Ecology

Gardner, J. L., Peters, A., Kearney, M. R., Joseph, L. & Heinsohn, R. Declining body size: a third universal response to warming? Trends Ecol. Evol. 26, 285–291 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Parmesan, C. & Yohe, G. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421, 37–42 (2003).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Durant, J. M., Hjermann, D. Ø., Ottersen, G. & Stenseth, N. C. Climate and the match or mismatch between predator requirements and resource availability. Clim. Res. 33, 271–283 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Jirinec, V. et al. Morphological consequences of climate change for resident birds in intact Amazonian rainforest. Sci. Adv. 7, eabk1743 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Weeks, B. C. et al. Shared morphological consequences of global warming in North American migratory birds. Ecol. Lett. 23, 316–325 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Gardner, J. L. et al. Australian songbird body size tracks climate variation: 82 species over 50 years. Proc. R. Soc. B 286, 20192258 (2019).
Google Scholar 
McNab, B. K. Extreme Measures: The Ecological Energetics of Birds and Mammals (Univ. of Chicago Press, 2012).West-Eberhard, M. J. Developmental Plasticity and Evolution (Oxford Univ. Press, 2003).Winkler, D. W., Luo, M. K. & Rakhimberdiev, E. Temperature effects on food supply and chick mortality in tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor). Oecologia 173, 129–138 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Shipley, J. R. et al. Climate change shifts the timing of nutritional flux from aquatic insects. Curr. Biol. (2022).Monaghan, P. Early growth conditions, phenotypic development and environmental change. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London B 363, 1635–1645 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Conway, C. J. & Martin, T. E. Evolution of passerine incubation behavior: influence of food, temperature, and nest predation. Evolution 54, 670–685 (2000).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Martin, T. E., Tobalske, B., Riordan, M. M., Case, S. B. & Dial, K. P. Age and performance at fledging are a cause and consequence of juvenile mortality between life stages. Sci. Adv. 4, eaar1988 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Naef‐Daenzer, B. & Grüebler, M. U. Post‐fledging survival of altricial birds: ecological determinants and adaptation. J. Field Ornithol. 87, 227–250 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Cox, A. R., Robertson, R. J., Fedy, B. C., Rendell, W. B., & Bonier, F. Demographic drivers of local population decline in tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor) in Ontario, Canada. Condor Ornithol. Appl. 120, 842–851 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Sæther, B.-E. & Bakke, Ø. Avian life history variation and contribution of demographic traits to the population growth rate. Ecology 81, 642–653 (2000).
Google Scholar 
Karasov, W. H. & del Rio, C. M. Physiological Ecology (Princeton Univ. Press, 2007).Ricklefs, R. The energetics of reproduction in birds. Avian Energetics 15, 152–297 (1974).
Google Scholar 
Mainwaring, M. C. & Hartley, I. R. The energetic costs of nest building in birds. Avian Biol. Res. 6, 12–17 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Williams, J. B. Energetics of Avian Incuation. in Avian Energetics and Nutritional Ecology (ed Carey, C.) 375–415 (Springer, Boston, 1996).Williams, T. D. Mechanisms underlying the costs of egg production. Bioscience 55, 39–48 (2005).
Google Scholar 
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 116, 21609–21615 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dawson, R. D., Lawrie, C. C. & O’Brien, E. L. The importance of microclimate variation in determining size, growth and survival of avian offspring: experimental evidence from a cavity nesting passerine. Oecologia 144, 499–507 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Andrew, S., Hurley, L., Mariette, M. & Griffith, S. Higher temperatures during development reduce body size in the zebra finch in the laboratory and in the wild. J. Evol. Biol. 30, 2156–2164 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Andreasson, F., Nord, A. & Nilsson, J.-Å. Experimentally increased nest temperature affects body temperature, growth and apparent survival in blue tit nestlings. J. Avian Biol. 49 https://doi.org/10.1111/jav.01620 (2018).Nilsson, J. F., Stjernman, M. & Nilsson, J. Å. Experimental reduction of incubation temperature affects both nestling and adult blue tits Cyanistes caeruleus. J. Avian Biol. 39, 553–559 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Ardia, D. R., Pérez, J. H. & Clotfelter, E. D. Experimental cooling during incubation leads to reduced innate immunity and body condition in nestling tree swallows. Proc. R. Soc. B https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.2138 (2010).Marra, P. P. et al. Non-breeding season habitat quality mediates the strength of density-dependence for a migratory bird. Proc. R. Soc. B 282, 20150624 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Shipley, J. R. et al. Birds advancing lay dates with warming springs face greater risk of chick mortality. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA (2020).Robinson, R. A., Baillie, S. R. & Crick, H. Q. Weather‐dependent survival: implications of climate change for passerine population processes. Ibis 149, 357–364 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Winkler, D. W. et al. Full lifetime perspectives on the costs and benefits of lay date variation in tree swallows. Ecology (2020).Twining, C. W., Shipley, J. R. & Winkler, D. W. Aquatic insects rich in omega‐3 fatty acids drive breeding success in a widespread bird. Ecol. Lett. 21, 1812–1820 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Millet, A., Pelletier, F., Bélisle, M. & Garant, D. Patterns of fluctuating selection on morphological and reproductive traits in female tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor). Evolut. Biol. 42, 349–358 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Bitton, P.-P., O’Brien, E. L. & Dawson, R. D. Plumage brightness and age predict extrapair fertilization success of male tree swallows, Tachycineta bicolor. Anim. Behav. 74, 1777–1784 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Whittingham, L. A. & Dunn, P. O. Experimental evidence that brighter males sire more extra‐pair young in tree swallows. Mol. Ecol. 25, 3706–3715 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Kempenaers, B., Everding, S., Bishop, C., Boag, P. & Robertson, R. J. Extra-pair paternity and the reproductive role of male floaters in the tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 49, 251–259 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Lessard, A., Bourret, A., Bélisle, M., Pelletier, F. & Garant, D. Individual and environmental determinants of reproductive success in male tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 68, 733–742 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Jetz, W. et al. Biological Earth observation with animal sensors. Trends Ecol. Evol. 37, 293–298 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Williams, H. J. et al. Future trends in measuring physiology in free-living animals. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 376, 20200230 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Twining, C. W. et al. Omega-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids support aerial insectivore performance more than food quantity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. (2016).Naef‐Daenzer, B. & Grüebler, M. U. Post‐fledging survival of altricial birds: ecological determinants and adaptation. J. Field Ornithol. 87, 227–250 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Chamberlain, S., Hocking, D. & Anderson, B. rnoaa: NOAA Weather Data from R. R version 1.3.8 http://cran.auckland.ac.nz/web/packages/rnoaa/rnoaa.pdf (2021).Cumbie-Ward, R. V. & Boyles, R. P. Evaluation of a high-resolution SPI for monitoring local drought severity. J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol. 55, 2247–2262 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Guttman, N. B. Accepting the standardized precipitation index: a calculation algorithm 1. JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 35, 311–322 (1999).
Google Scholar 
Pinheiro, J. et al. nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models. R version 3 (2017).Canty, A. & Ripley, B. Package ‘boot’. Bootstrap Funct. Ver. 1, 3–20 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Bates, D. et al. Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. J. Stat. Software 67, 1–48 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B. & Christensen, R. H. lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. J. Stat. Software 82, 1–26 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Nakagawa, S. & Schielzeth, H. A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed‐effects models. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4, 133–142 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Johnson, P. C. Extension of Nakagawa & Schielzeth’s R2GLMM to random slopes models. Methods Ecol. Evol. 5, 944–946 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Zuur, A., Ieno, E. N., Walker, N., Saveliev, A. A. & Smith, G. M. Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R (Springer Science & Business Media, 2009).Allaire, J. et al. rmarkdown: Dynamic Documents for R. R version 1 (2018).Stoffel, M. A., Nakagawa, S. & Schielzeth, H. rptR: repeatability estimation and variance decomposition by generalized linear mixed‐effects models. Methods Ecol. Evol. 8, 1639–1644 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Boyle, W. A., Winkler, D. W. & Guglielmo, C. G. Rapid loss of fat but not lean mass prior to chick provisioning supports the flight efficiency hypothesis in tree swallows. Funct. Ecol. 26, 895–903 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Hartig, F. DHARMa: Residual Diagnostics for Hierarchical (Multi-Level/Mixed) Regression Models. R version 0.2 4 (2019).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).
Google Scholar 
Arnqvist, G. Mixed models offer no freedom from degrees of freedom. Trends Ecol. Evol. (2020). More

Koenig, J. E. et al. Succession of microbial consortia in the developing infant gut microbiome. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108, 4578–4585 (2011).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bäckhed, F. et al. Dynamics and stabilization of the human gut microbiome during the first year of life. Cell Host Microbe 17, 690–703 (2015).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Tanaka, M. & Nakayama, J. Development of the gut microbiota in infancy and its impact on health in later life. Allergol. Int. 66, 515–522 (2017).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Xu, C., Zhu, H. & Qiu, P. Aging progression of human gut microbiota. BMC Microbiol. 19, 1–10 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yatsunenko, T. et al. Human gut microbiome viewed across age and geography. Nature 486, 222–227 (2012).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nagpal, R. et al. Ontogenesis of the gut microbiota composition in healthy, full-term, vaginally born and breast-fed infants over the first 3 years of life: A quantitative bird’s-eye view. Front. Microbiol. 8, 1–9 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Smith, S. C., Chalker, A., Dewar, M. L. & Arnould, J. P. Y. Age-related differences revealed in Australian fur seal Arctocephalus pusillus doriferus gut microbiota. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 86, 246–255 (2013).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Janiak, M. C. et al. Age and sex-associated variation in the multi-site microbiome of an entire social group of free-ranging rhesus macaques. Microbiome 9, (2021).Toro-Valdivieso, C., Toro, F., Stubbs, S., Castro-Nallar, E. & Blacklaws, B. Patterns of the fecal microbiota in the Juan Fernández fur seal (Arctocephalus philippii). MicrobiologyOpen 10, 1–19 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Medeiros, A. W. et al. Characterization of the faecal bacterial community of wild young South American (Arctocephalus australis) and Subantarctic fur seals (Arctocephalus tropicalis). FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 92, 1–8 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bik, E. M. et al. Marine mammals harbor unique microbiotas shaped by and yet distinct from the sea. Nat. Commun. 7, 10516 (2016).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Numberger, D., Herlemann, D. P. R., Jürgens, K., Dehnhardt, G. & Schulz-Vogt, H. Comparative analysis of the fecal bacterial community of five harbor seals (Phoca vitulina). MicrobiologyOpen 5, 782–792 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pacheco-Sandoval, A. et al. The Pacific harbor seal gut microbiota in Mexico: Its relationship with diet and functional inferences. PlosOne 14, (2019).Nelson, T. M., Rogers, T. L., Carlini, A. R. & Brown, M. V. Diet and phylogeny shape the gut microbiota of Antarctic seals: A comparison of wild and captive animals. Environ. Microbiol. 15, 1132–1145 (2013).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Glad, T. et al. Ecological characterisation of the colonic microbiota in Arctic and sub-Arctic seals. Microbiol. Ecol. 60, 320–330 (2010).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Delport, T. C., Power, M. L., Harcourt, R. G., Webster, K. N. & Tetu, S. G. Colony location and captivity influence the gut microbial community composition of the Australian sea lion (Neophoca cinerea). Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 82, 3440–3349 (2016).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Stoffel, M. A. et al. Early sexual dimorphism in the developing gut microbiome of northern elephant seals. Mol. Ecol. 29, 2109–2122 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tian, J., Du, J., Han, J., Song, X. & Lu, Z. Age-related differences in gut microbial community composition of captive spotted seals (Phoca largha). Mar. Mamm. Sci. 36, 1231–1240 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wu, G. D. et al. Linking long-term dietary patterns with gut microbial enterotypes. Science 334, 105–108 (2011).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bigg, M. A. Harbour seal: Phoca vitulina and P. largha. In Handbook of Marine Mammals Vol. 2 (eds Ridgeway, S. H. & Harrison, R. J.) 1–27 (Academic Press, 1981).
Google Scholar 
Parracho, H., McCartney, A. L. & Gibson, G. R. Probiotics and prebiotics in infant nutrition. Proc. Nutr. Society 66, 405–411 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Marques, T. M. et al. Programming infant gut microbiota: Influence of dietary and environmental factors. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 21, 149–156 (2010).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Palmer, C., Bik, E. M., DiGiulio, D. B., Relman, D. A. & Brown, P. O. Development of the human infant intestinal microbiota. PLoS Biol. 5, 1556–1573 (2007).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mitsuoka, T. Intestinal flora and aging. Nutr. Rev. 50, 438–446 (1992).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bowen, W., Oftedal, O. & Boness, D. Mass and energy transfer during lactation in a small phocid, the harbor seal (Phoca vitulina). Physiol. Zool. 65, 844–866 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bowen, W. D., Boness, D. J. & Iverson, S. J. Diving behaviour of lactating harbour seals and their pups during maternal foraging trips. Can. J. Zool. 77, 978–988 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jørgensen, C., Lydersen, C., Brix, O. & Kovacs, K. M. Diving development in nursing harbour seal pups. J. Exp. Biol. 204, 3993–4004 (2001).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Muelbert, M. M. C. & Bowen, W. D. Duration of lactation and postweaning changes in mass and body composition of harbour seal, Phoca vitulina, pups. Can. J. Zool. 71, 1405–1414 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kim, M., Cho, H. & Lee, W. Y. Distinct gut microbiotas between southern elephant seals and Weddell seals of Antarctica. J. Microbiol. 58, 1018–1026 (2020).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kershaw, J. L. & Hall, A. J. Seasonal variation in harbour seal (Phoca vitulina) blubber cortisol—A novel indicator of physiological state?. Sci. Rep. 6, 1–9 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Madison, A. & Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K. Stress, depression, diet, and the gut microbiota: Human–bacteria interactions at the core of psychoneuroimmunology and nutrition. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 28, 105–110 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Thompson, P. M., Miller, D., Cooper, R. & Hammond, P. S. Changes in the distribution and activity of female harbour seals during the breeding season: implications for their lactation strategy and mating patterns. J. Anim. Ecol. 63, 24 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
Raulo, A. et al. Social behaviour and gut microbiota in red-bellied lemurs (Eulemur rubriventer): In search of the role of immunity in the evolution of sociality. J. Anim. Ecol. 87, 388–399 (2018).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Song, S. J. et al. Cohabiting family members share microbiota with one another and with their dogs. Elife 2013, 1–22 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Fernández-Martin, E. M., Heckel, G., Schramm, Y. & García-Aguilar, M. C. The timing of pupping and molting of the Pacific harbor seal, Phoca vitulina richardii, at Punta Banda Estuary, Baja California, Mexico. Cienc. Mar. 42, 195–208 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Oates, S. C. Survival, movements, and diet of juvenile harbor seals along central California. [Master’s thesis, San Jose State University]. (2005). https://doi.org/10.31979/etd.ra96-xhge.Germain, L. R., Mccarthy, M. D., Koch, P. L. & Harvey, J. T. Stable carbon and nitrogen isotopes in multiple tissues of wild and captive harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) off the California coast. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 28, 542–560 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Brassea-Pérez, E., Schramm, Y., Heckel, G., Chong-Robles, J. & Lago-Lestón, A. Metabarcoding analysis of the Pacific harbor seal diet in Mexico. Mar. Biol. 166, (2019).Davis, T. A., Nguyen, H. V., Costa, D. P. & Reeds, P. J. Amino acid composition of pinniped milk. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. B Biochem. Mol. Biol. 110, 633–639 (1995).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sauvé, C. C., van de Walle, J., Hammill, M. O., Arnould, J. P. Y. & Beauplet, G. Stomach temperature records reveal nursing behaviour and transition to solid food consumption in an unweaned mammal, the harbour seal pup (Phoca vitulina). PLoS ONE 9, (2014).Fernández Martín, E. M. Fenología de los nacimientos, estado de salud de las crías, y estructura genética poblacional de Phoca vitulina richardii en México [Doctoral thesis, Universidad Autónoma de Baja California, Mexico]. (2018).Gresse, R. et al. Gut microbiota dysbiosis in postweaning piglets: Understanding the keys to health. Trends Microbiol. 25, 851–873 (2017).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sommer, F. et al. The gut microbiota modulates energy metabolism in the hibernating brown bear Ursus arctos. Cell Rep. 14, 1655–1661 (2016).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ni, Y. et al. Distinct composition and metabolic functions of human gut microbiota are associated with cachexia in lung cancer patients. ISME J. 15, 3207–3220 (2021).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pacífico, C. et al. Unveiling the bovine epimural microbiota composition and putative function. Microorganisms 9, 1–23 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Fenn, K. et al. Quinones are growth factors for the human gut microbiota. Microbiome 5, 161 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rodríguez, J. M. et al. The composition of the gut microbiota throughout life, with an emphasis on early life. Microb. Ecol. Health Disease 26, (2015).Thompson, P. M., Mackay, A., Tollit, D. J., Enderby, S. & Hammond, P. S. The influence of body size and sex on the characteristics of harbour seal foraging trips. Can. J. Zool. 76, 1044–1053 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
van Parijs, S. M., Thompson, P. M., Tollit, D. J. & Mackay, A. Distribution and activity of male harbour seals during the mating season. Anim. Behav. 54, 35–43 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bjorkland, R. H. et al. Stable isotope mixing models elucidate sex and size effects on the diet of a generalist marine predator. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 526, 213–225 (2015).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Schwarz, D. et al. Large-scale molecular diet analysis in a generalist marine mammal reveals male preference for prey of conservation concern. Ecol. Evol. 8, 9889–9905 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Boulva, J. Temporal variations in birth period and characteristics of newborn harbour seals. Rapports et procPs-verbaux, Reunions du Conseil International pour I’Exploration de la Mer 169, 405–408 (1975).
Google Scholar 
Bhute, S. S., Ghaskadbi, S. S. & Shouche, Y. S. Rare biosphere in human gut: A less explored component of human gut microbiota and its association with human health. In Mining of Microbial Wealth and MetaGenomics (eds Kalia, V. C. et al.) 133–142 (Springer Nature Singapore Ptd Ltd, 2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5708-3.Chapter 

