25:1754–60.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar  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

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

Laundré, J. W., Hernández, L. & Altendorf, K. B. Wolves, elk, and bison: reestablishing the “landscape of fear” in Yellowstone National Park, U.S.A.. Can. J. Zool. 79, 1401–1409 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Laundré, J. W., Hernandez, L. & Ripple, W. J. The landscape of fear: Ecological implications of being afraid. Open Ecol. J. 3, 1–7 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Suraci, J. P., Clinchy, M., Zanette, L. Y. & Wilmers, C. C. Fear of humans as apex predators has landscape-scale impacts from mountain lions to mice. Ecol. Lett. 22, 1578–1586 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Miller, S. G., Knight, R. L. & Miller, C. K. Wildlife responses to pedestrians and dogs. Wildl. Soc. B. 29, 124–132 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Larson, C., Reed, S., Merenlender, A. M. & Crooks, K. R. Effects of recreation on animals revealed as widespread through a global systemic review. PLoS ONE 11, 1–21 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Balmford, A. et al. Walk on the wild side: Estimating the global magnitude of visits to protected areas. PLoS Biol 13, 1–6 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Baker, A. D. & Leberg, P. L. Impacts of human recreation on carnivores in protected areas. PLoS Biol 13, 1–21 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Schulze, K. et al. An assessment of threats to terrestrial protected areas. Cons. Lett. 11, 1–10 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Suraci, J. P. et al. Disturbance type and species life history predict mammal responses to humans. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 3718–3731 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Reilly, M. L., Tobler, M. W., Sonderegger, D. L. & Beier, P. Spatial and temporal response of wildlife to recreational activities in the San Francisco Bay ecoregion. Biol. Conserv. 207, 117–126 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Naidoo, R. & Burton, A. C. Relative effects of recreational activities on a temperate terrestrial wildlife assemblage. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2, e271 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Nickel, B. A., Suraci, J. P., Allen, M. L. & Wilmers, C. C. Human presence and human footprint have non-equivalent effects on wildlife spatiotemporal habitat use. Biol. Conserv. 241, 1–11 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Blanchet, F. G., Cazelles, K. & Gravel, D. Co-occurrence is not evidence of ecological interactions. Ecol. Lett. 23, 1050–1063 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Poggiato, G. et al. On the interpretations of joint modeling in community ecology. TREE 36, 391–401 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Bates, A. E., Primack, R. B., Moraga, P. & Duarte, C. M. COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdown as a “Global Human Confinement Experiment” to investigate biodiversity conservation. Biol. Conserv. 248, 1–6 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rutz, C. et al. COVID-19 lockdown allows researchers to quantify the effects of human activity on wildlife. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1156–1159 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, Y., Allen, M. L. & Wilmers, C. C. Mesopredator spatial and temporal responses to large predators and human development in the Santa Cruz Mountains of California. Biol. Conserv. 190, 23–33 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lewis, J. S. et al. Human activity influences wildlife populations and activity patterns: implications for spatial and temporal refuges. Ecosphere 12, 1–16 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Corradini, A. et al. Effects of cumulated outdoor activity on wildlife habitat use. Biol. Conserv. 253, 108818 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Soule, M. E. et al. Dynamics of rapid extinctions of chaparral-requiring birds in urban habitat islands. Conserv. Biol. 2, 75–92 (1988).Article 

