Ecology

Gibson, L. et al. Primary forests are irreplaceable for sustaining tropical biodiversity. Nature 478, 378–381. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10425 (2011).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pimm, S. L. & Raven, P. Extinction by numbers. Nature 403, 843–845. https://doi.org/10.1038/35002708 (2000).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
​FAO. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020: Main report. 184p (Rome, Italy, 2020).Harvey, C. A. et al. Integrating agricultural landscapes with biodiversity conservation in the Mesoamerican hotspot. Conserv Biol 22, 8–15 (2008).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Brouwer, F. & McCarl, B. Agriculture and climate beyond 2015: A New Perspective on Future Land Use Patterns. (2006).Redo, D. J., Grau, H. R., Aide, T. M. & Clark, M. L. Asymmetric forest transition driven by the interaction of socioeconomic development and environmental heterogeneity in Central America. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109, 8839–8844. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1201664109 (2012).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., da Fonseca, G. A. B. & Kent, J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403, 853–858. https://doi.org/10.1038/35002501 (2000).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Declerck, F. et al. Biodiversity conservation in human-modified landscapes of Mesoamerica: Past, present and future. Biol. Conserv. 143, 2301–2313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.03.026 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Miller, K., Chang, E. & Johnson, N. Defining Common Ground for the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor (World Resources Institute, Washington, 2001).
Google Scholar 
Fischer, J. et al. Conservation: Limits of land sparing. Science 334, 593–593. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.334.6056.593-a (2011).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Morecroft, M. D. et al. Agricultural lands key to mitigation and adaptation—Response. Science 367, 518–519. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba7577 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Vidal, A., Kumar, C., Zinngrebe, Y., Dobie, P. & Gassner, A. Trees on farms as a nature-based solution for
biodiversity conservation in agricultural landscapes. Report number: ICRAF Policy brief No 47. 12p. World
Agroforestry Centre. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.14852.07045 (2020).César, R. et al. Forest and landscape restoration: A review emphasizing principles, concepts, and practices. Land 10, 28. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10010028 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stanturf, J. A. et al. Implementing forest landscape restoration under the Bonn Challenge: A systematic approach. Ann. For. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-019-0833-z (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
VilchezMendoza, S. et al. Consistency in bird use of tree cover across tropical agricultural landscapes. Ecol. Appl. Publ. Ecol. Soc. Am. 24, 158–168. https://doi.org/10.1890/13-0585.1 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kremen, C. & Merenlender, A. M. Landscapes that work for biodiversity and people. Science 362, eaau6020. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau6020 (2018).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Shaver, I. et al. Coupled social and ecological outcomes of agricultural intensification in Costa Rica and the future of biodiversity conservation in tropical agricultural regions. Glob. Environ. Change 32, 74–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.02.006 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zermeño-Hernández, I., Pingarroni, A. & Martínez-Ramos, M. Agricultural land-use diversity and forest regeneration potential in human- modified tropical landscapes. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 230, 210–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.06.007 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Garibaldi, L. A. et al. Working landscapes need at least 20% native habitat. Conserv. Lett. 14, e12773. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12773 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Estrada-Carmona, N., Martínez-Salinas, A., DeClerck, F. A. J., Vílchez-Mendoza, S. & Garbach, K. Managing the farmscape for connectivity increases conservation value for tropical bird species with different forest-dependencies. J. Environ. Manag. 250, 109504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109504 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Vandermeer, J. & Perfecto, I. The agroecosystem: A need for the conservation biologist’s lens. Conserv. Biol. 11, 591–592 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pardon, P. et al. Trees increase soil organic carbon and nutrient availability in temperate agroforestry systems. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 247, 98–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.06.018 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nair, P. R. The coming of age of agroforestry. J. Sci. Food Agric. 87, 1613–1619. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2897 (2007).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chatterjee, N., Nair, P. K. R., Chakraborty, S. & Nair, V. D. Changes in soil carbon stocks across the Forest-Agroforest-Agriculture/Pasture continuum in various agroecological regions: A meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 266, 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2018.07.014 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Toledo-Hernández, M., Wanger, T. C. & Tscharntke, T. Neglected pollinators: Can enhanced pollination services improve cocoa yields? A review. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 247, 137–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.05.021 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pumariño, L. et al. Effects of agroforestry on pest, disease and weed control: A meta-analysis. Basic Appl. Ecol. 16, 573–582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2015.08.006 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tscharntke, T. et al. Multifunctional shade-tree management in tropical agroforestry landscapes—A review. J. Appl. Ecol. 48, 619–629. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01939.x (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Martínez-Fonseca, J. G., Chávez-Velásquez, M., Williams-Guillen, K. & Chambers, C. L. Bats use live fences to move between tropical dry forest remnants. Biotropica 52, 5–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.12751 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Prevedello, J. A., Almeida-Gomes, M. & Lindenmayer, D. B. The importance of scattered trees for biodiversity conservation: A global meta-analysis. J. Appl. Ecol. 55, 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12943 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
INE. Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación (MAPA)- Gobierno de España-. 2021. Ficha de sectores. Sectores Agricultura y Pesquero. Honduras (2022).MinAmbiente-ICF. Tipologías de Bosques de Honduras. Programa ONU-REDD. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility. Tegucigalpa, Honduras. Secretaria de Energía, Recursos Naturales, Ambiente y Minas (Min Ambiente)/Instituto Nacional de Conservación y Desarrollo Forestal, Areas Protegidas y Vida Silvestre (ICF). (2017).Godinot, F., Somarriba, E., Finegan, B. & Delgado-Rodríguez, D. Secondary tropical dry forests are important to cattle ranchers in Northwestern Costa Rica. Trop. J. Environ. Sci. 54, 20–50 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Zahawi, R. A. Establishment and growth of living fence species: An overlooked tool for the restoration of degraded Areas in the Tropics. Restor. Ecol. 13, 92–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2005.00011.x (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Harvey, C. A. et al. Patterns of animal diversity in different forms of tree cover in agricultural landscapes. Ecol. Appl. Publ. Ecol. Soc. Am. 16, 1986–1999. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[1986:poadid]2.0.co;2 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Miceli-Mèndez, C. L., Ferguson, B. G. & Ramìrez-Marcial, N. in Post-Agricultural Succession in the Neotropics (ed Randall W. Myster) 165–191 (Springer New York, 2008).Gaoue, O. G. & Ticktin, T. Patterns of harvesting foliage and bark from the multipurpose tree Khaya senegalensis in Benin: Variation across ecological regions and its impacts on population structure. Biol. Conserv. 137, 424–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.02.020 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Daily, G., Ceballos, G., Pacheco, J., Suzan, G. & Anchez-Azofeifa, A. Countryside biogeography of neotropical mammals: Conservation opportunities in agricultural landscapes of Costa Rica. Conserv. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2003.00298.x (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mayfield, M. M. & Daily, G. C. Countryside biogeography of neotropical herbaceous and shrubby plants. Ecol. Appl. 15, 423–439. https://doi.org/10.1890/03-5369 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sánchez-Merlos, D. et al. Diversidad, composición y estructura de la vegetación en un agropaisaje ganadero en Matiguás, Nicaragua. Rev. Biol. Trop. https://doi.org/10.15517/rbt.v53i3-4.14601 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sekercioglu, C. H., Loarie, S. R., Oviedo Brenes, F., Ehrlich, P. R. & Daily, G. C. Persistence of forest birds in the Costa Rican agricultural countryside. Conserv. Biol. 21, 482–494. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00655.x (2007).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wallace, G., Barborak, J. & MacFarland, C. Land use planning and regulation in and around protected areas: A study of best practices and capacity building needs in Mexico and Central America. Nat Conserv 3 (2005).
Rozendaal Danaë, M. A. et al. Biodiversity recovery of Neotropical secondary forests. Sci. Adv. 5, eaau3114. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau3114 (2019).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Souza Oliveira, M. et al. Biomass of timber species in Central American secondary forests:
Towards climate change mitigation through sustainable timber harvesting. Forest Ecology and Management 496,
119439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119439 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gillespie, T. W., Grijalva, A. & Farris, C. N. Diversity, composition, and structure of tropical dry forests in Central America. Plant Ecol. 147, 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009848525399 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ngo Bieng, M. A. et al. Relevance of secondary tropical forest for landscape restoration. For. Ecol. Manag. 493, 119265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119265 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Souza Oliveira, M. et al. Biomass of timber species in Central American secondary forests: Towards climate change mitigation through sustainable timber harvesting. For. Ecol. Manag. 496, 119439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119439 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chacón, L. M. & Harvey, C. A. Live fences and landscape connectivity in a neotropical agricultural landscape. Agrofor. Syst. 68, 15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-005-5831-5 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Harvey, C. A. et al. Conservation value of dispersed tree cover threatened by pasture management. For. Ecol. Manag. 261, 1664–1674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.11.004 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Suding, K. N. Toward an Era of restoration in ecology: Successes, failures, and opportunities ahead. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 42, 465–487. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102710-145115 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Moguel, P. & Toledo, V. M. Biodiversity conservation in traditional coffee systems of Mexico. Conserv. Biol. 13, 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.97153.x (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Harrison, R. D., Harrison, S., Laumonier, Y., Somarriba, E. & Suber, M. Biodiversity monitoring for agricultural landscapes. A protocol using biodiversity metrics to monitor agricultural sustainability under Aichi Target 7. (2019).Heck, K. L. Jr., van Belle, G. & Simberloff, D. Explicit calculation of the rarefaction diversity measurement and the determination of sufficient sample size. Ecology 56, 1459–1461. https://doi.org/10.2307/1934716 (1975).Article 