Google Scholar 
Brown, R. F. & Mate, B. R. Abundance, movements, and feeding habits of harbor seals, Phoca vitulina, at Netarts and Tillamook Bays, Oregon. Fishery Bull. 81, 291–301 (1983).
Google Scholar 
Higgins, R. Bacteria and fungi of marine mammals: A review. Can. Veterinary J. 41, 105–116 (2000).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gilbert, M. J. et al. Campylobacter blaseri sp. nov., isolated from common seals (Phoca vitulina). Int. J. Syst. Evolut. Microbiol. 68, 1787–1794 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Agnese, E. D. et al. Comparative microbial community analysis of fur seals and salmon aquaculture in Tasmania. Authorea. https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160253843.32636436/v1 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rivas, A. J., Lemos, M. L. & Osorio, C. R. Photobacterium damselae subsp. damselae, a bacterium pathogenic for marine animals and humans. Front. Microbiol. 4, 1–6 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fouz, B., Toranzo, A. E., Milan, M. & Amaro, C. Evidence that water transmits the disease caused by the fish pathogen Photobacterium damselae subsp. damselae. J. Appl. Microbiol. 88, 531–535 (2000).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hundenborn, J., Thurig, S., Kommerell, M., Haag, H. & Nolte, O. Severe Wound Infection with Photobacterium damselae ssp. damselae and Vibrio harveyi, following a laceration injury in marine environment: A case report and review of the literature. Case Rep. Med. 2013, (2013).Lubinsky-Jinich, D., Schramm, Y. & Heckel, G. The Pacific Harbor Seal’s (Phoca vitulina richardii) breeding colonies in Mexico: Abundance and distribution. Aquat. Mamm. 43, 73–81 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Arias-Del Razo, A. et al. Distribution of four pinnipeds (Zalophus californianus, Arctocephalus philippii townsendi, Phoca vitulina richardii, and Mirounga angustirostris) on Islands off the west coast of the Baja California Peninsula, Mexico. Aquat. Mamm. 43, 40–51 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Caporaso, J. G. et al. Global patterns of 16S rRNA diversity at a depth of millions of sequences per sample. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 108, 4516–4522 (2011).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kozich, J. J., Westcott, S. L., Baxter, N. T., Highlander, S. K. & Schloss, P. D. Development of a dual-index sequencing strategy and curation pipeline for analyzing amplicon sequence data on the MiSeq Illumina sequencing platform. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 79, 5112–5120 (2013).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Robertson, K. M., Lauf, M. L. & Morin, P. A. Genetic sexing of pinnipeds: A real-time, single step qPCR technique. Conserv. Genet. Resour. 10, 213–218 (2018).Article 

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

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

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.r-project.org/ (2019). Accessed 3 June 2021.McMurdie, P. J. & Holmes, S. Phyloseq: An R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PLoS ONE 8, (2013).Oksanen, J. et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.5-4. https://cran.r-project.org/package=vegan (2019). Accessed 3 June 2021.Andersen, K. S., Kirkegaard, R. H., Karst, S. M. & Albertsen, M. ampvis2: An R package to analyse and visualise 16S rRNA amplicon data. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/299537 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (Springer-Verlag, 2016).MATH 
Book 

Google Scholar 
Salinas, H. & Ramirez-Delgado, D. ecolTest: Community Ecology Tests. (2021).Love, M. I., Huber, W. & Anders, S. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biol. 15, 1–21 (2014).Article 
CAS 

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

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

Google Scholar 
Martinez Arbizu, P. pairwiseAdonis: Pairwise multilevel comparison using adonis. R package version 0.4. (2020).Douglas, G. M. et al. PICRUSt2 for prediction of metagenome functions. Nat. Biotechnol. 38, 685–688 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Caspi, R. et al. The MetaCyc database of metabolic pathways and enzymes-A 2019 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 48, D455–D463 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar  More

Callie Veelenturf measured the pH, conductivity and temperature near a leatherback sea turtle’s nest during research in Equatorial Guinea.Credit: Jonah Reenders

This picture of marine conservation biologist Callie Veelenturf won the Nature Careers photo competition in 2018 — an event Veelenturf credits with kick-starting her career. She went on to assist in drafting a law that will help to protect species and habitats in Panama.Since 2021, editors at Nature have been tracking instances such as this, in which our journalism and opinion articles have had an impact. Here, we look at three times when content on biodiversity affected researchers, communities or policies. As well as shaping Veelenturf’s conservation work, Nature articles have raised the profile of a proposal to protect part of the Antarctic Ocean and fuelled discussions of carbon-tax proposals to fund tropical-forest conservation.Protect PanamaIn the prize-winning photo, Veelenturf was pictured with a leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) in Equatorial Guinea, where she was collecting data for her master’s degree at Purdue University Fort Wayne, Indiana, in 2016. She and biologist Jonah Reenders, now a photographer based in San Francisco, California, spent nearly half a year there, living in tents on Bioko Island, and Reenders took the picture of her as she measured the pH, conductivity and temperature of the sand near the leatherback’s nest.After the photo was published, a deluge of e-mails and messages “gave me this network, almost overnight, of other sea-turtle conservationists doing similar things around the world”, says Veelenturf, who is now based in Arraiján, Panama. “All of a sudden I was an ‘us’.”The photo award also validated her hard work, Veelenturf says, contradicting a common assumption that sea-turtle research just meant relaxing on the beach. Karla Barrientos-Muñoz, a Colombian sea-turtle conservationist at the Fundación Tortugas del Mar, based in Medellín, wrote that Veelenturf’s win was for all women in sea-turtle conservation. “It made me feel part of this community,” Veelenturf says.Inspired, she founded a non-profit organization called the Leatherback Project, based in Norfolk, Massachusetts, and later won a National Geographic Explorers grant, allowing her to perform the first scientific survey of sea turtles in Panama’s Pearl Islands archipelago. Here, her team worked with local communities to study the nesting sites and foraging grounds of olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea), green (Chelonia mydas), hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) and eastern Pacific leatherback sea turtles.While doing fieldwork, Veelenturf read David Boyd’s book The Rights of Nature (2017), which described how some lawyers had fought to earn legal rights for nature. Such laws, which now exist in at least nine countries, make it easier to conserve the environment, because organizations can sue to protect a rainforest or stream. She went on to work with environmentally minded congress member Juan Diego Vásquez Gutiérrez and Panamanian legal advisers to draft a similar law for Panama, which is especially rich in biodiversity. Vásquez sponsored the legislation, and after more than a year of debate and revision by the public and in the national assembly, it was signed into law on 24 February 2022.Protect the AntarcticIn October 2020, a Comment article argued that the seas around the western Antarctic Peninsula should be designated a marine protected area. Overfishing there is removing large numbers of shrimp-like crustaceans called Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba), affecting the region’s entire web of species, including penguins, whales and seals, which feed on krill. The peninsula is also one of the fastest-warming ecosystems on the planet.A proposal for a marine protected area in the Antarctic must be approved by the groups of governments that make up the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). Cassandra Brooks, a marine scientist at University of Colorado Boulder who co-authored the Nature piece and sits on CCAMLR’s non-voting science delegation, says that the Comment was sent to all the commission’s government delegations and observer groups. “If we can raise the issue in the public,” Brooks says, “it does help raise the issue within that diplomatic space.”The western Antarctic Peninsula proposal is one of three on the table for the next CCAMLR meeting in October 2022. It took ten years for CCAMLR to declare the Ross Sea a marine protected area. “The Antarctic does not have ten years,” says Comment co-author Carolyn Hogg, a conservation biologist at the University of Sydney in Australia.News stories about the article were published globally, including in China, India, South Korea and Malaysia. Hogg says it increased her visibility and further raised her profile with the Australian government. She is working with the government to ensure that the country’s threatened-species policy is informed by the latest genomic research. The goal is to give endangered populations the best chance of survival by preserving as much genetic diversity as possible.Hogg and Brooks wrote the piece with other women, some of whom were part of Homeward Bound, a global leadership programme for women in science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine. Many Homeward Bound participants and alumnae — 288 women from at least 30 countries — co-signed it and worked to translate it into many languages, “showing CCAMLR that this large community of women scientists from all over the world is watching, and going to hold them accountable”, Brooks says.Antarctica tends to be “both diplomatically and scientifically dominated by men”, she notes, and the impact of this global community of women was inspiring.Carbon tax for tropical forestsTropical countries should adopt a carbon tax, urged another Comment in February 2020, creating a levy on fossil fuels that should be used to conserve tropical forests. Costa Rica and Colombia had already adopted such a tax, and several other countries, including Indonesia, Brazil and Peru, are now considering implementing one, says Sebastian Troëng, executive vice-president of conservation partnerships at Conservation International who is based in Brussels and co-authored the piece.After the article was published, the authors made sure it was widely discussed. One of them, environmental economist Edward Barbier at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, presented the proposal at major meetings. These included the World Bank–International Monetary Fund forum in April 2022 and the Global Peatlands Initiative of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, at the 2021 climate summit COP26, in Glasgow, UK. The carbon-pricing proposal can be applied to any ecosystem, Barbier says. “Peatlands are ideal, because you’re saving probably the most carbon-dense ecosystem on our planet.”Meanwhile, Troëng’s colleagues presented the proposal to representatives from the finance and environment ministries of Chile, Mexico, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia and Costa Rica. “Since then, we’ve been working directly with government ministries,” he says, to strengthen the existing carbon-tax system in Colombia and to establish similar systems in Peru and Singapore. “I think what people appreciate the most is the fact that two countries have already done it, so it’s not just a theory or a wild idea, but it’s actually working,” Barbier says.“It’s always challenging to say, was it this paper that made something happen?” notes Troëng, on the impact of the article. “But it’s part of this growing consensus that nature plays an extremely important role in how we address climate change.” More