Google Scholar 
Feit, B., Feit, A. & Letnic, M. Apex predators decouple population dynamics between mesopredators and their prey. Ecosystems 22, 1606–1617 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Berger, J. Fear, human shields and the redistribution of prey and predators in protected areas. Biol. Lett. 3, 620–623 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sarmento, W., Biel, M. & Berger, J. Redistribution, human shields and loss of migratory behavior in the crown of the continent. Intermt. J. Sci. 22, 2016 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Gaynor, K. M., Hojnowski, C. E., Carter, N. H. & Brashares, J. S. The influence of human disturbance on wildlife nocturnality. Science 360, 1232–1235 (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Microsoft. AI for Earth camera trap image processing API (2020).Niedballa, J., Sollmann, R., Courtiol, A. & Wilting, A. camtrapR: an R package for efficient camera trap data management. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 1457–1462 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
MacKenzie, D. I., Nichols, J. D., Hines, J. E., Knutson, M. G. & Franklin, A. B. Estimating site occupancy, colonization, and local extinction when a species is detected imperfectly. Ecology 84, 2200–2207. https://doi.org/10.1890/02-3090 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
MacKenzie, D. I. et al. Occupancy estimation and modeling (Elsevier, 2018).
Google Scholar 
Fiske, I. & Chandler, R. unmarked: An R package for fitting hierarchical models of wildlife occurrence and abundance. J. Stat. Soft. 4, 1–23 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Mazerolle, M. J. AICcmodavg: Model selection and multimodel inference based on (Q)AIC(c). R package version 2.3-1 (2020). https://cran.r-project.org/package=AICcmodavg.Ladle, A., Steenweg, R., Shepherd, B. & Boyce, M. S. The role of human outdoor recreation in shaping patterns of grizzly bear-black bear co-occurrence. PLoS ONE 13, 1–16 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brooks, M. E. et al. glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling. R J. 9, 378–400 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ridout, M. S. & Linkie, M. Estimating overlap of daily activity patterns from camera trap data. J. Agric. Biol. Environ. Stat. 14, 322–337 (2009).Article 
MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Agostinelli, C. & Lund, U. R package ‘circular’: circular statistics (version 0.4-94.1 (2022). https://r-forge.r-project.org/projects/circular/.Santos, F. et al. Prey availability and temporal partitioning modulate felid coexistence in Neotropical forests. PLoS ONE 14, 1–23 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Olea, P. P., Iglesias, N. & Mateo-Tomás, P. Temporal resource partitioning mediates vertebrate coexistence at carcasses: the role of competitive and facilitative interactions. Basic Appl. Ecol. 60, 63–75 (2022).Article 

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

Google Scholar 
Behera, A. K. et al. The impacts of COVID-19 lockdown on wildlife in Deccan Plateau. India. Sci. Total Environ. 822, 153268 (2022).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Procko, M., Naidoo, R., LeMay, V. & Burton, A. C. Human impacts on mammals in and around a protected area before, during, and after COVID-19 lockdowns. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 4, e12743. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.12743 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sanderfoot, O. V., Kaufman, J. D. & Gardner, B. Drivers of avian habitat use and detection of backyard birds in the Pacific Northwest during COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns. Sci. Rep. 12, 12655 (2022).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nevin, J. A. & Grace, R. C. Behavioral momentum and the law of effect. Behav. Brain Sci. 23, 73–90 (2000).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kautz, T. M. et al. Large carnivore response to human road use suggests a landscape of coexistence. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 30, e01772 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Frey, S., Volpe, J. P., Heim, N. A., Paczkowski, J. & Fisher, J. T. Move to nocturnality not a universal trend in carnivore species on disturbed landscapes. Oikos 129, 1128–1140 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schwartz, C. C. et al. Contrasting activity patterns of sympatric and allopatric black and grizzly bears. J. Wildl. Manag. 74, 1628–1638 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fortin, J. K. et al. Impacts of human recreation on brown bears (Ursus arctos): a review and new management tool. PLoS ONE 11, 1–26 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kendall, K. C. et al. Grizzly bear density in Glacier National Park. Montana. J. Wildl. Manag. 72, 1693–1705 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stetz, J. B., Kendall, K. C. & Macleod, A. C. Black bear density in Glacier National Park, Montana. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 38, 60–70 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sargeant, A. B. & Allen, S. H. Observed interactions between coyotes and red foxes. J. Mamm. 70, 631–633 (1989).Article 

Google Scholar 
Newsome, T. M. & Ripple, W. J. A continental scale trophic cascade from wolves through coyotes to foxes. J. Anim. Ecol. 84, 49–59 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Naylor, L. M., Wisdom, M. J. & Anthony, R. G. Behavioral responses of North American elk to recreational activity. J. Wildl. Manag. 73, 328–338 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sarmento, W. M. & Berger, J. Human visitation limits the utility of protected areas as ecological baselines. Biol. Conserv. 212, 316–326 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Garber, S. D. & Burger, J. A 20-year study documenting the relationship between turtle decline and human recreation. Ecol. Appl. 5, 1151–1162 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
Winter, P. L., Selin, S., Cerveny, L. & Bricker, K. Outdoor recreation, nature-based tourism, and sustainability. Sustainability 12, 1–12 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Geffroy, B., Samia, D. S. M., Bessa, E. & Blumstein, D. T. How nature-based tourism might increase prey vulnerability to predators. TREE 30, 755–765 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Eagles, P. F. J., McCool, S. F. & Haynes, C. D. Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas: Guidelines for Planning and Management Vol. 8 (IUCN, 2002).Book 

Google Scholar  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

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