Google Scholar 
Magurran, A. E. Measuring Biological Diversity (Wiley-Blackwell, New Jersey, 2004).
Google Scholar 
Chao, A. et al. Rarefaction and extrapolation with Hill numbers: a framework for sampling and estimation in species diversity studies. Ecol. Monogr. 84, 45–67. https://doi.org/10.1890/13-0133.1 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jost, L. Partitioning diversity into independent alpha and beta components. Ecology 88, 2427–2439. https://doi.org/10.1890/06-1736.1 (2007).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gotelli, N. J. & Colwell, R. K. Quantifying biodiversity: Procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecol. Lett. 4, 379–391. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2001.00230.x (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N., Walker, N., Saveliev, A. A. & Smith, G. M. Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R. XXII, 574 (Springer New York, NY, 2009).R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. (2021).Oksanen, J. et al. Vegan: Community Ecology Package. R Package Version 2.2-1 2, 1–2 (2015).Hsieh, T. C., Ma, K. & Chao, A. iNEXT: An R package for rarefaction and extrapolation of species diversity (Hill numbers). Methods Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12613 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Venables, W. N & Ripley, B. D Modern Applied Statistics with S. Fourth Edition. Springer, New York. ISBN 0-387-
95457-0 (2002)Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis (Springer, 2009).Book 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
gridExtra: Miscellaneous Functions for “Grid” Graphics. R package version 2.3. (2017). More

Angerbjörn, A. & Flux, J. E. C. Lepus timidus. Mamm. Species 1–11, https://doi.org/10.2307/3504302 (1995).Bergengren, A. On genetics, evolution and history of distribution of the heath-hare, a distinct population of the Arctic hare, Lepus timidus Lin. Swed. Wildl. (Viltrevy) 6, 381–460 (1969).
Google Scholar 
Thulin, C.-G. The distribution of mountain hares Lepus timidus in Europe: a challenge from brown hares L. europaeus? Mamm. Rev. 33, 29–42 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mills, L. S. et al. Camouflage mismatch in seasonal coat color due to decreased snow duration. Proc. Nat.Acad. Sci. 110, 7360–7365 (2013).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Zimova, M. et al. Lack of phenological shift leads to increased camouflage mismatch in mountain hares. Proc.Royal Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 287, 20201786 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Levänen, R., Kunnasranta, M. & Pohjoismäki, J. Mitochondrial DNA introgression at the northern edge of the brown hare (Lepus europaeus) range. Ann Zool Fennici 55, 15–24 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thulin, C.-G., Winiger, A., Tallian, A. G. & Kindberg, J. Hunting harvest data in Sweden indicate precipitous decline in the native mountain hare subspecies Lepus timidus sylvaticus (heath hare). J. Nat. Conserv. 64, 126069 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thulin, C.-G., Jaarola, M. & Tegelström, H. The occurrence of mountain hare mitochondrial DNA in wild brown hares. Mol. Ecol. 6, 463–467 (1997).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pohjoismäki, J. L. O., Michell, C., Levänen, R. & Smith, S. Hybridization with mountain hares increases the functional allelic repertoire in brown hares. Sci. Rep. 11, 15771 (2021).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hoekstra, H. E. Genetics, development and evolution of adaptive pigmentation in vertebrates. Heredity (Edinb) 97, 222–234 (2006).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hamill, R. M., Doyle, D. & Duke, E. J. Spatial patterns of genetic diversity across European subspecies of the mountain hare, Lepus timidus L. Heredity (Edinb) 97, 355–365 (2006).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Leach, K., Montgomery, W. I. & Reid, N. Biogeography, macroecology and species’ traits mediate competitive interactions in the order Lagomorpha. Mamm. Rev. 45, 88–102 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Marques, J. P. et al. Data Descriptor: Mountain hare transcriptome and diagnostic markers as resources to monitor hybridization with European hares. Sci. Data 4, 1–11 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
NCBI Sequence Read Archive https://identifiers.org/insdc.sra:SRP358660 (2022).Andrews, S. FastQC: a quality control tool for high throughput sequence data. Babraham Bioinformatics. Preprint at http://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc (2010).Martin, M. Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet.journal 17, 10–12 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Marques, J. P. et al. An annotated draft genome of the mountain hare (Lepus timidus). Genome Biol. Evol. 12, 3656–3662 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Li, H. & Durbin, R. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics 25, 1754–1760 (2009).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Broad Institute. Picard toolkit. Broad Institute, GitHub repository. Preprint at https://broadinstitute.github.io/picard/ (2019).Garrison, E. & Marth, G. Haplotype-based variant detection from short-read sequencing. arXiv 1207.3907 (2012).Danecek, P. et al. The variant call format and VCFtools. Bioinformatics 27, 2156–2158 (2011).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Browning, S. R. & Browning, B. L. Rapid and accurate haplotype phasing and missing-data inference for whole-genome association studies by use of localized haplotype clustering. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 81, 1084–1097 (2007).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Michell, C. T., Pohjoismäki, J. L. O., Spong, G. & Thulin, C.-G. Mountain- and brown hare genetic polymorphisms to survey local adaptations and conservation status of the heath hare (Lepus timidus sylvaticus, Nilsson 1831), Dryad, https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.3bk3j9kmp (2022).Khan, A. & Mathelier, A. Intervene: a tool for intersection and visualization of multiple gene or genomic region sets. BMC Bioinformatics 18, 287 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/.Jombart, T. & Ahmed, I. adegenet 1.3-1: new tools for the analysis of genome-wide SNP data. Bioinformatics 27, 3070–3071 (2011).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Jombart, T. adegenet: a R package for the multivariate analysis of genetic markers. Bioinformatics 24, 1403–1405 (2008).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Dierckxsens, N., Mardulyn, P. & Smits, G. NOVOPlasty: De novo assembly of organelle genomes from whole genome data. Nucleic Acids Res. 45 (2017).Katoh, K. & Standley, D. M. MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: Improvements in performance and usability. Mol. Biol. Evol. 30 (2013).Trifinopoulos, J., Nguyen, L. T., von Haeseler, A. & Minh, B. Q. W-IQ-TREE: a fast online phylogenetic tool for maximum likelihood analysis. Nucleic Acids Res. 44 (2016).Kalyaanamoorthy, S., Minh, B. Q., Wong, T. K. F., von Haeseler, A. & Jermiin, L. S. ModelFinder: fast model selection for accurate phylogenetic estimates. Nat. Methods 14, 587–589 (2017).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Stamatakis, A. RaxML version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics 30, 1312–1313 (2014).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Paradis, E. & Schliep, K. ape 5.0: an environment for modern phylogenetics and evolutionary analyses in R. Bioinformatics 35, 526–528 (2019).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ewels, P., Magnusson, M., Lundin, S. & Käller, M. MultiQC: summarize analysis results for multiple tools and samples in a single report. Bioinformatics 32, 3047–3048 (2016).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kamvar, Z. N., Tabima, J. F. & Grünwald, N. J. Poppr: an R package for genetic analysis of populations with clonal, partially clonal, and/or sexual reproduction. PeerJ 2, e281 (2014).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Li, H. Minimap2: Pairwise alignment for nucleotide sequences. Bioinformatics 34, 3094–3100 (2018).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Quinlan, A. R. & Hall, I. M. BEDTools: a flexible suite of utilities for comparing genomic features. Bioinformatics 26, 841–842 (2010).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Levänen, R., Thulin, C.-G., Spong, G. & Pohjoismäki, J. L. O. Widespread introgression of mountain hare genes into Fennoscandian brown hare populations. PloS One 13, e0191790 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Giska, I. et al. The evolutionary pathways for local adaptation in mountain hares. Mol. Ecol. 31, 1487–1503 (2022).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Thulin, C.-G., Isaksson, M. & Tegelström, H. The origin of Scandinavian mountain hares (Lepus timidus). Gibier Faune Savage/Game and Wildlife 14, 463–475 (1997).
Google Scholar 
Ferreira, M. S. et al. The legacy of recurrent introgression during the radiation of hares. Syst. Biol. 70, 593–607 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar  More