Fly population and maintenanceWe used an outbred population of Drosophila melanogaster established from 160 Wolbachia-infected fertilised females collected in Azeitão, Portugal54, and given to us by Élio Sucena. For at least 13 generations prior to the start of the experiments the flies were maintained on standard sugar yeast agar medium (SYA medium: 970 ml water, 100 g brewer’s yeast, 50 g sugar, 15 g agar, 30 ml 10% Nipagin solution and 3 ml propionic acid; ref. 61), in a population cage containing at least 5000 flies, with non-overlapping generations of 15 days. They were maintained at 24.3 ± 0.2 °C, on a 12:12 h light-dark cycle, at 60–80 % relative humidity. The experimental flies were kept under the same conditions. No ethical approval or guidance is required for experiments with D. melanogaster.Bacterial speciesWe used the Gram positive Lactococcus lactis (gift from Brian Lazzaro), Gram negative Enterobacter cloacae subsp. dissolvens (hereafter called E. cloacae; German collection of microorganisms and cell cultures, DSMZ; type strain: DSM-16657), Providencia burhodogranariea strain B (gift from Brian Lazzaro, DSMZ; type strain: DSM-19968) and Pseudomonas entomophila (gift from Bruno Lemaitre). L. lactis43, Pr. burhodogranariea44 and Ps. entomophila45 were isolated from wild-collected D. melanogaster and can be considered as opportunistic pathogens. E. cloacae was isolated from a maize plant, but has been detected in the microbiota of D. melanogaster46. All bacterial species were stored in 34.4% glycerol at −80 °C and new cultures were grown freshly for each experimental replicate.Experimental designFor each bacterial species, flies were exposed to one of seven treatments: no injection (naïve), injection with Drosophila Ringer’s (injection control) or injection with one of five concentrations of bacteria ranging from 5 × 106 to 5 × 109 colony forming units (CFUs)/mL, corresponding to doses of approximately 92, 920, 1,840, 9200 and 92,000 CFUs per fly. The injections were done in a randomised block design by two people. Each bacterial species was tested in three independent experimental replicates. Per experimental replicate we treated 252 flies, giving a total of 756 flies per bacterium (including naïve and Ringer’s injection control flies). Per experimental replicate and treatment, 36 flies were checked daily for survival until all flies were dead. A sub-set of the dead flies were homogenised upon death to test whether the infection had been cleared before death or not. To evaluate bacterial load in living flies, per experimental replicate, four of the flies were homogenised per treatment, for each of nine time points: one, two, three, four, seven, 14, 21, 28- and 35-days post-injection.Infection assayBacterial preparation was performed as in Kutzer et al.24, except that we grew two overnight liquid cultures of bacteria per species, which were incubated overnight for approximately 15 h at 30 °C and 200 rpm. The overnight cultures were centrifuged at 2880 × g at 4 °C for 10 min and the supernatant removed. The bacteria were washed twice in 45 mL sterile Drosophila Ringer’s solution (182 mmol·L-1 KCl; 46 mol·L-1 NaCl; 3 mmol·L-1 CaCl2; 10 mmol·L-1 Tris·HCl; ref. 62) by centrifugation at 2880 × g at 4 °C for 10 min. The cultures from the two flasks were combined into a single bacterial solution and the optical density (OD) of 500 µL of the solution was measured in a Ultrospec 10 classic (Amersham) at 600 nm. The concentration of the solution was adjusted to that required for each injection dose, based on preliminary experiments where a range of ODs between 0.1 and 0.7 were serially diluted and plated to estimate the number of CFUs. Additionally, to confirm post hoc the concentration estimated by the OD, we serially diluted to 1:107 and plated the bacterial solution three times and counted the number of CFUs.The experimental flies were reared at constant larval density for one generation prior to the start of the experiments. Grape juice agar plates (50 g agar, 600 mL red grape juice, 42 mL Nipagin [10% w/v solution] and 1.1 L water) were smeared with a thin layer of active yeast paste and placed inside the population cage for egg laying and removed 24 h later. The plates were incubated overnight then first instar larvae were collected and placed into plastic vials (95 × 25 mm) containing 7 ml of SYA medium. Each vial contained 100 larvae to maintain a constant density during development. One day after the start of adult eclosion, the flies were placed in fresh food vials in groups of five males and five females, after four days the females were randomly allocated to treatment groups and processed as described below.Before injection, females were anesthetised with CO2 for a maximum of five minutes and injected in the lateral side of the thorax using a fine glass capillary (Ø 0.5 mm, Drummond), pulled to a fine tip with a Narishige PC-10, and then connected to a Nanoject II™ injector (Drummond). A volume of 18.4 nL of bacterial solution, or Drosophila Ringer’s solution as a control, was injected into each fly. Full controls, i.e., naïve flies, underwent the same procedure but without any injection. After being treated, flies were placed in groups of six into new vials containing SYA medium, and then transferred into new vials every 2–5 days. Maintaining flies in groups after infection is a standard method in experiments with D. melanogaster that examine survival and bacterial load (e.g. refs. 22, 63, 64). At the end of each experimental replicate, 50 µL of the aliquots of bacteria that had been used for injections were plated on LB agar to check for potential contamination. No bacteria grew from the Ringer’s solution and there was no evidence of contamination in any of the bacterial replicates. To confirm the concentration of the injected bacteria, serial dilutions were prepared and plated before and after the injections for each experimental replicate, and CFUs counted the following day.Bacterial load of living fliesFlies were randomly allocated to the day at which they would be homogenised. Prior to homogenisation, the flies were briefly anesthetised with CO2 and removed from their vial. Each individual was placed in a 1.5 mL microcentrifuge tube containing 100 µL of pre-chilled LB media and one stainless steel bead (Ø 3 mm, Retsch) on ice. The microcentrifuge tubes were placed in a holder that had previously been chilled in the fridge at 4 °C for at least 30 min to reduce further growth of the bacteria. The holders were placed in a Retsch Mill (MM300) and the flies homogenised at a frequency of 20 Hz for 45 s. Then, the tubes were centrifuged at 420 × g for one minute at 4 °C. After resuspending the solution, 80 µL of the homogenate from each fly was pipetted into a 96-well plate and then serially diluted 1:10 until 1:105. Per fly, three droplets of 5 μL of every dilution were plated onto LB agar. Our lower detection limit with this method was around seven colony-forming units per fly. We consider bacterial clearance by the host to be when no CFUs were visible in any of the droplets, although we note that clearance is indistinguishable from an infection that is below the detection limit. The plates were incubated at 28 °C and the numbers of CFUs were counted after ~20 h. Individual bacterial loads per fly were back calculated using the average of the three droplets from the lowest countable dilution in the plate, which was usually between 10 and 60 CFUs per droplet.D. melanogaster microbiota does not easily grow under the above culturing conditions (e.g. ref. 42) Nonetheless we homogenised control flies (Ringer’s injected and naïve) as a control. We rarely retrieved foreign CFUs after homogenising Ringer’s injected or naïve flies (23 out of 642 cases, i.e., 3.6 %). We also rarely observed contamination in the bacteria-injected flies: except for homogenates from 27 out of 1223 flies (2.2 %), colony morphology and colour were always consistent with the injected bacteria (see methods of ref. 65). Twenty one of these 27 flies were excluded from further analyses given that the contamination made counts of the injected bacteria unreliable; the remaining six flies had only one or two foreign CFUs in the most concentrated homogenate dilution, therefore these flies were included in further analyses. For L. lactis (70 out of 321 flies), P. burhodogranaeria (7 out of 381 flies) and Ps. entomophila (1 out of 71 flies) there were too many CFUs to count at the highest dilution. For these cases, we denoted the flies as having the highest countable number of CFUs found in any fly for that bacterium and at the highest dilution23. This will lead to an underestimate of the bacterial load in these flies. Note that because the assay is destructive, bacterial loads were measured once per fly.Bacterial load of dead fliesFor two periods of time in the chronic infection phase, i.e., between 14 and 35 days and 56 to 78 days post injection, dead flies were retrieved from their vial at the daily survival checks and homogenised in order to test whether they died whilst being infected, or whether they had cleared the infection before death. The fly homogenate was produced in the same way as for live flies, but we increased the dilution of the homogenate (1:1 to 1:1012) because we anticipated higher bacterial loads in the dead compared to the live flies. The higher dilution allowed us more easily to determine whether there was any obvious contamination from foreign CFUs or not. Because the flies may have died at any point in the 24 h preceding the survival check, and the bacteria can potentially continue replicating after host death, we evaluated the infection status (yes/no) of dead flies instead of the number of CFUs. Dead flies were evaluated for two experimental replicates per bacteria, and 160 flies across the whole experiment. Similar to homogenisation of live flies, we rarely observed contamination from foreign CFUs in the homogenate of dead bacteria-injected flies (3 out of 160; 1.9 %); of these three flies, one fly had only one foreign CFU, so it was included in the analyses. Dead Ringer’s injected and naïve flies were also homogenised and plated as controls, with 6 out of 68 flies (8.8%) resulting in the growth of unidentified CFUs.Statistical analysesStatistical analyses were performed with R version 4.2.166 in RStudio version 2022.2.3.49267. The following packages were used for visualising the data: “dplyr”68, “ggpubr”69, “gridExtra”70, “ggplot2”71, “plyr”72, “purr”73, “scales”74, “survival”75,76, “survminer”77, “tidyr”78 and “viridis”79, as well as Microsoft PowerPoint for Mac v16.60 and Inkscape for Mac v 1.0.2. Residuals diagnostics of the statistical models were carried out using “DHARMa”80, analysis of variance tables were produced using “car”81, and post-hoc tests were carried out with “emmeans”82. To include a factor as a random factor in a model it has been suggested that there should be more than five to six random-effect levels per random effect83, so that there are sufficient levels to base an estimate of the variance of the population of effects84. In our experimental designs, the low numbers of levels within the factors ‘experimental replicate’ (two to three levels) and ‘person’ (two levels), meant that we therefore fitted them as fixed, rather than random factors84. However, for the analysis of clearance (see below) we included species as a random effect because it was not possible to include it as a fixed effect because PPP is already a species-level predictor. Below we detail the statistical models that were run according to the questions posed. All statistical tests were two-sided.Do the bacterial species differ in virulence?To test whether the bacterial species differed in virulence, we performed a linear model with the natural log of the maximum hazard as the dependent variable and bacterial species as a factor. Post-hoc multiple comparisons were performed using “emmeans”82 and “magrittr”85, using the default Tukey adjustment for multiple comparisons. Effect sizes given as Cohen’s d, were also calculated using “emmeans”, using the sigma value of 0.4342, as estimated by the package. The hazard function in survival analyses gives the instantaneous failure rate, and the maximum hazard gives the hazard at the point at which this rate is highest. We extracted maximum hazard values from time of death data for each bacterial species/dose/experimental replicate. Each maximum hazard per species/dose/experimental replicate was estimated from an average of 33 flies (a few flies were lost whilst being moved between vials etc.). To extract maximum hazard values we defined a function that used the “muhaz” package86 to generate a smooth hazard function and then output the maximum hazard in a defined time window, as well as the time at which this maximum is reached. To assess the appropriate amount of smoothing, we tested and visualised results for four values (1, 2, 3 and 5) of the smoothing parameter, b, which was specified using bw.grid87. We present the results from b = 2, but all of the other values gave qualitatively similar results (see Supplementary Table 2). We used bw.method = “global” to allow a constant smoothing parameter across all times. The defined time window was zero to 20 days post injection. We removed one replicate (92 CFU for E. cloacae infection) because there was no mortality in the first 20 days and therefore the maximum hazard could not be estimated. This gave final sizes of n = 14 for E. cloacae and n = 15 for each of the other three species.$${{{{{rm{Model}}}}}},1:,{{log }}left({{{{{rm{maximum}}}}}},{{{{{rm{hazard}}}}}}right), sim ,{{{{{rm{bacterial}}}}}},{{{{{rm{species}}}}}}$$Are virulence differences due to variation in pathogen exploitation or PPP?To test whether the bacterial species vary in PPP, we performed a linear model with the natural log of the maximum hazard as the dependent variable, bacterial species as a factor, and the natural log of infection intensity as a covariate. We also included the interaction between bacterial species and infection intensity: a significant interaction would indicate variation in the reaction norms, i.e., variation in PPP. The package “emmeans”82 was used to test which of the reaction norms differed significantly from each other. We extracted maximum hazard values from time of death data for each bacterial species/dose/experimental replicate as described in section “Do the bacterial species differ in virulence?”. We also calculated the maximum hazard for the Ringer’s control groups, which gives the maximum hazard in the absence of infection (the y-intercept). We present the results from b = 2, but all of the other values gave qualitatively similar results (see results). We wanted to infer the causal effect of bacterial load upon host survival (and not the reverse), therefore we reasoned that the bacterial load measures should derive from flies homogenised before the maximum hazard had been reached. For E. cloacae, L. lactis, and Pr. burhodogranariea, for all smoothing parameter values, the maximum hazard was reached after two days post injection, although for smoothing parameter value 1, there were four incidences where it was reached between 1.8- and 2-days post injection. Per species/dose/experimental replicate we therefore calculated the geometric mean of infection intensity combined for days 1 and 2 post injection. In order to include flies with zero load, we added one to all load values before calculating the geometric mean. Geometric mean calculation was done using the R packages “dplyr”68, “EnvStats”88, “plyr”72 and “psych”89. Each mean was calculated from the bacterial load of eight flies, except for four mean values for E. cloacae, which derived from four flies each.For Ps. entomophila the maximum hazard was consistently reached at around day one post injection, meaning that bacterial sampling happened at around the time of the maximum hazard, and we therefore excluded this bacterial species from the analysis. We removed two replicates (Ringer’s and 92 CFU for E. cloacae infection) because there was no mortality in the first 20 days and therefore the maximum hazard could not be estimated. One replicate was removed because the maximum hazard occurred before day 1 for all b values (92,000 CFU for E. cloacae) and six replicates were removed because there were no bacterial load data available for day one (experimental replicate three of L. lactis). This gave final sample sizes of n = 15 for E. cloacae and n = 12 for L. lactis, and n = 18 for Pr. burhodogranariea.$${{{{{rm{Model}}}}}},2 :,{{log }}({{{{{rm{maximum}}}}}},{{{{{rm{hazard}}}}}}), sim ,{{log }}({{{{{rm{geometric}}}}}},{{{{{rm{mean}}}}}},{{{{{rm{bacterial}}}}}},{{{{{rm{load}}}}}}),\ times ,{{{{{rm{bacterial}}}}}},{{{{{rm{species}}}}}}$$To test whether there is variation in pathogen exploitation (infection intensity measured as bacterial load), we performed a linear model with the natural log of infection intensity as the dependent variable and bacterial species as a factor. Similar to the previous model, we used the geometric mean of infection intensity combined for days 1 and 2 post injection, for each bacterial species/dose/experimental replicate. The uninfected Ringer’s replicates were not included in this model. Post-hoc multiple comparisons were performed using “emmeans”, using the default Tukey adjustment for multiple comparisons. Effect sizes given as Cohen’s d, were also calculated using “emmeans”, using the sigma value of 2.327, as estimated by the package. Ps. entomophila was excluded for the reason given above. The sample sizes per bacterial species were: n = 13 for E. cloacae, n = 10 for L. lactis and n = 15 for Pr. burhodogranariea.$${{{{{rm{Model}}}}}},3:,{{log }}({{{{{rm{geometric}}}}}},{{{{{rm{mean}}}}}},{{{{{rm{bacterial}}}}}},{{{{{rm{load}}}}}}), sim ,{{{{{rm{bacterial}}}}}},{{{{{rm{species}}}}}}$$Are persistent infection loads dose-dependent?We tested whether initial injection dose is a predictor of bacterial load at seven days post injection22,25. We removed all flies that had a bacterial load that was below the detection limit as they are not informative for this analysis. The response variable was natural log transformed bacterial load at seven days post-injection and the covariate was natural log transformed injection dose, except for P. burhodogranariea, where the response variable and the covariate were log-log transformed. Separate models were carried out for each bacterial species. Experimental replicate and person were fitted as fixed factors. By day seven none of the flies injected with 92,000 CFU of L. lactis were alive. The analysis was not possible for Ps. entomophila infected flies because all flies were dead by seven days post injection.$${{{{{rm{Model}}}}}},4:,{{log }}({{{{{rm{day}}}}}},7,{{{{{rm{bacterial}}}}}},{{{{{rm{load}}}}}}), sim ,{{log }}({{{{{rm{injection}}}}}},{{{{{rm{dose}}}}}}),+,{{{{{rm{replicate}}}}}},+,{{{{{rm{person}}}}}}$$Calculation of clearance indicesTo facilitate the analyses of clearance we calculated clearance indices, which aggregate information about clearance into a single value for each bacterial species/dose/experimental replicate. All indices were based on the estimated proportion of cleared infections (defined as samples with a bacterial load that was below the detection limit) of the whole initial population. For this purpose, we first used data on bacterial load in living flies to calculate the daily proportion of cleared infections in live flies for the days that we sampled. Then we used the data on fly survival to calculate the daily proportion of flies that were still alive. By multiplying the daily proportion of cleared flies in living flies with the proportion of flies that were still alive, we obtained the proportion of cleared infections of the whole initial population – for each day on which bacterial load was measured. We then used these data to calculate two different clearance indices, which we used for different analyses. For each index we calculated the mean clearance across several days. Specifically, the first index was calculated across days three and four post injection (clearance index3,4), and the second index was calculated from days seven, 14 and 21 (clearance index7,14,21).Do the bacterial species differ in clearance?To test whether the bacterial species differed in clearance, we used clearance index3,4, which is the latest timeframe for which we could calculate this index for all four species: due to the high virulence of Ps. entomophila we were not able to assess bacterial load and thus clearance for later days. The distribution of clearance values did not conform to the assumptions of a linear model. We therefore used a Kruskal-Wallis test with pairwise Mann-Whitney-U post hoc tests. Note that the Kruskal-Wallis test uses a Chi-square distribution for approximating the H test statistic. To control for multiple testing we corrected the p-values of the post hoc tests using the method proposed by Benjamini and Hochberg90 that is implemented in the R function pairwise.wilcox.test.$${{{{{rm{Model}}}}}},5:,{{{{{{rm{clearance}}}}}},{{{{{rm{index}}}}}}}_{3,4}, sim ,{{{{{rm{bacterial}}}}}},{{{{{rm{species}}}}}}$$Do exploitation or PPP predict variation in clearance?To assess whether exploitation or PPP predict variation in clearance we performed separate analyses for clearance index3,4 and clearance index7,14,21. As discussed above, this precluded analysing Ps. entomophila. For each of the two indices we fitted a linear mixed effects model with the clearance index as the response variable. As fixed effects predictors we used the replicate-specific geometric mean log bacterial load and the species-specific PPP. In addition, we included species as a random effect.In our analysis we faced the challenge that many measured clearance values were at, or very close to zero. In addition, clearance values below zero do not make conceptual sense. To appropriately account for this issue, we used a logit link function (with Gaussian errors) in our model, which restricts the predicted clearance values to an interval between zero and one. Initial inspections of residuals indicated violations of the model assumption of homogenously distributed errors. To account for this problem, we included the log bacterial load and PPP as predictors of the error variance, which means that we used a model in which we relaxed the standard assumption of homogenous errors and account for heterogenous errors by fitting a function of how errors vary. For this purpose, we used the option dispformula when fitting the models with the function glmmTMB91.$${{{{{rm{Model}}}}}},6 :,{{{{{{rm{clearance}}}}}},{{{{{rm{index}}}}}}}_{3,4},{{{{{rm{or}}}}}},{{{{{{rm{clearance}}}}}},{{{{{rm{index}}}}}}}_{7,14,21}, \ sim ,{{log }}({{{{{rm{geometric}}}}}},{{{{{rm{mean}}}}}},{{{{{rm{bacterial}}}}}},{{{{{rm{load}}}}}}),+,{{{{{rm{PPP}}}}}}+{{{{{{rm{bacterial}}}}}},{{{{{rm{species}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{random}}}}}}}$$Does longer-term clearance depend upon the injection dose?In contrast to the analyses described above, we additionally aimed to assess the long-term dynamics of clearance based on the infection status of dead flies collected between 14 and 35 days and 56 to 78 days after injection. Using binomial logistic regressions, we tested whether initial injection dose affected the propensity for flies to clear an infection with E. cloacae or Pr. burhodogranariea before they died. The response variable was binary whereby 0 denoted that no CFUs grew from the homogenate and 1 denoted that CFUs did grow from the homogenate. Log-log transformed injection dose was included as a covariate as well as its interaction with the natural log of day post injection, and person was fitted as a fixed factor. Replicate was included in the Pr. burhodogranariea analysis only, because of unequal sampling across replicates for E. cloacae. L. lactis injected flies were not analysed because only 4 out of 39 (10.3%) cleared the infection. Ps. entomophila infected flies were not statistically analysed because of a low sample size (n = 12). The two bacterial species were analysed separately.$${{{{{rm{Model}}}}}},7 :,{{{{{rm{CFU}}}}}},{{{{{{rm{presence}}}}}}/{{{{{rm{absence}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{dead}}}}}}}, sim ,{{log }}({{log }}({{{{{rm{injection}}}}}},{{{{{rm{dose}}}}}})),\ times ,{{log }}({{{{{rm{day}}}}}},{{{{{rm{post}}}}}},{{{{{rm{injection}}}}}}),+,{{{{{rm{replicate}}}}}},+,{{{{{rm{person}}}}}}$$To test whether the patterns of clearance were similar for live and dead flies we tested whether the proportion of live uninfected flies was a predictor of the proportion of dead uninfected flies. We separately summed up the numbers of uninfected and infected flies for each bacterial species and dose, giving us a total sample size of n = 20 (four species × five doses). For live and for dead homogenised flies we had a two-vector (proportion infected and proportion uninfected) response variable, which was bound into a single object using cbind. The predictor was live flies, and the response variable was dead flies, and it was analysed using a generalized linear model with family = quasibinomial.$${{{{{rm{Model}}}}}},8:,{{{{{rm{cbind}}}}}}({{{{{rm{dead}}}}}},{{{{{rm{uninfected}}}}}},,{{{{{rm{dead}}}}}},{{{{{rm{infected}}}}}}), sim ,{{{{{rm{cbind}}}}}}({{{{{rm{live}}}}}},{{{{{rm{uninfected}}}}}},,{{{{{rm{live}}}}}},{{{{{rm{infected}}}}}})$$Reporting summaryFurther information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article. More

MaterialsStudy areaThe Sinbilawin town is located southeast of Dakahleia Governorate, Egypt. It is bounded to the east by the Timai El-Amded city, west by the Aga city, north by the Mansoura city and to the south by the Diarb Negm city. The Sinbilawin lies between 31° 27′ 38.07″ E longitude and 30° 53′ 1.55″ N latitude (Google Earth) (Fig. 1). The total area of Sinbilawin town is about 304.5 km2 with total cultivated area of Sinbilawin is about 64,362.28 Faddens5. The Sinbilawin town is characterized a flat land.Figure 1Map of the Sinbilawin city, 2015 (study area).Full size imageRice strawThe total area of rice crop in Egypt is 1,215,830 faddan and the production of rice is 4,817,964 tons. The average of productivity is 3.963 tons5. The total area of rice crop in Sinbilawin center is 34,078.12167 faddan and the production of rice straw is 148,376.1417 tons. The rice area map is shown in Fig. 2.Figure 2Rice area map.Full size imageDataGIS is a powerful tool which used for computerized mapping and spatial analysis. GIS is used in many applications such as geology, protection, natural resource management, risk management, urban planning, transportation, and various aspects of modeling in the environment. Also, it is using for decision making22. In this study GIS is used to select the best site to be suggested to collect the rice straw as shown in flowchart of Fig. 3.Figure 3Flowchart of rice straw collecting from Sinbilawin center.Full size imageSoftware programs

a.

Google Earth program
Google Earth combines the power of Google Search with satellite imagery, maps, Terrain and 3D buildings to put the world’s geographic information at your fingertips. It displays satellite images of varying resolution of the Earth’s surface, allowing users to see things like cities and houses looking perpendicularly down or at an oblique angle, with perspective23.

b.

Image Processing and Analysis Software (ENVI) program
It has been used to separate layers from the satellite image as layer of road, layer of urban, layer of canal and layer of sites to the rice crop planting. ENVI 5.6.2 Classic is the ideal software for the visualization, analysis and presentation of all types of digital imagery. ENVI Classic’s complete image-processing package includes advanced, yet easy-to-use, spectral tools, geometric correction, terrain analysis, radar analysis, raster and vector GIS capabilities, extensive support for images from a wide variety of sources, and much more24.

c.

GIS program
ArcGIS Desktop 10.1 will be using in the present study. It is the newest version of a popular GIS software which produced by ESRI. ArcGIS Desktop is comprised of a set of integrated applications. All figure numbers were created using GIS software.

Design a model for assembling rice strawArcGIS10.1 was selected in this study to design a model for selecting the suitable sites to collect rice straw amounts in Sinbilawin center. To achieve the former goal must be gotten the satellite images (landsat 8) for the province of Dakahleia and the Sinbilawin center. These images were called operation land imager (OLI). Thus, layers will be obtained from the satellite images such as water channels, drainages, urban areas, main and sub- roads, rice crop areas and sites. ENVI program has been used to separate layers and place it in a file which named (Shp. file) for easy insertion in ArcGIS10.1 program. In this present study, design a model will be done on the main layers which will be obtained from the satellite image as follows:

Location and the administrative limits of Dakahleia Governorate and Sinbilawin center.

The rice crop area and sites in Dakahleia governorate as the main layer.

Layer of rice area and their sites in Sinbilawin center. Sinbilawin center was selected in the study because it is cultivated largest rice area in Dakahleia and Dakahleia biggest governorate cultivates rice.

Layer of roads network in Sinbilawin center. The network of roads was included the main roads and submain to aggregation rice straw. Given the problems associated with transport cost, disposal, and issues that arise from inadequate agriculture crop residues management, the collect units become essential to be nearest of the network of road to facilitate the process of transportation and minimize cost.

Layer of the urban locations in Sinbilawin center. Crop residues collection sites have an enormous impact on urban in general due to contamination and fires. This study proposes the collecting rice straw sites not be near of the urban, because it causes many health problems for the population.

Layer of the canal locations in Sinbilawin center. Collecting rice straw sites must be nearest from the source of water as canal for safety, protect it from fire and important for any recycle operation.

Layer of the drain locations in Sinbilawin center. Also, drain is important as the source of water but less than canal.

Arc GIS 10.1 to select the suitable sites for assembling rice strawThree Scenarios were suggesting for completing the design of the modeling to select best sites for collecting rice straw. From the three scenarios wall be reached to the best collecting sites for rice straw in Sinbilawin center as follows:

The first scenario: Modeling for Sinbilawin center
In this case, modeling was running on the Sinbilawin center as the whole unit.

The second scenario: Modeling for the village in Sinbilawin center.
The Sinbilawin center consists of 97 villages and some other area surrounding. In this case, modeling was running on each village and each accessory in Sinbilawin center.

The third scenario: Modeling for the best site in each village in Sinbilawin center.
In this case, the modeling was running on each best site which located in each village (on the 97 sites in Sinbilawin center).

MethodsTo achieve the former objective in this study wall be done as follows:

Location and the administrative limits of Dakahleia Governorate and Sinbilawin center were uploaded as map by Google earth program.

The rice crop area and sites in Dakahleia governorate. The data of area and sites to rice crop in Dakahleia governorate were collected from the Ministry of Agricultural—Central Administration of Economy and Statistics as numerical data for each center in Dakahleia governorate. Map for Dakahleia governorate was obtained via satellite image from the Remote Sensing Authority.

Rice production (ton) = Cultivated area(fed)*Average production (4.354 ton/fed)5.

Total rice straw (ton) = Rice production (ton) / 2.5.

Satellite image layersAreas and sites of satellite layers for rice in Sinbilawin centerArea and sites of rice crop in Sinbilawin center as the database were obtained and collected Extraction layer from the Ministry of Agricultural. Central Administration of Economy and Statistics as numerical data for each village. Sinbilawin map as layer of molding was obtained via satellite image from the Remote Sensing Authority. It was used with ArcGIS 10.1 software to inference the sites and area of rice crop in the Sinbilawin center villages.Layer for the road network in Sinbilawin centerThe network of roads is very important factor and effective for collecting rice straw. The network roads map as the layer was extracted from satellite image via the Remote Sensing Authority. It was used with ArcGIS 10.1 software to inference the main and sub roads in the Sinbilawin center.Layer for the urban locations in Sinbilawin centerCrop residues collection sites have an enormous impact on urban general due to contamination, environmental pollution and fires, which are causing many health problems for the population. The urban map as the layer was extracted from satellite image via the Remote Sensing Authority. It was used with ArcGIS 10.1 software to appear all the urban sites in the Sinbilawin center.Layer for the water source in Sinbilawin centerRice straw collection sites must be nearest from the source of water as canal for safety and protect it from fire also water is very important for any recycle operation. The canal map as the layer was extracted from satellite image via the Remote Sensing Authority. It was used with ArcGIS 10.1 software to appear all source of water as canal in the Sinbilawin center.Layer for the drain locations in Sinbilawin centerThe drain is important as the source of water but less than canal. The drain map as the layer was extracted from satellite image via the Remote Sensing Authority. It was used with ArcGIS 10.1 software to appear all drain in the Sinbilawin center.ArcGIS 10.1 to select the suitable sites for collecting rice strawModeling was designed as shown in Fig. 4 to apply with the three scenarios.Figure 4Short form for modeling to select suitable sites to assembly rice straw.Full size imageFrom the three scenarios shall be reached to the best collecting sites for recycling rice straw in Sinbilawin center as follows:

The first scenario was running modeling for Sinbilawin center.

The second scenario was running modeling for the village in it.

The third scenario was running modeling for the best site in each village in it.

Different steps were running with modeling to select the best sites to assembly rice straw in Sinbilawin center: 1- Euclidean distance. 2- Reclassify (or changes). 3-Weighted overlay. Assuming common measurement scale and weights for each layer according to its importance as follows:—Roads 50%, Channels 40%, Urban 10% so that the total is 100%0.4- Select Layer by Location (Data Management). In this step, order of selecting layer sites was given through Arc tool box at ArcGIS10.1 for selecting sites through the Arc toolbox at ArcGIS10.1 software as follow: 1- Intersection with roads. 2- Intersection with canals water.Total cost of collecting rice strawTransportation for collecting crop residues is important factors because it affects the success or failure of crop residues utilization. GIS was used to determine suitable sites for collecting rice straw and converting it through given parameters as:

Total length of road (km).

Total weight of rice straw (ton).

Speed of tractor in sub roads (30 km/h)

Total time of transfer (h).

All experimental protocols were approved by Benha University Research Committee and all methods used in this study was carried out according to the guidelines regulations of Benha University. This work is approved by the ethic committee at Benha University. More