Sacristán, D., Peñarroya, B., Recatalá, L. Increasing the Knowledge on the Management of Cu-Contaminated Agricultural Soils by Cropping Tomato (Solanum Lycopersicum L.). Land Degrad. Dev. 26, 587–595 (2015).FAO. Land Degradation Assessment in Drylands. Manual for Local Level Assessment of Land Degradation and Sustainable Land Management. Part 1: Planning and Methodological Approach, Analysis and Reporting. https://www.fao.org/3/i6362e/i6362e.pdf (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2011).Vlachodimos, K., Papatheodorou, E. M., Diamantopoulos, J. & Monokrousos, N. Assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia cultivations as a restoration strategy for reclaimed mine spoil heaps. Environ Monit. Assess. 185, 6921–6932 (2013).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Misano, G. & Di Pietro, R. Habitat 9250 “Quercus trojana woods” in Italy. Fitosociologia 44, 235–238 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Biondi, E. et al. A contribution towards the knowledge of semideciduous and evergreen woods of Apulia (south-eastern Italy). Fitosociologia 41(1), 3–28 (2004).MathSciNet 

Google Scholar 
Brunetti, G. et al. Remediation of a heavy metals contaminated soil using mycorrhized and non-mycorrhized Helichrysum italicum (Roth) Don. Land Degrad. Dev. 29, 91–104 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Poblador, S. et al. The influence of the invasive alien nitrogen-fixing Robinia pseudoacacia L. on soil nitrogen availability in a mixed Mediterranean riparian forest. Eur. J. For. Res. 138, 1083–1093 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Vítková, M., Müllerová, J., Sádlo, J., Pergl, J. & Pyšek, P. Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) beloved and despised: A story of an invasive tree in Central Europe. For. Ecol. Manag. 384, 287–302 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Doran, J.W., Parkin, T.B. Quantitative indicators of soil quality: a minimum data set. in Methods for Assessing Soil Quality (eds. Doran, J.W., Jones, A.J.). 25–37 (Soil Science Society of America, 1996).Gil-Sotres, F., Trasar-Cepeda, C., Leirós, M. C. & Seoane, S. Different approaches to evaluating soil quality using biochemical properties. Soil Biol. Biochem. 37, 877–887 (2005).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Andriani, G. F. & Walsh, N. An example of the effects of anthropogenic changes on natural environment in the Apulian karst (southern Italy). Environ. Geol. 58, 313–325 (2009).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Bisantino, T., Pizzo, V., Polemio, M. & Gentile, F. Analysis of the flooding event of October 22–23, 2005 in a small basin in the province of Bari (Southern Italy). J. Agric. Eng. 531, 197–204 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Soil Survey Staff. Keys to Soil Taxonomy 12th edn. (USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2014).
Google Scholar 
Tartarino, P. Inventario dei Boschi Spontanei e dei Rimboschimenti delle Provincie BAT e Bari e Stima del Loro Volume Legnoso e della sua Frazione Prelevabile nel Prossimo Ventennio. (Rapporto Tecnico Scientifico, 2011).Ismail, A. et al. Chemical composition and biological activities of Tunisian Cupressus arizonica Greene essential oils. Chem. Biodivers. 11, 150–160 (2014).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Navarro, A. et al. Feasibility of SRC Species for growing in Mediterranean conditions. Bioenerg. Res. 9, 208–223 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Perrino, E. V., Brunetti, G. & Farrag, K. Plant communities in multi-metal contaminated soils: A case study in the National Park of Alta Murgia (Apulia Region-Southern Italy). Int. J. Phytoremediat. 16, 871–888 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
VV AA Perizia Studi per il Riequilibrio Socio-Economico dell’area Interessata dall’invaso sul Torrente Locone. Consorzio Di Bonifica Apulo Lucano (1986).Lavarra, P. et al. Il Sistema Carta della Natura della Regione Puglia. (ISPRA, Serie Rapporti 204, 2014).Sparks, D. L. et al. Method of Soil Analysis: Part 3 (American Society of Agronomy Inc, 1996).Book 