Vaurie, C. Taxonomy and geographical distribution of the Furnariidae (Aves, Passeriformes). Bulletin of the AMNH; v. 166, article 1. Bull. Am. Museum Nat. Hist. 166, 1–357 (1980).
Google Scholar 
Hahn, I. & Römer, U. New observations of the Masafuera Rayadito Aphrastura masafuerae. Cotinga 6, 17–19 (1996).
Google Scholar 
Hahn, I. & Römer, U. Threatened avifauna of the Juan Fernández Archipelago, Chile: The impact of introduced mammals and conservation priorities. Cotinga 17, 66–72 (2002).
Google Scholar 
Remsen, J. V. Family Furnariidae (Ovenbirds) Vol 8 162–348 (Lynx Edicions, 2003).
Google Scholar 
Moreno, J., Merino, S., Lobato, E., Rodríguez-Gironés, M. A. & Vásquez, R. A. Sexual dimorphism and parental roles in the Thorn-tailed Rayadito (Furnariidae). Condor 109, 312–320 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Moreno, J., Merino, S., Vásquez, R. A. & Armesto, J. J. Breeding biology of the Thorn-tailed Rayadito (Furnariidae) in south-temperate rainforests of Chile. Condor 107, 69–77 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rozzi, R. & Jiménez, J. Sub-Antarctic Magellanic Ornithology: The First Decade of Long-term Bird Studies at the Omora Ethnobotanical Park, Cape Horn Biosphere Reserve, Chile (Universidad de Magallanes, Chile-University of North Texas Press, 2014).
Google Scholar 
Schlatter, R. & Riveros, G. Historia natural del Archipiélago Diego Ramírez, Chile. Ser. Cie. Ina. 47, 87–112 (1997).
Google Scholar 
Barroso, O. et al. Scientific collaboration with the Chilean Navy for long-term ornithological studies in the Diego Ramírez Archipelago: First year-round monitoring of Gonzalo Island’s bird assemblage. Anal. Inst. Patagonia 48, 149–168 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Botero-Delgadillo, E. et al. Range-wide genetic structure in the thorn-tailed rayadito suggests limited gene flow towards peripheral populations. Sci. Rep. 10, 1–14 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Aguirre, F. et al. Gradientes climáticos y su influyente rol sobre los ecosistemas terrestres de la Reserva de Biosfera Cabo de Hornos, Chile. Anal. Inst. Patagonia (In press).Rozzi, R. et al. Parque Marino Cabo de Hornos-Diego Ramírez, Informe Técnico para la Propuesta de Creación (Universidad de Magallanes, 2017).
Google Scholar 
Johnson, A. W. & Goodall, J. The Birds of Chile and Adjacent Regions of Argentina, Bolivia and Peru (Platt Establecimientos Graficos, 1967).
Google Scholar 
Tomasevic, J. A., Hodum, P. J. & Estades, C. F. On the ecology and conservation of the critically endangered Masafuera Rayadito (Aphrastura masafuerae). Ornitol. Neotrop. 21, 535–543 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Ippi, S., Anderson, C. B., Rozzi, R. & Elphick, C. S. Annual variation of abundance and composition in forest bird assemblages on Navarino Island, Cape Horn Biosphere Reserve, Chile. Ornitol. Neotrop. 20, 231–245 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Rozzi, R., Martínez, D., Willson, M. F. & Sabag, C. In Ecología de los Bosques Nativos de Chile (eds Armesto, J. J. et al.) 135–152 (Editorial Universitaria, 1996).
Google Scholar 
Hahn, I., Römer, U. & Schlatter, R. Distribution, habitat use, and abundance patterns of land bird communities on the Juan Fernández Islands, Chile. Ornitol. Neotrop. 16, 371–385 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Vergara, P. M. & Marquet, P. A. On the seasonal effect of landscape structure on a bird species: The thorn-tailed rayadito in a relict forest in northern Chile. Landsc. Ecol. 22, 1059–1071 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kelt, D. A. et al. The avifauna of Bosque Fray Jorge National Park and Chile’s Norte Chico. J. Arid Environ. 126, 23–36 (2016).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Espíndola-Hernández, P., Castaño-Villa, G. J., Vásquez, R. A. & Quirici, V. Sex-specific provisioning of nutritious food items in relation to brood sex ratios in a non-dimorphic bird. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 71, 65 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pisano Valdés, E. & Schlatter, R. P. Vegetación y flora de las islas Diego Ramírez (Chile). 1. Características y relaciones de la flora Vascular. Anal. Inst. Patagonia 12, 183–194 (1981).
Google Scholar 
Pisano Valdés, E. & Schlatter, R. P. Vegetación y flora de las islas Diego Ramírez (Chile). 2. Comunidades vegetales vasculares. Anal. Inst. Patagonia 12, 195–204 (1981).
Google Scholar 
Mackenzie, R. et al. Vascular flora and vegetational types at the long-term socio-ecological studies site, Gonzalo Island, Diego Ramírez Archipelago (56°31’S), Chile. Anal. Inst. Patagonia 48, 139–148 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rozzi, R. et al. Un centinela para el monitoreo del cambio climático y su impacto sobre la biodiversidad en la cumbre austral de América: La nueva red de estudios a largo Plazo Cabo de Hornos. Anal. Inst. Patagonia 48, 45–81 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Robertson, G. et al. Continued increase in the number of black-browed albatrosses (Thalassarche melanophris) at Diego Ramírez, Chile. Polar Biol. 40, 1035–1042 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Arroniz-Crespo, M. et al. Bryophyte-cyanobacteria associations during primary succession in recently deglaciated areas of Tierra del Fuego (Chile). PLoS One 9, e96081 (2014).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rozzi, R. et al. Cape Horn Biosphere Reserve: A challenge for biodiversity conservation, and implementation of sustainable development in southernmost South America. Anal. Inst. Patagonia 36, 55–70 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Rozzi, R. et al. principles for biocultural conservation at the southern tip of the Americas: The approach of the Omora Ethnobotanical Park. Ecol. Soc. 11, 25 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2019).Gonzalez, J. & Wink, M. Genetic differentiation of the Thorn-tailed Rayadito Aphrastura spinicauda (Furnariidae: Passeriformes) revealed by ISSR profiles suggests multiple palaeorefugia and high recurrent gene flow. Ibis 152, 761–774 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Filatov, D. A. ProSeq: A software for preparation and evolutionary analysis of DNA sequence data sets. Mol. Ecol. Notes 2, 621–624 (2002).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Excoffier, L. & Lischer, H. E. Arlequin suite ver 3.5: A new series of programs to perform population genetics analyses under Linux and Windows. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 10, 564–567 (2010).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hammer, Ø., Harper, D. A. & Ryan, P. D. PAST: Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol. Electron. 4, 9 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Bandelt, H.-J., Forster, P. & Röhl, A. Median-joining networks for inferring intraspecific phylogenies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 16, 37–48 (1999).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pons, O. & Petit, R. Measwring and testing genetic differentiation with ordered versus unordered alleles. Genetics 144, 1237–1245 (1996).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Excoffier, L., Smouse, P. E. & Quattro, J. M. Analysis of molecular variance inferred from metric distances among DNA haplotypes: Application to human mitochondrial DNA restriction data. Genetics 131, 479–491 (1992).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Botero-Delgadillo, E. et al. Variation in fine-scale genetic structure and local dispersal patterns between peripheral populations of a South American passerine bird. Ecol. Evol. 7, 8363–8378 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Botero-Delgadillo, E., Quirici, V., Vásquez, R. A. & Kempenaers, B. Heterozygosity-fitness correlations in a continental island population of Thorn-tailed Rayadito. J. Hered. 111, 628–639 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Goudet, J. & Jombart, T. hierfstat: Estimation and tests of hierarchical F-statistics. R package version 0.04-22. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=hierfstat (2015).Jombart, T. adegenet: A R package for the multivariate analysis of genetic markers. Bioinformatics 24, 1403–1405 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Beugin, M. P., Gayet, T., Pontier, D., Devillard, S. & Jombart, T. A fast likelihood solution to the genetic clustering problem. Methods Ecol. Evol. 9, 1006–1016 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Peakall, R. & Smouse, P. E. GENALEX 6: Genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research. Mol. Ecol. Notes 6, 288–295 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Piry, S. et al. GENECLASS2: A software for genetic assignment and first-generation migrant detection. J. Hered. 95, 536–539 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Paetkau, D., Calvert, W., Stirling, I. & Strobeck, C. Microsatellite analysis of population structure in Canadian polar bears. Mol. Ecol. 4, 347–354 (1995).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Paetkau, D., Slade, R., Burden, M. & Estoup, A. Genetic assignment methods for the direct, real-time estimation of migration rate: A simulation-based exploration of accuracy and power. Mol. Ecol. 13, 55–65 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Du Sert, N. P. et al. Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 20. PLoS Biol. 18, e3000411 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Linnaeus, C. Systema Naturae per regna tria naturae. Secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. Vol. 1 (Impensis Direct Laurentii Salvii, 1758).Gray, G. R. A List of the Genera of Birds, with an Indication of the Typical Species of Each Genus, Compiled from Various Sources (Richard and John E. Taylor, 1940).
Google Scholar 
Oberholser, H. C. Some untenable names in ornithology. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia 20, 201–216 (1899).
Google Scholar 
Derryberry, E. P. et al. Lineage diversification and morphological evolution in a large-scale continental radiation: The Neotropical ovenbirds and woodcreepers (Aves: Furnariidae). Evol. Int. J. Organ. Evol. 65, 2973–2986 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fjeldsa, J., Christidis, L. & Ericson, P. G. The Largest Avian Radiation: The Evolution of Perching Birds, or the Order Passeriformes (Lynx Edicions, 2020).
Google Scholar 
Munsell Color Charts. Munsell Soil Color Charts (Munsell Color Company, 2000).
Google Scholar 
Mittermeier, R. A. et al. Wilderness and biodiversity conservation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 100, 10309–10313 (2003).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lomolino, M., Riddle, B. & Whittaker, R. (Oxford University Press, 2016).Whittaker, R. J. Island Biogeography: Ecology, Evolution, and Conservation (Oxford University Press, 1998).
Google Scholar 
Botero-Delgadillo, E. et al. Ecological and social correlates of natal dispersal in female and male Thorn-tailed Rayadito (Aphrastura spinicauda) in a naturally isolated and fragmented habitat. Auk Ornithol. Adv. 136, ukz016 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Botero-Delgadillo, E., Serrano, D., Orellana, N., Poblete, Y. & Vásquez, R. A. Effects of temperature and time constraints on the seasonal variation in nest morphology of the Thorn-tailed Rayadito (Aphrastura spinicauda). Emu-Austral Ornithol. 117, 181–187 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cornelius, C. Spatial variation in nest-site selection by a secondary cavity-nesting bird in a human-altered landscape. Condor 110, 615–626 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Quilodrán, C. S., Estades, C. F. & Vásquez, R. A. Conspecific effect on habitat selection of a territorial cavity-nesting bird. Wilson J. Ornithol. 126, 534–543 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Quilodrán, C. S., Vásquez, R. A. & Estades, C. F. Nesting of the Thorn-tailed Rayadito (Aphrastura spinicauda) in a pine plantation in southcentral Chile. Wilson J. Ornithol. 124, 737–742 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wright, N. A., Steadman, D. W. & Witt, C. C. Predictable evolution toward flightlessness in volant island birds. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113, 4765–4770 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sandvig, E. M., Coulson, T. & Clegg, S. M. The effect of insularity on avian growth rates and implications for insular body size evolution. Proc. R. Soc. B 286, 20181967 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Reznick, D. N. et al. Eco-evolutionary feedbacks predict the time course of rapid life-history evolution. Am. Nat. 194, 671–692 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Clavel, J. & Morlon, H. Accelerated body size evolution during cold climatic periods in the Cenozoic. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114, 4183–4188 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Philippi, R. & Landbeck, L. Beitrage zur Fauna Chiles. Arch Naturgesch 32, 121–132 (1866).
Google Scholar 
Vaurie, C. Taxonomy and geographical distribution of the Furnariidae (Aves, Passeriformes). Bull. AMNH 166, 1 (1980).
Google Scholar 
Vuilleumier, F. A quantitative survey of speciation phenomena in Patagonian birds. Ornitol. Neotrop. 2, 5–28 (1991).
Google Scholar 
Ippi, S., Vasquez, R. A., van Dongen, W. F. & Lazzoni, I. Geographical variation in the vocalizations of the suboscine Thorn-tailed Rayadito Aphrastura spinicauda. Ibis 153, 789–805 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Imberti, S. Internet Bird Collection: Thorn-tailed Rayadito (Aphrastura spinicauda). https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/204019791 (2001).Mikula, P. et al. A global analysis of song frequency in passerines provides no support for the acoustic adaptation hypothesis but suggests a role for sexual selection. Ecol. Lett. 24, 477–486 (2021).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Meirmans, P. G. & Hedrick, P. W. Assessing population structure: FST and related measures. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 11, 5–18 (2011).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Davies, B. J. et al. The evolution of the Patagonian Ice Sheet from 35 ka to the present day (PATICE). Earth Sci. Rev. 204, 103152 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lamy, F. et al. Glacial reduction and millennial-scale variations in Drake Passage throughflow. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112, 13496–13501 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rozzi, R. et al. Integrating ecology and environmental ethics: Earth stewardship in the southern end of the Americas. Bioscience 62, 226–236 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Collins, R. & Cruickshank, R. H. The seven deadly sins of DNA barcoding. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 13, 969–975 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
De Queiroz, K. Species concepts and species delimitation. Syst. Biol. 56, 879–886 (2007).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sendell-Price, A. T. et al. The genomic landscape of divergence across the speciation continuum in island-colonising silvereyes (Zosterops lateralis). G3 Genes Genomes Genet. 10, 3147–3163 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Päckert, M., Martens, J., Wink, M., Feigl, A. & Tietze, D. T. Molecular phylogeny of Old World swifts (Aves: Apodiformes, Apodidae, Apus and Tachymarptis) based on mitochondrial and nuclear markers. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 63, 606–616 (2012).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lerner, H. et al. Phylogeny and new taxonomy of the booted eagles (Accipitriformes: Aquilinae). Zootaxa 4216, 301–320 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
De Silva, T. N., Peterson, A. T., Bates, J. M., Fernando, S. W. & Girard, M. G. Phylogenetic relationships of weaverbirds (Aves: Ploceidae): A first robust phylogeny based on mitochondrial and nuclear markers. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 109, 21–32 (2017).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Schüttler, E. et al. New records of invasive mammals from the sub-Antarctic Cape Horn Archipelago. Polar Biol. 42, 1093–1105 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Martin, A. & Richardson, M. Rodent eradication scaled up: Clearing rats and mice from South Georgia. Oryx 53, 27–35 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schüttler, E., Klenke, R., McGehee, S., Rozzi, R. & Jax, K. Vulnerability of ground-nesting waterbirds to predation by invasive American mink in the Cape Horn Biosphere Reserve, Chile. Biol. Conserv. 142, 1450–1460 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Trivers, R. L. Parental investment and sexual selection. in Sexual selection and the descent of man 136–179 (Aldine, 1972).Evans, R. M. The relationship between parental input and investment. Anim. Behav. 39, 797–798 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
Clutton-Brock, T. H. The Evolution of Parental Care (Princeton University Press, 1991).Book 

Google Scholar 
Willson, M. F. & Pianka, E. R. Sexual selection, sex ratio and mating system. Am. Nat. 97, 405–407 (1963).Article 

Google Scholar 
Trivers, R. L. & Willard, D. E. Natural selection of parental ability to vary the sex ratio of offspring. Science 179, 90–92 (1973).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Clutton-Brock, T. H., Major, M., Albon, S. D. & Guinness, F. E. Early development and population dynamics in red deer. I. Density-dependent effects on juvenile survival. J. Anim. Ecol. 56, 53–67 (1987).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kruuk, L. E. B., Clutton-Brock, T. H., Rose, K. E. & Guinness, F. E. Early determinants of lifetime reproductive success differ between the sexes in red deer. Proc. R. Soc. B-Biol. Sci. 266, 1655–1661 (1999).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Clutton-Brock, T. H., Albon, S. D. & Guinness, F. E. Reproductive success in male and female red deer. in Reproductive success 325–343 (University of Chicago Press, 1988).Pérez-Barbería, F. J. & Yearsley, J. M. Sexual selection for fighting skills as a driver of sexual segregation in polygynous ungulates: an evolutionary model. Anim. Behav. 80, 745–755 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pérez-Barbería, F. J. et al. Heat stress reduces growth rate of red deer calf: Climate warming implications. PLoS ONE 15, e0233809 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nussey, D. H. et al. Inter- and intrasexual variation in aging patterns across reproductive traits in a wild red deer population. Am. Nat. 174, 342–357 (2009).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Geist, V. Deer of the World: Their Evolution, Behavior & Ecology (Stackpole Books, 1998).
Google Scholar 
Ricklefs, R. E. Evolutionary theories of aging: Confirmation of a fundamental prediction, with implications for the genetic basis and evolution of life span. Am. Nat. 152, 24–44 (1998).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Jones, O. R. et al. Senescence rates are determined by ranking on the fast-slow life-history continuum. Ecol. Lett. 11, 664–673 (2008).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Oftedal, O. T. Pregnancy and lactation. in Bioenergetics of wild herbivores 215–238 (CRC-Press, 1985).Linn, J. G. Factors Affecting the Composition of Milk from Dairy Cows. in Designing Foods: Animal Product Options in the Marketplace (National Academies Press (US), 1988).Hinde, K., Power, M. L. & Oftedal, O. T. Rhesus macaque milk: magnitude, sources, and consequences of individual variation over lactation. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 138, 148–157 (2009).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gomendio, M., Clutton-Brock, T. H., Albon, S. D., Guinness, F. E. & Simpson, M. J. Mammalian sex ratios and variation in costs of rearing sons and daughters. Nature 343, 261–263 (1990).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Berube, C. H., Festa-Bianchet, M. & Jorgenson, J. T. Reproductive costs of sons and daughters in Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. Behav. Ecol. 7, 60–68 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Landete-Castillejos, T., García, A., López-Serrano, F. R. & Gallego, L. Maternal quality and differences in milk production and composition for male and female Iberian red deer calves (Cervus elaphus hispanicus). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 57, 267–274 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hinde, K. First-time macaque mothers bias milk composition in favor of sons. Curr. Biol. 17, R958–R959 (2007).MathSciNet 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hinde, K. Richer milk for sons but more milk for daughters: Sex-biased investment during lactation varies with maternal life history in rhesus macaques. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 21, 512–519 (2009).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Powe, C. E., Knott, C. D. & Conklin-Brittain, N. Infant sex predicts breast milk energy content. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 22, 50–54 (2010).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Fujita, M. et al. In poor families, mothers’ milk is richer for daughters than sons: A test of Trivers-Willard hypothesis in agropastoral settlements in Northern Kenya. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 149, 52–59 (2012).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Robert, K. A. & Braun, S. Milk composition during lactation suggests a mechanism for male biased allocation of maternal resources in the tammar wallaby (Macropus eugenii). PLoS ONE 7, e51099 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Oftedal, O. T. Pregnancy and lactation. Bioenerg. Wild Herbiv. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781351070218-10 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rogers, G. & Stewart, J. The effects of some nutritional and non-nutritional factors on milk protein concentration and yield [dairy cattle]. Aust. J. Dairy Technol. 26–32 (1982).Lubritz, D. L., Forrest, K. & Robison, O. W. Age of cow and age of dam effects on milk production of hereford cows. J. Anim. Sci. 67, 2544–2549 (1989).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Khan, M. S. & Shook, G. E. Effects of age on milk yield: Time trends and method of adjustment. J. Dairy Sci. 79, 1057–1064 (1996).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Jenness, R. Biochemical and nutritional aspects of milk and colostrum. in Lactation / edited by Bruce L. Larson ; written by Ralph R. Anderson … [et al.] 164–197 (Iowa State University, 1985).Ng-Kwai-Hang, K. F., Hayes, J. F., Moxley, J. E. & Monardes, H. G. Environmental influences on protein content and composition of bovine milk. J. Dairy Sci. 65, 1993–1998 (1982).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kroeker, E. M., Ng-Kwai-Hang, K. F., Hayes, J. F. & Moxley, J. E. Effect of β-lactoglobulin variant and environmental factors on variation in the detailed composition of bovine milk serum proteins. J. Dairy Sci. 68, 1637–1641 (1985).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pérez-Barbería, F. J. et al. Water sprinkling as a tool for heat abatement in farmed Iberian red deer: Effects on calf growth and behaviour. PLoS ONE 16, e0249540 (2021).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Abecia, J. A. & Palacios, C. Ewes giving birth to female lambs produce more milk than ewes giving birth to male lambs. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 17, 736–739 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hinde, K., Carpenter, A. J., Clay, J. S. & Bradford, B. J. Holsteins favor heifers, not bulls: Biased milk production programmed during pregnancy as a function of fetal sex. PLoS ONE 9, e86169 (2014).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Thakkar, S. K. et al. Dynamics of human milk nutrient composition of women from Singapore with a special focus on lipids. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 25, 770–779 (2013).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Quinn, E. A. No evidence for sex biases in milk macronutrients, energy, or breastfeeding frequency in a sample of Filipino mothers. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 152, 209–216 (2013).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ono, K. A. & Boness, D. J. Sexual dimorphism in sea lion pups: Differential maternal investment, or sex-specific differences in energy allocation?. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 38, 31–41 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Skibiel, A. L., Downing, L. M., Orr, T. J. & Hood, W. R. The evolution of the nutrient composition of mammalian milks. J. Anim. Ecol. 82, 1254–1264 (2013).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Mitoulas, L. R. et al. Variation in fat, lactose and protein in human milk over 24h and throughout the first year of lactation. Br. J. Nutr. 88, 29–37 (2002).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Jenkins, T. C. & McGuire, M. A. Major advances in nutrition: Impact on milk composition. J. Dairy Sci. 89, 1302–1310 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hobbs, N. T., Baker, D. L., Bear, G. D. & Bowden, D. C. Ungulate grazing in sagebrush grassland: Effects of resource competition on secondary production. Ecol. Appl. 6, 218–227 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Robbins, A. M., Robbins, M. M., Gerald-Steklis, N. & Steklis, H. D. Age-related patterns of reproductive success among female mountain gorillas. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 131, 511–521 (2006).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sunderland, N., Heffernan, S., Thomson, S. & Hennessy, A. Maternal parity affects neonatal survival rate in a colony of captive bred baboons (Papio hamadryas). J. Med. Primatol. 37, 223–228 (2008).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Landete-Castillejos, T. et al. Age-related body weight constraints on prenatal and milk provisioning in Iberian red deer (Cervus elaphus hispanicus) affect allocation of maternal resources. Theriogenology 71, 400–407 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bercovitch, F. B., Widdig, A. & Nürnberg, P. Maternal investment in rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta): Reproductive costs and consequences of raising sons. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 48, 1–11 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
López-Quintanilla, M. Comportamiento Social y Maternofilial del Ciervo en Cautividad (Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, 2022).
Google Scholar 
Adam, C. L., Kyle, C. E. & Young, P. Growth and reproductive development of red deer calves (Cervus elaphus) born out-of-season. Anim. Sci. 55, 265–270 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
Landete-Castillejos, T., Garcia, A. & Gallego, L. Calf growth in captive Iberian red deer (Cervus elaphus hispanicus): Effects of birth date and hind milk production and composition. J. Anim. Sci. 79, 1085–1092 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Clutton-Brock, T. H., Albon, S. D. & Guinness, F. E. Great expectations – dominance, breeding success and offspring sex-ratios in red deer. Anim. Behav. 34, 460–471 (1986).Article 