Google Scholar 
Brink, R. H. Jr., Dubach, P. & Lynch, D. L. Measurement of carbohydrates in soil hydrolyzates with anthrone. Soil Sci. 89, 157–166 (1960).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lowry, O. H., Rosebrough, N. J., Farr, A. L. & Randall, R. J. Protein measurement with the folin phenol reagent. J. Biol. Chem. 193, 265–275 (1951).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
García, C., Hernandez, T. & Costa, F. Potential use of dehydrogenase activity as an index of microbial activity in degraded soils. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 28, 123–134 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vance, E. D., Brookes, P. C. & Jenkinson, D. S. An extraction method for measuring soil microbial biomass C. Soil Biol. Biochem. 19, 703–707 (1987).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gregorich, E. G., Wen, G., Voroney, R. P. & Kachanoski, R. G. Calibration of a rapid direct chloroform extraction method for measuring soil microbial biomass C. Soil Biol. Biochem. 22, 1009–1011 (1990).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nannipieri, P., Ceccanti, B., Cervelli, S. & Matarese, E. Extraction of phosphatase, urease, protease, organic carbon and nitrogen from soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 44, 1011–1016 (1980).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Tabatabai, M.A. (1994) Soil enzymes. in Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. Microbiological and Biochemical Properties (eds. Weaver, R.W. et al.). 775–833 (Soil Science Society of America, Inc., 1996)Traversa, A., Said-Pullicino, D., D’Orazio, V., Gigliotti, G., & Senesi, N. Properties of humic acids in Mediterranean forest soils (Southern Italy): Influence of different plant covering. Eur. J. For. Res. 130, 1045–1054 (2011)De Marco, A. et al. Decomposition of black locust and black pine leaf litter in two coeval forest stands on Mount Vesuvius and dynamics of organic components assessed through proximate analysis and NMR spectroscopy. Soil Biol. Biochem. 51, 1–15 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wei, G. et al. Invasive Robinia pseudoacacia in China is nodulated by Mesorhizobium and Sinorhizobium species that share similar nodulation genes with native American symbionts. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 68, 320–328 (2009).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Schulze, E. D., Gebauer, G., Ziegler, H. & Lange, O. L. Estimates of nitrogen fixation by trees on an aridity gradient in Namibia. Oecologia 88, 451–455 (1991).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Zahran, H. H. Rhizobium-legume symbiosis and nitrogen fixation under severe conditions and in an arid climate. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 63, 968–989 (1999).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Veste, M. & Kriebitzsch, W. U. Influence of drought stress on photosynthesis, transpiration, and growth of juvenile black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia L.). Forstarchiv 84, 35–42 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Nicolescu, V. N. et al. Ecology, growth and management of black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia L.), a non-native species integrated into European forests. J. For. Res. 31, 1081–1101 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sposito, G. The Chemistry of Soil (Oxford University Press, 2008).
Google Scholar 
Margalef, O. et al. Global patterns of phosphatase activity in natural soils. Sci. Rep. 7, 1337. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-01418-8 (2017).Prescott, C. E. & Grayston, S. J. Tree species influence on microbial communities in litter and soil: Current knowledge and research needs. For. Ecol. Manag. 309, 19–27 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Frankenberger, W. T. & Dick, W. A. Relationships between enzyme, activities and microbial growth and activity indices in soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 47, 945–951 (1983).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Frankenberger, W.T., Tabatabai, M.A. Amidase activity in soils III. Stability and distribution. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 45, 333–338 (1981).Nannipieri, P., Trasar-Cepeda, C. & Dick, R. P. Soil enzyme activity: A brief history and biochemistry as a basis for appropriate interpretations and meta-analysis. Biol. Fertil. Soils 54, 11–19 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pascual, J. A., Garcia, C., Hernandez, T., Moreno, J. L. & Ros, M. Soil microbial activity as a biomarker of degradation and remediation processes. Soil Biol. Biochem. 32, 1877–1883 (2000).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
García-Gil, J. C., Plaza, C., Solker-Rovira, P. & Polo, A. Long-term effects of municipal solid waste compost application on soil enzyme activities and microbial biomass. Soil Biol. Biochem. 32, 1907–1913 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Insam, H. & Domsch, K. H. Relationship between soil organic carbon and microbial biomass on chronosequences of reclamation sites. Microb. Ecol. 15, 177–188 (1988).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Acosta-Martinez, V. & Tabatabai, M. Enzyme activities in a limed agricultural soil. Biol. Fertil. Soils 31, 85–91 (2000).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Uselman, S. M., Qualls, R. G. & Thomas, R. B. A test of a potential short cut in the nitrogen cycle: the role of exudation of symbiotically fixed nitrogen from the roots of a N-fixing tree and the effects of increased atmospheric CO2 and temperature. Plant Soil 210, 21–32 (1999).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
De Marco, A., Esposito, F., Berg, B., Zarrelli, A. & Virzo De Santo, A. Litter inhibitory effects on soil microbial biomass activity, and catabolic diversity in two paired stands of Robinia pseudoacacia L. and Pinus nigra Arn. Forest 9, 766. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9120766 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Haghverdi, K. & Kooch, Y. Effects of diversity of tree species on nutrient cycling and soil-related processes. CATENA 178, 335–344 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Anderson, H. T. Microbial eco-physiological indicators to assess soil quality. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 98, 285–293 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jenkinson, D.S., Ladd, J.N. Microbial biomass in soil: Measurement and turnover. in Soil Biochemistry (eds. Paul, E.A., Ladd, J.N.). 415–471 (Marcel Dekker Inc., 1981) More

Cohort demographicsA total of 206 female participants were enrolled in the study and passed our quality control standards. All participants were required to be between the ages of 18–26 years old (22.5 ± 2.1) and to be born and at the time living in one of four geographically distinct regions of the world: Barbados; Santiago, Chile; Pretoria, S. Africa; and Bangkok, Thailand. The regions do, however, differ by an order of magnitude in their geographic spread as the intra-distance separating the residence neighborhood of participants ranged from 34 (Barbados) to 681 km (Pretoria, S. Africa) (Fig. S2). The Chilean and the South African datasets are further divided into two contiguous sub-regions, or neighborhoods, to allow for a micro-geographic analysis. The study population is largely dominated by individuals with self-identified Thai heritage (33%), followed by Black African (16%), Afro-Caribbean (14%) and white (14%) descent, although 19% of the Chilean population did not report ethnicity.Study participants, despite the divergent geographies, mostly have similar dietary and lifestyle habits (Table S1). Over half the study population (62%) have a normal BMI, with the mean BMI in this range (22.6 ± 5.5). The diets of the different cohorts are also similar as of the total cohort, 78% consume a starch heavy diet (≥ 4 days a week) of rice, bread and pasta, followed by 66% who frequently consume (≥ 4 days a week) vegetables and fruit and 49% who frequently consume dairy products. The study population is split by level of tobacco exposure, with 51% of the population having never smoked, and 43% being exposed to second-hand smoke through living with a smoker. Over half (56%) of the study population own one or more pets.Stool microbiomeThe OTUs identified using the UPARSE pipeline17 were used to compute the alpha diversity of the microbial communities using the Chao1 (species richness) and Shannon (species evenness) indices. The mean Shannon indices reveal that the microbiota diversity is only significant between Thailand-Chile with FDR  More

Houlahan, J. E., McKinney, S. T., Anderson, T. M. & McGill, B. J. The priority of prediction in ecological understanding. Oikos 126, 1–7 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lawton, J. H. Are there general laws in ecology? Oikos 84, 177–192 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Elliott-Graves, A. Generality and causal interdependence in ecology. Philos. Sci. 85, 1102–1114 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fox, J. W. The many roads to generality in ecology. Philos. Top. 9, 83–104 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
McGill, B. J. et al. Species abundance distributions: moving beyond single prediction theories to integration within an ecological framework. Ecol. Lett. 10, 995–1015 (2007).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
MacArthur, R. H. & Wilson, E. O. An equilibrium theory of insular zoogeography. Evolution 17, 373–387 (1963).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gurevitch, J., Fox, G. A., Wardle, G. M., Inderjit & Taub, D. Emergent insights from the synthesis of conceptual frameworks for biological invasions. Ecol. Lett. 14, 407–418 (2011).Article 
PubMed 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Borer, E. T. et al. Finding generality in ecology: a model for globally distributed experiments. Methods Ecol. Evol. 5, 65–73 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gurevitch, J., Koricheva, J., Nakagawa, S. & Stewart, G. Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis. Nature 555, 175–182 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Anderson, S. C. et al. Trends in ecology and conservation over eight decades. Front. Ecol. Environ. 19, 274–282 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kneale, D., Thomas, J., O’Mara-Eves, A. & Wiggins, R. How can additional secondary data analysis of observational data enhance the generalisability of meta-analytic evidence for local public health decision making? Res. Synth. Methods 10, 44–56 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Aguinis, H., Pierce, C. A., Bosco, F. A., Dalton, D. R. & Dalton, C. M. Debunking myths and urban legends about meta-analysis. Organ. Res. Methods 14, 306–331 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Polit, D. F. & Beck, C. T. Generalization in quantitative and qualitative research: myths and strategies. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 47, 1451–1458 (2010).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Cardinale, B. J., Gonzalez, A., Allington, G. R. H. & Loreau, M. Is local biodiversity declining or not? A summary of the debate over analysis of species richness time trends. Biol. Conserv. 219, 175–183 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lundberg, I., Johnson, R. & Stewart, B. M. What is your estimand? Defining the target quantity connects statistical evidence to theory. Am. Sociol. Rev. 86, 532–565 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lawrance, R. et al. What is an estimand & how does it relate to quantifying the effect of treatment on patient-reported quality of life outcomes in clinical trials? J. Patient-Rep. Outcomes 4, 68 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Findley, M. G., Kikuta, K. & Denly, M. External validity. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 24, 365–393 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pearl, J. & Bareinboim, E. External validity: from do-calculus to transportability across populations. Stat. Sci. 29, 579–595 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Westreich, D., Edwards, J. K., Lesko, C. R., Cole, S. R. & Stuart, E. A. Target validity and the hierarchy of study designs. Am. J. Epidemiol. 188, 438–443 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Carpenter, C. J. Meta-analyzing apples and oranges: how to make applesauce instead of fruit salad. Hum. Commun. Res. 46, 322–333 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rohrer, J. M. & Arslan, R. C. Precise answers to vague questions: issues with interactions. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 4, 1–19 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Breslow, N. E. & Clayton, D. G. Approximate inference in generalized linear mixed models. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 88, 9–25 (1993).
Google Scholar 
Koricheva, J. & Gurevitch, J. Uses and misuses of meta-analysis in plant ecology. J. Ecol. 102, 828–844 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gonzalez, A. et al. Estimating local biodiversity change: a critique of papers claiming no net loss of local diversity. Ecology 97, 1949–1960 (2016).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Konno, K. et al. Ignoring non-English-language studies may bias ecological meta-analyses. Ecol. Evol. 10, 6373–6384 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Nakagawa, S. et al. Methods for testing publication bias in ecological and evolutionary meta-analyses. Methods Ecol. Evol. 13, 4–21 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rosenthal, R. The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychol. Bull. 86, 638–641 (1979).Article 

Google Scholar 
Leung, B. et al. Clustered versus catastrophic global vertebrate declines. Nature 588, 267–271 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rothman, K. J., Gallacher, J. E. J. & Hatch, E. E. Why representativeness should be avoided. Int. J. Epidemiol. 42, 1012–1014 (2013).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Spake, R. et al. Implications of scale dependence for cross-study syntheses of biodiversity differences. Ecol. Lett. 24, 374–390 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Spake, R. & Doncaster, C. P. Use of meta-analysis in forest biodiversity research: key challenges and considerations. For. Ecol. Manag. 400, 429–437 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Christie, A. P. et al. Simple study designs in ecology produce inaccurate estimates of biodiversity responses. J. Appl. Ecol. 56, 2742–2754 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nakagawa, S., Noble, D. W. A., Senior, A. M. & Lagisz, M. Meta-evaluation of meta-analysis: ten appraisal questions for biologists. BMC Biol. 15, 18 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Higgins, J. P. T. & Thompson, S. G. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat. Med. 21, 1539–1558 (2002).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Schielzeth, H. & Nakagawa, S. Conditional repeatability and the variance explained by reaction norm variation in random slope models. Methods Ecol. Evol. 13, 1214–1223 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nakagawa, S. et al. The orchard plot: cultivating a forest plot for use in ecology, evolution, and beyond. Res. Synth. Methods 12, 4–12 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lorah, J. Effect size measures for multilevel models: definition, interpretation, and TIMSS example. Large-Scale Assess. Educ. 6, 8 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
O’Connor, M. I. et al. A general biodiversity–function relationship is mediated by trophic level. Oikos 126, 18–31 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ojha, M., Naidu, D. G. T. & Bagchi, S. Meta-analysis of induced anti-herbivore defence traits in plants from 647 manipulative experiments with natural and simulated herbivory. J. Ecol. 110, 799–816 (2022).Dodds, K. C. et al. Material type influences the abundance but not richness of colonising organisms on marine structures. J. Environ. Manag. 307, 114549 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dornelas, M. et al. Assemblage time series reveal biodiversity change but not systematic loss. Science 344, 296–299 (2014).Article 
PubMed 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Senior, A. M. et al. Heterogeneity in ecological and evolutionary meta- analyses: its magnitude and implications. Ecology 97, 3293–3299 (2016).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Blowes, S. A. et al. The geography of biodiversity change in marine and terrestrial assemblages. Science 366, 339–345 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nakagawa, S. & Cuthill, I. C. Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists. Biol. Rev. 82, 591–605 (2007).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Glass, G. V. Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educ. Res. 5, 3–8 (1976).Article 

Google Scholar 
Glass, G. V. Meta‐analysis at 25: a personal history. Education in Two Worlds https://ed2worlds.blogspot.com/2022/07/meta-analysis-at-25-personal-history.html (2000).Cooper, H. M. Organizing knowledge syntheses: a taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowl. Soc. 1, 104–126 (1988).
Google Scholar 
Soranno, P. A. et al. Cross-scale interactions: quantifying multi-scaled cause-effect relationships in macrosystems. Front. Ecol. Environ. 12, 65–73 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gerstner, K. et al. Will your paper be used in a meta-analysis? Make the reach of your research broader and longer lasting. Methods Ecol. Evol. 8, 777–784 (2017).Article 