Google Scholar 
Moyes, K. et al. Advancing breeding phenology in response to environmental change in a wild red deer population. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 2455–2469 (2011).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Youngner, V. B. & McKell, C. M. The Biology and Utilization of Grasses (Academic Press, 1972).
Google Scholar 
Pinares-Patiño, C. S. Methane emission from forage-fed sheep, a study of variation between animals. PhD thesis. Massey University, Wellington, New Zealand. (Massey University, 2000).van Tassell, C. P., Wiggans, G. R. & Norman, H. D. Method R estimates of heritability for milk, fat, and protein yields of United States dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 82, 2231–2237 (1999).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Landete-Castillejos, T. et al. Milk production and composition in captive Iberian red deer (Cervus elaphus hispanicus): Effect of birth date. J. Anim. Sci. 78, 2771–2777 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Perrin, D. R. 709. The calorific value of milk of different species. J. Dairy Res. 25, 215–220 (1958).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wood, S. N. Fast stable restricted maximum likelihood and marginal likelihood estimation of semiparametric generalized linear models. J. R Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat. Methodol. 73, 3–36 (2011).MathSciNet 
MATH 
Article 

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

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, v. 3.4.1. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2017).Pinheiro, J., Bates, D., DebRoy, S., Sarkar, D. & Team, R. C. nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1–131. Retrieved on 229 July 2017 from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme. (2017).Wickham, H. Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (Springer, 2009).MATH 

Google Scholar  More

Fraisl, D. et al. Mapping citizen science contributions to the UN sustainable development goals. Sustain. Sci. 15, 1735–1751 (2020). This is the first article to quantitatively assess the potential of citizen science for SDG indicator monitoring.
Google Scholar 
Haklay, M. et al. Contours of citizen science: a vignette study. R. Soc. Open Sci. 8, 202108 (2021). This article comprehensively explores the diverse perceptions of citizen science.ADS 

Google Scholar 
Kullenberg, C. & Kasperowski, D. What is citizen science? — A scientometric meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 11, e0147152 (2016). This article analyses the main topical focal points of citizen science.
Google Scholar 
Lemmens, R., Antoniou, V., Hummer, P. & Potsiou, C. in The Science of Citizen Science (eds. Vohland, K. et al.) 461–474 (Springer International Publishing, 2021).Wynn, J. Citizen Science In The Digital Age: Rhetoric, Science, And Public Engagement (Univ. Alabama Press, 2017).Roser, M. & Ortiz-Ospina, E. Literacy. Our World in Data https://ourworldindata.org/literacy (2016).Pateman, R., Dyke, A. & West, S. The diversity of participants in environmental citizen science. Citiz. Sci. Theory Pract. 6, 9 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Haklay, M. et al. in The Science of Citizen Science (eds Vohland, K. et al.) 13–33 (Springer International Publishing, 2021).Odenwald, S. A citation study of citizen science projects in space science and astronomy. Citiz. Sci. Theory Pract. 3, 5 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Bedessem, B., Julliard, R. & Montuschi, E. Measuring epistemic success of a biodiversity citizen science program: a citation study. PLoS ONE 16, e0258350 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Gardiner, M. M. & Roy, H. E. The role of community science in entomology. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 67, 437–456 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Kasperowski, D. & Hillman, T. The epistemic culture in an online citizen science project: programs, antiprograms and epistemic subjects. Soc. Stud. Sci. 48, 564–588 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Lambers, K., Verschoof-van der Vaart, W. & Bourgeois, Q. Integrating remote sensing, machine learning, and citizen science in Dutch archaeological prospection. Remote. Sens. 11, 794 (2019).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Froeling, F. et al. Narrative review of citizen science in environmental epidemiology: setting the stage for co-created research projects in environmental epidemiology. Environ. Int. 152, 106470 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Hilton, N. H. Stimmen: a citizen science approach to minority language sociolinguistics. Linguist. Vanguard. 7, 20190017 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Maisonneuve, N., Stevens, M., Niessen, M. E. & Steels, L. in Information Technologies in Environmental Engineering (eds Athanasiadis, I. N., Rizzoli, A. E., Mitkas, P. A. & Gómez, J. M.) 215–228 (Springer, 2009).Arias, R., Capelli, L. & Diaz Jimenez, C. A new methodology based on citizen science to improve environmental odour management. Chem. Eng. Trans. 68, 7–12 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Nascimento, S., Rubio Iglesias, J. M., Owen, R., Schade, S. & Shanley, L. in Citizen Science — Innovation in Open Science, Society and Policy (eds Hecker, S. et al.) 219–240 (UCL Press, 2018).Den Broeder, L., Devilee, J., Van Oers, H., Schuit, A. J. & Wagemakers, A. Citizen Science for public health. Health Promot. Int. 33, 505–514 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Bio Innovation Service. Citizen Science For Environmental Policy: Development Of An EU Wide Inventory And Analysis Of Selected Practices (Publications Office, 2018).Mielke, J., Vermaßen, H. & Ellenbeck, S. Ideals, practices, and future prospects of stakeholder involvement in sustainability science. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, E10648–E10657 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Pocock, M. J. O. et al. A vision for global biodiversity monitoring with citizen science. Adv. Ecol. Res. 59, 169–223 (2018). This article describes the opportunities of citizen science for biodiversity research.
Google Scholar 
Isaac, N. J. B., Strien, A. J., August, T. A., Zeeuw, M. P. & Roy, D. B. Statistics for citizen science: extracting signals of change from noisy ecological data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 5, 1052–1060 (2014). This article describes bias-correction approaches for ecological trend estimates.
Google Scholar 
Tengö, M., Austin, B. J., Danielsen, F. & Fernández-Llamazares, Á. Creating synergies between citizen science and Indigenous and local knowledge. BioScience 71, 503–518 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Krick, E. Citizen experts in participatory governance: democratic and epistemic assets of service user involvement, local knowledge and citizen science. Curr. Sociol. https://doi.org/10.1177/00113921211059225 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Danielsen, F. et al. in Citizen Science (eds Hecker, S. et al.) 110–123 (UCL Press, 2018).Luzar, J. B. et al. Large-scale environmental monitoring by Indigenous peoples. BioScience 61, 771–781 (2011).
Google Scholar 
UNESCO. UNESCO recommendation on open science. UNESCO https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379949.locale=en (2021).Wehn, U. et al. Impact assessment of citizen science: state of the art and guiding principles for a consolidated approach. Sustain. Sci. 16, 1683–1699 (2021). This article presents guidelines for a common approach in assessing citizen science impacts.
Google Scholar 
Aristeidou, M. & Herodotou, C. Online citizen science: a systematic review of effects on learning and scientific literacy. Citiz. Sci. Theory Pract. 5, 11 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Peter, M., Diekötter, T. & Kremer, K. Participant outcomes of biodiversity citizen science projects: a systematic literature review. Sustainability 11, 2780 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Turrini, T., Dörler, D., Richter, A., Heigl, F. & Bonn, A. The threefold potential of environmental citizen science — generating knowledge, creating learning opportunities and enabling civic participation. Biol. Conserv. 225, 176–186 (2018).
Google Scholar 
ECSA. Ten principles of citizen science. ECSA https://zenodo.org/record/5127534 (2015).Haklay, M. et al. ECSA’s characteristics of citizen science. ECSA https://zenodo.org/record/3758668 (2020).Danielsen, F. Community-based Monitoring In The Arctic (Univ. Alaska Press, 2020).Cooper, C. B. et al. Inclusion in citizen science: the conundrum of rebranding. Science 372, 1386–1388 (2021). This article discusses issues around justice, equity, diversity and inclusion related to citizen science.ADS 

Google Scholar 
Eitzel, M. V. et al. Citizen science terminology matters: exploring key terms. Citiz. Sci. Theory Pract. 2, 1 (2017). This article highlights how choice of concepts and terms affects knowledge creation.
Google Scholar 
Bonney, R. et al. Citizen science: a developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. BioScience 59, 977–984 (2009). This article presents an early model for building and operating citizen science projects.
Google Scholar 
Haklay, M. in Crowdsourcing Geographic Knowledge: Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI) in Theory and Practice (eds Sui, D., Elwood, S. & Goodchild, M.) 105–122 (Springer, 2013).Wiggins, A. & Crowston, K. From conservation to crowdsourcing: a typology of citizen science. In 44th Hawaii Int. Conf. on System Sciences 1–10 (IEEE, 2011).Shirk, J. L. et al. Public participation in scientific research: a framework for deliberate design. Ecol. Soc. 17, art29 (2012). This article describes multiple forms of public participation in science.
Google Scholar 
Tweddle, J. C., Robinson, L. D., Pocock, M. J. O. & Roy, H. E. Guide to citizen science: developing, implementing and evaluating citizen science to study biodiversity and the environment in the UK. UK Environmental Observation Framework https://www.ceh.ac.uk/sites/default/files/citizenscienceguide.pdf (2012).Wiggins, A. et al. Data management guide for public participation in scientific research. DataONE https://old.dataone.org/sites/all/documents/DataONE-PPSR-DataManagementGuide.pdf (2013). This document describes essential steps of the data management life cycle.Silvertown, J., Buesching, C. D., Jacobson, S. K. & Rebelo, T. in Key Topics in Conservation Biology Vol. 2 (eds Macdonald, D. W. & Willis, K. J.) 127–142 (John Wiley & Sons, 2013).Pocock, M. J. O., Chapman, D. S., Sheppard, L. J. & Roy, H. E. Choosing and using citizen science: a guide to when and how to use citizen science to monitor biodiversity and the environment. SEPA https://www.ceh.ac.uk/sites/default/files/sepa_choosingandusingcitizenscience_interactive_4web_final_amended-blue1.pdf (2014).Participatory Monitoring and Management Partnership (PMMP). Manaus Letter: recommendations for the participatory monitoring of biodiversity. Participatory Monitoring and Management Partnership (PMMP) https://doi.org/10.25607/OBP-965 (2015).Lepczyk, C. A., Boyle, O. D., Vargo, T. L. V. & Noss, R. F. Handbook Of Citizen Science In Ecology And Conservation (Univ. California Press, 2020).US GSA. Citizen science toolkit: basic steps for your project planning. citizenscience.gov https://www.citizenscience.gov/toolkit/howto/ (2022).García, F. S. et al. in The Science of Citizen Science (eds Vohland, K. et al.) 419–437 (Springer International Publishing, 2021).Van Brussel, S. & Huyse, H. Citizen science on speed? Realising the triple objective of scientific rigour, policy influence and deep citizen engagement in a large-scale citizen science project on ambient air quality in Antwerp. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 62, 534–551 (2019).
Google Scholar 
de Sherbinin, A. et al. The critical importance of citizen science data. Front. Clim. 3, 650760 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Hyder, K., Townhill, B., Anderson, L. G., Delany, J. & Pinnegar, J. K. Can citizen science contribute to the evidence-base that underpins marine policy? Mar. Policy 59, 112–120 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Wehn, U. et al. Capturing and communicating impact of citizen science for policy: a storytelling approach. J. Environ. Manag. 295, 113082 (2021).
Google Scholar 
van Strien, A. J., van Swaay, C. A. M. & Termaat, T. Opportunistic citizen science data of animal species produce reliable estimates of distribution trends if analysed with occupancy models. J. Appl. Ecol. 50, 1450–1458 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Laso Bayas, J. C. et al. Crowdsourcing LUCAS: citizens generating reference land cover and land use data with a mobile app. Land 9, 446 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Cooper, C. B. Is there a weekend bias in clutch-initiation dates from citizen science? Implications for studies of avian breeding phenology. Int. J. Biometeorol. 58, 1415–1419 (2014).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Pettibone, L. et al. Citizen Science For All. A Guide For Citizen Science Practitioners (Deutsches Zentrum für Integrative Biodiversitätsforschung, Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung, Berlin-Brandenburgisches Institut für Biodiversitätsforschung, Museum für Naturkunde, Leibniz-Institut, 2016).Pernat, N. et al. How media presence triggers participation in citizen science — the case of the mosquito monitoring project ‘Mückenatlas’. PLoS ONE 17, e0262850 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Crowston, K. & Prestopnik, N. R. Motivation and data quality in a citizen science game: a design science evaluation. In 46th Hawaii Int. Conf. on System Sciences 450–459 (IEEE, 2013).Funder, M., Danielsen, F., Ngaga, Y., Nielsen, M. R. & Poulsen, M. K. Reshaping conservation: the social dynamics of participatory monitoring in Tanzania’s community-managed forests. Conserv. Soc. 11, 218–232 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Deterding, S. Gamification: designing for motivation. Interactions 19, 14–17 (2012).
Google Scholar 
West, S. & Pateman, R. Recruiting and retaining participants in citizen science: what can be learned from the volunteering literature? Citiz. Sci. Theory Pract. 1, 15 (2016). This article discusses participant motivations for engagement and volunteering.
Google Scholar 
Geoghegan, H., Dyke, A., Pateman, R., West, S. & Everett, G. Understanding motivations for citizen science. Final report on behalf of UKEOF. SEI https://www.sei.org/publications/understanding-motivations-for-citizen-science/ (2016).Baruch, A., May, A. & Yu, D. The motivations, enablers and barriers for voluntary participation in an online crowdsourcing platform. Comput. Hum. Behav. 64, 923–931 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Larson, L. R. et al. The diverse motivations of citizen scientists: does conservation emphasis grow as volunteer participation progresses? Biol. Conserv. 242, 108428 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Danielsen, F. et al. The concept, practice, application, and results of locally based monitoring of the environment. BioScience 71, 484–502 (2021). This article summarizes the potential and intricacies of community-led citizen science.
Google Scholar 
Salmon, R. A., Rammell, S., Emeny, M. T. & Hartley, S. Citizens, scientists, and enablers: a tripartite model for citizen science projects. Diversity 13, 309 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Bowser, A., Shilton, K., Preece, J. & Warrick, E. Accounting for privacy in citizen science: ethical research in a context of openness. In Proc. 2017 ACM Conf. on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing 2124–2136 (ACM, 2017).Ward-Fear, G., Pauly, G. B., Vendetti, J. E. & Shine, R. Authorship protocols must change to credit citizen scientists. Trends Ecol. Evol. 35, 187–190 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Pandya, R. E. A framework for engaging diverse communities in citizen science in the US. Front. Ecol. Environ. 10, 314–317 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Sorensen, A. E. et al. Reflecting on efforts to design an inclusive citizen science project in West Baltimore. Citiz. Sci. Theory Pract. 4, 13 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Bonney, R., Phillips, T. B., Ballard, H. L. & Enck, J. W. Can citizen science enhance public understanding of science? Public. Underst. Sci. 25, 2–16 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Hermoso, M. I., Martin, V. Y., Gelcich, S., Stotz, W. & Thiel, M. Exploring diversity and engagement of divers in citizen science: insights for marine management and conservation. Mar. Policy 124, 104316 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Barahona-Segovia, R. M. et al. Combining citizen science with spatial analysis at local and biogeographical scales for the conservation of a large-size endemic invertebrate in temperate forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 497, 119519 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Bowser, A., Wiggins, A., Shanley, L., Preece, J. & Henderson, S. Sharing data while protecting privacy in citizen science. Interactions 21, 70–73 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Wiggins, A., Newman, G., Stevenson, R. D. & Crowston, K. Mechanisms for data quality and validation in citizen science. In IEEE Seventh Int. Conf. on e-Science Workshops 14–19 (IEEE, 2011).Kosmala, M., Wiggins, A., Swanson, A. & Simmons, B. Assessing data quality in citizen science. Front. Ecol. Environ. 14, 551–560 (2016). This article discusses common assumptions and evidence about citizen science data quality.
Google Scholar 
Downs, R. R., Ramapriyan, H. K., Peng, G. & Wei, Y. Perspectives on citizen science data quality. Front. Clim. 3, 615032 (2021). This article describes perspectives on quality assessment and control issues.
Google Scholar 
Fritz, S. et al. Citizen science and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Sustain. 2, 922–930 (2019). This article identifies the full potential of citizen science for SDG monitoring and implementation.
Google Scholar 
Phillips, T., Ferguson, M., Minarchek, M., Porticella, N. & Bonney, R. Evaluating learning outcomes from citizen science. The Cornell Lab of Ornithology https://www.birds.cornell.edu/citizenscience/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/USERS-GUIDE_linked.pdf (2014).Tredick, C. A. et al. A rubric to evaluate citizen-science programs for long-term ecological monitoring. BioScience 67, 834–844 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Kieslinger, B. et al. in Citizen Science — Innovation in Open Science, Society and Policy (eds Hekler, S., Haklay, M., Bowser, A., Vogel, J. & Bonn, A.) 81–95 (UCL Press, 2018).Schaefer, T., Kieslinger, B., Brandt, M. & van den Bogaert, V. in The Science of Citizen Science (eds Vohland, K. et al.) 495–514 (Springer International Publishing, 2021).Prysby, M. & Oberhauser, K. S. in The Monarch Butterfly: Biology and Conservation (eds Oberhauser, K. S. & Solensky, M. J.) 9–20 (Cornell Univ. Press, 2004).Danielsen, F. et al. A multicountry assessment of tropical resource monitoring by local communities. BioScience 64, 236–251 (2014). The article presents the largest quantitative study to date of the accuracy of citizen science across the three tropical continents.
Google Scholar 
Swanson, A., Kosmala, M., Lintott, C. & Packer, C. A generalized approach for producing, quantifying, and validating citizen science data from wildlife images. Conserv. Biol. 30, 520–531 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Serret, H., Deguines, N., Jang, Y., Lois, G. & Julliard, R. Data quality and participant engagement in citizen science: comparing two approaches for monitoring pollinators in France and South Korea. Citiz. Sci. Theory Pract. 4, 22 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Jordan, R. C., Gray, S. A., Howe, D. V., Brooks, W. R. & Ehrenfeld, J. G. Knowledge gain and behavioral change in citizen-science programs. Conserv. Biol. J. Soc. Conserv. Biol 25, 1148–1154 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Deguines, N., de Flores, M., Loïs, G., Julliard, R. & Fontaine, C. Fostering close encounters of the entomological kind. Front. Ecol. Environ. 16, 202–203 (2018).
Google Scholar 
van der Wal, R., Sharma, N., Mellish, C., Robinson, A. & Siddharthan, A. The role of automated feedback in training and retaining biological recorders for citizen science. Conserv. Biol. J. Soc. Conserv. Biol. 30, 550–561 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Watson, D. & Floridi, L. Crowdsourced science: sociotechnical epistemology in the e-research paradigm. Synthese 195, 741–764 (2018).MathSciNet 