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

Google Scholar 
Simons, D. J., Shoda, Y. & Lindsay, D. S. Constraints on Generality (CoG): a proposed addition to all empirical papers. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 12, 1123–1128 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Yarkoni, T. The generalizability crisis. Behav. Brain Sci. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X20001685 (2020).Lopez, P. M., Subramanian, S. V. & Schooling, C. M. Effect measure modification conceptualized using selection diagrams as mediation by mechanisms of varying population-level relevance. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 113, 123–128 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Campbell, D. T. in Advances in QuasiExperimental Design and Analysis (ed. Trochim, W.) 67–77 (Jossey-Bass, 1986).Spake, R. et al. Meta‐analysis of management effects on biodiversity in plantation and secondary forests of Japan. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 1, e14 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Forest Ecosystem Diversity Basic Survey (in Japanese) (Forestry Agency of Japan, 2019); https://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/keikaku/tayouseichousa/index.htmlIto, S., Ishigamia, S., Mizoue, N. & Buckley, G. P. Maintaining plant species composition and diversity of understory vegetation under strip-clearcutting forestry in conifer plantations in Kyushu, southern Japan. For. Ecol. Manag. 231, 234–241 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Utsugi, E. et al. Hardwood recruitment into conifer plantations in Japan: effects of thinning and distance from neighboring hardwood forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 237, 15–28 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kominami, Y. et al. Classification of bird-dispersed plants by fruiting phenology, fruit size, and growth form in a primary lucidophyllous forest: an analysis, with implications for the conservation of fruit–bird interactions. Ornthological Sci. 2, 3–23 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tsujino, R. & Matsui, K. Forest regeneration inhibition in a mixed broadleaf-conifer forest under sika deer pressure. J. For. Res. 27, 230–235 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Spake, R., Soga, M., Catford, J. A. & Eigenbrod, F. Applying the stress-gradient hypothesis to curb the spread of invasive bamboo. J. Appl. Ecol. 58, 1993–2003 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mize, T. D. Best practices for estimating, interpreting, and presenting nonlinear interaction effects. Sociol. Sci. 6, 81–117 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Karaca-Mandic, P., Norton, E. C. & Dowd, B. Interaction terms in nonlinear models. Health Serv. Res. 47, 255–274 (2012).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Spake, R. et al. Forest damage by deer depends on cross-scale interactions between climate, deer density and landscape structure. J. Appl. Ecol. 57, 1376–1390 (2020).McCabe, C. J., Kim, D. S. & King, K. M. Improving present practices in the visual display of interactions. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 1, 147–165 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Shackelford, G. E. et al. Dynamic meta-analysis: a method of using global evidence for local decision making. BMC Biol. 19, 33 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Christie, A. P. et al. Innovation and forward‐thinking are needed to improve traditional synthesis methods: a response to Pescott and Stewart. J. Appl. Ecol. 59, 1191–1197 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Haddaway, N. R. et al. EviAtlas: a tool for visualising evidence synthesis databases. Environ. Evid. 8, 22 (2019).Delory, B. M., Li, M., Topp, C. N. & Lobet, G. archiDART v3.0: a new data analysis pipeline allowing the topological analysis of plant root systems. F1000Research 7, 22 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Perkel, J. M. The future of scientific figures. Nature 554, 133–134 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Weaver, S. & Gleeson, M. P. The importance of the domain of applicability in QSAR modeling. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 26, 1315–1326 (2008).Article 
PubMed 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sutton, C. et al. Identifying domains of applicability of machine learning models for materials science. Nat. Commun. 11, 4428 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Meyer, H. & Pebesma, E. Predicting into unknown space? Estimating the area of applicability of spatial prediction models. Methods Ecol. Evol. 12, 1620–1633 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pearl, J. & Bareinboim, E. Transportability of causal and statistical relations: a formal approach. In 2011 IEEE 11th International Conference on Data Mining Workshops https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDMW.2011.169 (IEEE, 2011).Munthe-Kaas, H., Nøkleby, H. & Nguyen, L. Systematic mapping of checklists for assessing transferability. Syst. Rev. 8, 22 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Dekkers, O. M., von Elm, E., Algra, A., Romijn, J. A. & Vandenbroucke, J. P. How to assess the external validity of therapeutic trials: a conceptual approach. Int. J. Epidemiol. 39, 89–94 (2010).Article 
PubMed 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Schloemer, T. & Schröder-Bäck, P. Criteria for evaluating transferability of health interventions: a systematic review and thematic synthesis. Implement. Sci. 13, 88 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Fernandez-Hermida, J. R., Calafat, A., Becoña, E., Tsertsvadze, A. & Foxcroft, D. R. Assessment of generalizability, applicability and predictability (GAP) for evaluating external validity in studies of universal family-based prevention of alcohol misuse in young people: systematic methodological review of randomized controlled trials. Addiction 107, 1570–1579 (2012).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Avellar, S. A. et al. External validity: the next step for systematic reviews? Eval. Rev. 41, 283–325 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bareinboim, E. & Pearl, J. A general algorithm for deciding transportability of experimental results. J. Causal Inference 1, 107–134 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Degtiar, I. & Rose, S. A review of generalizability and transportability. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2102.11904 (2021).Bareinboim, E. & Pearl, J. Meta-transportability of causal effects: a formal approach. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 31, 135–143 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Jamieson, D. Scientific uncertainty: how do we know when to communicate research findings to the public? Sci. Total Environ. 184, 103–107 (1996).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Burchett, H. E. D., Mayhew, S. H., Lavis, J. N. & Dobrow, M. J. When can research from one setting be useful in another? Understanding perceptions of the applicability and transferability of research. Health Promot. Int. 28, 418–430 (2013).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Forscher, P. et al. Build up big-team science. Nature 601, 505–507 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Whalen, M. A. et al. Climate drives the geography of marine consumption by changing predator communities. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 28160–28166 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Moshontz, H. et al. The Psychological Science Accelerator: advancing psychology through a distributed collaborative network. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 1, 501–515 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Marschner, I. C. A general framework for the analysis of adaptive experiments. Stat. Sci. 36, 465–492 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Clark, M. Shrinkage in Mixed Effects Models https://m-clark.github.io/posts/2019-05-14-shrinkage-in-mixed-models/ (2019).Gurevitch, J. & Hedges, L. V. Statistical issues in ecological meta-analyses. Ecology 80, 1142–1149 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mengersen, K., Gurevitch, J. & Schmid, C. H. in Handbook of Meta-analysis in Ecology and Evolution (eds Koricheva, U. et al.) 300–312 (Princeton Univ. Press, 2013).Hudson, L. N. et al. The database of the PREDICTS (Projecting Responses of Ecological Diversity In Changing Terrestrial Systems) project. Ecol. Evol. 7, 145–188 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Dornelas, M. et al. BioTIME: a database of biodiversity time series for the Anthropocene. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 27, 760–786 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Salguero-Gómez, R. et al. The COMPADRE Plant Matrix Database: an open online repository for plant demography. J. Ecol. 103, 202–218 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Salguero-Gómez, R. et al. COMADRE: a global data base of animal demography. J. Anim. Ecol. 85, 371–384 (2016).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Pastor, D. A. & Lazowski, R. A. On the multilevel nature of meta-analysis: a tutorial, comparison of software programs, and discussion of analytic choices. Multivar. Behav. Res. 53, 74–89 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Rippka, R. et al. J. Gen. Microbiol. https://doi.org/10.1099/00221287-111-1-1 (1979).Article 

Google Scholar 
Muñoz-Marín, M. C. et al. ISME J. 14, 1065–1073 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Yelton, A. P. et al. ISME J. 10, 2946–2957 (2016).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ward, B. A. & Follows, M. J. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 2958–2963 (2016).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wu, Z. et al. Nat. Microbiol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-022-01250-5 (2022).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Flombaum, P. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 9824–9829 (2013).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Zubkov, M. et al. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 69, 1299–1304 (2003).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Vila-Costa, M. et al. Science 314, 652–654 (2006).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Muñoz-Marín, M. C. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 8597–8602 (2013).Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Gómez-Baena, G. et al. PLoS ONE 3, e3416 (2008).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Coe, A. et al. Limnol. Oceanogr. 71, 1375–1388 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Muñoz-Marín, M. C. et al. Microbiol. Spectr. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.10.04.462702 (2022).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar  More

The evolutionary origins of zebra stripes have been investigated—and debated—for centuries. The trait is rare, conspicuous, and intensely expressed, and thus appears to beg an adaptationist explanation. However, the utility of a complete coat of densely packed, starkly contrasting black-and-white stripes is not immediately apparent. Unlike many conspicuous visual traits, striped pelage is expressed with comparable intensity in both sexes and is thus unlikely to have arisen through sexual selection alone (although in plains zebras, Equus quagga, males have stripes closer to true black than females). Stripes are clearly not aposematic warning signals, nor do they provide camouflage in either the woodland or savannah habitats common across zebra ranges1,2. So, striping presents an ideal evolutionary puzzle: a trait so refined it seems it must be “for” something, but one that confers no clear advantage upon its bearers and imposes apparent costs (conspicuousness) that cannot be explained in Zahavian terms.Scientists have proposed and investigated several possible explanations for the evolution of zebra stripes (reviewed in3). The hypotheses suggest various ways in which stripes may provide a social function (species or individual recognition or social cohesion1,4), a temperature-regulation benefit5,6, an anti-predator effect7,8, or an anti-parasite effect9,10. There is continued debate over both the merits of individual hypotheses and the likelihood of stripes having arisen via a single driver vs. a confluence or alternation of multiple selective pressures6,11.The present study addresses the hypothesis that has thus far received the most empirical support: the anti-parasite hypothesis (also known as the ectoparasite hypothesis12). Zebras, like most ungulates, are harassed by tabanid, glossinid and Stomoxys species of biting flies, which can inflict significant blood loss, transmit disease, and weaken hosts when fly-avoidance behaviors reduce the host’s feeding rate9,13,14. Yet zebras are attacked far less than sympatric ungulates across their African range15,16, and also less than other equids9,17. Zebras also produce odors that may augment their anti-fly defenses18, but so do other sympatric ungulate species18,19, and a host of observations and experiments have demonstrated that black-and-white stripes alone are unattractive, or actively repellent to tabanid, glossinid, and Stomoxys flies17,20,21,22,23.Though the effect of stripes on flies is well-established, the source of the effect remains unexplained. Since Waage’s foundational studies in the 1970s and 1980s9,24 most hypotheses have suggested ways that stripes might interfere with the visual and navigational systems of flies, making it harder for them to locate, identify, or successfully land on striped targets. These hypothetical mechanisms can be roughly grouped by the distance (and the attendant phase of a fly’s orientation and landing behavior) at which they would likely operate:

From afar: stripes might make it harder for flies to locate and distinguish zebras from background vegetation, perhaps by breaking up their outline9 or varying the way they polarize or reflect light17,31 especially from distances at which composite eyes support only low-resolution vision and cannot resolve zebra stripes as clear bands of alternating color on a single host (estimated at  > 2.0 m22,  > 4.4 m24, and even  > 20 m25).

At close range (estimates range from 0.5 to 4.0 m26): stripes might interfere with orientation or landing behavior via any of several disruptive or ‘dazzle’-related visual effects27. For example, stripes might affect ‘optic flow’, or the fly’s perceived relative motion to its target as it approaches, by creating an illusion of false direction or speed of motion (e.g., via variants of the ‘barber pole’ or ‘wagon wheel’ effects28). Alternatively, relative motion to a striped pattern within the visual field may create the perception of self-rotation, inducing the fly’s involuntary ‘optomotor response’ and resulting in an avoidance turn in an effort to stay on a straight course29.

Finally, stripes might cause confusion in the transition between long- and short-distance orientation. If zebras appear as blurred gray from a distance and then, at closer range, suddenly resolve into a sequence of floating black and white bars, this abrupt ‘visual transformation’26 might disrupt the behavioral sequence that facilitates landing.

Within these categories, hypotheses have proliferated faster than experimental tests of many of the proposed mechanisms. The very active literature on this question has grown in somewhat haphazard fashion, as curious researchers test new possibilities without eliminating old ones6. Importantly, few experiments have controlled the distance from which flies are first able to view potential landing sites (but see23). While growing evidence supports a mechanism operating at close range22,26, failing to restrict the starting distance of the fly means that the full set of possible mechanisms outlined above all remain plausible contributors to most previous results.Additionally, while many studies have, appropriately, used artificial stimuli to isolate basic effects of color, pattern, brightness, and light polarization of (usually flat) test surfaces, possible contributions of several aspects of natural zebra pelage remain untested. Controlled experiments have used various landing substrates, including striped and solid oil tray traps, sticky plastic, smooth plastic17, cloth (Experiment 2 in22), horse blankets or sheets26, and paint on live animals30. These have all clearly demonstrated a broadly replicable visual effect: stripes, and some other juxtapositions of black and white (e.g., checkerboard patterns26), repel flies. However, insofar as specific features of zebra pelage factor into proposed mechanisms of fly repellence—the reflective properties of “smooth, shiny” coats31; the orientation of the stripes17,32; the light-polarizing effects of black and white hair vs. background vegetation25; and the complex structure of hair25—there is a need for more experiments that present natural targets to wild flies (but see22,33). Similarly, most experiments have compared landing preferences between black-and-white striped, solid black, solid white, and occasionally solid grey substrates, which have served as important controls for determining that light polarization, rather than a combination of polarization and brightness, is sufficient to induce the effect of stripe avoidance17. However, it is now time to refocus on the original question by presenting flies with more realistic choices. Since biting flies seeking a bloodmeal on the African savannah seldom encounter solid black hosts, and even more rarely solid white hosts, landing choices should be compared between zebra stripes and common coat colors of sympatric mammals, namely various shades of brown. Further, tabanid, glossinid, and Stomoxys flies all avoid landing on stripes that are the same width or narrower than the widest zebra stripes 17,23, and there is some evidence that narrower stripes are even more repellent to tabanids17. This pattern is potentially significant in the application of the anti-parasite hypothesis to an adaptive explanation for the striking variation in stripe width across zebra species and between the different areas of the body on individual zebras22, but must first be confirmed with experiments using real zebra pelage.Here, we present a simple experiment designed to address each of these gaps in the literature on the anti-fly benefits of zebra stripes. In this field experiment, the landing choices of flies were tested entirely within the range at which all estimates agree flies should be able to perceive the presented stripes ( More