Google Scholar 
Silvertown, J. et al. Crowdsourcing the identification of organisms: a case-study of iSpot. ZooKeys 480, 125–146 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Edgar, G. & Stuart-Smith, R. Ecological effects of marine protected areas on rocky reef communities — a continental-scale analysis. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 388, 51–62 (2009).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Delaney, D. G., Sperling, C. D., Adams, C. S. & Leung, B. Marine invasive species: validation of citizen science and implications for national monitoring networks. Biol. Invasions 10, 117–128 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Johnson, N., Druckenmiller, M. L., Danielsen, F. & Pulsifer, P. L. The use of digital platforms for community-based monitoring. BioScience 71, 452–466 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Hochmair, H. H., Scheffrahn, R. H., Basille, M. & Boone, M. Evaluating the data quality of iNaturalist termite records. PLoS ONE 15, e0226534 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Torres, A.-C., Bedessem, B., Deguines, N. & Fontaine, C. Online data sharing with virtual social interactions favor scientific and educational successes in a biodiversity citizen science project. J. Responsible Innov. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2021.2019970 (2022).Hochachka, W. M. et al. Data-intensive science applied to broad-scale citizen science. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 130–137 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Robinson, O. J., Ruiz-Gutierrez, V. & Fink, D. Correcting for bias in distribution modelling for rare species using citizen science data. Divers. Distrib. 24, 460–472 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Johnston, A., Moran, N., Musgrove, A., Fink, D. & Baillie, S. R. Estimating species distributions from spatially biased citizen science data. Ecol. Model. 422, 108927 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Kelling, S. et al. Can observation skills of citizen scientists be estimated using species accumulation curves? PLoS ONE 10, e0139600 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Johnston, A., Fink, D., Hochachka, W. M. & Kelling, S. Estimates of observer expertise improve species distributions from citizen science data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 9, 88–97 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Giraud, C., Calenge, C., Coron, C. & Julliard, R. Capitalizing on opportunistic data for monitoring relative abundances of species. Biometrics 72, 649–658 (2016).MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Fithian, W., Elith, J., Hastie, T. & Keith, D. A. Bias correction in species distribution models: pooling survey and collection data for multiple species. Methods Ecol. Evol. 6, 424–438 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Kelling, S., Yu, J., Gerbracht, J. & Wong, W.-K. Emergent filters: automated data verification in a large-scale citizen science project. In IEEE Seventh Int. Conf. on e-Science Workshops 20–27 (IEEE, 2011).Kelling, S. et al. Taking a ‘Big Data’ approach to data quality in a citizen science project. Ambio 44, 601–611 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Palmer, J. R. B. et al. Citizen science provides a reliable and scalable tool to track disease-carrying mosquitoes. Nat. Commun. 8, 916 (2017).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Callaghan, C. T., Poore, A. G. B., Hofmann, M., Roberts, C. J. & Pereira, H. M. Large-bodied birds are over-represented in unstructured citizen science data. Sci. Rep. 11, 19073 (2021).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Brashares, J. S. & Sam, M. K. How much is enough? Estimating the minimum sampling required for effective monitoring of African reserves. Biodivers. Conserv. 14, 2709–2722 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Andrianandrasana, H. T., Randriamahefasoa, J., Durbin, J., Lewis, R. E. & Ratsimbazafy, J. H. Participatory ecological monitoring of the Alaotra Wetlands in Madagascar. Biodivers. Conserv. 14, 2757–2774 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Jiguet, F., Devictor, V., Julliard, R. & Couvet, D. French citizens monitoring ordinary birds provide tools for conservation and ecological sciences. Acta Oecologica 44, 58–66 (2012).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Martin, G., Devictor, V., Motard, E., Machon, N. & Porcher, E. Short-term climate-induced change in French plant communities. Biol. Lett. 15, 20190280 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Guillera-Arroita, G. Modelling of species distributions, range dynamics and communities under imperfect detection: advances, challenges and opportunities. Ecography 40, 281–295 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Gregory, R. D. et al. Developing indicators for European birds. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 360, 269–288 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Cima, V. et al. A test of six simple indices to display the phenology of butterflies using a large multi-source database. Ecol. Indic. 110, 105885 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Weisshaupt, N., Lehikoinen, A., Mäkinen, T. & Koistinen, J. Challenges and benefits of using unstructured citizen science data to estimate seasonal timing of bird migration across large scales. PLoS ONE 16, e0246572 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Isaac, N. J. B. et al. Data integration for large-scale models of species distributions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 35, 56–67 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Deguines, N., Julliard, R., de Flores, M. & Fontaine, C. Functional homogenization of flower visitor communities with urbanization. Ecol. Evol. 6, 1967–1976 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Desaegher, J., Nadot, S., Fontaine, C. & Colas, B. Floral morphology as the main driver of flower-feeding insect occurrences in the Paris region. Urban. Ecosyst. 21, 585–598 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Osenga, E. C., Vano, J. A. & Arnott, J. C. A community-supported weather and soil moisture monitoring database of the Roaring Fork catchment of the Colorado River Headwaters. Hydrol. Process. 35, e14081 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Ryan, S. F. et al. The role of citizen science in addressing grand challenges in food and agriculture research. Proc. R. Soc. B 285, 20181977 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Paap, T., Wingfield, M. J., Burgess, T. I., Hulbert, J. M. & Santini, A. Harmonising the fields of invasion science and forest pathology. NeoBiota 62, 301–332 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Newman, G. et al. The future of citizen science: emerging technologies and shifting paradigms. Front. Ecol. Environ. 10, 298–304 (2012). This article gives a history account of the development of citizen science.
Google Scholar 
Clark, G. F. et al. A visualization tool for citizen-science marine debris big data. Water Int. 46, 211–223 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Gray, A., Robertson, C. & Feick, R. CWDAT — an open-source tool for the visualization and analysis of community-generated water quality data. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 10, 207 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Hoyer, T., Moritz, J. & Moser, J. Visualization and perception of data gaps in the context of citizen science projects. KN J. Cartogr. Geogr. Inf. 71, 155–172 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Liu, H.-Y., Dörler, D., Heigl, F. & Grossberndt, S. in The Science of Citizen Science (eds Vohland, K. et al.) 439–459 (Springer International Publishing, 2021).Miller-Rushing, A., Primack, R. & Bonney, R. The history of public participation in ecological research. Front. Ecol. Environ. 10, 285–290 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Kobori, H. et al. Citizen science: a new approach to advance ecology, education, and conservation. Ecol. Res. 31, 1–19 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Clavero, M. & Revilla, E. Mine centuries-old citizen science. Nature 510, 35–35 (2014).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Kalle, R., Pieroni, A., Svanberg, I. & Sõukand, R. Early citizen science action in ethnobotany: the case of the folk medicine collection of Dr. Mihkel Ostrov in the territory of present-day Estonia, 1891–1893. Plants 11, 274 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Chandler, M. et al. Contribution of citizen science towards international biodiversity monitoring. Biol. Conserv. 213, 280–294 (2017). This article highlights the magnitude of citizen science contributions to global biodiversity datasets.
Google Scholar 
Groom, Q., Weatherdon, L. & Geijzendorffer, I. R. Is citizen science an open science in the case of biodiversity observations? J. Appl. Ecol. 54, 612–617 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Cooper, C. B., Shirk, J. & Zuckerberg, B. The invisible prevalence of citizen science in global research: migratory birds and climate change. PLoS ONE 9, e106508 (2014).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Morales, C. L. et al. Does climate change influence the current and future projected distribution of an endangered species? The case of the southernmost bumblebee in the world. J. Insect Conserv. 26, 257–269 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Campbell, H. & Engelbrecht, I. The Baboon Spider Atlas — using citizen science and the ‘fear factor’ to map baboon spider (Araneae: Theraphosidae) diversity and distributions in southern Africa. Insect Conserv. Divers. 11, 143–151 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Callaghan, C. T. et al. Three frontiers for the future of biodiversity research using citizen science data. BioScience 71, 55–63 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Croft, S., Chauvenet, A. L. M. & Smith, G. C. A systematic approach to estimate the distribution and total abundance of British mammals. PLoS ONE 12, e0176339 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Hsing, P. et al. Economical crowdsourcing for camera trap image classification. Remote Sens. Ecol. Conserv. 4, 361–374 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Altwegg, R. & Nichols, J. D. Occupancy models for citizen-science data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 10, 8–21 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Green, S. E., Rees, J. P., Stephens, P. A., Hill, R. A. & Giordano, A. J. Innovations in camera trapping technology and approaches: the integration of citizen science and artificial intelligence. Animals 10, 132 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Hsing, P.-Y. et al. Citizen scientists: school students conducting, contributing to and communicating ecological research — experiences of a school–university partnership. Sch. Sci. Rev. 101, 67–74 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Degnan, L. MammalWeb citizen science wildlife monitoring. Vimeo https://vimeo.com/237565215 (2017).Hsing, P.-Y. et al. Large-scale mammal monitoring: the potential of a citizen science camera-trapping project in the UK. Ecol. Solut. Evid. (in the press).Chapman, H. Spotting wildlife helps teens cope with life in lockdown. The Northern Echo https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/18459359.spotting-wildlife-helps-teens-cope-life-lockdown/ (2020).McKie, R. How an army of ‘citizen scientists’ is helping save our most elusive animals. The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/28/britain-elusive-animals-fall-into-camera-trap-citizen-scientist (2019).Deguines, N., Julliard, R., de Flores, M. & Fontaine, C. The whereabouts of flower visitors: contrasting land-use preferences revealed by a country-wide survey based on citizen science. PLoS ONE 7, e45822 (2012).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Levé, M., Baudry, E. & Bessa-Gomes, C. Domestic gardens as favorable pollinator habitats in impervious landscapes. Sci. Total Environ. 647, 420–430 (2019).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Aparicio Camín, N., Comaposada, A., Paul, E., Maceda-Veiga, A. & Piera, J. Analysis of species richness in Barcelona beaches using a citizen science based approach (Sociedad Ibérica de Ecología, 2019).Chao, A., Colwell, R. K., Chiu, C. & Townsend, D. Seen once or more than once: applying Good–Turing theory to estimate species richness using only unique observations and a species list. Methods Ecol. Evol. 8, 1221–1232 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Mominó, J. M., Piera, J. & Jurado, E. in Analyzing the Role of Citizen Science in Modern Research (eds Ceccaroni, L. & Piera, J.) 231–245 (IGI Global, 2017).Salvador, X. et al. Guia Participativa Marina del Barcelonès (Marcombo, 2021).Carayannis, E. G., Barth, T. D. & Campbell, D. F. The Quintuple Helix innovation model: global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation. J. Innov. Entrep. 1, 2 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Goodchild, M. F. Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal 69, 211–221 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Capineri, C. et al. European Handbook of Crowdsourced Geographic Information (Ubiquity Press, 2016).Skarlatidou, A. & Haklay, M. Geographic Citizen Science Design: No One Left Behind (UCL Press, 2021).Haklay, M. & Weber, P. OpenStreetMap: user-generated street maps. IEEE Pervasive Comput. 7, 12–18 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Jeddi, Z. et al. Citizen seismology in the Arctic. Front. Earth Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2020.00139 (2020).Eurostat. LUCAS — Land use and land cover survey. eurostat https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=LUCAS_-_Land_use_and_land_cover_survey (2021).Laso Bayas, J. et al. Crowdsourcing in-situ data on land cover and land use using gamification and mobile technology. Remote. Sens. 8, 905 (2016).ADS 