Our results show that GoM BFT larval survey samples can provide the crucial mark events for eventual CKMR estimates of adult abundance. The adult parents marked by larval samples can be directly recaptured in the fishery many years later as POPs, and indirectly through their progeny in future samples of larvae, as evidenced by the two cross-cohort HSPs (XHSPs) recovered in this study, which imply that a parent survived and spawned in the GoM in consecutive years. As more cohorts are sampled in future, the growing number of XHSPs could be used to estimate average adult survival rates, in addition to helping with the estimation of adult abundance31, as is now done for southern blue tuna40.There is a modest level of sibship within our 2016 samples, and a high level (involving over half the samples) in 2017, but it turns out not to be high enough to cause serious problems for POP-based CKMR. High sibship per se does not lead to bias in CKMR by virtue of the statistical construction of the estimate, but it does increase variance, which can be summarized through a reduction in effective sample size. In a POP-based CKMR model, our effective sample size would be about 75% of nominal for the two years combined, or 66% of nominal for the targeted sampling of 2017. Since it is actually the product of adult and juvenile sample sizes which drives precision in CKMR14, one way to think about the 75% is that we will need about 33% more adult samples to achieve a given precision on abundance estimates than if we had somehow been able to collect the same number of “independent” juvenile samples (i.e. without oversampling siblings). That increase is appreciable but entirely achievable; for WBFT, it is logistically much easier to collect more feeding-ground adult samples than to collect more larvae, and at present there is no known practical way to collect large numbers of older, more dispersed, and thus more independent, juvenile western origin bluefin tuna (WBFT).This study was motivated by the concern that sibship might be a serious impediment to use of WBFT larvae for CKMR. High levels of sibship have been found in larval collections for other taxa despite a pelagic larval phase, suggesting that abiotic factors can impede random mixing of larvae after a spawning event41. Our larval samples were only a few days old (4–11) and thus had little time to disperse since fertilization; our concern beforehand was that each tow might sample the offspring of a very small number of adults (one spawning group in one night), and in 2017 that repeatedly towing the same water mass might simply be resampling the same “family”. In practice, though, the cumulative effect was limited. Samples were not dominated by progeny from just a few adults; the maximum DPG size (i.e., number of offspring from any one adult) was 5, which is under 2% of the larval sample size. There are several possible reasons for this finding. First, plankton sample tows are typically standardized to a ten-minute duration, covering on average about 0.3 nautical miles. Based on continuous plankton cameras42, each tow is likely to tow through multiple patches of zooplankton, and therefore potentially multiple patches of BFT larvae. Second, spawning aggregations of BFT may contain many adults. For example, on the spawning grounds near the Balearic Islands in the Mediterranean, purse seine fisheries target spawning fish and individual net sets routinely capture upwards of 500 mature individuals43. These numbers suggest that BFT spawner aggregations can be quite large, although the number of individuals that contribute gametes to a single spawning event may be lower. The results of this study pose intriguing scenarios for understanding BFT larval ecology and spawning behavior, which could be explored with larger sample sizes paired with data on oceanographic conditions, direct observation of spawning aggregations, and modeling to compare observed and predicted dispersal. The results of this study are based on just two years of sampling, and numerous practical and theoretical challenges remain to fully understand BFT reproduction in the GoM.Our sibship impact calculations assume use of an unmodified adult-size-based CKMR POP model, where each juvenile is compared to each adult taking into account the latter’s size (e.g.,14). That will give unbiased estimates, which we regard as essential in a CKMR model. However, for WBFT the estimates are not fully statistically efficient, in that some adults receive more statistical weight than others because they are marked more often (by having a large DPG), and thus variance might not be the lowest achievable. Modifying the model to fix that would be simple in a “cartoon” CKMR setting where all adults are identical (e.g., Fig. 1 of14), simply by first condensing each DPG to a single representative, then only using those representatives (rather than all the larvae) in POP comparisons. Each marked parent then receives the same weight, giving maximum efficiency. For the cartoon, this condensed-DPG model still gives an unbiased estimate of abundance, because each DPG has one parent of given sex, and the chance of any sampled cartoon adult of that sex being that parent is 1/N. The DPG-condensed effective sample size is simply half the number of distinct parents, which would be a little larger than the effective sample sizes for the unmodified model shown in Table 3; e.g., in 2017, 504/2 = 252 versus 209. However, no such straightforward improvement is available for an adult-size-based CKMR model such as is needed for WABFT. Using condensed DPGs directly would bias the juvenile sampling against larger more-fecund adults, whose DPGs will tend on average to be larger and thus to experience disproportionate condensation. Those adults would be marked less often by the DPG-condensed juveniles than the model assumes, violating the basic requirements for unbiased CKMR in14. A more sophisticated model might be able to combine unbiasedness with higher efficiency but, since the unmodified adult-size-based POP model that we expect to use is unbiased and only mildly inefficient (at worst 209/252 = 83% efficient, in 2017) there seems no particular need for extra complications at present. However, that may not hold true if we eventually move to a POP + XHSP model, where the impact on unmodified CKMR variance is worse (though there is still no bias, for the same reason as with POPs). Intuitively, the biggest impact that a DPG of size 5 can have in a POP model is to suddenly raise the number of POPs by 5 if its parent happens to be sampled; within a useful total of, say, 75 POPs, the influence is not that large. But if two DPGs both of size 5 in different cohorts happen to share a parent, then the total of XHSPs suddenly jumps by 25— likely a substantial proportion of total XHSPs. Supplementary Material B also includes effective sample size formulae for a simplified XHSP-only model, which demonstrate the increased impact of within-cohort sibship; for our WBFT samples, it turns out that the XHSP-effective size is slightly lower for the targeted 2017 samples (110) than for the 2016 samples (130), unlike the POP-only effective size. Dropping from a maximum theoretical effective sample size of 252 (half the number of DPGs) down to 110 would be rather inefficient and would increase the number of years of sampling required to yield a useful XHSP dataset. This motivates developing a modified POP + XHSP model that retains unbiasedness without sacrificing too much efficiency. In principle, that can be done by condensing each DPG but then conditioning its comparison probabilities on the DPG’s original size, in accordance with the framework in14. This is a topic for subsequent research, and the results will inform future sampling strategy decisions for WBFT.One potential difficulty for western BFT CKMR might occur if a substantial proportion of animals reaching maturity are the offspring of “Western” (in genetic terms) adults who persistently spawn in the western North Atlantic but outside the GoM. However, as long as the adults marked by GoM larvae are well mixed at the time of sampling with any western adults that do spawn outside of the GoM, the total POP-based population estimate of genetically-western BFT from CKMR will remain unbiased. Given evidence from tagging of widespread adult movements within the western North Atlantic2, good mixing in the sampled feeding grounds seems likely; so, even if successful non-GoM western BFT spawning really is commonplace, there should not be a problem with relying on GoM larvae for at least the POP component of CKMR14.Studies of fish early life history have long been considered to have great potential to provide novel insight into the unique population dynamics of fishes44,45,46. Sampling efforts aimed at estimating fish recruitment dynamics have spawned a diversity of larval survey programs. Examples of these long-term programs include the California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations, International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) surveys in the North Atlantic and adjacent areas, Southeast Monitoring and Assessment Program (SEAMAP) in the GoM, Ecosystem Monitoring (EcoMon) in the Northeast U.S., and numerous others, many of which provide indices of larval abundance widely used in fisheries and ecosystem assessments. Yet, as a result of the inherent patchiness of larvae42, sampling variability, and highly variable density dependent mortality45, fisheries scientists have often struggled to determine how larval surveys relate to the adult fish populations. Inclusion of estimates of sibship among larvae collected in surveys could refine estimates of adult spawning stock biomass estimated from these surveys.The results of this study also represent products of decades of work and coordination in obtaining high-quality DNA from larval specimens. Key steps to successful genotyping of larvae include ensuring that larvae are preserved, sorted, and handled in 95% non-denatured ethanol. In addition, strict instrument cleaning protocols must be followed, and stomachs should be removed or avoided (this study used larval tails and, when possible, eyes to avoid cross contamination of prey contents, including possible congeners and other BFT individuals). Exposure to hot lamps during the sorting and dissection processes should also be minimized to ensure that DNA quality is sufficiently high for genotyping-by-sequencing. Although the tissues available for genetic analysis were limited by the needs of other experiments that required BFT tissues, otoliths, gut contents, and other information from the same larvae, we were able to successfully genotype most larvae greater than 6 mm SL and identify thousands of informative SNPs. The lower size limit of larvae could likely be decreased if whole specimens were available for genotyping, although the use of younger larvae could increase the incidence of sibship.In summary, while we observed both FSPs and HSPs in larval collections, with elevated sibship overall and with siblings being more prevalent within tows and in nearby tows, the level of sibship was sufficiently low that collections of GoM BFT larvae can still provide the critical genetic mark of parental genotypes required for CKMR. Our results demonstrate a crucial proof of concept and are the first step towards an operational CKMR modelling estimate of spawning stock abundance for western BFT. More