Google Scholar 
EU. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 Of The European Parliament And Of The Council, Article 5(c). EU https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj (2016).Danielsen, F. et al. Community monitoring for REDD+: international promises and field realities. Ecol. Soc. 18, 41 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Boissière, M., Herold, M., Atmadja, S. & Sheil, D. The feasibility of local participation in measuring, reporting and verification (PMRV) for REDD. PLoS ONE 12, e0176897 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Walker, D. W., Smigaj, M. & Tani, M. The benefits and negative impacts of citizen science applications to water as experienced by participants and communities. WIREs Water 8, e1488 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Danielsen, F. et al. Community monitoring of natural resource systems and the environment. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-022325 (2022).Pecl, G. T. et al. Redmap Australia: challenges and successes with a large-scale citizen science-based approach to ecological monitoring and community engagement on climate change. Front. Mar. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00349 (2019).Shinbrot, X. A. et al. Quiahua, the first citizen science rainfall monitoring network in Mexico: filling critical gaps in rainfall data for evaluating a payment for hydrologic services program. Citiz. Sci. Theory Pract. 5, 19 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Little, K. E., Hayashi, M. & Liang, S. Community-based groundwater monitoring network using a citizen-science approach. Groundwater 54, 317–324 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Wolff, E. The promise of a “people-centred” approach to floods: types of participation in the global literature of citizen science and community-based flood risk reduction in the context of the Sendai Framework. Prog. Disaster Sci. 10, 100171 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Hauser, D. D. W. et al. Co-production of knowledge reveals loss of Indigenous hunting opportunities in the face of accelerating Arctic climate change. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 095003 (2021).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Soroye, P., Ahmed, N. & Kerr, J. T. Opportunistic citizen science data transform understanding of species distributions, phenology, and diversity gradients for global change research. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 5281–5291 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Robles, M. C. et al. Clouds around the world: how a simple citizen science data challenge became a worldwide success. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 101, E1201–E1213 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Beeden, R. J. et al. Rapid survey protocol that provides dynamic information on reef condition to managers of the Great Barrier Reef. Environ. Monit. Assess. 186, 8527–8540 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Miller-Rushing, A. J., Gallinat, A. S. & Primack, R. B. Creative citizen science illuminates complex ecological responses to climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 720–722 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Kress, W. J. et al. Citizen science and climate change: mapping the range expansions of native and exotic plants with the mobile app Leafsnap. BioScience 68, 348–358 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Kirchhoff, C. et al. Rapidly mapping fire effects on biodiversity at a large-scale using citizen science. Sci. Total Environ. 755, 142348 (2021).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Wang, T., Hamann, A., Spittlehouse, D. & Carroll, C. Locally downscaled and spatially customizable climate data for historical and future periods for North America. PLoS ONE 11, e0156720 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service & USDA. Web soil survey. USDA https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/ (2019).Cooper, C. B., Hochachka, W. M. & Dhondt, A. A. in Citizen Science (eds Dickinson, J. L. & Bonney, R.) 99–113 (Cornell Univ. Press, 2012).Bastin, L., Schade, S. & Schill, C. in Mapping and the Citizen Sensor (eds Foody, G. et al.) 249–272 (Ubiquity Press, 2017).Resnik, D. B., Elliott, K. C. & Miller, A. K. A framework for addressing ethical issues in citizen science. Environ. Sci. Policy 54, 475–481 (2015). This article outlines basic considerations for ethical research practices in citizen science.
Google Scholar 
Brashares, J. S., Arcese, P. & Sam, M. K. Human demography and reserve size predict wildlife extinction in West Africa. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268, 2473–2478 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Lotfian, M., Ingensand, J. & Brovelli, M. A. The partnership of citizen science and machine learning: benefits, risks, and future challenges for engagement, data collection, and data quality. Sustainability 13, 8087 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Kissling, W. D. et al. Towards global interoperability for supporting biodiversity research on essential biodiversity variables (EBVs). Biodiversity 16, 99–107 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Wilkinson, M. D. et al. The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci. Data 3, 160018 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Carroll, S. R., Herczog, E., Hudson, M., Russell, K. & Stall, S. Operationalizing the CARE and FAIR principles for Indigenous data futures. Sci. Data 8, 108 (2021).
Google Scholar 
UKEOF Citizen Science Working. Data management planning for citizen science. Ocean Best Practices https://repository.oceanbestpractices.org/handle/11329/1406 (2020). This document provides advice about the development of data management plans.Hansen, J. S. et al. Research data management challenges in citizen science projects and recommendations for library support services. A scoping review and case study. Data Sci. J. 20, 25 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Croucher, M., Graham, L., James, T., Krystalli, A. & Michonneau, F. A guide to reproducible code. British Ecological Society https://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/publications/guides-to/ (2019).Parker, A., Dosemagen, S., Molloy, J., Bowser, A. & Novak, A. Open hardware: an opportunity to build better science. Wilson Center https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/open-hardware-opportunity-build-better-science (2021).Palmer, M. S., Dewey, J. & Huebner, S. Snapshot Safari educational materials. Libraries Digital Conservancy https://hdl.handle.net/11299/217102 (2020).Campbell, J., Bowser, A., Fraisl, D. & Meloche, M. in Data for Good Exchange (IIASA, 2019).Fraisl, D. et al. Demonstrating the potential of Picture Pile as a citizen science tool for SDG monitoring. Environ. Sci. Policy 128, 81–93 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Humm, C. & Schrögel, P. Science for all? Practical recommendations on reaching underserved audiences. Front. Commun. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.00042 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Clary, E. G. & Snyder, M. The motivations to volunteer: theoretical and practical considerations. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 8, 156–159 (1999).
Google Scholar 
Hobbs, S. J. & White, P. C. L. Motivations and barriers in relation to community participation in biodiversity recording. J. Nat. Conserv. 20, 364–373 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Lukyanenko, R., Wiggins, A. & Rosser, H. K. Citizen science: an information quality research frontier. Inf. Syst. Front. 22, 961–983 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Mair, L. & Ruete, A. Explaining spatial variation in the recording effort of citizen science data across multiple taxa. PLoS ONE 11, e0147796 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Petrovan, S. O., Vale, C. G. & Sillero, N. Using citizen science in road surveys for large-scale amphibian monitoring: are biased data representative for species distribution? Biodivers. Conserv. 29, 1767–1781 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Courter, J. R., Johnson, R. J., Stuyck, C. M., Lang, B. A. & Kaiser, E. W. Weekend bias in Citizen Science data reporting: implications for phenology studies. Int. J. Biometeorol. 57, 715–720 (2013).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Cretois, B. et al. Identifying and correcting spatial bias in opportunistic citizen science data for wild ungulates in Norway. Ecol. Evol. 11, 15191–15204 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Haklay, M. E. in European Handbook of Crowdsourced Geographic Information (eds Capineri, C. et al.) 35–44 (Ubiquity Press, 2016).Haklay, M. in Citizen Science (eds Haklay, M. et al.) 52–62 (UCL Press, 2018).Schade, S., Herding, W., Fellermann, A. & Kotsev, A. Joint statement on new opportunities for air quality sensing — lower-cost sensors for public authorities and citizen science initiatives. Res. Ideas Outcomes 5, e34059 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Moustard, F. et al. Using Sapelli in the field: methods and data for an inclusive citizen science. Front. Ecol. Evol https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.638870 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pettibone, L. et al. Transdisciplinary sustainability research and citizen science: options for mutual learning. GAIA — Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc. 27, 222–225 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Low, R., Schwerin, T. & Codsi, R. Citizen Science As A Tool For Transdisciplinary Research And Stakeholder Engagement (ESSOAr, 2020).Ottinger, G. in The Routledge Handbook of the Political Economy of Science (eds Tyfield, D., Lave, R., Randalls, S. & Thorpe, C.) 351–364 (Routledge, 2017).Rey-Mazón, P., Keysar, H., Dosemagen, S., D’Ignazio, C. & Blair, D. Public lab: community-based approaches to urban and environmental health and justice. Sci. Eng. Ethics 24, 971–997 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Brown, A., Franken, P., Bonner, S., Dolezal, N. & Moross, J. Safecast: successful citizen-science for radiation measurement and communication after Fukushima. J. Radiol. Prot. 36, S82–S101 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Pocock, M. J. O. et al. Developing the global potential of citizen science: assessing opportunities that benefit people, society and the environment in East Africa. J. Appl. Ecol. 56, 274–281 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Gollan, J., de Bruyn, L. L., Reid, N. & Wilkie, L. Can volunteers collect data that are comparable to professional scientists? A study of variables used in monitoring the outcomes of ecosystem rehabilitation. Environ. Manag. 50, 969–978 (2012).ADS 

Google Scholar 
van Noordwijk, T. C. G. E. et al. in The Science of Citizen Science (eds Vohland, K. et al.) 373–395 (Springer International Publishing, 2021).Auerbach, J. et al. The problem with delineating narrow criteria for citizen science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 116, 15336–15337 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Gold, M., Wehn, U., Bilbao, A. & Hager, G. EU Citizen observatories landscape report II: addressing the challenges of awareness, acceptability, and sustainability. EU https://zenodo.org/record/4472670 (2020).WeObserve Consortium. Roadmap for the uptake of the citizen observatories’ knowledge base. WeObserve Consortium https://zenodo.org/record/4646774 (2021).UNECE. Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention). UNECE https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/documents/cep43e.pdf (1998).UNECE. Draft updated recommendations on the more effective use of electronic information tools. UNECE https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2021-08/ECE_MP.PP_2021_20_E.pdf (2021).UNECE. Draft updated recommendations on the more effective use of electronic information tools, Addendum. UNECE https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2021-08/ECE_MP.PP_2021_20_Add.1_E.pdf (2021).UNEP. Measuring progress: environment and the SDGs. UNEP http://www.unep.org/resources/publication/measuring-progress-environment-and-sdgs (2021).SDSN TReNDS. Strengthening measurement of marine litter in Ghana. How citizen science is helping to measure progress on SDG 14.1.1b. SDSN TReNDS https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/2622af0a0c7d4c709c3d09f4cc249f7d (2021).Goudeseune, L. et al. Citizen science toolkit for biodiversity scientists. biodiversa https://zenodo.org/record/3979343 (2020).Veeckman, C., Talboom, S., Gijsel, L., Devoghel, H. & Duerinckx, A. Communication in citizen science. A practical guide to communication and engagement in citizen science. SCivil https://www.scivil.be/sites/default/files/paragraph/files/2020-01/Scivil%20Communication%20Guide.pdf (2019).Durham, E., Baker, S., Smith, M., Moore, E. & Morgan, V. BiodivERsA: stakeholder engagement handbook. biodiversa https://www.biodiversa.org/702 (2014).WeObserve Consortium. WeObserve Cookbook. WeObserve Consortium https://zenodo.org/record/5493543 (2021).Danielsen, F. et al. Testing focus groups as a tool for connecting Indigenous and local knowledge on abundance of natural resources with science-based land management systems. Conserv. Lett. 7, 380–389 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Elliott, K. C., McCright, A. M., Allen, S. & Dietz, T. Values in environmental research: citizens’ views of scientists who acknowledge values. PLoS ONE 12, e0186049 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Yamamoto, Y. T. Values, objectivity and credibility of scientists in a contentious natural resource debate. Public. Underst. Sci. 21, 101–125 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Danielsen, F. et al. in Handbook of Citizen Science in Ecology and Conservation (eds Lepczyk, C. A., Boyle, O. D., Vargo, T. L. V. & Noss, R. F.) 25–29 (Univ. California Press, 2020).Eicken, H. et al. Connecting top-down and bottom-up approaches in environmental observing. BioScience 71, 467–483 (2021). This article highlights the benefits of linking community- and science/policy-led approaches.
Google Scholar 
Slough, T. et al. Adoption of community monitoring improves common pool resource management across contexts. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2015367118 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Wilderman, C. C., Barron, A. & Imgrund, L. Top down or bottom up? ALLARM’s experience with two operational models for community science. In 4th Natl Monitoring Conf. (National Water Quality Monitoring Council, 2004).Johnson, N. et al. Community-based monitoring and Indigenous knowledge in a changing Arctic: a review for the sustaining Arctic Observing Networks. Ocean Best Practices https://repository.oceanbestpractices.org/handle/11329/1314 (2016).Lau, J. D., Gurney, G. G. & Cinner, J. Environmental justice in coastal systems: perspectives from communities confronting change. Glob. Environ. Change 66, 102208 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Lyver, P. O. B. et al. An Indigenous community-based monitoring system for assessing forest health in New Zealand. Biodivers. Conserv. 26, 3183–3212 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Cuyler, C. et al. Using local ecological knowledge as evidence to guide management: a community-led harvest calculator for muskoxen in Greenland. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2, e159 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Fox, J. A. Social accountability: what does the evidence really say? World Dev. 72, 346–361 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Wheeler, H. C. et al. The need for transformative changes in the use of Indigenous knowledge along with science for environmental decision-making in the Arctic. People Nat. 2, 544–556 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Storey, R. G., Wright-Stow, A., Kin, E., Davies-Colley, R. J. & Stott, R. Volunteer stream monitoring: do the data quality and monitoring experience support increased community involvement in freshwater decision making? Ecol. Soc. 21, art32 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Brofeldt, S. et al. Community-based monitoring of tropical forest crimes and forest resources using information and communication technology — experiences from Prey Lang, Cambodia. Citiz. Sci. Theory Pract. 3, 4 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Menton, M. & Le Billon, P. Environmental Defenders: Deadly Struggles For Life And Territory (Routledge, 2021).Eastman, L. B., Hidalgo-Ruz, V., Macaya-Caquilpán, V., Núñez, P. & Thiel, M. The potential for young citizen scientist projects: a case study of Chilean schoolchildren collecting data on marine litter. J. Integr. Coast. Zone Manag. 14, 569–579 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Hidalgo-Ruz, V. & Thiel, M. Distribution and abundance of small plastic debris on beaches in the SE Pacific (Chile): a study supported by a citizen science project. Mar. Environ. Res. 87–88, 12–18 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Kruse, K., Kiessling, T., Knickmeier, K., Thiel, M. & Parchmann, I. in Engaging Learners with Chemistry (eds Ilka P., Shirley S. & Jan A.) 225–240 (Royal Society of Chemistry, 2020).Wichman, C. S. et al. Promoting pro-environmental behavior through citizen science? A case study with Chilean schoolchildren on marine plastic pollution. Mar. Policy 141, 105035 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Bravo, M. et al. Anthropogenic debris on beaches in the SE Pacific (Chile): results from a national survey supported by volunteers. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 58, 1718–1726 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Hidalgo-Ruz, V. et al. Spatio-temporal variation of anthropogenic marine debris on Chilean beaches. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 126, 516–524 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Honorato-Zimmer, D. et al. Mountain streams flushing litter to the sea — Andean rivers as conduits for plastic pollution. Environ. Pollut. 291, 118166 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Amenábar Cristi, M. et al. The rise and demise of plastic shopping bags in Chile — broad and informal coalition supporting ban as a first step to reduce single-use plastics. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 187, 105079 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Kiessling, T. et al. Plastic Pirates sample litter at rivers in Germany — riverside litter and litter sources estimated by schoolchildren. Environ. Pollut. 245, 545–557 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Kiessling, T. et al. Schoolchildren discover hotspots of floating plastic litter in rivers using a large-scale collaborative approach. Sci. Total. Environ. 789, 147849 (2021).ADS 

Google Scholar  More